Hello:

During Obama's first term, he made plenty of overtures toward the Republicans.. They always said NO.. He included tax cuts in the stimulus bill to attract Republicans. They said NO. He designed his health care bill after a successful Republican plan. They said NO. He offered to cut Medicare and Social Security to make a grand bargain. They said NO.

Turns out, the Republicans were following a PLAN. On the very day Obama was being sworn in, top Republicans were meeting to formulate a plan.. It was a simple plan. They'd just say NO to EVERYTHING Obama proposed. And, that's exactly what they did.

Now, before you right wingers chime in with your tired old spin where Obama is the intransigent (I won), the Republicans ADMITTED (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/inside-obamas-presidency/) their miserable plot.

Now comes Obama 2.0. Looks like he paid attention during his first term He's NOT going for the okee doak any more. He's NOT going to be played for a sucker any more... He's going to adopt the Republican strategy of take no prisoners, and DESTROY them with it.

Last week, he KILLED 'em over the fiscal cliff. Today, he ANNIHILATED 'em over the debt ceiling.. And, he's only just begun.

I kind of LIKE Obama 2.0. You?

excon

Ex negative tactics are a part of politics, yes its nasty and we saw the same tactics adopted across the pond here. Sometimes it is done to get the other side to listen and sometimes it is just pure bloodymindedness as it appears it was this time. Anyone can be a spoiler but it isn't a way to get people to vote for you, after all what can you say you achieved. You blocked this bill, you blocked that bill, you achieved nothing for your constituency.

Republicans will reap the result of their negative tactics, they will snatch defeat from THE JAWS OF VICTORY

Today, he ANNIHILATED 'em over the debt ceiling
They self destructed due to the poor leadership of Speaker Bonehead (The Weeper of the House ) . The Repubics had the chance to oust him when this Congress assembled . The inside the Beltway RINOs still control the party.Yesterday they demonstrated again that they are a bunch of metrosexual momma's boys who will roll over and play dead when things get tough.

Here's the plan announced ;"We'll Raise Debt Limit for 3 Months if Senate Agrees to Produce a Budget". They know that Reid will not pass a budget ,and in the end ,they will cave and increase the debt ceiling with no concessions from the Dems.

Conservatives have a choice to make ;attempt to become the dominant faction of the party, accept that the Repubics will always be Democrat-lite ,or blow the party up .

Were they annihilated or just showing a little bit of responsibility for a change. Perhaps some of the hot heads got blown away in the election and the rest took it under advisement, they saw the outcome of negative politics and faceless men pulling strings

Remember when Emperor Zero said he's 'laser focused on jobs ? And he appointed a Jobs Czar (Jeff Immelt )to head up a Jobs Council ? Well as of this week ;it's been a year since his Job Council has met.
President Barack Obama's Jobs Council hits 1 year without official meeting - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/01/obama-jobs-council-hits-year-without-official-meeting-154524.html)

The Council is set to expire soon unless the President re-commissions it . But the President has moved on to more society transforming plans. Why should he care that in 4 years ,new job growth has been at best disappointingly modest ? Obama 2.0 don't have to worry about that .Heck; if he's using the Roosevelt model as a template ,then we will still be in a sluggish recession/depression after 8 years in office .Proof again that the model being executed by the Dems is fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure.

Tom what will not solve a jobs crisis is pubic servants and well meaning others holding a talk fest. If they haven't met it is probably that they realised that the traditional measures weren't working and weren't going to work. Obama cannot be blamed for that, although I hear you blaming him often. No one really has the solution because as I have told you before the industries you need have conveniently been moved to China by your money grubbing job creators, who are laughing all the way to the bank. You say the model is flawed, but what model, the only model they have tried is the traditional model, because a new model hasn't been invented yet. Not even QE has done anything. You have oversupply in housing, courtesy of another bubble, so a traditional staple of economic activity just isn't happening. Who is going to invest with only a guarantee of poor or none existent returns. Obviously not those cashed up job creators. I say use a good ole socialist remedy, freeze bank deposits if they are not spent in three months

There is nothing else for it but some good ole restructuring, and the best place to start would be agriculture, that bastion of right wing subsidy

A true "right winger " doesn't like subsidies of any kind. If they do ,then they have indeed succumbed to the flawed statist models of the past

Were they annihilated or just showing a little bit of responsibility for a change. Perhaps some of the hot heads got blown away in the election and the rest took it under advisement, they saw the outcome of negative politics and faceless men pulling strings

No ;Bonehead and the Republic leadership have had their jewels turned into Rocky Mountain oysters.

a true "right winger " doesn't like subsidies of any kind. If they do ,then they have indeed succumbed to the flawed statist models of the past

Tom, they vote Republican with their hand out, you know this. So now you have a way of identifying "true Republicans", they are the dirt poor farmers who don't take subsidies, I expect they are thin on the ground

I have been very careful differentiating between what I called a true "right winger " ,or conservative from "true Republicans" . I have seen no evidence that Repubics are conservative. Sometimes conservatives influence their platforms... but when it comes down to it , inside the beltway Repubics are at heart in favor of the same nanny state the Dems favor. The difference is in managing style.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011813-641253-republicans-must-develop-spending-cut-message.htm

He's still the same arrogant prick as before.

I love the new guy, the comunnity organizer who is actually organizing the community.

Democratic officials: Obama team creating new nonprofit to promote president's 2nd-term agenda - 1/18/2013 2:57:36 AM | Newser (http://www.newser.com/article/da3sgsv00/democratic-officials-obama-team-creating-new-nonprofit-to-promote-presidents-2nd-term-agenda.html)

Move over TParty, see how its done.

Hello again,

That RINO Krauthammer is making war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/01/18/postscript-krauthammer-and-picking-gop-battles/) on Republicans too.


The party establishment is coming around to the view that if you try to govern from one house — e.g. force spending cuts with cliffhanging brinkmanship — you lose. You not only don't get the cuts. You get the blame for rattled markets and economic uncertainty. You get humiliated by having to cave in the end. And you get opinion polls ranking you below head lice and colonoscopies in popularity.

Bwa, ha ha ha..

Excon

Yeah because the libs have never had an independent 'nonprofit" political action committee before. (Moveon.org ,Freedomworks ,Sierra Club,Planned Parenthood ,NOW ,ACLU... etc etc )... the only difference is that this one will be blatantly be run by White House apparatchik.
Planned Parenthood made about $85 million as a non-profit last year. This non-profit should be worth at least as much to the Prez.

This will pave the way to perpetrate Emperor Zero past his 2nd term . Jimmy Carter built houses ,Bill Clintoon jet set around the world hosting One world global initiatives .This will be the golden calf tribute to the One . No doubt they will lead a push to have his face carved on Mt Rushmore.

Hello again,

That RINO Krauthammer is making war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/01/18/postscript-krauthammer-and-picking-gop-battles/) on Republicans too.



Bwa, ha ha ha..

excon

Krauthammer has joined the echo chamber that thinks that since the Repubics have no spine.. the best they can do is kick the can down the road until 2014. I think that is a terrible mistake. There are already too many things the country won't recover from as a result of electing this clown to a 2nd term.

You mean things that you guys won't recover from because of his re election. Unless you mean the big celebration we are having.

I love the new guy, the comunnity organizer who is actually organizing the community.

Democratic officials: Obama team creating new nonprofit to promote president's 2nd-term agenda - 1/18/2013 2:57:36 AM | Newser (http://www.newser.com/article/da3sgsv00/democratic-officials-obama-team-creating-new-nonprofit-to-promote-presidents-2nd-term-agenda.html)

Move over TParty, see how its done.

"Funded in part by corporate money."

I thought you hated that sort of thing.

I think the Repubics have become Zero's puppies. They can't even win battles on spending restraints related to Hurricane Sandy even though there is more pork in the bill than actual aid to the victims. If you don't think so ,then watch the panting by Chris Christie over Obama . Disgusting ! And all I hear is about him being the possible standard bearer in 2016.. It makes my skin crawl that they would consider another Northeast big government Republic .

"Funded in part by corporate money."

I thought you hated that sort of thing.

That's the libs loving 'Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission'

NO.
He spent 6 trillion dollars, with nothing to show for it.
He has told more lies that any other President in history, and continues with them.
No new taxes in the Middle Class he said, while the ObamaCare has 3.8% new taxes, started Jan. 1, 2013, on all investments, savings, etc, that hardly anyone knows about. cause the average voter NEVER watches any national news!
He jammed through the ObamaCare behind closed doors, with NO Republican votes.
Other private laws behind closed doors, with none.
He promised to be "open" with his Presidency, but you can see he is the most "closed" President in our history.
He is playing the Republicans as "fools" simply because they don't have the nerve to say "NO", and mean it. They agree to the Fiscal Cliff stuff, and wouldn't say no.
Obama lied about the US going into default if it didn't happen. The US draws in enough money to pay off the interest on the National Debt, and Obama says it doesn't... another lie.
He is destroying America, and "die-hard" Democrats can't see it, won't believe it, and it will be too late when they actually admit what's going on.
No one can continue spending more money that they take in; neither you nor I cause we will be out in the cold; just like America is planning on doing under Obama.
The average voter in the US likes being on Gov't welfare, whether they deserve it or not. And with 1 out of 5 now in food stamps, more than in History, the voters are NOT going to throw away their breadwinner, giving stuff to them. Unemployment benefits will be extended for another year, costing no telling how much. Why would the voter want to go back to work when they get it for free, under Obama?
When is enough going to be enough. I know, when Hillary is elected President!

Hello again, tom:

Yup. You're a true believer. Everybody but the Tea Party are RINO'S now.

Essentially, you're agreeing with my premise, though. Obama 2.0 is kicking a$$ and taking names. He's DESTROYING the GOP as we know it. Or, they're self destructing, I can't tell.

Of course, that IS what you tried to do to him. Didn't work, and you soooooo believed it would.

excon

1 . Perhaps the Repubics need to be broken up and dissolved like the Whigs of the past.
2. The Dems factions will not hold together much longer ;and this assault on the 2nd amendment will create the beginning fissures in the Zero coalition. By the time of the primaries you will see the discernible cracks with people like VP Biden ,Evita ,and Governor Cuomo claiming the mantle of 'true Democrat'.There will be others as the various special interest groups realize he played them for chumps.

NO.
He spent 6 trillion dollars, with nothing to show for it.
He has told more lies that any other President in history, and continues with them.
No new taxes in the Middle Class he said, while the ObamaCare has 3.8% new taxes, started Jan. 1, 2013, on all investments, savings, etc, that hardly anyone knows about., cause the average voter NEVER watches any national news!
He jammed through the ObamaCare behind closed doors, with NO Republican votes.
Other private laws behind closed doors, with none.
He promised to be "open" with his Presidency, but you can see he is the most "closed" President in our history.
He is playing the Republicans as "fools" simply because they don't have the nerve to say "NO", and mean it. They agree to the Fiscal Cliff stuff, and wouldn't say no.
Obama lied about the US going into default if it didn't happen. The US draws in enough money to pay off the interest on the National Debt, and Obama says it doesn't....another lie.
He is destroying America, and "die-hard" Democrats can't see it, won't believe it, and it will be too late when they actually admit what's going on.
No one can continue spending more money that they take in; neither you nor I cause we will be out in the cold; just like America is planning on doing under Obama.
The average voter in the US likes being on Gov't welfare, whether they deserve it or not. and with 1 out of 5 now in food stamps, more than in History, the voters are NOT going to throw away their breadwinner, giving stuff to them. Unemployment benefits will be extended for another year, costing no telling how much. Why would the voter want to go back to work when they get it for free, under Obama?
When is enough going to be enough. I know, when Hillary is elected President!

Hey that's what the repubs and Mitt have been saying and they lost. Guess not enough people bought your Kool Aid to stay in business.

QUOTE by tomder,
1 . Perhaps the Repubics need to be broken up and dissolved like the Whigs of the past.

Thats what the TParty is doing all right. Darn good job too!

2. The Dems factions will not hold together much longer ;and this assault on the 2nd amendment will create the beginning fissures in the Zero coalition.

And of course you think those new Independents will run far right don't you? I don't think so.

By the time of the primaries you will see the discernible cracks with people like VP Biden ,Evita ,and Governor Cuomo claiming the mantle of 'true Democrat'.

Makes for a great primary with great candidates, but the real show will be the repubs, Ryan, Rubio, Bush, and Christie.

There will be others as the various special interest groups realize he played them for chumps.

I doubt any of them run far right either. Do you? Lets face it, its the real repubs against the RINO's, Let us know who wins.Never mind,we willknow when Newt make his comeback.

So Tal it's Newt V Hilary, that's going to hand the country to eight more years of Democrats, Newt couldn't even get there in a primary against weak candidates, he is yesterday's man. You had better get used to big deficits and business as usual

Who care who they nominate. The last primary was a hoot, and I expect the next to be even better. I give Christie and Bush the long odds though.

So Tal what are you saying? It doesn't matter who they nominate, they are going down as the democrat dynasty continues or are you saying the Republicans will wise up and run a whole new batch of candidates. Four Years is a long time and even though they have to start planning now you might see another young senator emerge

That young senator had better start emerging soon!

So Tal what are you saying? it doesn't matter who they nominate, they are going down as the democrat dynasty continues or are you saying the Republicans will wise up and run a whole new batch of candidates. Four Years is a long time and even though they have to start planning now you might see another young senator emerge

The Repubics thought they had a permanent majority after 2004 . Now am I hearing the same arrogance from the Dems ? Lol

I am not so naïve to think one election cycle victory will be repeated again, let alone forever, but I am confident cooler reasonable people will vote their own interests, and not the interest of the party. Any party.

I am confident because Americans want their country back, and want it to work for them. Not just the few. And reasonable republicans will run from the crazy far right extremist as a matter of survival.

You aligned yourself with the most extreme elements of the Dems and I don't hear a peep from you except for unconditional loyalty . Reasonable Dems are already recognizing they've been sold a bill of goods. See Ed Koch on Obama's abandonment of Israel . See all the Dem Senators up for reelection in 2014 who are from swing states who will have to answer to their states if they support a radical gun ban. (Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Udall of Colorado, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Mark Warner of Virginia). They will have to break with the President or the Dems will lose their Senate majority .

I think you are reading the electorate wrongly, Tom, you see it through traditional eyes, but the groundswell of public opinion is for gun reform and there just may be a plus in it. BO is smart enough to have read public opinion on this issue and he will ride the groundswell and it may even enable him to do something about this fiscal cliff nonsense.

I think your electorate has had enough of stalemate and negativity and progress can be made.

It's the game of politics Tom, and you don't change what's winning for you do you? We keep our extremists in check with a big tent, something for every one, even lost RINO's, and "blue dogs".

Its the game of politics Tom, and you don't change whats winning for you do you? We keep our extremists in check with a big tent, something for every one, even lost RINO's, and "blue dogs".

Do you think it is time for a new party to emerge, the ORADNA's, let's see could we find a better name. In old world parlance it would be liberal, note the small "l". They could have a symbol of a prancing Rino or to be neutral a Giraffe or an Ostrich

Not a new party just new leaders with new attitudes.

Nice sentiment but falorn hope

Hopes got nothing to do with it. You just keep working at it.

I think the fast track is revolution, the just keep working at it track is called evolution and we know that takes eons, generations, even millennia so borrow an R from the republicans and get on with it

Jon Huntsman and Joe Manchin are trying to re jig the No Labelers to try to give them some relevance. But they can rebrand all they want to and they would still be 'No Solutions'.
Yes ,I would like it if a Constitutional /classic liberal party would emerge to replace the Repubics in a two party system.

I have been very careful differentiating between what I called a true "right winger " ,or conservative from "true Republicans" . I have seen no evidence that Repubics are conservative. Sometimes conservatives influence their platforms .... but when it comes down to it , inside the beltway Repubics are at heart in favor of the same nanny state the Dems favor. The difference is in managing style.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011813-641253-republicans-must-develop-spending-cut-message.htm

Yes, of course it's all about management style. Management is all about dealing with the problems that present themselves at the time and implementing solutions recommended by the prevailing methodology.

The "true conservatives" won't have a management style? If by some quirk of nature the "true conservatives" got into power what are they going to do? Take us back to the past to save the future?

In light of the world we actually live in, as opposed to some ideological construct of the past; what management strategies are going to be implemented to bridge this chasm?

Jon Huntsman and Joe Manchin are trying to re jig the No Labelers to try to give them some relevance. But they can rebrand all they want to and they would still be 'No Solutions'.
Yes ,I would like it if a Constitutional /classic liberal party would emerge to replace the Repubics in a two party system.

So Tom you are one of my people after all, but why can't you have more than two so you can get away from this polarisation. It makes them have to work harder

Yes ,I would like it if a Constitutional /classic liberal party would emerge to replace the Repubics in a two party system.

Of course you would, who wouldn't? But it's never going to happen for the reasons I have outline previously.

Tom, try thinking outside the square because this is where it's all actually taking place.

All I know is that the Repubics cannot survive if their leadership is afraid to defend their values. This kick the can down the road /rear guard action by Speaker Bonehead is a win- win for the President . Heck ,it's worse that that... Speaker Bonehead is to the Repubics what Neville Chamberlain was to the Brits . All it does is allow the President to use them as foils in his Alinsky games. The cost to them ? The public and the rank and file continue to lose confidence that they can effectively lead.

All I know is that the Repubics cannot survive if their leadership is afraid to defend their values. This kick the can down the road /rear guard action by Speaker Bonehead is a win- win for the President . Heck ,it's worse that that .... Speaker Bonehead is to the Repubics what Neville Chamberlain was to the Brits . All it does is allow the President to use them as foils in his Alinsky games. The cost to them ? The public and the rank and file continue to lose confidence that they can effectively lead.


Values don't count for anything. They are not part of any management plan. There is no relationship between what the politicians know and what the party actually does.

All they are interested in is the best way implementing a rationalist solutions to the problem of values. And all other problems as well for that matter.

A great pity isn't it?

Heck ,it's worse that that .... Speaker Bonehead is to the Repubics what Neville Chamberlain was to the Brits . .

This rubbish, in fact it is dangerous sedicious rhetoric. Chamberlain appeased a meglomaniac in circumstances where he knew his country wasn't ready for war. Obama is not a meglomaniac. Boehner is doing his job, negotiating in difficult circumstances, knowing fullwell playing Stonewall Jackson isn't going to get the job done. I think he is no longer seduced by the idea that a majority in the house entitles Republicans to be obstructive to the detriment of the country

Sedicious eh ? Guess that means I'd get locked up in your part of the world. If negotiate means cave in to the will of the President ,then he isn't the man for the job. The founders gave the House the power of the purse strings... use it!!

Tom I agree that a budget should be formulated and passed by the House, what is in it is, of course, subject to negotiation. I would agree that the Senate shouldn't tinker with it solely for political purposes. Good government dictates that there should be order. No one suggests that there should be a "cavein" but there is nothing wrong with reasoned negotiation and an outcome that can be within the aspirations of both sides. That it doesn't get everything done is a political fact of life. A political party should gets its ducks in a row so it knows what it is supporting and what it is not.

Tom there is free speech and there is sedition,

A budget agreement (http://www.foreffectivegov.org/files/budget/debtceilingfaq.pdf)was passed in 2011.

Hello again, tom:


All I know is that the Repubics cannot survive if their leadership is afraid to defend their values. Nahhh. They're going down BECAUSE they're defending their values.

Let's call a spade a spade here.. In terms of GOVERNING the nation, what you call "defending your values", means it's MY way or the HIGHWAY.

A party that can't/won't govern, is a party that won't survive.

excon

A budget agreement (http://www.foreffectivegov.org/files/budget/debtceilingfaq.pdf)was passed in 2011.

And this is 2013, a new house, etc time for a new one

The fire works have already started, and the prez has a budget already (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf).

Actually this 2011 budget act covers 10 years


If the Super Committee does not produce a report or if the report does not become law – a likely
Outcome considering the political polarization that characterizes this Congress – then spending
Will be lowered by $1.2 trillion, with $109.3 billion in cuts per year (beginning in FY 2013), half of
Which, $54.7 billion, comes from the Defense Department and the other half from the rest of the
Budget. These cuts affect both mandatory and discretionary spending with proportionate cuts to
Both, but Social Security and Medicaid are protected while Medicare providers would see, at
Most, a two percent reduction in payments.

The committee produced no budget so sequestration is the new law if no deal is reached. Last offer from the repubs was a 3 month extension of the debt ceiling, for the senate producing a budget or they don't get paid. LOL.

Sequester may not be a bad deal, its those non discretionary spending that may be worrisome.

If you pass a budget for ten years why don't you role up the enabling legislation of the debt ceiling in that legislation. Is it that you have a lot of off budget expenditure, or have revenues declined that much. This is why passing a budget for more than a year doesn't reflect current circumstance

Hello again,

I'm having trouble with this budget stuff.. If there's NO budget, then there's no spending. And, they're spending. Therefore, there IS a budget. I want to know pursuant to WHAT budget. Obviously there's SOME budget going on.

The House passed the Ryan plan as its budget.. But it got no traction in the Senate.. And, the Senate, supposedly, hasn't passed a budget in 3 years..

So, how do they know where to spend what? They're NOT just winging it.

excon

So, how do they know where to spend what? They're NOT just winging it.

excon

Well, maybe they are, maybe each piece of legislation is its own authorisation for a period, or even perperuity so all they need is the borrowing authority. I don't know about your place but here they say no piece of welfare legislation has ever been repealed, it is just modified.

It certainly seems like you are operating on a wing and a prayer. We watch you carefully because when your market bounces ours takes a nose dive

They're NOT just winging it.

Actually yes they are... they pass what is called "continuing resolutions" which extends the last budget law. It's bs.from the weasels in Washington.

Definitely seems you need a good clean out Tom perhaps perhaps that tree of liberty needs refreshing

Hello again, tom:


they pass what is called "continuing resolutions" which extends the last budget law.So, they DO have a budget. Well, OF COURSE they do. You just don't LIKE it. My suspicions were correct. It's more right wing propaganda.

Excon

BS pass a budget that reflects their spending priorities. What they are doing is quite unconstitutional. Me... I would refuse to do it . But the opposition has no spine.

The whole "pass a budget" argument is a smoke screen, just like the deficit is a smoke screen, to hide two agendas, one is to privatize all social services, and everything else, and shift costs to consumers, and the second is to weaken government, so rich guys can write the rules of how they can control the whole country business wise in as many ways as possible.

Capitalism made to service the free market, with the aid of government. Too bad Romney lost. That really screwed things up. Don't believe me? Paul Ryan's budget is on line, passed twice by the house. It's a road map to domination by the rich, and guarantees full economic control to business that even the TParty doesn't want. READ IT!!

That's why we have no "budget", because we are embroiled in a fight over who gets the money. But I think the gridlock is about to be broken as the HOME team, (Democrats) have made some adjustments for the second half, and the Repubs are running out of gas.

BS ;the very premise of the Ryan budget is to preserve the solvency of the entitlements you are speaking about . Geeze ;his plan brings the budget close to balance in 40 years . Yet your side still thinks it's draconian .

I thought Ryan wanted to get rid of my paltry "entitlements," Social Security and Medicare.

The budget submitted by the Republican House did not have any privatization plans in it . Not only that ;according the CBO ,Social Security spending would rise... from 4.75 percent of GDP in 2011 to 6 percent of GDP in 2030.

Hello Carol:

Right wingers don't now, nor have they EVER supported entitlements. To anybody who can read, the Ryan plan ENDS Medicare as we know it.

To the right wing brain, that's saving it.

Back in Vietnam, right wingers justified destroying villages in order to save them. The right wing brain hasn't morphed from THAT.

excon

Nothing will destroy Medicare faster than Obamacare .

BS back to you, as it provides "premium assistance" at such a low level while shifting costs to the recipient, and gives free reign to business to structure benefits and cost to its own business model, while provide an even greater profit margin through lower taxes and a weak regulatory process.

"Entitlements" go from no profit, to for profit. But of course that's the goal of capitalism isn't it? Make as much money as they can off anything they can? Sure it is just be honest and tell your kids and grand kids how they will support capitalism in their old age so make sure they invest in Wall Street, today so business can profit tomorrow when they are old and ready to retire. Oh and tell them why they have to work until they are 70, or beyond because you needed solvency according to the capitalists ideas of profit over people, even your own kids.

Come on Tom, is that all you got? "MO MONEY FO" ME", "Got mine get what's left". "We're broke and can't afford old people, poor people, and kids, but the rich guy is taxed unfairly."

That didn't work so get a better idea.

Wish I know what you are talking about . I certainly didn't say what you attribute to me.

Obamacare takes $530B from a system that was already in fiscal crisis (nine years away from not being able to pay out current benefits before Obamacare cuts ) .In addition ,Obamacare is designed to destroy Medicare Advantage, a program 12 million seniors use.Obama in fact is the only President since the program was created that slashes money and benefits from Medicare.

You call yourself a capitalist so you may not have said the things I wrote, but you support the ones who did, and as to the rest of your claims,also taken from the rightie capitalists you supported, Mitt and Paul,


Obamacare takes $530B from a system that was already in fiscal crisis (nine years away from not being able to pay out current benefits before Obamacare cuts ) .In addition ,Obamacare is designed to destroy Medicare Advantage, a program 12 million seniors use.Obama in fact is the only President since the program was created that slashes money and benefits from Medicare.

This line of campaign rhetoric was debunked along with the 47% that pay no taxes are lazy takers, that Obama has taken the work from the welfare law, and rich guys are job creators, women need to be told what to do with their bodies, and corporations are people too, my friend. And my favorite from you guys, we can balance the budget on the backs of the poor, women, children, elderly, and shrinking middle class and let he rich guys and the church take care of the poor and give them MO MONEY to do it with, any way they see fit.

That notion was rejected by a 5 million people margin nationwide. You cannot keep ignoring that FACT!

Of course he is ignoring the facts Tal he is in deniel, Ronmey didn't loose the election, it's just his inaugration will be delayed by a technicality for four years

Romney who?

Exactly he joined the ranks of those other nonentities

Mittens was the Republic sacrificial lamb... he was doomed when he decided to play it clean ands didn't take the gloves off... while Obama called him a criminal.

Still in deniel Tom he was doomed from the start, his own attitudes betrayed him. Let's face it he is an elitest, he is not a man of the people and the people decided he wasn't what was needed. I know democracy is a bummer sometimes

Nobody but you thinks he played it clean. He screwed up when he was afraid to reveal his taxes and got us all wondering WHY?

Hell Tom, he admitted him and his crowd of "job creators" deserved a raise, and the rest of us (yeah you guys too) didn't deserve squat, and had too much already. You guys put him up to it while the real presidential hopefuls sat this one out.

Anybody but Mitt!!

I agree I voted for his because he was the last one standing .Elitist ? I suppose Of course the Dems supported an elitist in 2004 ,and will fully support the same man for Sec State . So ,I don't think that is /was a factor .

I think the electorate decided it was Tom just as they did with Kerry

Two elitist in 2004. Bush was from a family of the upper crust even if he did torture the English language.

Another reply vanished in the wind

Hello again,

Obama 2.0 tried it the Republicans way.. Didn't work. Now, he's going to attack them from the back door. He's using the organization that elected him, to PROMOTE his agenda. Nobody's ever done that before. I think it'll work. He's already shown a toughness that was ABSENT during the first term.

excon

... he will have to forge a new coalition sans the Jeffersonians ,aka blue dogs ,aka Reagan Dems . They will run from him big time with major changes in gun laws. Why do you think Harry Reid is so reluctant to embrace the President's rhetoric on guns ? There are enough Senators from Red states to swing the Senate to Republic in 2014.
Add to that , the Schmuckster is talking about additional taxes in a Senate Budget. They've already squeezed the rich... so new taxes will be coming down hard on the middle income folks... who are already dealing with the end of the temporary payroll deduction break ;and new Obamacare taxes on the way.
Finally ,the President's economic polices are fundamentally flawed and will likely push us back into recession .
So let him have his moment of glory now. He is misreading his mandate . His inaugural address ;and advice he got from the moron on CBS is clear over reach . He will come crawling to the table in short order.

Still trying to bring the guy to his knees huh? Don't feel bad Tom, I said the same things about Reagan and survived his union busting trickle down a$$. And the dope dealing, Bush who came after him.

No doubt you will survive this guy. Damn the world would be different if Carter had thought of trading hostages for machine guns and grenades like Reagan did,and used crack to fiancé it.

Yeah Carter made a mistake. He should've completely ignored them like Obama did this week.

We lose more privacy when we down-load Angry Birds

Hello again, tom:


we lose more privacy when we down-load Angry BirdsSpoken like a fellow who SUPPORTS the government invasion of our privacy.

Some of us love the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. Others, pick.

Excon

If you saw what Angry Birds data mines you would reconsider .

Hello again, tom:

I don't know who angry birds are, and I don't care. In any case, it's up to ME to guard my privacy against anybody BUT the government... Supposedly we have a CONSTITUTION for that.

But, you AGAIN, seem to be perfectly COMFORTABLE with THAT violation of your rights.. I mean, if angry birds can do it, why shouldn't the NSA?

Your logic escapes me... Ok, NO it doesn't... I know who you are. ANY violation of our rights that the COP side of government does, is just hunky dory. But violate a right you LIKE, and Obama is trying to be king.

excon

yeah Carter made a mistake. He should've completely ignored them like Obama did this week.

Or Reagan did in Lebanon.

Hello again, tom:

I don't know who angry birds are, and I don't care. In any case, it's up to ME to guard my privacy against anybody BUT the government... Supposedly we have a CONSTITUTION for that.

But, you AGAIN, seem to be perfectly COMFORTABLE with THAT violation of your rights.. I mean, if angry birds can do it, why shouldn't the NSA?

Your logic escapes me... Ok, NO it doesn't... I know who you are. ANY violation of our rights that the COP side of government does, is just hunky dory. But violate a right you LIKE, and Obama is trying to be king.

excon

I think you are spot on Ex I think paleface talk out of the left side of his mouth

Just so we understand... the eavesdropping happens to jihadists inside the country ;and yes I support it . I would also support the concept that jihadists in the country should not have second amendment rights either .

Hello again, tom:


just so we understand... the eavesdropping happens to jihadists inside the country ;and yes I support it .So, you TRUST the government. That's not very right wing of you... Oh, yeah.. This is the COP side of government.. These government workers ARE to be trusted, as opposed to ANY other government worker.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha... He he he he... Ha ha ha.

Excon

just so we understand ... the eavesdropping happens to jihadists inside the country ;and yes I support it . I would also support the concept that jihadists in the country should not have second amendment rights either .

Jihadists "in the country" where do you find these people? Tom, I know in mosques. So now you are saying you can have those who are protected by the constitution and those who are not. There seems to be a strange resemblance in your policies of late to those of the third reich.

Tom, just so we are on the same page here. I don't believe any convicted criminal should have the right to possess weapons but when you come to profiling you are moving a long way to the right

I don't profile .There were strict guidelines for the application .

For the record... the exact wording in the 4th Amendment related to this is as follows :
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

I say eaves dropping on jihadists qualifies as a reasonable thing to do.

Yes Tom but you are speaking of listening in on people who have not yet committed a crime, to identify these people you have to profile them, they might pop up and say I'm a jihadist, but if not.. . These people might consider what you are doing a violation of their rights. Courts might consider this a violalion of their rights and you will have achieved nothing.This is the problem with rights, they either exist or they don't. You need due process and that means evidence gathered by legal means..

I say listening in on right wing extremists is a reasonable thing to do, how do I find them, I could start with owners of certain weapons

Hello again, clete:

I'd say the guy who screams and yells about tyranny has NO clue that the power to SEARCH is the most tyrannical power there is..

I AGAIN suggest that the government is NOT to be trusted... That TOM does, is amazing.

excon

Yes it seems he blows in the wind on a number of issues

Hello again, clete:

I'd say the guy who screams and yells about tyranny has NO clue that the power to SEARCH is the most tyrannical power there is..

I AGAIN suggest that the government is NOT to be trusted... That TOM does, is amazing.

excon

If they have a warrant then they have a right to it. Anything gathered before a warrant or acted upon is inappropriate. There are more intrusions and ways for abuse coming as technology marches on.

Atlanta police get new mobile fingerprint scanners (http://www.policeone.com/police-products/investigation/articles/3379296-Atlanta-police-get-new-mobile-fingerprint-scanners/)

The thing that seems to be forgotten here is that those who have committed no crime, who don't intend to commit a crime have nothing to fear

Hello again,


If they have a warrant then they have a right to it.At least you're consistent. To right wingers, the COP side of government can do no wrong. Personally, I don't like ANY side of government.. But, that's just me.

Look. If you want to EXCUSE what they do because you're afraid of Al Quaida, then SAY so... But, to IGNORE that they BASTARDIZED the 4th Amendment, and TOOK YOUR RIGHTS AWAY in order to do it, is unconscionable.

In this great land of ours, it USED to take a warrant BEFORE they search... Now, they scan our email and listen to our phone calls, WITHOUT probable cause, which is (or USED to be) the basis for a warrant...

Why you EXCUSE the government for this is BEYOND me... Didn't one of our founders say something like, those, who are willing to give up their rights in exchange for security, deserve NEITHER?? Do you not understand that YOU are the people who he directed that comment at?

Excon

I AGAIN suggest that the government is NOT to be trusted... That TOM does, is amazing.

excon

And yet you fight for more government power over our lives...

Hello again, tom:

I get lost as to what argument is where too, so I don't know where it was that we were talking about the filibuster... In any case, you got a VICTORY yesterday. The filibuster REMAINS. You guys can CONTINUE to block, and block, and then block some more. In fact, you'll be so good at blocking, you should try out for the NFL.

excon

Another victory today... the Circuit Court in DC said Obama violated the constitution by making recess appointments while the Senate was in session.

another victory today ... the Circuit Court in DC said Obama violated the constitution by making recess appointments while the Senate was in session.

Yes sir, and it was unanimous. One shameless power grab rebuked.

He wouldn't have to resort to such things if the senate would either vote up, or down in the first place.

He wouldn't have to resort to such things if the senate would either vote up, or down in the first place.

That would be the Democrat-controlled Senate, the same one that hasn't passed a budget in going on 4 years. Regardless, the imperial presidency of Obama may finally be on its way out.

Republican filibusters are what keep his nominees from taking the positions he wants.

Republican filibusters are what keep his nominees from taking the positions he wants.

No, Dems that control the Senate had no say. Ba ha ha!

As usual he took it extra-constitutional .The fact is that the founders gave advise and CONSENT powers to the Senate . The recess provision is probably something that should be amended out .But for now it is still in the Constitution.
I agree that the recess provision has been abused .
BUT ;never before has a President taken it upon himself to declare the Senate out of session. NEVER in our history.
If he gets away with it then he will be able to declare the Senate out of session any time he wants to make an appointment without Senate approval .
I for one am tired of him saying that 'if Congress doesn't act ;he'll do something on his own. He does not have such power.
Now the NLRB says they are going to defy the court and continue making rulings . I say Speaker Bonehead should immediately move to defund NLRB .

That's exactly what banks and business wants, no NLRB, or CFPB. That's why they keep blocking any appointments to both.

When either side blocks an appointment it means they have concerns with the people being considered. But yes. CFPB is a colossal waste of taxpayer money and an unnecessary bureaucracy . CFPB is making credit harder to come by, and making it harder for businesses to expand, grow, hire .
Also ,by design ,the CFPB is not accountable to Congress ,and I oppose any agency designed outside of the checks and balances of the Constitution. The Director has way too much unchecked power .We don't need politburos in the US . This is not the Soviet Union .

You have said this before, but you were wrong then, as you are now.

Dodd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer _Protection_Act)


Under certain circumstances, the Council may provide for more stringent regulation of a financial activity by issuing recommendations to the primary financial regulatory agency, which the primary financial agency is obliged to implement – the Council reports to Congress on the implementation or failure to implement such recommendations.[52]

The Soviet Union never had a consumer watchdog, probably never will, but I can see where free market capitalists would get there panties in a bunch when they can no longer run roughshod over the consumers with fine print, tricks, and traps.

Nice rhetoric though.

Not rhetoric ;fact.. the Dems cleverly put the bureau in the Fed so their budget isn't open to review. But ,even the Fed will not have supervisory power over the agency as it will run independent of oversight by almost anyone in the elected branches. Not only that ;but there is not even a defined mandate ,leaving the Director to make it up as they do along. It is given the power to regulate “unfair, deceptive and abusive” business practices without having a clear definition of what that means. What is unfair and deceptive is in the eye of the Director.
That is too much power in our system .

http://consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFPB-Accountability-fact-sheet-6-11.pdf

It clearly states the council is subject to review and oversight by the executive, congressional and judicial branches of government.

But of course anything that helps consumers is too powerful for a capitalists who want there own policies that allow them to extract the loot from the rest of us. Republicans like yourself think its okay for rich guys to make money by hook, crook, and deception. Despite the consequences that recent history has presented us with.

Hello again, tom:

I'm not real smart when it comes politics, and stuff... But, I KNOW about living. Sometimes, along with my monthly statement, the bank sends me some RULE changes... The piece of paper they're printed on is about 2 inches wide and maybe a foot long. The font is teeny, tiny, and as an old fart, I absolutely CAN'T read it.. Even if I could, I wouldn't have any idea what it said. It's LONG and cumbersome and FULL of legalese.

Now, I don't know, but I think, by WRITING it this way, their INTENTION is that it NOT be read. I don't think the size and shape of the paper, the size of the font, and the language used, IS accidental.. I believe it's a CONCERTED effort by the bank to KEEP its customers BLIND as to what it is REALLY doing. I don't know about you, but I want to know what they DON'T want me to know.

Now, you right wingers can say, NOOOO, of COURSE the bank is open and honest about what it's doing... It's all in that little piece of paper.. All you need to do is READ it.

Now, whether the bank is ripping me off or not, wouldn't it be BETTER if they communicated with me in a manner that I actually UNDERSTOOD?? I do.. But, they're NOT going to do that on their own..

The Consumer Protection Bureau will make them, and that's a GOOD thing.

Look. You're a consumer... You get those little tiny pieces of paper from your bank... Wouldn't YOU like to know what it says??

excon

Maybe they will be written in crayon.

maybe they will be written in crayon.
How many have you read?

You think you need a whole new Federal Bureaucracy to change that ? You want to know why they are written that way ? Because they are using the legalese language of the law or regulation they are complying with. If Congress wants disclosure language simplified they should lead by example.

Hello again, tom:


you think you need a whole new Federal Bureaucracy to change that ?Nahhhh... That stuff is just the TIP of the iceberg... The banks have f***ed us so much, that they'll be busy for the next DECADE.

If a straw man is imposing an argument on your opponent that he didn't make, and then defeating it, I think crayon qualifies... But, now I know what a straw man is.

Look.. If YOU don't want to have an understanding with your bank, that's fine.. You don't ever have to read those things. But, WHY would require your fellow citizens to be in the dark with you? Some of them DO care. That's not very neighborly.

Excon

I don't know of any theoretical change in the language of the disclosures that banks are required to send consumers. But I do know of one change to my financing starting today that is a direct result of the CFPB .
Today I paid a 4% surcharge on my credit card purchase in New Jersey . That was part of a settlement between the major credit cards and the new regulatory agency.

The settlement agreement also would give merchants new rights to impose a surcharge on credit transactions, subject to a cap and other limitations. The rules governing such surcharges likely would be implemented in early 2013.
Business on NBCNews.com (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/visa-mastercard-7-3-billion-settlement-over-credit-card-fees-881386)
Today they went into effect.
Not very consumer friendly if you ask me.
Here's the best part .It's unlikely that big box stores like Walmart will start charging this fee right away because they label themselves as a discount store. But the smaller mom and pop local stores trying to compete with the big box stores will have no choice but to pass the fees onto their customers. Good job!

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma and Texas have outlawed these surcharges .

Call Christie, and tell him get on it. But passing cost to consumers is the accepted business model. This had nothing to do with the federal council but a result of a court case between merchants and the card issuers.

Two businesses suing each other and consumers caught in the middle with the short stick.

What isthis Tom objecting to capitalists exercising their rights? Have you seen the light at last?

I have no problem with it .I just exercise my consumer right and will shop someplace else. My only complaint is with what will become just another bloated government agency that won't come close to achieving it's stated goal. The 4% fee is nothing compared to the money the government confiscates.

I have no problem with it .I just exercise my consumer right and will shop someplace else. My only complaint is with what will become just another bloated government agency that won't come close to acheiving it's stated goal. The 4% fee is nothing compared to the money the government confiscates.

4% is a bit steep for merchant charges, even here so far from the centre they only charge us 2-2.5% and it is not mandatory so really only the small retailers would think of making a charge, what a contrast in thinking, eh?

I can always pay cash . There is no inherent right to get things on credit ;just like there is no inherent right to OWN a home.

I can always pay cash . there is no inherent right to get things on credit ;just like there is no inherent right to OWN a home.

There is no inherent right for something important like owning a home and yet there is an inherent right for something unimportant like owning a gun. It seems that priorities ahould be reordered so that protection is placed in the right place protecting the people from the thieves in the banking industry. Once the charge is enshrined in legislation it can be upped and it will become like a tax

OK then the right is the same... dependent on your ability to purchase.


protecting the people from the thieves in the banking industry
There are no doubt thieves in that industry like all industries The difference ;and the one I would end
Is that the government bails out the thieves and encourages them to continue .
The fact remains it was the government trying to manage the housing market that created the financial crisis in the 1st place ;under the premise of a good intention ;that everyone should own a home. Some of the worse abuses of the nanny state are created by good intentions.

There is no inherent right for something important like owning a home and yet there is an inherent right for something unimportant like owning a gun. It seems that priorities ahould be reordered so that protection is placed in the right place protecting the people from the thieves in the banking industry. Once the charge is enshrined in legislation it can be upped and it will become like a tax

There is no inherent right to be furnished either. I believe those we allegedly evolved from lived in caves and such.

Then speech you can go back to living in caves where you will have no need of credit cards

Since when is a credit card a "need" . I consider it a convenience... but like all conveniences ,I shop around ,get the best deal I can ,and yes ,read the fine print.

Then speech you can go back to living in caves where you will have no need of credit cards

I bought and paid for my house, dude. Every last penny.

There are no doubt thieves in that industry like all industries Strongly agree

The difference ;and the one I would end is that the government bails out the thieves and encourages them to continue.Dodd/Frank is a wind down process that doesn't tank the economy, but we still need a sheriff with a jail

The fact remains it was the government trying to manage the housing market that created the financial crisis in the 1st place ;under the premise of a good intention ;that everyone should own a home. Some of the worse abuses of the nanny state are created by good intentions. I Disagree somewhat here Tom, because the banks took advantage of the good intentions of the policy. That doesn't excuse the gullibility of government to not have stricter oversights though, but history tells us they had long done away with the rules to prevent this robbery from happening.

It doesn't excuse Congress for failing to heed Bush's 17 warnings.

You've only scratched the surface Steve bacause it started wayyyyyyyyyyyy before Bush,

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_cris is)


The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (majority report), Federal Reserve Economists, and several academic researchers have stated that government affordable housing policies were not the major cause of the financial crisis.[90][91] They also state that Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations... Some analysts feels that predatory lending was a more important factor leading to the crisis. The George W. Bush administration was accused of blocking ongoing state investigations into predatory lending practices as the bubble continued to grow.[94]


As noted, in December 2011 the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, accusing them of misleading investors about risks of subprime-mortgage loans.[95] According to one analyst, "The SEC's facts paint a picture in which it wasn't high-minded government mandates that did the GSEs wrong, but rather the monomaniacal focus of top management on marketshare. With marketshare came bonuses and with bonuses came risk-taking, understood or not."[96]


The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause."[97][98] GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.[99]

In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, some analysts estimate that Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.[100]

By some estimates, more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006 and the share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[101] Despite conservative criticism for government lending programs as the main cause of the crisis,[102][103][104][105] much of the crisis was independent of government home loan programs.

That doesn't mean I let the government off the hook at all. Nor do I forgive them from not be aggressive in rounding the real thieves up and getting our loot back.

Dodd/Frank is a wind down process that doesn't tank the economy, but we still need a sheriff with a jail
no it isn't it codifies a permanent policy of bailout for those the ruling class deem 'too big to fail'. Eric Holder has been AG for 4 years... where are the indictments ?

Re The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission : In voting on the adoption of the final report the Commission was split evenly along partisan lines, with Angelides, Born, Georgiou, Graham, Murren, and Thompson (appointed by Pelosi and Reid) all voting in favor and Thomas, Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Wallison (appointed by Bonehead and McConnell) all dissenting.
There were 2 minority reports . The best of them penned by Wallison .
http://www.aei.org/files/2011/01/26/Wallisondissent.pdf

Two entirely different issues, since the first takes a rather long time process by knowledgeable people, and the second takes specific evidence against individuals who have taken great care to cover their tracks.

The common thing between the two is the big money and lawyers tying the hands on anybody who wants facts and justice. I don't think this is over.

Time to move on, the facts are known, the money has been spent, and the outcome is known

I doubt any of that is true Clete, and we can move forward because the goal to form a more perfect union is a never ending job. There will always be challenges to progress.

What you thought we would just quit because times are tough? We had gone as far as we could go? I don't think so.

I

What you thought we would just quit because times are tough? We had gone as far as we could go? I don't think so.

Tom don't be ridiculous, but the events of four years ago were four years ago and you have different challenges today, You are no longer deciding whether to subsidise and bail out industries, but you are deciding how to go forward in a post GFC era, how to stimulate employment without adding to debt, how to reallocate resources and deal with big issues like immigration, guns and the continuing threat of Al Qaeda

You know that better regulation is needed you knew that four years ago

no it isn't it codifies a permanent policy of bailout for those the ruling class deem 'too big to fail'. Eric Holder has been AG for 4 years ... where are the indictments ?

Of course it does.

Tom, "ruling elites" don't just rule. In any hierarchical system who rules is decided by allegiances formed and dissolved. This has always been the case with any feudal type system. In this day and age the role of brokering is one role of government. We vote to change the brokers.

OK all you constitution lovers and Bush haters, when are you going to get your panties in a wad over Obama's drone policies (http://theweek.com/article/index/239684/obamas-license-to-kill-has-the-president-gone-too-far-in-the-war-on-terror)?



"If George Bush had done this, it would have been stopped." That's how MSNBC host Joe Scarborough characterized a Justice Department memo obtained by NBC News that outlines the Obama administration's legal rationale for killing American citizens suspected of helping al Qaeda prepare a terrorist attack on the United States. Critics say the 16-page document gives President Obama essentially unlimited powers to target U.S. citizens without trial, raising a host of ethical and constitutional questions about the administration's heavy reliance on drone missile attacks to enfeeble the terrorist network.

What criteria does the government need to meet to justify an attack on an American member of al Qaeda? According to the memo, an "informed, high-level official" within the government must determine that: 1) the individual in question poses "an imminent threat of violence attack against the United States"; 2) capture of the individual is "infeasible"; and 3) the attack is "conducted in a manner consistent with" the laws of war.

Upon even a cursory examination, however, these constraints are virtually meaningless. The government is not required to "have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future." Furthermore, the feasibility of capture can be determined by several factors, including if it would simply be too risky for U.S. personnel to conduct a capture operation, or if a capture operation would imperil a "relevant window of opportunity." There are miles of space to maneuver within the so-called constraints.

And who is partly behind this policy? The same guy that wanted Bush hung for his terrorist policies...


In 2010, Harold Koh — then the legal adviser of the State Department, and a fierce critic of the Bush administration's terrorist policies — was the first Obama official to publicly lay out the broad legal justifications for drone strikes. Attorney General Eric Holder last year said the Constitution's guarantee of due process does not necessarily entail a "judicial process" in situations in which national security is at stake

He must have had a change of heart...

Hello Steve:

I don't know if I posted about it or not, but I'm not into extra Constitutional activities.

excon

What can we say, the empire strikes back?

Hello Steve:

I dunno if I posted about it or not, but I'm not into extra Constitutional activities.

excon

You're also not as apoplectic about it as you were Bush. Guess it depends on who's in office, eh?

Funny thing is I don't get apoplectic thinking about the President authorizing the wack of a senior AQ leader ;a guy who sent a jihadist on a plane to blow it up on Christmas over a major US city .

Hello again,

Droning deserves its own thread, and I gave it one..

excon

Obama 2.0... early indications is that all those Millenials that he organized for his campaign ;and who voted for him at 60% ,are being thrown under the bus.
The recent unemployment numbers went up across the board . But the young-uns are being left behind big time . The number for 18-29 years old is 16. 2% according to Generation Opportunity
Generation Opportunity (http://generationopportunity.org/)
53.6% of college graduates are unemployed or underemployed. That's 4 years into the worse recovery since the Great Depression.
The American people had the good sense to oust Jimmy Carter in 1980. I think we are about to see what a 2nd Carter term would've looked like... on steroids.

Still blaming government (Obama) for no jobs instead of the job creators for not making jobs, while repubs run around talking about too much spending, and we can't afford to spend for jobs or infrastructure (even with damn near 0% interest).

If repubs get out of the way and let government work, instead of clogging up the works, we may get out of this self inflicted crisis. Naw after 4 years of obstruction, you're going for 8.

But don't be surprised if the rest of the country gets sick of right wing tomfoolery a lot sooner than 4 more years.

I just cannot fathom the hubris of this president and the media's unwillingness to hold his feet to the fire on anything...


Obama Claims Administration ‘Most Transparent in History’ (http://freebeacon.com/obama-claims-administration-most-transparent-in-history/)
Fact check finds a length record of failed reform and increased secrecy

BY: CJ Ciaramella
February 14, 2013 6:13 pm

President Obama once again claimed his administration is the “most transparent in history” Thursday, despite lengthy record of failed reform and increased secrecy.

Obama was answering questions during a Google hangout when a woman questioned him on his promises of greater government transparency, noting things “feels a lot less transparent.”

“This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama assured the woman. “I can document that this is the case.”

“Every visitor that comes into the White House is now part of the record,” Obama continued. “Just about every law that we pass and rule that we implement we put online for everyone to see.”As extensively reported by the Washington Free Beacon, the Obama administration’s record on transparency has been a great source of disappointment to government watchdog groups and journalists.
...

“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978, told Politico in March. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned—I’m really stunned.”

I'm not stunned, it's SOP for this administration to cover up and lie.

Remember the media having a collective orgasm over Sarah Palin using a private email account as governor? Why haven't they had the same over Obama's EPA chief Lisa Jackson using an official government account under the alias “Richard Windsor” (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/15/epa-scheduled-to-release-richard-windsor-emails-today/)?

Does anything raise a red flag with you libs and the media regarding this administration? I'm honestly flummoxed by the lengths gone to cover for these crooks and liars.

More lies from you:


If today’s delivery of emails from the EPA is anything like the tranche CEI received in January, it will not provide any valuable information about how Jackson employed her Richard Windsor email account. Indeed, the delivery we received in January — 2,100 emails total, significantly shy of the promised 3,000 — consisted entirely of Google news alerts and press clippings.

funny thing is I don't get apoplectic thinking about the President authorizing the wack of a senior AQ leader ;a guy who sent a jihadist on a plane to blow it up on Christmas over a major US city .

I don't get apologetic over it either Tom but the implications are anyone can be taken out, any time. Summary justice looks good but do you really want kangaroo court or star chamber operating in Washington

Obama doesn't grasp the concept of overtures or compromise he's a thug that thinks everything should be his way or not at all.

In 4 years he as never made an overture.. or an offer to Compromise... but he's got time to learn how.

He's not the king, the Messiah or the Emperor, and its time he learns it.

In 4 years he as never made an overture..or an offer to Compromise.....but he's got time to learn how.
He spend the first years of his first term trying to compromise with Republicans who finally outright stated they had no intention of cooperating with him.

Ah but you elevate the president so much you can't help him thinking he has been elected king

He spend the first years of his first term trying to compromise with Republicans who finally outright stated they had no intention of cooperating with him.

No he didn't . His first 2 terms were spent ramming through his spending "stimulus " and Obamacare laws . He didn't give a rat's @ss what the Repubics thought.

Hello again,

Funny. I remember history different than you... I remember Obama shaping Obamcare so that Republicans would like it... I remember his putting tax cuts in the stimulus so the Republicans would like it... Did they like it? No!

Do we live in the same country?

excon

PS> I DO remember that the night he was inaugurated, a bunch of right wingers met to INSURE they would NEVER agree to ANYTHING this president did. They didn't give a rat's a$$ about the country.

Are you SURE we live in the same country? Over here, it's Saturday AM.

Oh yeah ;Republicans were clamoring for a complete overhauling and dismantling of the health care industry. You must mean that he brought in crony capitalists in the medical fields and laid down the law to them ;and threw them a bone or two as compensation .That must be the" shaping Obamcare so that Republicans would like it"you are talking about .
As for the stimulus "tax cuts " ;there was an AMT fix ,something that periodically gets done instead of just eliminating it. There was some very limited targeted tax cuts including "Making Work Pay Credit" ,an expansion of the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Credit ,and a new education tax credit. These targeted and temporary credits completely miss the point. What is needed instead is less credits ,deductions ,and accounting schemes in favor of permanent reductions and simplification of the tax code. Oh yeah ;I forgot to mention the $7,500 for families buying over priced plug-in hybrid vehicles. That credit has not exactly worked as a stimulus ;and only can be used by the few who can afford a plug in electric ;and who travel local roads for short distances. Not very stimulating if you ask me.
Nah ;a real stimulus would've been permanent rate reductions and fixes ;instead of failed Keynesian pump priming ,or wealth transfers to local municipal unions. .

no he didn't . His first 2 terms were spent ramming through his spending "stimulus " and Obamacare laws . He didn't give a rat's @ss what the Repubics thought.

Not to mention he had a Democrat-controlled Congress for two years.

More lies from you:

Do have anything besides personal attacks? You can't point out anything I've lied about, ever. There is no lie in reporting her using an alias with an official government account, that alone is a red flag. There is no lie in calling them crooks and liars, it's documented. And genius, what's in the other 900 emails they withheld? You're pathetic.

Touched a nerve did I?


You can't point out anything I've lied about, ever. There are many instances where you willfully post misinformation. I'll use your buddy smoothy's standard response: just search it yourself, I can't be bothered.

Oh yeah ;Republicans were clamoring for a complete overhauling and dismantling of the health care industry. You must mean that he brought in crony capitalists in the medical fields and laid down the law to them ;and threw them a bone or two as compensation .That must be the" shaping Obamcare so that Republicans would like it"you are talking about .

You mean privatizing and shifting the costs and exposure from the government to the consumer with a subsidy for premiums? That is what republicans would like. Nobody else did and the concept was roundly DEFEATED in the last election.

As for the stimulus "tax cuts " ;there was an AMT fix ,something that periodically gets done instead of just eliminating it. There was some very limited targeted tax cuts including "Making Work Pay Credit" ,an expansion of the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Credit ,and a new education tax credit. These targeted and temporary credits completely miss the point. What is needed instead is less credits ,deductions ,and accounting schemes in favor of permanent reductions and simplification of the tax code.

Credits that benefit struggling poor and lower wage earners should be permanent, especially those that are/were affected adversely from the financial collapse. A fact that republicans seem to completely ignore. But those accounting schemes for the rich, or well to do, who seemed to have survived and thrived thru the meltdown should have been eliminated long ago.

Oh yeah ;I forgot to mention the $7,500 for families buying over priced plug-in hybrid vehicles. That credit has not exactly worked as a stimulus ;and only can be used by the few who can afford a plug in electric ;and who travel local roads for short distances. Not very stimulating if you ask me.

It worked while it lasted and small as it really was, it helped a segment of the population that keepa few jobs for a while. It may not be the big bubble you are use to, but sustains itself for now.

Nah ;a real stimulus would've been permanent rate reductions and fixes ;instead of failed Keynesian pump priming ,or wealth transfers to local municipal unions. .

And Romney lost that argument, so when are you going to come up with something that people like and can see it helping them now? People are quite tired of having things trickle down to them in rates that the elite so called "job creators" deem proper. With the help of the party that says no to EVERYTHING, and refuses to collaborate, or compromise for the good of the many, and not just the few. Even the so called wealth tranferance you speak of leaves trillion of dollar in the mattresses of your elite rich guy job creators and yet you still begrudge us ordinary people a crumb or a bone.

Whats more disgusting is the way you frame the stuff ordinary citizens need as neccecities you call underserved FREE STUFF, and tout your rich guy capitalists as the injured party. You want reforms? Show people how it helps thems, and not just transfers wealth and power to those that don't believe in sharing or trickling.

I submit to you that until a whole helluva lot more trickling is done, opposition to republican principles will be seen even more.

Not to mention he had a Democrat-controlled Congress for two years.

That's a straw argument since the plan from the beginning was to use parlimentery tricks to obstruct, stall, and stop everything no matter what it was, and then blame the left for NOTHING working.

Touched a nerve did I?

There are many instances where you willfully post misinformation. I'll use your buddy smoothy's standard response: just search it yourself, I can't be bothered.

Speaking of lies, smoothy is not my buddy. You can be a coward or document your charges, but since you can't document that leaves one option.

Thats a straw argument since the plan from the beginning was to use parlimentery tricks to obstruct, stall, and stop everything no matter what it was, and then blame the left for NOTHING working.

You're history challenged, too. Republicans made an overture from the beginning, Obama said "I won."

That's a lie as all the republican overtures were designed to suck everybody into a negotiation that no matter what they would walk away from.

It was a stall tactic plain and simple. A stage for YOU guys to do what you do best, HOLLER, and BLAME.

Thats a lie as all the republican overtures were designed to suck everybody into a negotiation that no matter what they would walk away from.

It was a stall tactic plain and simple. A stage for YOU guys to do what you do best, HOLLER, and BLAME.

Come on Tal, you've been leaning on that same excuse like a crutch too long. One need only recall it's been nearly 4 years since Dems in the Senate have passed a budget to see your side has culpability in this nonsense. You seem to think Democrats BS doesn't stink.

You seem to think Democrats BS doesn't stink

Yeah it does, but not enough to hide the REPUBLICANS BS.

Yeah it does, but not enough to hide the REPUBLICANS BS.

Most would never know, Republicans don't have the media covering for them.

Wonder why the media is so against you guys and you have such little support? I thought this was a center right country, so where is your center right media?

Maybe what YOU guys read write and broadcast is not what everyone else reads writes, and broadcasts? Is that blaming someone else for your own shortcomings?

I think you guys don't handle rejection very well myself. You holler too much for the rest of the country, and your alternatives are unacceptable to most. Take some responsibility for your own failings for once, it won't hurt you, it will help.

We've more than taken responsibility for Repubics shortcomings, waiting for you to reciprocate. The thing is you know Bush would not have gotten away with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, an EPA chief using an alias, the utter hypocrisy on transparency, all the late Friday news dumps, etc. The lamestream media would gave been relentless instead of turning a blind eye.

In a sweet twist of fate (http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Environmental-Groups-Sue-DOI-for-Narrow-Focus-on-Public-Lands-as-Solar-Zones_5376.html) environmental groups are suing the Interior Dept over their designated 'solar zones.'


Environmental Groups Sue DOI for Narrow Focus on Public Lands as Solar Zones

A legal battle is brewing between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and three public-interest environmental groups that claim the government failed to consider degraded lands for the siting of "destructive" utility-scale solar plants, and that it focused instead on millions of acres of public land when it established solar energy zones in six southwestern states.

A complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Tuesday by the Western Lands Project, Desert Protective Council, and Western Watersheds Project says the government’s analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) "ignored alternative approaches that would be less damaging to the environment, more efficient, and less costly to taxpayers and ratepayers."

The DOI in October 2012 finalized its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), establishing an initial set of 17 solar energy zones totaling about 285,000 acres of public lands that would serve as priority areas for commercial-scale solar development. It essentially provides a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting for solar power projects on public lands in six western states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.
...

"Massive solar power plants will have irreversible, essentially permanent, impacts. The [Bureau of Land Management (BLM)] admits that ecological recovery after solar plants are decommissioned, if even possible, could take 3,000 years," the groups said.

“The Administration is opting to needlessly turn multiple-use public lands into permanent industrial zones.” said Janine Blaeloch of the Seattle-based Western Lands Project. “Solar development belongs on rooftops, parking lots, already-developed areas, and on degraded sites, not our public lands."

Funny how well-meaning libs either can't see the hypocrisy in their policies or just don't get they have consequences. Shut down thousands of acres of the most productive agricultural land on the planet to save a little fish instead of providing jobs and food for hungry people? You can't interfere with 'wetlands' like a tiny playa lake in the Texas Panhandle that may have water every few years, but you can kill bald eagles with windmills and cover pristine public wilderness with solar panels.

I've been virtually coast-to coast since September and I can't say how many ugly farms I saw ruining the view. Now I know why Ted Kennedy didn't want it in his back yard. Surely we can do better than cover the earth in windmills and solar panels.

I think they actually want to cut down the rain forest to make that a solar zone too... if they have half a brain... the will make California a solar zone and send all the people up north. Prefferably to the artic circle.

So they have found a use for the valley then? Hope it doesn't affect the fish or what ever it was that the EPA were protecting

What about open space ? Seems to me that if they could reclaim degraded lands for siting ,it would be a better option than using 'pristine' Federal lands.

You mean to say you have been holding out on us, there are pristine lands?

More acres than populated by far .

Is that by or so far

By far.

The Federal Government owns 50% of the land in the Western states and about 15% Eastern states. Most of it is undeveloped wilderness. A total of 30% of the United States. 650 million acres!! There is no way that much land ownership by the government is justified.

More important. There are many places in the Western states to place solar farms that would be equally suitable that are as the complaint noted ,degraded lands ;begging for reclamation.

Are those degraded acres on federal lands?

Are those degraded acres on federal lands?

The article doesn't specify .But the general idea is that they should not be on public lands.



The Administration is opting to needlessly turn multiple-use public lands into permanent industrial zones.” said Janine Blaeloch of the Seattle-based Western Lands Project. “Solar development belongs on rooftops, parking lots, already-developed areas, and on degraded sites, not our public lands."

For my 2 cents ;I don't mind energy leases on Federal lands . I think the Feds own too much land anyway.

So let's spoil it all with oil rigs and above-ground pipelines and gravel pits and fracking plains?

It's like gun control--once you start taking away, where will it stop?

I think those activities leave less of a fingerprint on the land than massive solar farms and wind farms that lose half the energy they produce in transmission .

So ;when are you going to move into an energy efficient yurt ?

You just can't make this stuff up... it just baffles me how he gets away with this BS.

Obama Angrily Denounces His Own Idea (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/02/19/video-obama-angrily-denounces-his-own-idea-n1515539)


And who, pray tell, is primarily responsible for these "not smart , not fair," job-destroying, chaos-creating cuts? Over to you, liberal reporter Bob Woodward:


"It was the White House. It was Obama and Jack Lew and Rob Nabors who went to the Democratic Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and said, '[the sequester] is the solution.'"

Woodward went on to say that "everyone has their fingerprints" on the package of cuts -- which is true to a large extent. The idea was the Obama administration's brain child, they proposed it, members of both parties in both houses voted for the 2011 debt deal (in which the sequester was embedded), and the president affixed his signature to it. He also threatened to veto Republicans' attempts to make the cuts more responsible and targeted. But now, as Obama tells it, America faces a sequester-induced apocalypse, and it's all the GOP's fault. Criminals will run free. Airport delays will get worse. Fires will burn unfought. Puppies will go uncuddled. All because Republicans are willing to allow the president's own proposal to go into effect.

Whining and whimpering about his own plan. Yes sir, policies have consequences.

Very simple... the President has yet to propose so called 'responsible " cuts . Oh they get orgasmic over the defense cuts ;but nothing else is on their agenda. It's always expand the government .

Hello again, tom:


the President has yet to propose so called 'responsible " cuts . He's not going to either.. IF he does, the Republicans will tear it apart... This ISN'T about plans, or details.. It's STILL about politics...

Obama 2.0 is NOT going to give an inch... It's been said that he wants to DESTROY the Republican party... Pansy lefty's say, NO, that's not true, he wants to govern... But, it's TRUE, all right.. And he's going to DO it. He's RIGHT. It SHOULD be done. They're worthless.

Payback is b1tch...

Excon

How cynical. You really think after being an unrelenting target of right wing rock throwing for 4 years he is going to give you more rocks to throw?

Already the repubs have tipped their hand with the rebuttal to the SOTU speech they had ready to go before he even delivered the speech, confirming Kerry with no problem at State, and holding up Hagle and Brennan over Benghazi, which is the domain of state.

Then leave town while another crisis they manufactured the sequester, looms ahead at the end of the month. More egregious is Rubio announcing how dead on arrival the Presidents's immigration bill is and it's the same as his own.

That's unmitigated gall to demand he lead, so you can take target practice and blame him because repubs have done NOTHING.

and holding up Hagle and Brennan over Benghazi, which is the domain of state.

Bwaaaahaaahaaahaaa! Well yes of course they'd like us to believe that the issue with Benghazi was a State Dept failure. But you and I know it goes much deeper than that.

Then leave town while another crisis they manufactured the sequester, looms ahead at the end of the month
No ,the President is back from his golf junket with Tiger .

That's unmitigated gall to demand he lead,
I am going to keep that quote handy... yeah we are showing gall expecting the President to lead.

Hello again, tom:


yeah we are showing gall expecting the President to lead.As though you'll FOLLOW his lead... You don't want him to lead.. You want him to put his balls on the table so you can CHOP 'em off.

Well, it AIN'T happening... He's GOT your balls in his clutch instead, and he's SQUEEZING. I'm LIKING it.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha ha.

Excon

QUOTE by tomder,
Bwaaaahaaahaaahaaa! Well yes of course they'd like us to believe that the issue with Benghazi was a State Dept failure. But you and I know it goes much deeper than that.

Two hostages are better than one right? Imean how doyou demand answers without going to the meetings? Kerry pointed that out during his hearings, so why even ask the questions of rhse who weren't there. McCain even admitted it was a partisan witch hunt, He said of Hagle, "He was a bad boy when he was a republican".


No ,the President is back from his golf junket with Tiger .

A break from republican rock throwing?


I am going to keep that quote handy... yeah we are showing gall expecting the President to lead.

For 4 years he has said lets go, and for 4 years repubs have said NO! Then they go home and leave the work behind. Love to see some town hall meetings from the constituents back home. The big stall will bite you.

For 4 years he has said lets go, and for 4 years repubs have said NO! Then they go home and leave the work behind. Love to see some town hall meetings from the constituents back home. The big stall will bite you.

Still with that meme, eh? What's funny to me, besides the fact that he can't get his own party to do his bidding or pass a budget for that matter, is you can't see the absurdity of throwing a tantrum over the possibility his own idea may actually take effect.

Tantrum?? Me?? Not likely, I have thrived and survived no matter what you guys are hollering your gloom and doom about, and the blame game that only fools YOU.

You better listen when I tell you to rise above your own fear or drown in your own crap. Its bad enough to isolate yourself from the facts, but far worse to be alone. Compromise guy, we all thrive.

The President was for the sequester before he was against it .
Remember when President Obama supported the sequester cuts? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kj1y3q92sog)

“My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one"(November 21, 2011)

The sad part is that I agreed with the President... The sequesters should happen. The problem is that as President ,he set no priorities on what should be trimmed from the various budgets. But he let lard a$$es like Leon Panetta sit around for almost a year making no budgetary decisions. Now he thinks Hagel can manage it?? PLEEESE!! Hagel will just blame the "Jewish lobby"(his words ) while he sucks up to Iran.

$2.7 trillion in revenue in 2013 and about $3.8 trillion in spending.

$85 billion in sequester cuts represents a 2.2 percent reduction in spending in 2013, or less than half of one percent of the $16.5 trillion federal debt.
This is just a rounding error ;and yet the President runs around the country like the sky is falling.
The House passed legislation twice last year that would replace across-the-board cuts. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in years.

Tantrum??? Me??? Not likely, I have thrived and survived no matter what you guys are hollering your gloom and doom about, and the blame game that only fools YOU..

You better listen when I tell you to rise above your own fear or drown in your own crap. Its bad enough to isolate yourself from the facts, but far worse to be alone. Compromise guy, we all thrive

LOL, Obama is the one throwing a tantrum, hollering doom and gloom and blaming others for his own policy. Geez Tal, keep up.

The Senate hasn't passed a budget in years.Prince Harry the Obtuse hasn't allowed a single House passed Budget to even come up for a vote since The Messiah took office LAST election.

LOL, Obama is the one throwing a tantrum, hollering doom and gloom and blaming others for his own policy. Geez Tal, keep up.

Telling America to be forewarned about republican intransigence is not a tantrum, it's a public service, Like the ride of Paul Revere.


Prince Harry the Obtuse hasn't allowed a single House passed Budget to even come up for a vote since The Messiah took office LAST election.

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate)


On December 6, 2012, another milestone in filibuster history was reached when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal, though he did not give a lengthy speech, instead merely invoking the rules of filibuster on his bill to raise the passage threshold to 60 votes. McConnell had attempted to force the opposition Democrats, who had a majority in the Senate, to refuse to pass what would have been a politically-costly measure that would nonetheless solve the current ongoing debt ceiling deadlock; when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) elected to call a vote on the proposal regardless, McConnell immediately invoked the rules regarding filibusters on his proposal, effectively engaging in the first self-filibuster in Senate history.

You guys are very good at what you do, obstuct, delay, and stall. Governance though, not so good.

Where is the budget from the Senate ? You deflected ;but did not answer. No , the Repubics did not block a vote on the budget... but nice try.

Telling America to be forewarned about republican intransigence is not a tantrum, its a public service, Like the ride of Paul Revere.
.

Your answer is totally devoid of reality. Obama is "forewarning" (fear mongering) about his own plan, Tal. Republicans did their part with the revenue part, raising taxes Time for Obama to do his part on meaningful spending cuts or HIS SEQUESTER PLAN takes effect. I don't know what you're missing about Obama suddenly not liking his own plan, which Republicans agreed to.

What do you not get about reaching an agreement then Obama calling foul on his own plan?

As for McConnell.. he introduced an unconstitutional bill to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own without Congressional consent.. It was a goofy proposal from a beltway goofball. He never thought Reid was goofy enough to bring it to the floor. But Reid proved him wrong.

Prince Harry the Obtuse refusing to allow a budget bill written, voted on and passed by the house has NOTHING to do with a legitimate fillibuster... at least if there is a fillibuster the topic in question is beign seen by the Sentate... HUGE difference than figuratively stuffing it in the drawer... then whining nobody ever gave you anything. Which is a bold faced LIE.

The house has pssed budgets... the Senate was never allowed to even see them... much less have a chance to act on them.

QUOTE by tomder55;
Where is the budget from the Senate ? You deflected ;but did not answer. No , the Repubics did not block a vote on the budget... but nice try.

The votes weren't there, but a continuing resolution is a budget,and been used as one for decades. Need a link? Okay.

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Glossary > continuing resolution/continuing appropriations (http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/continuing_resolution.htm)

Continuing resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution)


Your answer is totally devoid of reality. Obama is "forewarning" (fear mongering) about his own plan, Tal. Republicans did their part with the revenue part, raising taxes Time for Obama to do his part on meaningful spending cuts or HIS SEQUESTER PLAN takes effect. I don't know what you're missing about Obama suddenly not liking his own plan, which Republicans agreed to.

What do you not get about reaching an agreement then Obama calling foul on his own plan?

Budget Control Act of 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011)


Ultimately, the solution came from White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, who, on July 12, 2011, proposed a compulsory trigger that would go into effect if another agreement was not made on tax increases and/or budget cuts equal to or greater than the debt ceiling increase by a future date. The intent was to secure the commitment of both sides to future negotiation by means of an enforcement mechanism that would be unpalatable to Republicans and Democrats alike. President Obama agreed to the plan. House Speaker John Boehner expressed reservations, but also agreed.[15]

On July 26, 2011, White House Budget Director Jack Lew and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss the plan. Reid, like Boehner several days before, was initially opposed to the idea, but was eventually convinced to go along with it, with the understanding that the sequester was intended as an enforcement tool rather than a true budget proposal. [16]

Gramm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Rudman%E2%80%93Hollings_Balanced_Bud get_Act)


President Reagan signed the bill on August 21.[2][dead link] The process for determining the amount of the automatic cuts was found unconstitutional in the case of Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) and Congress enacted a reworked version of the law in 1987.[3][dead link] Gramm-Rudman failed, however, to prevent large budget deficits. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 supplanted the fixed deficit targets.

Balanced budgets did not actually emerge until the late 1990s when budget surpluses (not accounting for liabilities to the Social Security Trust Fund) emerged.

Looks to me like this is government owned since all the branches of government had to agree to it.


as for McConnell.. he introduced an unconstitutional bill to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own without Congressional consent.. It was a goofy proposal from a beltway goofball. He never thought Reid was goofy enough to bring it to the floor. But Reid proved him wrong.

Yep. But to Speech, repubs didn't raise taxes, they let the old ones expire, and lowered middle class taxes. But off course now the plan is to cut things that benefit the lower classe to keep corporate welfare for the rich is the thing to do.

Feed the rich and not the poor. Even the TParty can see that's whack! Right?

From your own link :
A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year. The legislation takes the form of a joint resolution, and provides funding for existing federal programs at current or reduced levels.
Only in your dream is that a budget.

Yep. but to Speech, repubs didn't raise taxes, they let the old ones expire, and lowered middle class taxes. But off course now the plan is to cut things that benefit the lower classe to keep corporate welfare for the rich is the thing to do.

Feed the rich and not the poor. Even the TParty can see thats whack! Right?

Dude, you need a new line. I can repeat that one for you verbatim.

LOL, smh, and nanny state are ingrained in my memory as well.

Remember this
The House passed a bill for $1.2 trillion in targeted cuts over 10 years to replace the sequester cuts weeks ago. If Zero and the Dems disagreed with the Republic cuts, it was their job to pass what they wanted in the Senate. Then the two bills would have gone to a Conference Committee.
That's how the system worked pre-Obama. So to listen to the windbag belly ache about the injustices of the sequester when he had the means to do something about it may be feel good placebo for the Obots... but we know better .
Like Ex said... his goals are not what Is in the best interest of the country . His goals are raw community activist Alinsky politics

You mean this?

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperityfy2012.pdf

Or this?

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

HR635

National Security and Job Protection Act (2012; 112th Congress H.R. 6365) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6365)

LOL, smh, and nanny state are ingrained in my memory as well.

At least I offer variety.

Either or is not variety,

Either or is not variety,

Can't count?

National Security and Job Protection Act (2012; 112th Congress H.R. 6365) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6365#summary/libraryofcongress)


to abolish the distinction between security and nonsecurity categories of discretionary spending for new budget authority in FY2013. Combines the dollar amounts of the current categories ($686 billion for the security category and $361 billion for the nonsecurity category) into a single amount of $1.047 trillion in new budget authority.


Requires the President by October 15, 2012, to transmit to Congress a legislative proposal that meets such requirements

Translation-"Here mr. Prez we combined the sequester cuts together and you decide what to do about it. Ball in your court.".

A better bill I think is a one liner... The sequester has been cancelled until further notice!

It must be contagious, all Obama's supporters suddenly agree with him that his plan sucks.

Hello again, tom:


... his goals are not what Is in the best interest of the country . His goals are raw community activist Alinsky politicsI don't know WHO this Alinsky is, but if he advises a president to DESTROY his enemies, after they FAILED to destroy him, then Alinsky is on to something...

Tell me, right winger, is saying that their ONE goal is to make Obama a one term president, IN the best interest of the country??

Obama SHOULD destroy you! You HATE America!

Excon

Hello again, tom:

I dunno WHO this Alinsky is, but if he advises a president to DESTROY his enemies, after they FAILED to destroy him, then Alinsky is on to something...

Tell me, right winger, is saying that their ONE goal is to make Obama a one term president, IN the best interest of the country????

Obama SHOULD destroy you! You HATE America!

excon

It's entirely patriotic to try and save America from Obama.

Hello again, Steve:


It must be contagious, all Obama's supporters suddenly agree with him that his plan sucks.I'm sorry... I'm sitting here snickering - laughing out loud, actually. You don't KNOW that the sequester was DESIGNED to be unacceptable?? In fact, SOOOO unacceptable that congress would SURLY avoid it?? You didn't know that??

You appear to be saying that Obama wrote the law because he thought the sequester was a GOOD way to make cuts...

Who told you that?? Brietbart? Hannity?? O'Reilly??

Look, my friend... Walk away from the TV. Tune into MSNBC for some TRUTH..

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

I'm sorry... I'm sitting here snickering - laughing out loud, actually. You don't KNOW that the sequester was DESIGNED to be unacceptable??? In fact, SOOOO unacceptable that congress would SURLY avoid it???? You didn't know that???

You appear to be saying that Obama wrote the law because he thought the sequester was a GOOD way to make cuts...

Who told you that??? Brietbart?? Hannity??? O'Reilly???

Look, my friend... Walk away from the TV. Tune into MSNBC for some TRUTH..

excon

What I'm saying is perfectly clear, Obama came up with a plan and now he's fear mongering about his own policy and trying to shame Republicans into caving. It's on every channel.

And dude, it was Bob Woodward not Hannity. Seems it is you that needs to change the channel.

It must be contagious, all Obama's supporters suddenly agree with him that his plan sucks.

EVERY body knows NOTHING will get past the TParty controlled house. Except god, guns, and corporate welfare. As bridges and roads fall to disrepair, and nobody is working.

Arizona highway buckles due to 'geologic event' - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29 (http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/21285159/n-arizona-highway-closed-due-to-pavement-buckle)

Better get that fence built better and buy more guns.

More deflection.

Hello again, Steve:

I'm sorry... I'm sitting here snickering - laughing out loud, actually. You don't KNOW that the sequester was DESIGNED to be unacceptable??? In fact, SOOOO unacceptable that congress would SURLY avoid it???? You didn't know that???

You appear to be saying that Obama wrote the law because he thought the sequester was a GOOD way to make cuts...

Who told you that??? Brietbart?? Hannity??? O'Reilly???

Look, my friend... Walk away from the TV. Tune into MSNBC for some TRUTH..

excon

I posted his speech where he said he'd veto attempts to repeal the sequester... Then he and Reid let the House' attempt to reverse it die in the Senate. Fine.. I got no problem with that .I say bring the sequester on . Nothing else will force budget cuts with this cast of characters .
But his campaign to blame the Repubics is transparently bogus.

Requires the President by October 15, 2012, to transmit to Congress a legislative proposal that meets such requirements

Translation-"Here mr. Prez we combined the sequester cuts together and you decide what to do about it. Ball in your court.".

A better bill I think is a one liner... The sequester has been cancelled until further notice!
Translation... set your budget priorities Mr Chief Executive ,do your f'n job... or stop blocking ours.

Bring the sequester on .Your solution is for them to accept the tax increases they've already conceded without any reciprocal concession by the President... It isn't happening .

Hello again, tom:


But his campaign to blame the Repubics is transparently bogus.The polls say (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/obama-rated-at-3-year-high-in-poll-republicans-at-bottom.html) otherwise. His destruction of the right wing is almost complete.

I'm LOVING it. I'm going to have to read this Alinsky guy.

Excon

Amazon.com: Rules for Radicals (9780679721130): Saul Alinsky: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134)

Apparently you love being a puppet, ex.

Translation ... set your budget priorities Mr Chief Executive ,do your f'n job ...or stop blocking ours.

Bring the sequester on .Your solution is for them to accept the tax increases they've already conceded without any reciprocal concession by the President ... It aint happening .

Lets play hardball! You guys have so now that's what you get from our side. And nobody cares about Saul Alinsky, just you guys who were afraid of him back in the day.

That's what our so called Chief Executive is doing... wallowing in his hubris.


President Barack Obama's greatest adversary in the latest budget battle isn't the Republican leadership in Congress — it's his confidence in his own ability to force a win.

He has been so certain of his campaign skills that he didn't open a line of communication with House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell until Thursday, a week before the spending ax hits. And when they did finally hear from Obama, the calls were perfunctory, with no request to step up negotiations or invitations to the White House.


That's because Obama's all-in on an outside strategy, doing just about everything other than holding serious talks with Republicans. In the last two days alone, he's courted local TV anchors, called in a select group of White House correspondents to talk off-the-record, chatted up black broadcasters, and announced plans to stump next week at Virginia's Newport News Shipyard. Throughout, he's talked in tough terms that signal little interest in compromise — or suggestion of backing down.

He's navigating a thin line. Obama is convinced he's got the upper hand on Republicans. Yet he can go only so long before he risks being perceived as a main actor in Washington's dysfunction, threatening a core element of his political brand — and the fragile economic recovery he's struggled to maintain.
The calls placed Thursday to Boehner and McConnell were prompted, in part, by a White House desire to inoculate Obama from that exact criticism.


Is Obama overplaying sequester hand? - Carrie Budoff Brown and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/is-obama-overplaying-sequester-hand-87931.html?hp=t1)
Yet he can go only so long before he risks being perceived as a main actor in Washington's dysfunction,??
Too late ,that horse is already out of the barn . He is the MAIN ACTOR in the government dysfunction.
And by the way Politico... there is no"fragile economic recovery " to mainain.. there is no recovery under his watch. Sorry Emperor Zero ,if you can't make the government work with $3.4 trillion then you aren't up to the job.

Hello again, Steve:


He is the MAIN ACTOR in the government dysfunction.It may be so. But, if it works to DESTROY your party, I'm for it.

What?? Right wingers didn't try to destroy him?? They DID indeed. They thought they'd destroy him, and we'd be an all right wing government... Guess what?? I didn't work, and we're going to be a LEFT wing government..

Payback is a b1tch isn't it?

Excon

Well here comes mediocre government because if you have no wish for it to work it won't, and what you will get is a mediocre third world country. Somewhere ex you have to realise that yesterday is yesterday and the republicans have to realise the same. If I read what is going on over there you are losing the ability to defend yourselves just because of a little girl hissy spat over I don't get to say what's going on. Get over it, PLEASE GROW UP!

We are losing nothing despite the bleatings of Zero and General O. Everyone in America has had to make decisions on budgets sometimes slashed much deeper than 2% of projected increases in spending . If the military has to scramble now it's because that useless piece of human flesh ,Leon Panetta ,took a paid job as Director of DOD and did NOTHING as far as budget priorities for over a year !
Zero is fond of executive orders... Here's one for him... "As of March 1st I order every Dept in the Federal Government to spend 2% less and prepare a budget to trim 10% by the end of my term. If you don't think you are capable of it then submit your resignation NOW . "

Hello again, Steve:

It may be so. But, if it works to DESTROY your party, I'm for it.

What??? Right wingers didn't try to destroy him??? They DID indeed. They thought they'd destroy him, and we'd be an all right wing government.... Guess what??? I didn't work, and we're gonna be a LEFT wing government..

Payback is a b1tch isn't it?

excon

Happy Purim .

Hello again, tom:


Happy Purim .Thanks. When's the draft?

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

It may be so. But, if it works to DESTROY your party, I'm for it.

excon

Though I agree with that sentiment I'm still not tom.

Hello again, tom/Steve:


I'm still not tom.I don't know. You're pretty indistinguishable.

Excon

You mean similar. I'm the one that wins at baseball, he wins football - which should be just the opposite.

By the way, you know who's protecting corporate jet owners? Democrats. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/senate-democrats-protect-corporate-jet-loophole/#.USacebBYoaQ.twitter)

Hello again, Steve/tom:

Those bastards!

excon

Congressional Progressive Caucus : The People's Budget (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/)

The good plans are NOT under consideration.

Congressional Progressive Caucus : The People's Budget (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/)

The good plans are NOT under consideration.

Sounds like a plan the Senate could vote on .

Lol all it is is tax increases and gutting the military . Yeah that's a plan!!

On Pennsylvania Avenue, right near the end, there lived a President who wanted to spend.

He knew spending meant power, so hour by hour, he thought up more spends from his Washington tower.

“I’ll spend without limits; I’ll spend without blame! Raising taxes to pay—that’s the name of the game.”

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/O-on-Pig.jpg

Down the street, though, a House filled with thriftier folk had a budget to pass, or the country’d go broke. “We can’t spend all day; we’ve got bills to pay! Let’s keep deficits and higher taxes away.”

The Senate next door to the House just refused. “We don’t like your budget. We’ve got some bad news: The President says we can spend all we want, and we’ll simply raise taxes whenever we choose.”

So they spent and they spent and they borrowed some more. And when all that was spent, they spent same as before.

But not everyone thought the spending was nice. In the House and the Senate, some spenders thought twice. “We’ll cut down on spending. We have a bad feeling…” then—SMACK!—right on schedule, they hit the debt ceiling.

Then the President’s office, confronted with debt: “If it’s cuts they want now, then it’s cuts they shall get. We’ll threaten such cuts that NO one would take, and show them that cuts are not smart to make.”

“This will make Congress move. We’ll just float out a tester… broad, haphazard cuts that we’ll call the sequester.”

The Senate and even the House said, “Okay! That will motivate us to find a good way. We’ll figure this out and stave off those cuts—to allow them to happen, we’d have to be nuts.”

So the deadline was set, but the spending went on. A year and a half had soon come and gone. The House passed a budget; the Senate said no; the President very much enjoyed the show.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Fingers.jpg
Spend higher! Spend faster! Grow the welfare rolls! Soon, love for the spending will show up in the polls.” He even raised taxes, but it wasn’t enough—the levels of spending grew too fast to keep up.

“Don’t you mind the sequester,” he told Capitol Hill. “You said you would fix it, and I’m sure you will.”

But they could not agree on ways to cut spending, and before they knew it, the sequester was pending.

“Oh no!” they all cried. “We can’t let these cuts stand!”

And the President said, “WHO thought of this terrible plan?”

They didn’t remember his plan all along. He distracted them with his spending-cut song. Now he returned to save them from harm, and to keep them forgetting all but his charm.

So the President said with a glint in his eye, “You tried to cut spending. I saw how you tried. But it’s just too painful—I’m sure you can see. From the beginning, you should have listened to me.”

“I’ll save you all from the spend-cutters’ axes. You see, the solution is just to raise taxes.”

Original artwork by Glenn Foden.
The Story of the Sequester, in the Style of Dr. Seuss (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/22/obama-sequester-plan-tax-and-spend-dr-seuss/?roi=echo3-14651906865-11532800-e3e10df2b339a842bb30dccdcf4e5419&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell)

So this is what right-wing thinktanks do? LOL

So this is what right-wing thinktanks do? LOL

One has to put it in terms liberals can understand.

What part of the middle class is broke is it you guys are not understanding? Walmart doesn't understand either.

Walmart Losing Business, Looks to Retool - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/22/walmart-losing-business-looks-to-retool/)

Wal-Mart customers are losing too much money, says retailer (http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/wal-mart-sales-decline/)

What part of the middle class is broke is it you guys are not understanding? Walmart doesn't understand either.

Walmart Losing Business, Looks to Retool - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/22/walmart-losing-business-looks-to-retool/)

Wal-Mart customers are losing too much money, says retailer (http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/wal-mart-sales-decline/)

What part of Obama's failed economic polices are you not understanding?

That's OK... there is always personal retirement accounts to plunder
Retirement Savings Accounts Draw U.S. Consumer Bureau Attention - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/retirement-savings-accounts-draw-u-s-consumer-bureau-attention.html)

that's ok ....there is always personal retirement accounts to plunder
Retirement Savings Accounts Draw U.S. Consumer Bureau Attention - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/retirement-savings-accounts-draw-u-s-consumer-bureau-attention.html)

What could go wrong?

Wall Street and the banks tanking the global economy again, or have you forgoten so quickly?

Don't forget Bill Clinton's, and the Dem's involvement with forcing the banks to give loans to minorities and others with horrible credit to be "fair" to them... being the root cause of the Banking problem as well as the Housing bubble.

And What happened here wasn't the cause of the OTHER countries who had even BIGGER problems of their own making, All we were doing is making it possible to run their own Ponzi schemes longer than they should have lasted.

Don't forget Bill Clinton's, and the Dem's involvement with forcing the banks to give loans to minorities and others with horrible credit to be "fair" to them...being the root cause of the Banking problem as well as the Housing bubble.
That wasn't what happened, and the Dems weren't the cause of those credit problems. It was the 1% wanting more.

That wasn't what happened, and the Dems weren't the cause of those credit problems. It was the 1% wanting more.

You can't possibly believe that crap... because that's all that is... and its WELL documented.

Obama in the only court document (a Docket) ever discovered with his name on it as a lawyer... has his fingers on the early petitions leading to the courts forcing banks to give money to people who were not qualified to get it.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/documents-plaintiffs-in-1995-obama-led-citibank-lawsuit-submitted-class-action-claims/