December 31, 2010
December 27, 2010
December 24, 2010
December 21, 2010
There's been a lot of speculation about which day those who protect the American public have been taking off. Christmas, New Years? But I've decoded it. Here's a clue;
Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. EST
National Press Club, 13th floor
Live WEBCAST will be available on event day.
Dial-in number: 888-603-8938
Passcode: 2010 CENSUS
December 20, 2010
|Americans Are Looking For Jobs.|
Being laid off gives me a chance to practice what I preach about the government backing off and letting the private sector, as much as possible, handle it's own affairs.
...And many Democrats felt that they held the high moral ground on the issues -- reauthorization of unemployment benefits extensions (regardless of cost) and giving the lowest income earners more or their money to put back into a flagging economy, not to mention taking the extra income from the reapplied taxes to the wealthiest (which would begin in the new year) to pay for federal programs and forestall increasing the national debt (which extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years increases by $458 billion).
"I don't think it's a fair deal," Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) said. "I think a ransom was paid, and it was a very high price."...
In the end, however, after all the posturing and rhetoric has been put on display, the measure will no doubt see passage. Both parties know that to not vote for the unemployment benefits extensions would be a very unpopular move. They also know that to allow the deadline for the Bush tax cuts for everyone would be another extremely unpopular move. And since every politician's basic instinct is to perpetuate his/her tenure in office, there will be compromise.
Perhaps. But, ironically, the possibility exists that Democrats, who have long lambasted Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise, could thwart the proposed efforts to find a little common ground, pushing the Bush tax cuts beyond the deadline and watching the long-term unemployed continue without assistance into the coldest months of the year.
December 18, 2010
Senate Republicans have blocked a bill to grant hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military.
Sponsors of what they call the Dream Act needed 60 Senate votes for it, but fell five short. The House passed the bill last week. It was a last-ditch effort to enact it before it Republicans take control of the House from Democrats in January.
December 17, 2010
December 16, 2010
As they say in Latin, 'res ipsa loquitur'. I'm not sure who is busy speaking Latin outside of the Roman Catholic Church, but if they were, somebody would be saying it.Obama is telling members of Congress that failure to pass the tax-cut legislation could result in the end of his presidency, Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) said.
"The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls, the president is making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn't get this bad deal," he told CNN's Eliot Spitzer...
During the end of the healthcare debate, Obama reportedly told Democrats upset that the bill did not contain a public healthcare option that not passing it could put his presidency on the line and stall the liberal agenda for decades.
December 14, 2010
|Not the guy.|
|"What's your name, fat-body?"|
December 12, 2010
December 10, 2010
December 9, 2010
December 8, 2010
After watching President Obama give two speeches and a press conference in two days, I can now confidently summarize his logic on the tax deal.
Republicans are evil for making him do it. And Democrats are stupid for not understanding why he did it.
In other words, he's moral and wise, and you're not.
To call Obama's performance unpresidential doesn't do justice to his shotgun fury. After lashing out yesterday at his base -- The New York Times editorial page, "purists," liberals and "sanctimonious" Democrats -- he accused Republicans of holding tax cuts for the wealthy as "their Holy Grail." He also charged them with "hostage taking" because they insisted on blocking tax hikes for any Americans.
|Click the picture to check out the source.|
December 7, 2010
|Coming soon to a superpower near you.|
"It's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers — unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed."
December 6, 2010
|Amendments? Who does that?|
December 3, 2010
December 2, 2010
“We’re talking about huge sums of money going to bail out large foreign banks,” said Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont. “Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?”
November 29, 2010
November 26, 2010
November 25, 2010
November 24, 2010
St. Petersburg, Russia - China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday....
Pang Zhongying, who specializes in international politics at Renmin University of China, said the proposal is not challenging the dollar, but aimed at avoiding the risks the dollar represents.
November 23, 2010
|Click to enlarge.|
November 22, 2010
|Obama, on the left side of the post.|
November 21, 2010
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
November 19, 2010
November 18, 2010
House Democrats on Thursday rejected a GOP proposal to cut federal funding to National Public Radio, which has been under fire ever since it sacked Juan Williams last month.
The proposal, which was the winning entry this week in YouCut -- an anti-government spending program started by House Republicans earlier this year -- failed by a vote of 239-171.
November 17, 2010
November 16, 2010
November 15, 2010
November 12, 2010
November 11, 2010
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it was “simply unacceptable.”
“Any final proposal from the commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare,” she said in a statement.
“The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is extremely disappointing and something that should be vigorously opposed by the American people,” Sanders said in a statement. “The huge increase in the national debt in recent years was caused by two unpaid wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, a Medicare prescription drug bill written by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Wall Street bailout. Unlike Social Security, none of these proposals were paid for.”
I wrote my initial post in such a hot rage over the proposal to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits that I didn't take the time to edit my blog post (sorry about those strange sentence structures), or take the time to look at the details of the proposal. So now that I have calmly taken some time to do that, I have to admit that I was wrong: this thing is even worse than I originally thought, and I way understated the problems with it. The co-chairs and staff found every conceivable way to screw the middle class in ways big (very big) and small, but barely nicked the bankers who caused the meltdown of the economy, or the wealthy whose massive tax cuts ended the big budget surpluses as far as the eye could see coming out of the Clinton years.
Truly bizarro world - liberals mad at the Democrat commission and conservatives not warm to it, but agreeable that it's a good starting point. Where it leads at this point is unclear but it will prove to be an interesting road to travel.We are both pleasantly surprised and modestly encouraged by the program outlined by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairmen of the president’s deficit-reduction task force. There’s no VAT in sight, nor is there unrealistic happy-talk about balancing the budget through a federal Taylorism campaign or symbolic assaults on the unholy trinity of waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead, there is a serious series of concrete proposals for constraining entitlement costs, simplifying the tax code, and putting a leash on future federal expenditures. Whereas the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate had put the country on the road toward a national debt topping 200 percent of GDP — with $1 trillion a year in interest payments alone — the Bowles-Simpson program would stabilize the debt and begin reducing it. The program would keep the debt to 40 percent of GDP in 2037 and would bring annual deficits down to a more manageable 2.2 percent of GDP by 2015, and 1 percent in the following years.
The plan has serious defects, the main one being that it establishes a historically high level of federal claims on the economy — with government revenue equal to 21 percent of GDP — as the new normal. But it is a good start, and it represents the sort of bipartisan starting point that even the most Tea Party–steeped Republican insurgents could begin with while remaining true to their core conservative values. That is not something we’d expected to write about a proposal produced by a go-along-get-along Republican retiree and Bill Clinton’s old chief of staff.
Politically, doing Quantitative Easing will remove pressure from the issue of solving the budget deficits problem. A year delay in dealing with the deficits problem because of Quantitative Easing means over another trillion dollars added to the deficits, making the deficit problem even greater for the US. The US deficits will eventually increase the borrowing costs of the US government.
November 10, 2010
November 9, 2010
I'm sure Glenn Beck doesn't care too much about himself being vilified, but the point is that these supposedly more sophisticated and intellectual advocates of a greater society are ignorant in their treatment of Beck, and ignorant in their arguments. Hypocritical too. Granted it's hard to fit a detailed argument on a sign. But it's not hard to avoid the devil horns and Hitler mustaches.
November 8, 2010
- The Republicans need to remember they are on borrowed time to prove themselves. They needn't be worried about being held responsible for blockage coming from Democrats or the President. They need to be held accountable for their new majority in congress.
- As many are pointing out, the campaign for President in 2012 started on November 3rd. The Tea Parties didn't win as big a victory in the Senate as in Congress. The Executive branch is an even bigger prize, which means it will require even more work. That means Tea Parties need an earlier start than in the previous cycle.
- Keeping Tea Parties in the public eye will stop it from becoming yesterday's news or a forgotten movement. Having nothing on the horizon does not look good.
- When the new Congress is sworn in a Tea Party rally would prove to those in Washington that the movement is not to be ignored now that the election is over. That means, in contrast to the note above about Republicans, that Democrats should take notice too.
- It also helps destroy the myth that the Tea Party movement is not just a re-branding of conservative Republican voters but that the purpose of the movement is to put everyone in Washington on notice that the voters are not just Republicans but rather concerned citizens of all stripes.
November 6, 2010
November 5, 2010
November 4, 2010
Consider it a free market system of votes. If the public doesn't buy what the GOP are selling because they liken it to a Chevy Volt, they won't buy it. So the GOP will continually have to strive to do more for the next two years...For the GOP to go back to business as usual and pick up from 2006 is political suicide... But we have to keep in mind that the INCREDIBLE MESS the country is in is bigger than Obamacare (for any liberals reading, it's not all Bush's fault either). The problem took 70 years to get to this critical mass. It's going to take 20 years to fix and probably 100 years to pay it all off. But that doesn't mean that you don't take that first step because it's only a yard instead of a mile...The next Tea Party should be held on the very first day of the next Congress. Tea Parties must not stop. The Mainstream media might even cover them with a bit of fairness and vigor as they'll see it as targeting the GOP now. So what? The message is the important thing - fix the spending and fix the debt. After that, the important thing will be who listens.
November 3, 2010
November 2, 2010
On the surface it might make some political sense for Lieberman to switch sides. He would keep any seniority in committees and in a blue state, he has enough of a track record to maintain his liberal bona fides and win again. But that's where the story ends. Lieberman doesn't need to switch parties in the next election cycle to hope to survive a GOP Wave II in 2012. He's still a liberal leaning Senator in a liberal leaning state.
But even more important than the Specter example, the mostly leftward bent of his home state, is the state of the GOP. The Tea Party narrative will dominate the GOP agenda the next two years and perhaps beyond. That's too right leaning for Lieberman and it also leaves him out of any real power in his would-be new caucus. He'd be left standing on the sidelines or stepping into a major power struggle within the GOP. Why would he accept that? What would be his incentive? Would he accept a role as a new RINO in a grass roots conservative driven team? It makes no sense.
And why would Cornyn be saying any of this before the polls close? Is that not an admission that the GOP is going to come up short in the Senate? Could that not suppress the conservative turnout in today's close Senate races? Bad tactical move Senator. Bad tactical move.
On a personal level, does that not set up Cornyn as a possible Republican foil to the likes of Jim DeMint and the Tea Party? It looks like he's trying to counterbalance conservatives with another moderate/liberal. It looks like he buys the media hype about a Republican Civil War. Is that where he or anyone in the GOP elite need to be right now - being seen as fighting those who gave them another chance?
Try it tomorrow if you have 1 Senator short of a majority. Then you look like a hero if you pull it off and or as a cagey tactician for trying if you don't. Try it now and it looks desperate for whatever reason. That in itself is one more reason Lieberman is likely to turn up his nose to the offer and stay put.