RSS

Tag Archives: President Obama

Latest 2012 Presidential Polls (8 Aug 11 Edition)

As we move into the first week of August, here are the most current 2012 presidential election poll numbers.

USA Today/Gallup polling conducted from 4 to 7 August 2011 –who would be the Republican/Tea Party (GOTP) nominee if it all ended today:

Romney 24, Perry 17, Paul 14, Bachmann 13, Gingrich 7, Cain 4, Pawlenty 3, Huntsman 2 and bringing up the rear it’s Santorum with 1 …

So, Romney (aka Flopsy Mopsy) has pulled ahead slightly, with Perry (Pres of the 2nd Republic of Texas) slipping a little, possibly because of his evangelical prayer fest, and Palin (aka the Ice Queen) gets absolutely no mention in our current numbers; Paul moves up, while Bachmann (aka Krazy) is slipping farther behind no doubt due to her hubby’s business of praying the gay away – and her poll numbers too; Gingrich moves ahead a little, as Cain (aka the Pizza Man, who has never met a Muslim he hasn’t disliked) skids farther down; Pawlenty remains stagnant, Huntsman rises a little and Santorum slithers to the bottom of the political gene pool.

In Iowa – according to Rasmussen – Bachmann’s shine is fading 22; Mitt 21; Paul 16; Perry 12; Pawlenty 11; Gingrich 5 and Cain 4 …

In New Hampshire – according to PPP (D): Flopsy 25, Bachmann 18, Palin 11, Paul 9, Perry and Cain 7, Pawlenty and Huntsman 6 and Gingrich 4…

So, how does the GOTP pack stack up against President Obama?

If the election was held today, according to FOX PAC:

President Obama 47/Romney 41

President Obama 49/Bachmann 38

President Obama 47/Perry 37

President Obama 47/Pawlenty 37

President Obama 48/Cain 35

President Obama /Gingrich

President Obama / Palin

President Obama /Paul

President Obama /Huntsman

If the GOTP nomination circus – and the general election – had both ended this week Flopsy would be the GOTP candidate, and he would still have lost to the President.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 8, 2011 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Kit Lange’s Obama Predictions – 30 Months Later – Plus Kit Responds!

Two and a half years ago I was sent a copy of Kit Lange’s, “My Predictions for the New Obama ‘Presidency'”. Kit recently saw an earlier posting and asked if she could respond, and I said sure; below is the continuing scoring of the original predictions and my original rejoinders; added to these are Kit’s responses from today, and my additional retorts.

It was exciting to get Kit’s request and to be able to quip – if you will.

Kit: Israel will understand this election was the end of any type of assistance, military or otherwise, from the U.S., and will stop holding back their defense at the request of the American administration. Look for a first strike on Iran soon, as well as increased activity by the Israeli military in general. Israel is on her own now, and God help us all because of it.

LT: This is still a complete unsubstantiated pile of right-wing speak. Israel is still receiving substantial aid from the United States in the forms of funding, intel and military support; 0-1

Kit: First of all, Israel has, in fact, seen a definite shift in relations with the U.S. One only has to refer to the recent demand by Obama that Israel revert back to the previous borders, giving up even more of their land. As anyone knows, this puts Israel in a completely indefensible position with the Golan Heights. Relations with Israel are incredibly strained at the moment, and everyone knows it.

LT: It wasn’t a “demand” it was a “request” of Israel to accept the President’s proposal as a basis for negotiations and as a way to head off Palestinian plans to unilaterally declare an independent state. We’re still waiting for that “first strike” on Iran, which I will agree will happen the first time they fire up a reactor, but that would occur regardless of who was President. Still 0-1 …

Kit: Look for Iranian retaliation–against American targets. That goes doubly for other terrorist organizations.

LT: Still waiting, and thus far nothing …

Kit: Secondly, two months ago the Supreme Leader of Iran called the U.S. terrorists, and pledged continued support of groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Just because the actual acts haven’t happened yet doesn’t mean they won’t. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/25/ml_iran_terrorism_conference

LT: Wow, the Supreme Leader of Iran called the U.S. terrorists, and pledged continued support of terrorist groups? OK, you need to find some other kind of proof beyond what every Iranian leader has said since the overthrow of the Shah … there’s a great deal of difference between a bully threatening to do something and actually doing it; 0-2…

Kit:  Look for far-left justices appointed to the Supreme Court, effectively tying up the entire government in a trifecta of liberal humanism, the buzzwords of which remain empty platitudes like “hope and change,” and the ultimate goal of which is socialism–and soon, sharia law.

LT: Thus far President Obama has appointed two highly qualified women to the Supreme Court, neither of which could be classified as “far left”. And so-far there is no evidence of Sharia law being enacted anywhere in the country as a result of any Obama appointee …

Kit: The two new female justices are quite liberal. Sotomayor has voted with the liberal bloc on every decision she has made thus far. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/08/nation/la-na-court-sotomayor-20100609

Kagan, also, has voted strictly within the liberal bloc. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303627104576414211191945474.html

In addition, she has a pointed conflict of interest within cases involving Obamacare.

LT: Voting against Thomas et.al, doesn’t make Sonia Sotomayor “liberal” as much as it makes her sane. Considering the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, i.e., “Citizens United” I’d say she’s downright main stream; at any rate, the two appointees are not “far-left”, and the only folks trying to insert Sharia law into America appear to be the far-right uber-conservative Republican Tea Partista (GOTP) candidates calling for basically a Christian Theocracy with the likes of Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann at the helm; as far as Kagan having a “conflict of interest” regarding Obamacare, that charge extends far more to Thomas – whose wife is financially tied at the hip to health care – than to Kagan; 0-3 …

Kit: Military cases of troops being tried and convicted for killing the enemy in combat will continue to rise – and the conviction/plea – bargain rate will stay at nearly 100%, as the government seeks to use the best men and women this country has to offer as sacrificial lambs on the altar of global appeasement. Those brave and honorable men who currently reside in prison cells across the country, stripped of their rank, their careers, families, and their good name, will not taste free air again for many years. Their sacrifices and their stories will be forgotten by the general public, remembered only by those of us who continue to fight for them.

As for military troops being tried and convicted for doing their jobs…really? You may not be reading the news, but there are currently more than ten troops incarcerated at Leavenworth for just that. Add in the Fort Lewis cases, and you have yourself a true prediction. “Hasn’t happened?” Try again. [In all fairness, Spc Jeremy Morlock, and Spc Adam Winfield did plead guilty to their crimes….however, as someone who has sat in on some of the proceedings in person, I can say with absolute certainty that Spc Michael Wagnon and PFC Andrew Holmes are innocent of their charges, as is SSG Calvin Gibbs.]

LT: If, as you say, SPC Wagnon, PFC Holmes and SSG Gibbs are innocent of the charges then the military court will discover that. The charges being brought against these soldiers are extremely serious, these are not trifling charges lain on the altar of “global appeasement”. These men are charged with committing premeditated murder of civilians in “staged combat” situations. In effect they were “hits”. If the evidence supports the charges then these are hardly “brave and honorable men”. If these soldiers are acquitted,

On 15 Jan 10, in the village of La Mohammad Kalay fifteen year old Gul Mudin was doing farm work for his father. He was unarmed and allegedly murdered “by means of throwing a fragmentary grenade at him and shooting him with a rifle,” an action carried out by SPC Jeremy Morlock and allegedly PFC Andrew Holmes under the direction of Gibbs.

On 22 Feb 10, using thermal imagery, the soldiers discovered Marach Agha curled in a ball by a roadside. Gibbs and SPC Michael S. Wagnon allegedly shot him and placed a Kalashnikov next to the body to justify the killing. SPC Jeremy Morlock plead guilty for his death. The army later said it believed Marach Agha to be deaf or mentally retarded. The soldiers allegedly kept part of his skull.

On 2 May 10, Mullah Adahdad was attacked with a grenade and fatally shot, allegedly by Gibbs, Morlock, and Winfield. Three days after Adahdad was killed members of a Stryker platoon returned to his village. Tribal elders had complained to Army officers that the cleric had been unarmed and that the shooting was a setup. “This guy was shot because he took an aggressive action against coalition forces,” Lt. Stefan Moye, the platoon leader, explained to village residents in Qualaday. “We didn’t just (expletive) come over here and just shoot him randomly. And we don’t do that.” This conversation was recorded by embedded photojournalist Max Becherer.

The Military Court will determine the validity of the charges; 0-4 …

Kit: Look for the slow but steady erosion of rights you have enjoyed for your entire lives–all the while being told it’s “for your own good.”

LT: Can’t name a single one my rights that has been eroded in the past two years; 0-5

Kit: Restrictions on gun ownership,

LT: Hasn’t happened. In fact thus far, President Obama has done more to guarantee the free exercise of the Second Amendment than any of his recent predecessors.

Kit: “President Obama has done more to guarantee the free exercise of the Second Amendment than any of his recent predecessors…” Care to name any examples? Sources?

LT: President Obama has allowed gun owners to carry weapons on Amtrak trains and in federal parks. No other President – not even conservative ones – has ever extended gun rights to that extent; 0-6…

Kit: …“encouraged dependence on the ever-growing federal government” hasn’t happened either? Have you seen the exponential growth of people on welfare assistance since he took office? Or are you going to simply blame that on the “horrible” economy he “inherited” from Bush?

LT: There’s a difference between the President “encouraging dependence” and the fact more people have needed assistance. Unemployment numbers rose after Bush/Cheney left office – due mainly to their administration having tanked the economy. As the President approaches re-election he has to take partial blame now for the fact the economy is still performing badly, and he will be attacked on that. However, when almost every piece of legislation passed by the Democratic House was blocked by a record number of Republican filibusters in the Senate, and since not one jobs bill has been produced by the GOTP House, there’s more than enough blame to go around. President still hasn’t “encouraged dependence”; 0-7 …

Kit: More nanny-state provisions will be put into place to protect the “disadvantaged” and the “poor,” (read: lazy, uneducated, unwilling to better themselves) {Wow! Sounding a bit racist} even while groups like the unborn, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and terminally ill are slowly pushed toward euthanasia. Of course, this will be done with feel-good phrases like “death with dignity,” “not wanting to be a burden,” and “merciful release from suffering,” all of which ignore the basic fact that we are killing people without their consent for the “good of the people.” Before you tell me I’m crazy, let’s just remember that Barack Obama was the ONLY senator in the Illinois state senate to vote against providing medical care for babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive an abortion.

LT: Then Senator Obama voted against the bill because it was a bill that would restrict a woman’s right to choice, not just to provide medical funding to help babies who survived late term abortions.

Unfortunately you chose to make claims that people voted for the President because he was black, not I. In conservative speak, when you refer to the “lazy, uneducated, unwilling to better themselves” that means minorities, specifically blacks and Latinos. It goes back to Reagan’s “welfare queens in Cadillacs” reference. He wasn’t referring to poor Appalachian families. You chose to use the phrase, We have traded experience for color, freedom for slavery – and the irony is that the average American sheeple thinks their vote somehow righted an ancient wrong, somehow ENDED the specter of slavery and ushered in some beautiful era of liberty”. Those words were meant for the angry whites out there wanting to be angry at a President because of his race, and angry with those who voted for him by believing it was solely because he was black. The idea Bush/Cheney sucked so badly, or had screwed things up so badly, never entered yours or others minds when evaluating McCain/Palin’s loss.

Also, I haven’t seen the “push toward euthanasia” you spoke of … 0-8

Kit: Also, look for taxes to go up. Yes, they’ll go up.

LT: Actually, the majority of Americans got a tax cut shortly after President Obama took office and he supported extending the Bush Tax cuts, 0-9…

Kit: You think the economy is bad now? Just wait. You’ll have the most expensive “free” health care ever. Bread lines aren’t just for Russians anymore.

LT: An economy driven into the ground by the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration; which has given our country the largest expansion of the Federal Government ever, coupled with the largest Federal deficit ever, 0-10 …

Kit: We have traded experience for color, freedom for slavery – and the irony is that the average American sheeple thinks their vote somehow righted an ancient wrong, somehow ENDED the specter of slavery and ushered in some beautiful era of liberty.

LT: I’m just a simple guy who happened to grow up in the south hearing racist comments all of the time, and this is a racist commentary. I did not vote for President Obama because he was black. Or because I felt I needed to somehow correct the “specter of slavery”. I voted for him because I could not continue to support the failed policies of President George W. Bush. I could not continue to support an Administration that had prosecuted an illegal war based on half truths and lies, and that allowed my brothers and sisters in uniform to be used as thugs and bullies. I can no longer say, “American soldiers don’t torture prisoners.” Of course if you’ve never bothered to serve, or to swear an oath to protect and defend, or buried buddies who have died in combat, or later committed suicide because they couldn’t live with themselves any more, than you couldn’t begin to understand why I voted the way I did.

Kit: “…In reality, we are about to be less free than you ever thought possible.”

LT: This has already been addressed …

Kit: I watched the faces of those crowded into the mob (excuse the pun) in Chicago. They stared at Obama like he was a god, an idol, a panacea to their every want and need. We have truly failed as a nation if we are at the point where we feel we must look to one man to take care of us all, to be our father figure and our sugar daddy. We have lost not only the “can-do” attitude of past generations, but the “MUST-do” attitude of our forefathers. We have allowed ourselves to become reduced from Patrick Henry’s proud cry of “liberty or death” to the sniveling, whining idea that we are owed something. We have gone from being the honorable defenders of freedom, to being told we are the problem.

LT: After eight years of President George W. Bush’s administration people were relieved. Pure and simple; here was a chance for America to start over. Unfortunately, Airman Lange’s idea of “the honorable defenders of freedom” has lost its luster because of the Bush administration’s policies. Because of places like GITMO, and Abu Ghraib, places where Jefferson’s ideas of “all men being created equal” were spat upon; where people were tortured and humiliated, in the name of the American Ideal. My father, my father-in-law and others of the “greatest generation” fought against governments who treated prisoners like this. It was difficult to conceive of an America where common decency and honor no longer had a place. Perhaps now it will once again …

Kit: The eyes of Obama and McCain were also telling. McCain acted with class and grace in his concession speech, offering the most honorable response I’ve seen yet. I don’t agree with all of McCain’s positions, but it cannot be denied that the man has served his nation, at permanent and severe detriment to himself, for half a century. His eyes were clear and sincere, honest. His speech underlined the very reasons why, of the two men offered, he was hands down the best choice.

LT: Senator McCain served his country well and faithfully, but he was not the best choice. To continue four more years of failed foreign and domestic policies was not the better choice. To support four more years of torture, and the slow erosion of human liberties that we supposedly “hold to be self evident” was not the better choice. I too watched Senator McCain’s concession speech. He was magnificent. The crowd however, booed and acted shamefully when the Senator mentioned his opponent. Not a reaction I want to be associated with. Senator McCain is a hero. That doesn’t mean he should have been President. His choice of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate firmly shoved me into President Obama’s camp. She was not only unqualified, but was a pathetically transparent attempt to sway woman voters to vote for McCain. She was the best, most highly qualified, conservative woman Senator McCain could find? This – to me – spoke volumes about his own abilities to be President.

Kit: On the other hand, Obama’s eyes were cold, calculating. His manner was smug and still carried the arrogance he has always had. His facial expression was one of barely disguised disdain for everything people like me believe in. His body language was smooth, polished, too much so. He talked of patriotism as though it is a value he is familiar with, and yet, his horrifying attitude toward the country he now leads is as well-documented as his friendships with those who seek its demise.

LT: Oh no! He pals around with terrorists! Not true; in fact, not only documented, but well-documented as not true. President Obama served on a board with someone who allegedly committed criminal acts during an extremely unpopular war; acts for which, in 1973, the Federal Government requested the dismissal of the charges against him. Note, the charges were dismissed at the request of the Federal Government. I also have watched President Obama speak, as I also watched Senator McCain speak. I also watched each and every debate between the two. I saw nothing of what the author speaks. President Obama did not speak in any way that she – or any other veteran, or currently serving member of the military should take as “disdain for everything people like me believe in”. Who exactly are the people like Ms. Lange?

Kit: He is charismatic to those who don’t know what to look for …

LT: like an aircraft mechanic knows? Is this standard aircraft mechanic training in the Air Force now? Guess I somehow missed the “anti-charismatic training…

Kit: And he is inspiring to those who cannot or will not think for themselves.

LT: I made my decision to vote for President Obama not based upon his charisma, nor because – thank you very much – I can’t think for myself; as compared to the legions of “ditto-heads” who make up their minds based on this kind of hate-filled vitriolic prose, filled with half-truths and innuendo.

Kit: However, too many who voted for him are guilty of the most dangerous kind of hypocrisy. You see, we are told daily that we must not see color, just mankind. (We are all family, you know, or so we’re told.)

LT: Again, comments that are sounding more than a little racist, in my opinion.

Kit: And yet Barack Obama was handed the White House on a silver platter by a fawning media, a bevy of foreign donors (who, to this day and in violation of U.S. election laws, remain nameless and unaccounted for), and a populace who voted based on color instead of right and wrong, even in the face of the most damning evidence against a Presidential candidate in many years, perhaps ever.

LT: Voted based on color? Ms. Lange just doesn’t get it. George W. Bush gave Senator Barrack Obama the White House, not the color of President Obama’s skin. Hate-filled, fear mongering, gloom and doom right wing talk radio handed President Obama the White House. President Reagan – a self-proclaimed FDR Democrat – used to say, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” I feel the same way about my Republican Party. If Limbaugh, Hannity and Lange are the example of the modern Republican Party, than all I can say is the GOP is no longer the party of Ronald Reagan; it’s becoming the party of David Duke.

Kit: It is said that the people receive the government they deserve. Sadly, I fear that’s correct. We have become complacent, unwilling to see the writing on the wall, content to frolic in the warm water without bothering to notice that it’s been getting hotter by the minute. We are two seconds from a rolling boil, and perhaps it is already too late. So, liberals, enjoy your victory. Jump around. Have a party, file for your free grants. Scream “Gimme my handout!” and make fun of those of us who fought to make sure your “messiah” didn’t get access to the most powerful position in the world. Just remember when it all comes crashing down: You own the White House, the Congress, and soon the Supreme Court. You have no one to blame but yourselves for the mess you just created.

LT: It’s strange that only the right-wing “conservative” talk show types have ever referred to President Obama as the “Messiah”. I have never thought of him in this way, and nor would I. Again, as said above, the GOP has no one to thank for President Obama’s victory except for President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and now it would appear Kit Lange.

Kit: “if you’ve never bothered to serve, or to swear an oath to protect and defend, or buried buddies who have died in combat, or later committed suicide because they couldn’t live with themselves any more, than you couldn’t begin to understand why I voted the way I did.”

I did bother to serve, I did swear an oath to protect and defend. I have known those who died. And I can’t begin to understand why you voted the way you did. In addition, your characterization of the war as “illegal” is just more of the same liberal tripe that has been floating around for ten years.

LT: What else can you characterize the invasion of Iraq? It was based on lies – there were no WMDs; Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attacks; there was no valid evidence Iraq was building a nuclear bomb. Bush lied, and sent us into a war that cost lives and treasure for what purpose, to get rid of a personal enemy? Al-Qaida didn’t exist in Iraq until after we invaded.  Everyone – outside of right-wing world recognizes the invasion of Iraq was wrong, ill-conceived and illegal.

Kit: “My father, my father-in-law and others of the “greatest generation” fought against governments who treated prisoners like this.”

Yes, they did. And do you know how they won? By being more brutal than their enemy. By killing more of them than they killed of us. By doing whatever it took to win. War is brutal, said Sherman, and the more brutal it is, the sooner it is over. As for the idea that we are “humiliating” prisoners, I say that those who kill thousands of Americans gladly and with no remorse deserve no esteem, nor do they deserve anything more than the consideration they gave their victims.

LT: American soldier in World War II, Korea and Vietnam did not torture and murder prisoners. This is a sad and troubling line we crossed during the Bush/Cheney war years, and one from which it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to cross back over. Not one piece of valuable intelligence was gained from the torture of prisoners approved of by Bush/Cheney. When you adopt the ways of the terrorists you become as bad as the terrorists …

Kit: As for me, I’m buying my handguns this week so I have an answer for those who will come try to take them.

LT: What? She didn’t already own any guns?

Kit: Do we really need to go over Obama’s associations again? Two years later, they are MORE documented, not less. And it’s a lot more than one guy who had charges dismissed.

LT: “It’s a lot more than one guy who had charges dismissed” but I’m not going to mention any of them, I’ll just leave the accusation hanging out there, a few whispered innuendos if you will. If this is the logic that’s going to be used by the conservative-right, then it’s a logic that can be applied to their side as well. Does Michelle Bachmann have the same believes about gays and lesbians that her husband has? After all how can she have lived with a man who believes homosexuals are barbarians for so long and not also believe the same way?

Kit: I’m not even going to bother addressing some of the rest due to a lack of time, inclination, and a sudden realization that it’s a waste of my time. Most of your piece is simply a list of personal attacks anyway. I will say this though: I do own guns, and Obama has done nothing here in WA to ‘preserve” gun rights.

LT: What has he done to take away your gun rights? Nothing; there have been no presidential edicts curtailing your right to own guns.

Well, we still have 0-10 on predictions and whole lot of ring-wing hyper-bole. This is the type of nonsense that drove me from the Republican Party.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 8, 2011 in Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Ralph Nader looking for Democrat to challenge President Obama?

Ralph Nader, the self-proclaimed consumer advocate and perennial “third-party” presidential candidate/nut-job, has reportedly announced that he would personally work to find a Democrat to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012. He is claiming that a primary challenge is a near certainty.

“What [President Obama] did this week is just going to energize that effort,” Nader promised in an interview with The Daily Caller. “I would guess that the chances of there being a challenge to Obama in the primary are almost 100 percent.”

The only question, he said, is the stature of that opponent and whether it will be either “an ex-senator or an ex-governor” or “an intellectual leader or an environmental leader.”

Or maybe it will be someone from the realm of Nader’s own imagination maybe?

According to the Associated Press (AP), the Public Citizen founder said he disapproved of how Obama handled recent debt ceiling negotiations, and claimed the deal’s failings prompted this week’s dramatic stock market drop.

“He made a deal that did not provide for a public works project to create jobs all over the country. All he did was he agreed to cut spending,” Nader said. “And that’s what the market is reacting to.”

President Obama “shouldn’t have even had that problem,” Nader said. “When he surrendered the continuation of tax cuts for the rich last December, the least he could have gotten was the debt ceiling increased. He didn’t even do that. So he set himself up for this hostage situation by the Republicans and it’s his own fault. And the country and the workers are paying the price.”

So, the Market is reacting to cuts? It really wanted increased spending and tax increases? OK, sure it did. Ralph needs to spend a little less time on the mushroom with the Caterpillar, and a little more time in the “real” world. Which Party does he think the Market is tied to? It isn’t the President’s.

The Market is reacting to the “hostage situation” the Tea Partistas put the country through and the razors edge escape from the same. While we no doubt need more spending in the form of an enhanced stimulus package to help the economy continue to expand, that was not the time, nor place, for such a fight.

Nader ran for president in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 as a left-wing alternative to the Democratic nominee, but has decided another campaign is “very unlikely.”

“I’ve done my rounds,” he said.

So, now the country will wait with baited breath to see what fringe liberal Ralph can dig up to run as his sacrificial lamb to the slaughter.

OK, enough of this nonsense! It’s time for Democrats to stop whining about how the President hasn’t done enough and grow up and come to the realization of just what he has accomplished. For his first two years in office there were more than 200 bills passed by the Democratic House which never saw the light of day because of a record number of filibusters by Republicans like Jim DeMint and Mitch McConnell in the Senate, and since this past January the House has been held hostage by the wild fringe Republican Tea Partistas.

We now have the beginnings of national health care in this country. Does it go far enough? No, but it can be expanded, and that will only happen with a Democrat in the White House and the House of Representatives flipped back to Democratic control and the Democratic seats in the Senate expanded. Then you can see the program expand as it needs to, so every American can stop worrying about how they’ll pay for health care.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is history, and civil rights have taken a giant step forward. Would this be possible with Romney/Bachmann in the White House? No, it wouldn’t.

Wake up progressives! The current crop of Tea Partista Republicans is dangerous. They will gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Veteran’s benefits, and will turn back the clock on federal regulation on any host of issues protecting Americans from the new generation of Robber Barons.

So stop your whining and get up and get energized; become involved and help keep things rolling, and help flip the House back to a Democratic majority, and help expand the Democratic majority in the Senate. The Republican Tea Partistas have overreached, and 2012 is the time to chop their political hand off clear up to the elbow.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 5, 2011 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , ,

President Obama seeks tax credits to aid vets?

According to the Associated Press (AP), President Barack Obama is asking Congress to approve new initiatives to help some of America’s 1 million unemployed military veterans find work, including tax credits for companies that hire out-of-work vets.

The proposal is part of the President’s efforts to return to a focus on jobs after spending weeks fighting with Tea Partista terrorists in Congress who held raising debt ceiling hostage for most of the summer.

Last month’s jobs report was dismal, with the country’s unemployment rate ticking up to 9.2 percent and job growth slowing nearly to a halt.

The White House reportedly says the sluggish economy creates additional challenges for veterans looking to enter the civilian labor market. About 1 million veterans are unemployed, according the administration, including former 260,000 service members who joined the military after the 9-11pt, and the administration sets the unemployment rate for the post-Sept. 11 service members at about 13.3 percent.

The main features of the President’s proposal, according to administration officials, are two tax credits for companies hiring unemployed veterans:

– A “Returning Heroes” tax credit for 2012-2013. Companies that hire unemployed veterans would receive a $2,400 tax credit. That tax credit would increase to $4,800 if the veteran has been unemployed for six months or more.

– A two-year extension of the “Wounded Warriors” tax credit, which gives companies that hire veterans with service-related disabilities a $4,800 credit. If the veteran has been unemployed for six months of more, the tax credit increases to $9,600.

The tax credits would require congressional approval. Administration officials said the White House would start working with lawmakers on the proposal after Congress returns from its recess in September, with the estimated cost of the tax credits being $120 million.

President Obama will reportedly challenge private companies to hire or train 100,000 veterans by the end of 2013. He is expected to name some companies that already have committed to taking part in that effort.

The president also will announce a joint initiative between the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments to come up with a “reverse boot camp” program that would help train service members for the civilian workforce as they wind down their time in the military.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican Tea Partistas (GOTP) in Congress and those running for the party’s presidential nomination will react to these proposals; no doubt some will attack claiming we don’t have money to support any additional spending. To that sort of claim the  President should then say the money will come from a tax on all corporations who made money hand over fist (Haliburton) while Americans fought and bled – and continue to fight and bleed – in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can’t fight a war and not pay for them, and a big part of that cost is taking care of veterans after the fight is over.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 5, 2011 in Veteran's

 

Tags: , , ,

What’s in this deal?

The White House is saying the so-called “bi-partisan” debt ceiling deal “removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;

“Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;

“Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;

“Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;

“Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction; the President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.”

The “deal” – if approved by both houses of Congress (something that remains to be seen) – “immediately enacts a 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.”

The “deal” authorizes the President (by Congress – if it passes) to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013. Everyone needs to understand that the financial side of all things in government originates in the United States House of Representatives – currently controlled by the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) – and it’s upon their collective shoulders that debt originates from. The President can’t spend a dime without Congressional – particularly the House – approval.

The “deal” creates a bipartisan committee (also being dubbed the uber-committee) process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011. This is something never done before; it’s extra-constitutional in nature and will prove interesting to see how – or if – it functions, and to see if its creation – or decisions – isn’t soon challenged before the Supreme Court.

The “deal” also creates an “enforcement mechanism” established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction has been put in place so that if the uber-committee fails, then the enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts. It’s the Terminator for budget reduction; of course once it is released it will be fascinating to see if it can be controlled, or if it will simply run a muck through the halls of Congress saying “Hasta la vista, baby”.

The bi-partisan “deal” – if approved – supposedly removes the cloud of economic uncertainty until 2013, eliminating the economy to move forward without the mill stone of the Tea Party Congress dragging it down; which is a good thing since most independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies – meaning anyone not on the payroll of FOX PAC and the Heritage Fundation (yes it’s a deliberate misspelling) – have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment. The plus side is – if Congress approves it – that this puts the crazies in the closet until after the 2012 election when hopefully most of them have been defeated and the Congress can reach a normal level of grid-lock as compared to the Mad Hatter’s Wild Tea Cup Ride we’ve all been exposed to of late.

The “deal” is supposed to provide more than $900 billion in savings over 10 years by capping discretionary spending including savings of $350 billion from the base defense budget; which are the first defense cuts since the 1990s and which are supposed to be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security. Which means these cuts may never happen at all. To be sure the war rabid Tea Party members of Congress will never vote to cut defense spending, not while the specter of “Islamic Fascism” is repeatedly resurrected whenever FOX PAC needs a ratings boost.

But it doesn’t just cut defense spending; the other $550 billion will be taken from domestic discretionary spending, which will – if approved – drop to the lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower was President (1953-1961).

Allegedly the “deal” is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the uber-committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice. The fact the President will have the option to push for tax increases may be the deal breaker for the Tea Party Freshman, who claim they will never vote for any tax increase. This appears to be the spoonful of sugar meant to help the medicine of domestic cuts easier to swallow by the Democrats.

Additionally, it appears that the Terminator enforcement mechanism complements the forcing event already in law which is the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts; it appears it will force the uber-committee’s hand into allowing the Bush tax cuts to finally expire on 1 January 2013. In effect, if the uber-committee fails to come up with balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts. If the President is re-elected – with seems entirely possible – it is certainly probable that the Bush Tax Cuts will expire, with or without a deal from the uber-committee as nothing says the President has to allow them to continue.

While there will be cuts in domestic spending, it appears the President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Tea Party Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The Terminator enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. It will be interesting to see where the uber-committee finds places to cut considering all the programs protected. Of course all of this is dependent on whether or not the severely weakened Speaker – John Boehner – has the political muscle to force it through the House.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 1, 2011 in Debt Ceiling

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Agreement reached?

The Associated Press (AP) is reporting there’s been some sort of agreement met between the Democratic Party and the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) ending the perilous stalemate over raising the debt ceiling that could have ultimately ended in our nation defaulting on its debts for the first time in its history. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders announced the so-called historic agreement Sunday night.

Allegedly the proposed agreement would slice at least $2.4 trillion from federal spending over a decade, a steep price for many Democrats, too little for many Republicans.

Of course it is only a proposed agreement because the jack wagons of the Tea Party have yet to see it and comment on it, much less it hasn’t been voted on by the GOTP controlled House, so, it may be all for nothing.

The deal, with scant time remaining before Tuesday’s deadline for paying government bills, “will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America,” President Obama said.

Default, the President said, “would have had a devastating effect on our economy.”

Of course Humpty Dumpty (Speaker John Boehner) was all gloom and doom even in reaching an agreement, “It isn’t the greatest deal in the world, but it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town,” he said on a conference call, according to GOP officials. He added the agreement was “all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down.”

So, there are no tax increases? That’s OK, those are coming when the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and since the President will be re-elected and the GOTP will probably lose its control of the House because of this nonsense, those cuts are going to become history. Then the wealthiest 2% will once again pay at least part of its share.

It appears the proposed debt increase will carry the country through to 2013; but the Tea Party Cujo’s in the House only want it to carry out for a few months. The President has said he would veto anything less than raising the debt ceiling enough to carry the country through the 2012 elections.

We’ll see if Boehner has the leadership credits to get it passed through the House; if not, then he’s through, though that’s pretty much assured now as the Tea Party smells blood in the water and is going to attack. Frankenstein’s monster has come home. Of course it could very well be that Boehner has found a way to ally moderate Republicans and Democrats to incapacitate the Tea Party freshman; if that’s the case, then the Tea Party’s 15 minutes of fame in the Congress may have passed.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 31, 2011 in Debt Ceiling

 

Tags: , , , , ,

No one is asking for blank check, grow up already

According to the Associated Press (AP) Republican Tea Party (GOTP) House Speaker John Boehner says President Barack Obama wants a blank check from Congress to raise the debt ceiling, but that he’s not going to get one.

OK, Bonehead, you’re a liar and it’s time to grow up. The President hasn’t asked for a blank check. He’s asking for Congress to extend the debt ceiling, that’s it. So, I say again grow up. And oh, quit lying.

Boehner says the solution to the debt crisis isn’t complicated. He says if you spend more than you take in, you have to spend less.

Or Boney you have to spend less and get more revenue; or hasn’t it occurred to you that some people will cut spending and get a second job, or a better job, thus bringing in more income – also called revenue? Grow up and understand that defending the wealthiest 2% while asking the poor, the elderly and the handicapped to take cuts isn’t just wrong it’s very wrong.

The House speaker did say the U.S. cannot default. He said the crisis would be over if the Senate approves a new House Republican plan to be voted on in the House this week, and if the president signs it.

Or Bones it could be over if you’d start thinking with your head; and in case you don’t know, it’s that lump about three feet above your buttocks. This could all be over if you passed a clean bill simply raising the debt ceiling though 2013. That’s all; that’s it, nothing complicated. It’s time for you to shut your orange pie hole, stop lying, grow up and raise the debt ceiling; then – and only then – you can start looking into serious – real – cuts in spending, while looking how to raise revenue. Any real economist will tell you that you need both, any real economist being anyone not working for FOX PAC or the Heritage Foundation, or who doesn’t claim Reaganomics works.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 26, 2011 in Debt Ceiling

 

Tags: , , , ,

Boehner says the GOTP is ready to act alone on debt deal?

Republican Tea Party (GOTP) House Speaker John Boehner has apparently been paying one too many visits to his friendly neighborhood tavern. He is claiming that the GOTP has readied a plan to prevent the first government default in U.S. history and said the GOTP would act alone if Democrats didn’t go along.

Pure political grand standing; that’s like saying grandma was going to eat the corn on the cob with our without her dentures; sorry to puncture the Speaker’s thought bubble, but the GOTP House can pass whatever it wants, but it can’t go any further without the Democrats – who thankfully control both the Senate and the White House, and President Obama has said he’ll veto any GOTP plan which fails to extend the nation’s borrowing power into 2013.

Boehner’s plan would reportedly cut spending by at least $1 trillion (if you recall the President asked for $4 trillion in cuts – too much for the “we’ve got to cut spending” GOTP – and extend the federal borrowing limit by a slightly smaller dollar amount, into 2012. Why can’t he go for $4 trillion in cuts and pas the extension into 2013? It’s simple; Boehner doesn’t have control of his party, the Tea Party – led by Eric Cantor do.

“I would prefer to have a bipartisan approach to solve this problem. If that is not possible, I and my Republican colleagues in the House are prepared to move on our own,” Boehner said.

Where do think they’re moving to all alone? Defeat in 2012 quite probably. Facts are there are more Democratic voters (72 million registered in 2004) in the U.S than Republicans (55 million) with Independents a close third (42 million) and the latter are moderates not rabid far right uber-conservative ideologues. Boehner may be one of the few Speakers to only hold the gavel for one rotation of the electoral wheel. He’s on course to become the largest failure in that position since Newt Gingrich.

White House chief of staff William Daley has reportedly said President Obama is insisting any package must expand the debt ceiling beyond the next presidential and congressional elections and into 2013 to provide economic certainty. Daley said anything short would be a gimmick and prompt the world to say: “These people just can’t get their act together.”

Well, the world would be right – at least where the GOTP is concerned. The current conservative House ran on jobs, and has yet to produce one bill to help fix unemployment. It has however submitted more than 100 bills aimed at limiting Roe v. Wade.

“There will be a two-stage process. It’s just not physically possible to do all of this in one step,” Boehner said amid White House insistence that the debt limit be extended beyond 2012. “I know the president is worried about his next election. But, my God, shouldn’t he be worried about the country?”

Well Boehner that’s the pot calling the kettle black now isn’t it. Shouldn’t the Republican Tea Party Congress be more worried about the country than in defeating the President? Maybe the Speaker should talk to Senator McConnell about those ideas; after all it was the Minority Leader who insisted his most important job was to defeat the President, to keep Barrack Obama from being re-elected.

Problem is simple; GOTP doesn’t want to do anything that might help the President. Its members don’t care about the country. The GOTP talks the talk about honor and duty and country and then proposes slashing the benefits of the Greatest Generation to the poverty level while protecting the tax loop holes and lower taxes of the rich.

Boehner is one of the worse Speakers in the nation’s history and he knows his position is extremely tenuous, and he’s ready and willing to do anything to retain the Speakership. He is not concerned with cutting the debt or the deficit; if he were truly concerned he would have taken the President’s $4 trillion proposal and run with it. But to do so would have helped the President, it’s as simple as that. He’s as phony as his tear streaked tan.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 24, 2011 in Debt Ceiling

 

Tags: , , , , ,

McConnell says ‘a big deal’ is off the table?

The Senate’s Republican/Tea Party (GOTP) so-called leader Mitch McConnell is reported as saying a major proposal on cutting spending that’s being pushed by the President is off the table as far as the GOTP is concerned.

He says the tax increases that are part of the $4 trillion deficit-reduction package backed by President Obama are the reason.

McConnell whined on “FOX PAC News Sunday” that raising taxes is a bad idea given the country’s weak economy.

GOTP House Speaker John Boehner reportedly said late yesterday that House GOTP members would also not accept tax increases in President Obama’s plan. Boehner further said he’s looking at a deal about half the size of the president’s proposal.

We have Boehner – on record – saying he won’t support $4 trillion dollars in budget cuts, but that he will support $2 trillion dollars in cuts, and McConnell – whose only goal in life is defeating President Obama – saying he won’t support any tax increases. So, this leaves us where? It leaves us knowing Boehner and McConnell aren’t – in any way – serious about cutting either the federal budget or the deficit, and that it’s all political smoke and mirrors to the GOTP.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 10, 2011 in Debt Ceiling

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Boehner seeks smaller $2 trillion deal?

And so it begins; Republican/Tea Party (GOTP) House Speaker John Boehner has sent a message to President Barack Obama saying that he while he shares the President’s desire to cut the deficit, he wants to pursue a much smaller $2 trillion reduction deal, and not the larger $4 trillion effort sought by the White House.

The vaunted leader of the GOTP House has flinched and round one goes to the President. And what’s the Speaker’s reasoning of asking for a lower number? The President is asking for tax increases on the top 2%, and the GOTP just can’t support that; instead, he said negotiators should focus on deficit reductions identified by a bipartisan group led by Vice President Joe Biden.

OK and what exactly does that mean? Which specific deficit reductions identified by the bipartisan group are you supporting Mr. Speaker? Cue crickets …

“The good news is, we agree on some of the big things,” President Obama said. “We agree that after a decade of racking up deficits and debt, we finally need to get our fiscal house in order. We agree that to do that, both sides are going to have to step outside their comfort zones and make some political sacrifices.”

Of course Boehner has said that the two sides were far apart.

“It’s not like there’s some imminent deal about to happen,” he said. “There are serious disagreements about how to deal with this very serious problem.”

The President’s larger plan would combine new tax revenues and significant spending reductions in large government programs.

GOTP House members are saying media reports suggesting Boehner was willing to entertain the possibility of higher tax revenues as part of a “grand bargain” that included cuts to benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare are greatly exaggerated.

“Conservatives are just not going to vote for a tax increase on this economy,” Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said, reflecting a common view among his GOTP compadres. “It’s just not going to happen.”

So, the GOTP will refuse to endorse tax increases of any kind – especially on the wealthiest of Americans – while no doubt being more than willing to throw the elderly and the poor under the bus, and if they won’t agree to a higher deficit reduction number, and they won’t agree to tax increases on the rich, then they’ll come across as the obstructionists they are, and the President will come off the winner. There is no way for the GOTP to win this battle. If they refuse to negotiate and do raise the debt ceiling they will be painted as being unwilling to put the country before politics, and the President wins. If they do negotiate, then the President wins being seen as a leader and facilitator and again the GOTP loses; Boehner needs to decide which loss is more acceptable.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on July 9, 2011 in Debt Ceiling

 

Tags: , , , ,