[REMOVE ADS]




Page 2 of 38 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 1868
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Recovery:

    PRINCETON, NJ — Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, declined to 8.8% at the end of November — down from 9.2% in mid-November and 9.4% at the end of October, and a new low for the year. While the government’s unemployment report on Friday will include seasonal adjustments and is less timely than Gallup’s Daily monitoring, Gallup modeling suggests that it will also show a decline.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    First Thoughts: Fighting vs. Getting things done

    From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
    *** Fighting vs. getting things done: It has become another winter of liberal discontent. MoveOn has cut a 60-second TV ad urging President Obama not to compromise with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts. The progressive blogosphere is up in arms over the president’s deficit-reduction commission, arguing especially against its recommendations to change Social Security. And labor isn't happy with Obama’s pay freeze for federal workers. Despite this discontent from the left, here’s a reality check on the lame duck Congress: Things are getting done, or at least on track to get done. Even though their backs are against the wall after last month’s elections, it’s possible -- though won’t be easy -- that Democrats could get START through the Senate, repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and extend jobless benefits, too. This is the classic struggle between fighting [[which the left wants Obama to do) and getting things done [[which has always been the president’s first inclination). Campaigning vs. governing, and the December after an election is usually reserved for governing. As for the deficit commission, isn’t it better that Obama owns this issue and not the Republicans? This is going to happen at some point; does the left want the process controlled by the GOP or by the president?

    Please Click Here For More

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352

    This ones for you Chi

    I've posted a few post from political blogs but this is one of my own. [[my words)
    It's for all who are interested but especially dedicated to my political email running partner Chi drummer.


    A Rant/The Remix

    I thought I'd expand on and repeat a comment I made in another diary. It could be considered cheating but oh well, sue me.

    Several days ago someone suggested I read Ron Chernow’s biography of Washington. The commenter felt it would enlighten me to the fact,"America and its Founding Fathers were not what the Tea Party want to brainwash you into believing it to have been."
    Brainwashed? Me? I found the idea amusing since I’ve always been interested in the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers. Cheesy I know but, I’m fascinated by the inner workings of the minds of mankind, especially the people that make the rules and also, make the music but not necessarily in that order.
    I indirectly alluded to the former, in a comment with this response and I’ll paraphrase, I can't remember when or where I read it but, the rich were appointed, not elected as Senators back then. Amazing how inconvenient truths get swept under the rug, eh?

    As I’m sure most of you know and according to wikipedia, "The Senate of the United States was formed on the example of the ancient Roman Senate." Somewhat ironic considering the Roman Senate didn’t allow plebeians to serve. You know plebeians, the common people... and this is where my already published rant begins.

    I’m sick and tired, of being sick and tired, of a nation that whines like a bunch of 3 year olds while the Republicans do the bidding of their Corporate Masters.

    A nation that allows itself to dance around like puppets on a string being diverted, distracted, divided and dumbed down, as they are being robbed blind of their freedoms, financial security, dignity and common sense.
    Until the great people of this nation [[minus a few misfits here and there)stand together and overthrow or at the very least, control the corporate powers who have a seat at the legislative table, nothing will ever truly change. Maybe improve, with decidedly imperfections, depending on the political party, but never change until the people of this nation make that change. First within ourselves, and then taking it to the streets to the true and persistent enemy we all face.

    Pause:

    Now what I didn’t say , it’s time for the people of this nation to grow up, wake up, and take a long hard look in the mirror. Because as the saying goes, no matter how many fingers you point outward, there will always be at least one, pointing back at you.You want a better government, a better president a better country? Well here is a clue, look in the mirror, decide what you truly stand for and stop fighting with your neighbors, the very people you want to help, the very people who want the same things as you but may have a different way of expressing and showing it. Don't make the job of the corporate masters easier but harder, and eventually non existent.

    Continue Rant:

    All the hand-wringing, dooms day scenarios and fighting make for good theater and ego boosting spots at the top of the rec list, but doesn’t do a dayum thing for the people everyone claims they want to help. Or is that claim all apart of the theater of absurd as well?

    Interesting, as I wrote that, I had a vision of the Corporate Powers, front row center in the theater. They were giving a standing ovation to the show they have created. They were smiling and proud of us all for playing our roles so well, as they increased their bottom line, bank accounts and already fat pockets.
    Until the change you seek comes, we have two choices, stand with the Republican Party or stand with the Democratic Party. The only difference in the two, one will screw you without the Vaseline and the other will buy you dinner first. Then, they will give you a doggie bag to take home after.
    Even if you manage to get a 3rd, 4th or 5th political party in power, the best you’ll get for your efforts, is a drink before the eff.

    I’ll end this with a quote, one of many of my faves. It’s from, "Gifts From Eykis" by Wayne W. Dyer. His character Eykis, is a being from an alternative universe, a universe that pretty much mirrors earth with the exception of a few quirks. The story is a new age diddy that bores the intellectual elite to tears, yet makes those of us on our never ending life journey, feel smug and secure for understanding this stuff.
    On Earth, people have unique minds. Since each person is different, one can never create policies, rules, or procedures that apply to all. The concept of "everyone" simply does not exist. And on your planet too, your free-choice minds allow you to decide to learn or not to learn, to know, or not to know, to obey or disobey, at any moment. You can change your free choice minds an unlimited number of times on one issue or in any moment. You are ever changing, free willed people. Correct thinking would acknowledge this fact and say: Each person must decide for himself what he wants for each day.

    ...something to think about and remember, I’m only the messenger, shoot me!

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Statement by the President Announcing the US-Korea Trade Agreement

    I am very pleased that the United States and South Korea have reached agreement on a landmark trade deal that is expected to increase annual exports of American goods by up to $11 billion and support at least 70,000 American jobs. Last month in Seoul I directed our negotiators to achieve the best deal for American workers and companies, and this agreement meets that test.

    American manufacturers of cars and trucks will gain more access to the Korean market and a level playing field to take advantage of that access. We are strengthening our ability to create and defend manufacturing jobs in the United States; increasing exports of agricultural products for American farmers and ranchers; and opening Korea’s services market to American companies. High standards for the protection of worker’s rights and the environment make this a model for future trade agreements, which must be both free and fair.

    Today’s agreement is an integral part of my Administration’s efforts to open foreign markets to U.S. goods and services, create jobs for American workers, farmers and businesses, and achieve our goal of doubling of U.S. exports over five years. It deepens the strong alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea and reinforces American leadership in the Asia Pacific. I look forward to working with Congress and leaders in both parties to get this done and to ensure that America competes aggressively for the jobs and markets of the 21st century.
    FYI
    links will connect to pdf files


    FACT SHEET: Overview of the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement

    FACT SHEET: Economic Value of the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement

    FACT SHEET: Increasing U.S. Auto Exports and Growing U.S. Jobs Through the U.S. Korea Trade Agreement

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    ...and for those who are not aware, The U.S Senate gave 98% of Americans the finger this morning.
    They voted no on permanent tax cuts for the middle class.

    A side note, republicans were not the only one screwing us, Russ Feingold was all in the mix as well. It seems his was a "principle vote" since it meant the bill would allow the rich to keep their tax cuts a few more years.

    He was voted out in Nov and will not be back in Jan and although there was a time I liked the dude, he can take his principle and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

    NOW: It's let's make a deal time. Thanks Republicans and Feingold too!

    I am very disappointed that the Senate did not pass legislation that had already passed the House of Representatives to make middle class tax cuts permanent. Those provisions should have passed. And I continue to believe that it makes no sense to hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Especially when those high-income tax cuts would cost an additional $700 billion that we don't have, and would add to our deficit.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Political blogs can often be frustrating and annoying. Many of them rely on advertising, as a result the content too often becomes nothing more than a sensationalized echo chamber.

    You really have dig through a lot of crap sometimes to get to the good stuff. Today I found some good stuff.

    Enjoy!


    Republicans fear Obama, I fear some people don't understand why.

    by Stephen Daugherty
    Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 03:04:12 PM ADT

    Why are Republicans so eager to destroy somebody who the folks on the left say are such a sellout? Why did they spend hundreds of millions of dollars with their Citizens United-Liberated friends to undo our majority?

    You have to hand it to the Republicans. They know how to unite, despite their differences, when their interests are threatened. But that brings us back to my initial question: why do they fear Obama?

    The problem is, Obama, if he's successful, brings back bipartisanship. Bipartisanship means that the pressures that have been forcing generations of Republicans to move hard right on policies go away. Democrats become colleagues as well as competitors. Without a certain degree of separatism, the Conservative movement of today is dead.

    There's a reason that the religious conservatives want government to subsidize their children going to sectarian private schools. They're afraid modern culture will undermine their values, lure their children away from the fold.

    There's a reason why Republicans have been fighting so hard for their tax cuts for the rich, even to the point of threatening to prevent any legislation from passing if they don't get it.

    There's a reason why Republicans fight DADT's repeal, and why McCain so oddly chooses to continue fighting Gays in the Military, despite everything.

    We assume sometimes that the reason why the Republicans don't allow the changes to take place is that somehow they don't understand the right of what we believe.

    I would say, no, they do understand. But they understand something else as well. The professional Right, the politicians and the pundits understand that their continued relevance, and their political domination is built on opposition to the Liberals. That is why even sane Republicans have signed on to the Tea Party's movement, with it's extreme rhetoric. In the face of all that's happened over the last ten years, it takes that degree of extremity in rhetoric to distract people from the ugly facts of the unpopularity and the failure of their policies.


  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,124
    Rep Power
    218
    While I agree with most of the above, I also think the Republicans are poor losers. They went after Clinton when he won and did the same with Obama, although somewhat differently.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    I hear what you're saying MS and I agree, they are poor losers but then I have to ask myself, why?

    The way I interpret the article, Republicans feel they MUST make the argument they are different from Democrats/Liberals because, if they can convince people of that one simple idea, the people will not focus on the Republican failed polices over the last 30 years. [[with help from Democratic President Clinton, which has been more the exception than the rule) Their policies simply have not worked and they KNOW this.

    They want and need to convince the public otherwise so they are invested in the message:

    Liberals bad, Conservatives good.
    Liberals bad, Conservatives good
    wash, rinse and repeat.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    The really sad and frustrating part about all of this. If both sides could stop trying to prove who's better and work together, we as a nation would be the winner.

    The basic principle of conservative spending, is not bad. Neither is the basic principle of Liberals wanting to spend money to help those less fortunate, but there needs to be a balance between the two ideas. That's not happening and the nation and people are suffering because of it.
    Last edited by ms_m; 12-06-2010 at 11:58 AM.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    MS, we are suppose to be a caring nation, a compassionate nation. The idea of walking away from those less fortunate should not even be an option BUT

    you can not and I repeat, can not spend your way out of debt. Look around at the current middle class, we tried, it didn't work!

    Trying to spend our way out of debt collapsed on top of us, along with the other failed ideas of the Republican Party. On the flip side, entitlement programs [[with war coming in next I believe) is the largest burden we have on our deficit.

    It can not and should not be, one ideology fighting the other, it needs to be the best ideas of both working in tandem.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    One last thing on this subject MS.

    The Only Adult In The Room that seems to truly understand all of this, is getting beaten up by Congressional Republicans, the Republican base, Congressional Democrats, the Democratic base, the media and pundits. Welcome to America!

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    For any of you who have been following the tax cut deals, you probably know there is a lot of back and forth and name calling going on.

    I think this Ezra Klein article may put things in an interesting perspective. I don't always agree with Klein but I will give him props with coming across as rational and fair.

    The deal isn't done, but right now, Democrats look likely to get a 13-month extension of both unemployment insurance and many of the tax breaks built into the stimulus [[Making Work Pay, the bump in the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, the business tax breaks and so on). That totals about $180 billion over two years. So if the White House gets the deal that the early reports suggest are close -- and that they seem to think they'll be able to get -- this is a two-year stimulus package that approaches $300 billion. [Update: Just to be clear, that's $300 billion for tax cuts for income over $250,000, and tax extenders. Add in the rest of the tax cuts -- which I left out because they're already at consensus -- and it's closer to $750 billion. So the $300 billion is the marginal cost over the tax cuts for income under $250,000.]
    Complete article here

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352

    Wink

    Over the last few years I had become accustomed to the negativity thrown at President Obama, with the majority of it coming from the Republicans. Yet, the vitriol and hate being spewed these days, is coming from the extreme left, [[Progressives.) Although they will loudly shout and try to convince you otherwise, their view is not the prevailing one among the Democratic base.

    For those of you who may be a little anxious about President Obama's chances for 2012. Don't set your hair on fire just yet.
    A lot can happen between now and Nov 2012 and let's not forget, he hasn't officially said he will seek another term. If he does, it will be a nasty fight, a very nasty fight with the extreme left doing just as much to bring him down as the extreme right but, don't count him out and never underestimate:
    The Only Adult In The Room




    Obama 'core' coalition hardly 'shattered'

    Domenico Montanaro writes: While some think President Obama's "core" coalition "has been shattered," here are some numbers from our latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that looks at Obama's approval among some of those "core" groups:

    - Blacks: 90% approve/6% disapprove
    - Democrats: 82/12
    - Liberals: 79/16
    - Latinos: 56/33
    - Post grads: 56/41
    - UPDATE: 18-29: 53/38
    - UPDATE 2: NBC's Ana Maria Arumi notes that in the 2010 midterm exit polls, voters 18-29 said they approved of the president's job by a 62/38 margin, which is close to how they voted in 2008 -- 66/32
    - Women: 52/43
    - 18-34: 49/43

    Obama’s overall approval in this poll was 47/47 and was conducted from Nov. 11-15, after the Nov. 2nd midterms that saw Democrats lose 63 seats in the House -- a post-WWII record -- and six seats in the Senate.

    As Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducts the NBC/WSJ poll with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, said after the poll, “It’s a reminder again … for a guy who took a shellacking, he’s got a pretty strong core pulse.” He cited

    Obama’s strong support among a core constituency of younger women, blacks, Latinos, young voters, voters in the West, and under-30 urban moderates. “This is a president that retains political standing,” he added.
    Where Obama has serious deficits is not with his "core" groups, but with swing voters, Republicans, and whites. He is upside-down with independents, who moved his way in 2008, and has become much more polarizing in two years with the GOP.
    And that could make for an election that looks more similar to 2004 -- decided by a state or two -- rather than the '08 landslide.
    To all my LGBT friends, your news is important as well and please don't think I have forgotten about you. I just don't want to jinx things or count my chickens before they hatch but.....I see a light at the end of the tunnel. Keep fighting, keep pushing and don't give up!
    Last edited by ms_m; 12-07-2010 at 11:58 AM.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    He works for us, the middle class, the poor, the disenfranchised....

    Statement by the President on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits

    THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Sorry to keep you waiting.

    For the past few weeks there’s been a lot of talk around Washington about taxes and there’s been a lot of political positioning between the two parties. But around kitchen tables, Americans are asking just one question: Are we going to allow their taxes to go up on January 1st, or will we meet our responsibilities to resolve our differences and do what’s necessary to speed up the recovery and get people back to work?

    Now, there’s no doubt that the differences between the parties are real and they are profound. Ever since I started running for this office I've said that we should only extend the tax cuts for the middle class. These are the Americans who’ve taken the biggest hit not only from this recession but from nearly a decade of costs that have gone up while their paychecks have not. It would be a grave injustice to let taxes increase for these Americans right now. And it would deal a serious blow to our economic recovery.

    Now, Republicans have a different view. They believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit. And economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy.

    This is where the debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. And what is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost or impact on the deficit.

    We saw that in two different votes in the Senate that were taken this weekend. And without a willingness to give on both sides, there’s no reason to believe that this stalemate won't continue well into next year. This would be a chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st because of arrangements that were made back in 2001 and 2003 under the Bush tax cuts.

    I am not willing to let that happen. I know there’s some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession.

    I'm not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe.

    So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories. They would much rather have the comfort of knowing that when they open their first paycheck on January of 2011, it won’t be smaller than it was before, all because Washington decided they preferred to have a fight and failed to act.

    Make no mistake: Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family. And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.

    At the same time, I’m not about to add $700 billion to our deficit by allowing a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And I won’t allow any extension of these tax cuts for the wealthy, even a temporary one, without also extending unemployment insurance for Americans who’ve lost their jobs or additional tax cuts for working families and small businesses -- because if Republicans truly believe we shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone while our economy is still recovering from the recession, then surely we shouldn’t cut taxes for wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and students and small businesses.

    As a result, we have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement. For the next two years, every American family will keep their tax cuts -- not just the Bush tax cuts, but those that have been put in place over the last couple of years that are helping parents and students and other folks manage their bills.

    In exchange for a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, we will be able to protect key tax cuts for working families -- the Earned Income Tax Credit that helps families climb out of poverty; the Child Tax Credit that makes sure families don’t see their taxes jump up to $1,000 for every child; and the American Opportunity Tax Credit that ensures over 8 million students and their families don’t suddenly see the cost of college shooting up.

    These are the tax cuts for some of the folks who’ve been hit hardest by this recession, and it would be simply unacceptable if their taxes went up while everybody else’s stayed the same.

    Now, under this agreement, unemployment insurance will also be extended for another 13 months, which will be welcome relief for 2 million Americans who are facing the prospect of having this lifeline yanked away from them right in the middle of the holiday season.

    This agreement would also mean a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut for workers next year -- a tax cut that economists across the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth.

    And we will prevent -- we will provide incentives for businesses to invest and create jobs by allowing them to completely write off their investments next year. This is something identified back in September as a way to help American businesses create jobs. And thanks to this compromise, it’s finally going to get done.

    In exchange, the Republicans have asked for more generous treatment of the estate tax than I think is wise or warranted. But we have insisted that that will be temporary.

    I have no doubt that everyone will find something in this compromise that they don’t like. In fact, there are things in here that I don’t like -- namely the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the wealthiest estates. But these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I’m confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as I engage in a conversation with the American people about the hard choices we’re going to have to make to secure our future and our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future, it will become apparent that we cannot afford to extend those tax cuts any longer.

    As for now, I believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for jobs. It’s the right thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing to do for business. And it’s the right thing to do for our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to seize.

    It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery. It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.

    Building on that momentum is what I’m focused on. It’s what members of Congress should be focused on. And I'm looking forward to working with members of both parties in the coming days to see to it that we get this done before everyone leaves town for the holiday season. We cannot allow this moment to pass.

    And let me just end with this. There’s been a lot of debate in Washington about how this would ultimately get resolved. I just want everybody to remember over the course of the coming days, both Democrats and Republicans, that these are not abstract fights for the families that are impacted. Two million people will lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month if we don't get this resolved. Millions more of Americans will see their taxes go up at a time when they can least afford it. And my singular focus over the next year is going to be on how do we continue the momentum of the recovery, how do we make sure that we grow this economy and we create more jobs.

    We cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems. And so I look forward to engaging the House and the Senate, members of both parties, as well as the media, in this debate. But I am confident that this needs to get done, and I'm confident ultimately Congress is going to do the right thing.

    Thank you very much, everybody.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Andrew Sullivan, a Conservative, is one of those pundits that I sometimes agree with and sometimes don't. When you really think about it though, there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't have to mean that people who don't always share your views, are bad people, just means they don't share your views. Pretty simply, eh? [[exceptions withstanding of course)

    Anyhoo...

    This article was a pretty decent one. His analogy comparing the President to the Road Runner is cute and funny and anytime someone calls McConnell a sucker...it works for me....beep! beep!

    The Atlantic Home
    Tuesday, December 7, 2010

    Obama: President; McConnell: Sucker

    07 Dec 2010 10:56 am

    It's been fascinating to watch the left's emotional roller-coaster these past few weeks. It's also been fascinating to watch Obama out-run them, and to observe their responses to the final deal in the last 24 hours. Krugman has gone from "Let's Not Make A Deal" to "better than what I expected." The response from the far-right has also been illuminating. Drudge rushed to declare Obama's payroll tax cut as a Republican idea. Hinderaker below insists "Obama has admitted that the Republicans were right all along." Notice something about all of this? They all now realize that Obama has been a little shrewder than they took him to be.
    Entire Article here [[with video)

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Oh dear
    I have nothing to say but just saw the view count and could not let it stand at 666....LOL

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    66% of Americans like the tax cut deal, great news.

    Bad news, the Democratic Congress is threatening to blow the deal up....that means

    Hundreds of thousands [[and then some) will not get that extra helping hand for Christmas with the Unemployment extension, could possibly loose their homes, get deeper in debt....

    there will not be an extra, much needed stimulus for the economy

    middle class taxes will go up

    it could also jeopardize the repeal of DADT and the START agreement

    AND
    the Republicans can sit back, smile and say, dayum, that was easy and we didn't have to lift a finger....but hey, 34% of the country will be happy and the national deficit will see a major downward turn....oh wait, no it won't.

    stay tuned


    Americans Support Two Major Elements of Tax Compromise
    Liberal vs. conservative/moderate Democrats disagree on extending tax cuts for all
    by Lydia Saad

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Two major elements included in the tax agreement reached Monday between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders in Congress meet with broad public support. Two-thirds of Americans [[66%) favor extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all Americans for two years, and an identical number support extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.


  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Fact Sheet on the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance

    The framework agreement announced by the President secures vital tax relief and investments in our workers that will create jobs and accelerate economic growth. The plan has three key accomplishments:

    * Working families will not lose their tax cut. A typical working family faced a tax increase of over $3,000 on January 1st. That’s avoided under this framework agreement, and working families won’t see their tax cuts go away next year.
    * Focused on high impact job creation measures. The framework agreement includes some of the best measures for jumpstarting growth and job creation, including a full year of emergency unemployment insurance benefits, an about $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families and a continuation of tax credits for working families. This is on top of growth generated by extension of the middle-class income tax rates.
    * Does not worsen the medium- and long-term deficit. These are responsible, temporary measures to support our economy that will not add costs by the middle of the decade. The President does not believe it is affordable to make the high-income tax cuts permanent and will continue to have that debate in the years ahead.

    Overview of the Framework Agreement:

    * Extending the 2001/2003 Income-Tax Rates for Two Years. The framework agreement includes a mutually agreed upon solution to the impasse over taxes by extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years and reforming the AMT to ensure that an additional 21 million households will not be hit with a tax increase. These measures will provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent a tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
    * Additional Provisions Designed to Promote Vigorous Economic Growth. In addition to the 2001/2003 rates, the Administration secured several provisions that are vital for our economy’s growth, which would not have been possible without this framework agreement: $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an about $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for our hardest hit families and students; and 100% expensing for businesses next year.

    1. GROWTH-ORIENTED PAYROLL TAX CUT FOR WORKERS:

    The framework agreement reached by the administration includes an about 2%, employee-side payroll tax cut for over 155 million workers – providing tax relief of about $120 billion next year. This tax cut will have a major impact on jobs and growth – creating substantial numbers of jobs. It is widely recognized by economists across the political spectrum as a high bang for the buck way to boost growth and was cited by both major deficit reduction commissions as consistent with long term fiscal discipline.

    A payroll tax cut has been endorsed by experts and commentators from across the political spectrum. Just last month, both the President’s Fiscal Commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force described a payroll tax cut in 2011 as an effective way to spur growth and job creation. The tax cut legislation would provide for a transfer of General Revenues to the Social Security Trust Fund, ensuring no negative impact on Social Security solvency. And, as economist Nouriel Roubini wrote earlier this year, a payroll tax cut would spur growth because “for employees, the increased take-home pay would boost much-needed economic consumption and advance the still-crucial process of deleveraging households.”

    2. HIGH IMPACT, JOB CREATING TAX CUTS FOR WORKING FAMILIES

    Economic studies consistently find that lower-income households are the most likely to spend additional money, creating jobs and helping overall growth. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office, for instance, has concluded that “policies aimed at lower-income households tend to have greater stimulative effects.” The President fought to secure a two-year increase of the full Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. These provisions will, together, provide ongoing tax cuts to 12 million lower income families, with a total of 24 million children. In addition, the deal fully extends the American Opportunity Tax Credit for two years.
    Lower-Income Working Families Benefited by Expansions in EITC and CTC
    Families Children
    Total 12.2 24.3
    White 5.6 9.8
    Hispanic 3.7 8.0
    African American 2.2 4.7
    Other 0.7 1.7

    Illustrative Family: A working family with three children making $20,000 will continue to receive a tax cut of more than $2,000 as a result of the EITC and Child Tax Credit expansions in this framework agreement. The same family would receive an additional $400 tax cut from the new payroll tax cut.

    * Child Tax Credit: The $1,000 child tax credit will be extended for two years with the $3,000 refundability threshold established in the Recovery Act. This extension will ensure an ongoing tax cut to 10.5 million lower income families with 18 million children.
    * Earned Income Tax Credit: The Recovery Act included an expansion of the EITC worth, on average, $600 in additional assistance to families with 3 or more children. It also helped working married families by reducing the marriage penalty in the EITC. Continuing this tax cut for two years will benefit 6.5 million working parents with 15 million children.
    * American Opportunity Tax Credit: The Recovery Act included a new, partially refundable tax credit of up to $2,500 to help students and their families cover the cost of college tuition. This deal fully extends AOTC for two years, ensuring that more than 8 million students will continue to receive this tax benefit to help them afford college.

    3. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE:

    The framework agreement extended unemployment benefits at their current level for 13 months, through the end of 2011. This will save millions of Americans searching for work from losing their unemployment benefits in the coming months and will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

    * In December alone, 2 million workers who would have lost benefits will continue to receive them because of this framework agreement. Over the next year, 7 million workers will no longer need to worry that their unemployment benefits could be eliminated as they search for jobs.
    * According to the Council of Economic Advisers, passing this provision will create 600,000 jobs in 2011 alone.

    4. BUSINESS TAX CUTS TO INCREASE INVESTMENT AND GROWTH:

    In September, the President called for temporarily allowing businesses to expense all of their investments in 2011. This growth-oriented tax cut was included in the framework agreement.

    * According to the Treasury Department, complete expensing could generate more than $50 billion in additional investment in the U.S. in 2011.
    * The provision will provide a crucial incentive to 2 million businesses to invest and create jobs in the U.S and would be the largest temporary investment incentive in American history.
    * The framework agreement also includes a 2-year extension of the R&D tax credit and other tax incentives to support business expansion.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Cliff Notes:

    Short and sweet understanding of what has gone down so far.

    On Saturday, [[Dec 4) two votes were taken in the Senate

    1. extend tax cuts for households earning less than extend individual tax cuts for households earning less than $250,000 per year
    2. extend tax cuts for households earning less than $1 million,

    Both of these bills were defeated….Dems cast 53 votes and in the Senate there are archaic or, as some call them, dumb rules that say you need 60 votes to pass any legislation of consequence

    As of right now there are [[technically) 60 Dem votes that could have passed these bills which would have extended [[and possibly permanently extended) tax cuts for the middle class

    I say technically because, Bernie Sanders is actually a Socialist that caucuses [[votes) with the Dems

    And no one but Joe Lieberman knows, what Joe Lieberman is but he does caucus [[votes) with the Dems as a general rule with exceptions

    That means there were 7 Democratic Senators that decided the middle class should not get their tax cuts extended or receive a permanent tax cut

    Please Note the House does not have the same rule in the House and both these measures passed with a large majority in the House

    Ironically, the president has been lobbying the Senate for months to take this vote because you see, the House has passed close to 400 bills of consequence that the Senate has been sitting on doing nothing about. In January, these bills become a moot point.

    Anyhoo, the Senate waited to the last minute to vote and didn’t follow through and now we have to deal.

    Three Branches of Government

    Executive
    Legislative
    Judicial

    Each have their function….if the legislative branch screws up, the President has to clean up their mess the best way he can and in the best overall interest of the American people.

    Welcome to the world of USA Government 101


    I typed this as an afterthought from memory. I didn't do my due diligence in research to make sure this is 100% correct, please feel free to correct any error you may find.
    Last edited by ms_m; 12-09-2010 at 12:04 AM.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352

    Angry

    Oh My!

    Didn't get a chance to watch the President's press conference earlier but it was a doozy.

    For several weeks I have been monitoring Democratic political sites. I HAVE NEVER in my life seen so much hate and vitriol towards a president. I heard things that were NEVER said about Bush Jr. and he has gone down in history [[so far) as the worst president ever. Too much of what I heard was racist in nature and let me remind you, I was reading DEMOCRATIC BLOGS!!!!

    People wanted to see a man with "a spine" well today that got one and it wasn't pretty to the Dems. Of course it's human nature for many people not to like hearing truth to power, but today, that's what they got. So here is the link to the video...oopsies...LOL


    President Obama Finally Gets Pissed And Lets Them Have It “I Couldn’t Go Through The Front Door When This Country Was Founded!”
    http://swagthegame.com/video/M9735DS...unded%E2%80%9D

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Visuals are great tools so I thought I'd post this. Please keep in mind these are estimates.

    Note the balls in the picture below. All the blue balls represent everything the Middle Class [[98% of Americans) will walk away with from this proposed deal.

    The little red ball represents what the Republicans/Rich [[2%) will receive from the deal.






    There is no official cost estimate for the compromise proposal. These numbers are ballpark estimates based on analysis of similar proposals.

    Below is a more detailed breakdown:

    Bush tax cuts: $458 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years, including two years of relief for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax. The estimated cost would be $458 billion, according to earlier numbers from the Treasury Department.

    The bulk of that cost -- $383 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000. The rest -- roughly $75 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.
    The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

    Unemployment benefits: $56 billion. The package would also leave in place for 13 months the option to file for extended federal unemployment benefits -- which go as high as 99 weeks in states hit hardest by job loss. The White House estimates it would cost $56 billion.

    Social Security tax break: $120 billion. The package would also offer workers a payroll tax holiday worth 2 percentage points next year, so that instead of paying 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages, they will only have to pay 4.2%. The White House estimates the measure would cost $120 billion.
    Individual tax credits: $40 billion. The compromise framework would also extend for two years the increased value of a number of tax credits that benefit low- and middle-income tax filers, such as the earned income tax credit, the child credit and a revamped tax credit for college costs. The measure would cost $40 billion, the administration said.

    Business tax breaks: Cost unclear. It is still not clear how many business tax breaks are in the package. Some, like an extension of the research and development credit, has drawn bipartisan support and is typically renewed annually. But also included is a new temporary option for businesses to write off 100% of their expenses in 2011. A cost estimate was not immediately available.
    Last edited by ms_m; 12-09-2010 at 04:40 AM.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    The People’s View
    Informed Citizenry: Progressive Analysis, Commentary and Rants



    I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.

    ~Barack Obama


    Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.

    ~Barack Obama


    Q. Where is your line in the sand?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand. Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent -- that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved -- that was a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.

    So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

    Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

    That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service. That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America. Neither does The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Most Americans, they’re just trying to figure out how to go about their lives and how can we make sure that our elected officials are looking out for us. And that means because it’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise. This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare was started, it was a small program. It grew.

    Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal. This country was founded on compromise. I couldn’t go through the front door at this country’s founding. And if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a union.

    So my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there. What is helping the American people live out their lives? What is giving them more opportunity? What is growing the economy? What is making us more competitive? And at any given juncture, there are going to be times where my preferred option, what I am absolutely positive is right, I can’t get done.

    And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or tack a little bit that way, because I’m keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight -- not my day-to-day news cycle, but where am I going over the long term?

    And I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised.

    Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.

    And so the -- to my Democratic friends, what I’d suggest is, let’s make sure that we understand this is a long game. This is not a short game. And to my Republican friends, I would suggest -- I think this is a good agreement, because I know that they’re swallowing some things that they don’t like as well, and I’m looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years.


  23. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Questions we should ask ourselves...


    How do you get to pass a law that will allow 2 million people get unemployment Benefit?

    How do you get to pass a law that will allow folks keep on the average $3,000 to 95% of Americans.

    How do you get to pass a law that gives students and families up to $2,500 in tax savings to help pay for college tuition and other expenses?

    How do you get to pass the Earned Income Tax Credit that increases the credit for families with three or more children, bringing the maximum amount to $5,657?

    How do you get to pass the Child Tax Credit that helps low-and moderate-income families with children which reduces the minimum amount of earned income used to calculate the additional child tax credit to $3,000 from $12,550?

    How do you get to pass COBRA and Unemployment Benefits for those who lost their jobs in the recession, to help them get back on their feet, providing a 65 percent tax credit to help cover the cost of health care and making the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits tax-free, when normally 100 percent of those benefits are taxable?

    Well, this is what the compromise will do and honestly it is a deal that is good for America while it has a steep price, a price worth paying to ensure the millions of Americans who are struggling to keep their families afloat are not Abandoned.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Need to make a correction to something I stated up thread.

    There are 57 Democratic Senators with Sanders and Lieberman bringing the Dem caucus vote tally to 59. That leaves Dems 1 vote short of passing legislation of consequence.

    This came to my attention after reading the procedural vote to the National Defense Authorization Act , which included DADT, was defeated in the Senate, 57 to 40.

    Something is bugging me on this though [[besides the obvious)
    One Dem Senator apparently voted no [[Joseph Manchin - D-W.Va.)
    but one lone Republican voted yes [[Susan Collins R-Maine)

    There still seem to be 2 missing Dem votes I can't account for. I'll keep reading but in the meantime, the next step is to try to put up DADT as a stand alone bill.

    Something of note:
    The National Defense Authorization Act is an annual bill that has been enacted "each of the past 48 years", this is a glaring exception.
    Last edited by ms_m; 12-09-2010 at 07:47 PM.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    The more I think about the rules of the Senate the more attention they need to receive to understand what we're up against.

    Procedural votes in the Senate, are taken on all major pieces of legislation. You need 60 votes to get a yes and advance that legislation to the next step. The next step, you only need a simple majority to pass the bill.

    President Obama could yell, scream, twist arms and bash heads all day, every day and would still only have 59 votes. That's fact. Which means, you need Republican votes. Usually more than one since Blue Dog Dems will throw you under the bus in a heart beat.

    If memory serves, the health care bill had 3 Republican votes during the procedural phase which is how it was able to advance, get a simple majority, and pass, even though all Republicans voted no, during the final phase.

    These are just one of many things that need to be thought about and considered, when trying to understand the "sausage making" process of getting a bill passed, and to the President's desk.

  26. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    A bill to grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students passed the House of Representatives late Wednesday, giving President Obama an unexpected although largely symbolic victory in the final days of Democratic control of Congress on an issue he has called a top priority.

    The bill, known as the Dream Act, passed the House by a vote of 216 to 198. But a vote in the Senate on opening debate on the bill was scheduled for Thursday, and the measure seemed likely to fail there.
    Still, Democratic leaders celebrated the House vote, which gave them a triumph in the final days of the Congressional session before they yield the majority next year to Republicans. It also gave them something to show Hispanic voters, who strongly support the measure and could play a pivotal role in the 2012 presidential election.
    Nice symbolic victory that doesn’t mean much to the people the bill was designed to help. However, note the last sentence.

    With only a few more days left in the 111th Congressional Congress, the chances of this bill being considered in the Senate are slim to none, with an emphasis on none.

    It makes a great talking point for elections among Hispanic voters though.

    How many times has the President said to Congress, [[and I paraphrase) help people now and worry about the “politics of elections later? Rhetorical question but I’ll answer anyway, since the day he walked into the WH.

    Related/Unrelated blind item:

    OFA [[Organizing for America) is always looking for volunteers. It is the grassroots organization that supports President Obama's agenda for change. You want change, you have to do more than vote and critique.


    In other news, I broke my fingernail to day; it’s President Obama's fault!

  27. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352

    Cool

    Let’s Break for San -ity –Clause - Hahaha hohoho
    [[that one was for you SophisticatedSoul)

    Happy Holidays SDF!!

    The Obama family at the National Christmas Tree lighting ceremony, with special guest, B.B. King



    Click to watch: Slide Show and Video

  28. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    • Something to think about

    I stated earlier, President Obama had been lobbying the Senate to take the tax cut vote for weeks, months actually. Although there were only 59 votes if all the Democratic members [[plus Sanders and Lieberman) caucus together , you may ask yourself, what difference would it have made? Dems still would not have had the 60 votes to take the bill to the next level.

    True but....consider this.

    If this vote had been taken prior to the midterms, two likely scenarios would have occurred. Republicans would have been forced to vote yes or they would have voted no......If they had voted yes, yeah for Democrats because they would have been in a better position to keep more seats in the election. They could have done this by looking like the good guys for not raising taxes on the middle class, extending UI, benefits and getting rid of the tax cuts for the 2% crowd.

    If the Republicans had voted against the bill, Republicans would have been going into an election trying to explain why they like the rich more than the middle class and poor, why they raised taxes on the middle class and, why they refused to extend UI benefits for millions of Americans. The extra bonus, it would have placed the President in a much better position to make a better deal.

    The Senate showed no nerve or imagination. For whatever reason they steadfast refused to take this vote prior to the midterms.

    Isn't it interesting, no one has focused on the Senate and why they didn't take this vote when they had a much better strategic advantage?

    • Something to think about

  29. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    A reminder of how this went down on Saturday Dec 4, 2010 [[a month after the elections)

    Democrats are seizing to paint the GOP as guardians of the rich.
    Wouldn't it have made more sense to, "seize" and "paint" prior to the midterms?????



    Senate Republicans on Saturday voted against President Obama's plan to extend the Bush tax cuts to only the middle class in a pair of votes Democrats are seizing to paint the GOP as guardians of the rich.

    The Senate voted 53-36 to extend all expiring tax cuts on individuals with incomes of less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000 -- seven shy of the required 60 to advance.

    The other proposal, which drew opposition from White House officials, would have renewed them for all tax filers with incomes of $1 million or less. That also failed in a 53-36 vote.

  30. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Based on the way the media is framing the vote the House took the other day, you might believe it was a big fact rejection of the proposed plan, a way of standing up for the little guy.....well not quite, the resolution was nothing more than smoke and mirrors, or as the editorial below states, "political theater."

    House Dems Put on Quite a Show Against Tax Deal – But That’s All It Is

    On December 9, 2010, at 9:58 pm, In Politics-House, By Leanne

    If you’ve been listening to the media coverage of today’s angry demonstration by the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives, you could be forgiven for believing that the Dems had killed the deal by voting against an actual bill. Judging by many of the headlines the media is using to describe their action – of which the Boston Globe‘s House Dems reject Obama’s tax plan was representative – they were probably aiming to create exactly that misperception.

    But the fact is that today’s “rejection” of the Obama tax deal framework was nothing more than a non-binding resolution, a symbolic gesture that could rightly be considered a dramatized sternly worded letter. It has no concrete effect and no official impact on any legislation. Sure, it stated that Speaker Nancy Pelosi should not allow the bill based on the deal to come to the floor unless changes are made to it, but these people aren’t fools. They know damned well that any changes they make that cut back the estate tax proposal or try to monkey with the Bush tax cut extension for the rich will never make it through the Senate. They know this because every liberal bill they’ve passed has been systematically killed or weakened in the other house for two whole years.
    Click for full editorial

  31. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Chatter, chatter, chatter:




    What I find interesting and amusing about all the hoopla the press conference brought, is the way people processed it all.


    President Obama had been lobbying for the Senate to take the tax cut vote for months, they didn't. When they finally decided to take the vote, the Dems received 53 votes. [[several no votes as a result of individual principles)

    When I listened to his response to the reporter, I heard frustration at the Senate, the legislative body that brought us to where we are now.

    Not saying he's not frustrated with many Dems; politicians and voters, but I think the ones that have caused him the most headaches at this point would be the ones in the Senate.

    The other voices???? [[voters, bloggers, media, etc.)

    I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.

    ~Barack Obama
    I'd really be interested in hearing if anyone on SDF heard things differently, took it personally, and why.

  32. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Great editorial and love the new word..."frustrati" LOL

    I have to agree the Congressional House drama does seem pretty pointless and contrived. Irony is, the House should be proud of their record in the 111th. They actually accomplished things. Unfortunately the Senate threw a lot of their accomplishments under the bus but Pelosi did her job.

    House Dems now like the Frustrati?


    On December 10, 2010, at 4:30 pm, In Policy, Politics-House, Politics-White House, By FleetAdmiralJ

    There may be a very simple reason why the House Democrats are suddenly sounding more and more like netroots, or as some here like to describe them, the frustrati: just like many liberal blog writers, the House Democrats are now facing a situation where they’ll have no power and can afford to scream and yell about how things should be, without having any power or responsibility to actually get those things done.

    This is one of the things that has gotten me aggravated about the actions of the House Democrats who are opposed to the tax deal right now: they are demanding that the tax compromise be defeated and have the battle move into the next Congress, where, conveniently enough, House Democrats will be in the minority, thus they’ll have exactly no power or responsibility to either create or pass legislation. It is almost literally “we don’t want this, but we won’t take and don’t have any responsibility for actually getting anything better passed.”

    And then there is this from the Hill this morning:


    Incensed over President Obama’s tax compromise, House Democratic leaders are showing signs of abandoning the administration and going their own way on critical issues such as national security.

    That article is quite a read in it’s own right about chaos caused by the Appropriations bill slipping in a provision to prevent Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay, but I just wanted to make a point. So the House Democrats are threatening to “go their own way” over the next couple of years? The thing I have to say to that is this: Big deal! As I mentioned above, they won’t control committees. They won’t control the agenda. Minority rights in the House are non-existent beyond using the motion to recommit. The House Democrats couldn’t work with Obama even if they wanted to. But now they’re threatening to go their own way. I find that threat to be less than empty. Or maybe someone just yell “f*** the President” during the State of the Union this year.

    Perhaps if the House had done things like passing middle class tax cuts before the election or even last year when they had the power and leverage to do so, they may not be in this position now.

  33. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,898
    Rep Power
    215
    MS M good to see you back in full force! How did you feel about Clinton at the press conference? By the way I appreciate the graphs and all of the information you have been supplying us with.
    Steph

  34. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Thanks Stephanie, glad you're enjoying the reading material.

    I actually have mixed feelings about Clinton and the press conference.
    I have to admit though, my opinion could be tainted by the fact I don't
    care much for him.

    We shall see how this all plays out in the end.


    A divided Democratic Party could give our country a President Palin. We should never forget that.

  35. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,124
    Rep Power
    218
    I don't really think she has a chance. After all, the four candidates she really supported in the last election lost. But, I could be wrong. And this is one time I'd really hate to be so.

  36. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    I'd like to think you're right MS but we live in a country that kept Bush Jr. in office for 8 years. It's not easy trying to second guess voters in this country.

    The statement isn't so much about Palin becoming president, but more about someone like her ending up in the WH. You would think the possibility of something like that happening, would be causing more concern and less negative noise from the left.

    A lot could happen over the next year or so. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

  37. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,124
    Rep Power
    218
    I know, I know. Hopefully what Joe Scarborough said on his show Friday will prove to be true and continue. He said Obama is finally acting like a president.

  38. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    That’s cute. I’m sure the comment was Scarborough’s attempt at humor and a backhanded compliment. I disagree, although I usually disagree with Scarborough. Ronald Reagan, "acted" like a president.

    Barack H. Obama is the President and has been since January 20, 2009.

  39. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    One of the benefits of the proposed deal:

    EDITORIAL: Tax holiday coming?

    It’s a direct gift for most workers
    Published: Saturday, Dec 11, 2010 05:01AM


    One of the most interesting parts of the tax deal that President Obama and Republican leaders worked out this week would provide a one-year “holiday” from part of the Social Security payroll tax.

    Something along this line has been advocated by a variety of tax experts. The Social Security tax takes 6.2 percent of a worker’s paycheck and an equal amount from his or her employer, for 12.4 percent in total. This money provides the funding for current Social Security benefits.

    The Obama-GOP package would relieve workers of two percentage points of this obligation for the coming year. This would provide a $1,000 reduction to a worker earning $50,000. Those at the top of the Social Security tax scale, with incomes of $106,800 annually, would save $2,136. The employer’s 6.2 percent rate would not be changed.

    Many wage earners today pay more for this tax than they do in federal income taxes. The Social Security payroll tax is the one inescapable tax for almost everyone; no deductions or exemptions apply.

    Thus, for millions of payers a Social Security tax holiday will be more meaningful than the income tax cuts that formed the core of the recent debate. This holiday will provide real money, coming in with every paycheck. And those dollars will be likely to go out just as quickly as they came in, providing a substantial stimulus for the national economy.

    The Bowles-Simpson deficit commission has recommended a payroll tax break. And the separate bipartisan deficit study group led by former Sen. Pete Domenici and former Congressional Budget Director Alice Rivlin proposed a one-year payroll tax holiday for the full employee contribution. The Domenici-Rivlin proposal would cost an estimated $650 billion. The Obama proposal is said to cost $112 billion.

    Some payroll industry executives are complaining they can’t get the appropriate forms ready for use by the start of next year. But adjustments can surely be made for mechanical problems.

    A larger problem may be presented by the fact that some 600,000 federal employees don’t pay any Social Security tax. Instead they pay 7 percent of wages into a civil service pension plan. So they would get no benefit from the tax holiday.
    Something equitable will have to be worked out for them.

  40. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Interesting article on the safety of Social Security


    Seidman told a capacity crowd that when he asks his students if they believe that Social Security benefits won't be there when they retire, more than half raise their hands.

    This is a misconception, he said. “We have a serious problem in Social Security, but we don't have a crisis; we don't have a collapse on the horizon.” The system needs fixing, and there are various ways to do it, but it will not go broke, he said.
    http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/m...ent051108.html

  41. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Haven’t been to the site below for awhile. The Pulitzer Prize winning site is both fair and accurate with excellent links to validate their conclusions. [[although many of the conclusions could probably be interpreted differently by some, including me)


    PolitiFact.com

    Statement below is worth considering when evaluating the current tax deal as well as the overall actions of the President since stepping into the Oval Office.

    One important point about Obama's tax compromise is that it was made in a world different from the one anticipated when he was making promises during the campaign. Obama's economic promises anticipated a mild downturn, not a major economic crisis. But this week's compromise was crafted after unemployment numbers edged up to an unexpected 9.8 percent.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...oves-obameter/
    Contenders for biggest lie of the year, the President didn’t make the list.
    The winner will be named on December 16, 2010.
    I’m pulling for Rep. Michele Bachman, R- Minn. What’s your fave?


    Which of these was the biggest lie of 2010?

    "The president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day." -- Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

    ObamaCare is a "government takeover" of health care. -- Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio; Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla.; the Republican Party of Florida; Wisconsin Lt. Gov.-elect Rebecca Kleefisch; and others

    "Taliban Dan" Webster thinks wives should submit to their husbands. -- Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla.

    "The stimulus has not created one private sector job." -- Gov.-elect Rick Scott, R-Fla., and others

    "Ninety-four percent of small businesses will face higher taxes under the Democrats' plan." -- Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, and others

    "Phoenix is the No. 2 kidnapping capital of the world." -- Rep. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others

    The ethics report "exonerates me." -- Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

    Republicans want to dismantle or privatize Social Security. -- Florida Democratic Party and other Democratic candidates

    The Pants on Fire section is very informative. It’s reserved for what could be called, the really big lies.

    I checked all 7 pages and found the President on the list 3 times but only once as President. The other statements were made during the campaign and one of those was a campaign ad. The 3 can be found below.

    1. "If you actually took the number of Muslims [sic] Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."
    Monday, June 1st, 2009 in interview with Canal Plus Television

    2. "And 100 percent, John, of your ads . . . 100 percent of them have been negative."
    Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 in a debate in Hempstead, N.Y.

    3. Obama ad contends that John McCain endorses Rush Limbaugh's comments about immigration.
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 in a video ad.

    Pants On Fire Section

    Pundits Section is definitely worth a read. You may even find a few surprises.
    http://www.politifact.com/subjects/pundits/?page=1
    Last edited by ms_m; 12-12-2010 at 09:52 AM.

  42. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    With a Republican majority in the house starting in January, you will being seeing more of these types of votes in the next few years.


    Plan to Aid 9/11 Victims Is Rejected in House

    WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic plan to provide billions of dollars for medical treatment to rescue workers and residents of New York City who suffered illnesses from the toxic dust and debris at ground zero.

  43. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Pete Souza, the Official WH Photographer, takes amazing shots of the President, First Family and Bo.




    Check out a few of the links below to see his work.


    http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...2010-photo-day

    http://www.petesouza.com/gallery.htm...Barack%20Obama

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1...4.html#s167278

  44. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    I’ve been reluctant to add this next piece of info because I wasn’t sure if it was relevant to the thread. But it is political as well as music related so I decided I would post it.

    I was having a discussion recently about Louis Armstrong versus Duke Ellington. I’m in the Ellington camp as far as musical genius goes. However after reading the article below, I walked away with a new found respect for Mr. Armstrong. Wasn’t aware of this golden nugget of history but I’m glad my friend turned me on to it.
    Just goes to show, things are not always what they seem.

    The Day Louis Armstrong Made Noise
    Last edited by ms_m; 12-12-2010 at 11:58 AM.

  45. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Charles Krauthammer is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and political commentator. He has a column in The Washington Post and is syndicated in more than 200 newspapers and media outlets. He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic and is a Fox News contributor, a regular panelist on Fox’s evening news program Special Report with Bret Baier and a weekly panelist on Inside Washington.

    To say Krauthammer is firmly in the Republican camp would be redundant, but what amuses me is the article below.

    Swindle of the year

    House Democrats seek changes to tax-cut deal
    The House Democratic Caucus has voted to change President Barack Obama's tax deal with Republicans from its current form. [[Dec. 9)

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, December 10, 2010

    Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?
    Full Article Here


    Democrats are running around with their hair on fire thinking somehow they were sold down the river while a Republican Pundit, is telling Republicans they were swindled.

    IRONY?

    You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried!

  46. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    I guess this Republican didn’t get the Krauthammer memo. Although he's full of it if he thinks taking the 2% crowd back to the Clinton days of a 39% tax rate is a bad idea.
    They managed quite well at 39%.

    Sen. Alexander: Tax Deal Will Create Jobs
    http://www.npr.org/2010/12/09/131940...ll-Create-Jobs

    NPR's Melissa Block talks to GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander about the proposed tax plan. The Tennessee Republican says the plan will result in job creation.

    GUY RAZ, host:
    So, we heard why many Democrats are angry about the tax deal. We move on now to someone who is happy with it.

    MELISSA BLOCK, host:
    I'm joined now by Republican supporter of the deal, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. He is the third ranking Republican leader in the Senate. Welcome to the program.

    Senator LAMAR ALEXANDER [[Republican, Tennessee): Thanks, Melissa.

    BLOCK: Senator Alexander, what about this insurrection today by House Democrats? They're saying if this is essentially a take it or leave it deal, we're going to leave it. How does that complicate things on the Senate side?

    Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, I wasn't in the Democratic conference. It's a part of an adjustment around here. One of the adjustments is we're moving from a situation where the Democrats have these huge majorities and say we won the election, we'll write the bill, we have the votes - to a situation where the president is trying to act in a bipartisan way by taking some Republican ideas, as well as Democratic. And that just takes a little getting used to.

    BLOCK: But one thing that the House Democrats are demanding is flexibility on the estate tax. Do you see any room for negotiation there?

    Sen. ALEXANDER: I hope not. I mean, we need to settle the estate tax. This is a compromise that makes a lot of sense. It's 35 percent, $5 million exemption. We think it's fair, and we should pass it.

    BLOCK: Let's talk about some of the broad contours of what you like about this bill. How do you justify that a quarter of the tax savings in this deal go to the wealthiest one percent of the population? Help us understand why that's fair.

    Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, the goal is to create jobs. And if you raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn on anybody, especially the job creators, you make it harder to create jobs.

    BLOCK: And if you look at the proportions, though, of the top, top sector of earners in this country getting the bulk of the benefits why does that help?

    Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, if you're a small business person in Tennessee, what this means is that you won't be paying tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more, in taxes and you can use that to create a job. It also means that your employees who work there will get a one-third reduction in their payroll tax payments every two weeks. And maybe they'll spend some more money creating more jobs. So it's a combination of policies that all together are focused on jobs.

    BLOCK: Would you want, Senator Alexander, the tax cuts on the wealthiest earners extended permanently, not just for the two years that you've agreed to now?

    Sen. ALEXANDER: Keep in mind, these aren't tax cuts. These are the tax rates that have been in place for 10 years.

    BLOCK: But they're set to expire and they would be extended. And I'm wondering if you would want them to extend permanently.

    Sen. ALEXANDER: That means they're set to go up. So they're not cuts, they're tax increases. It's the largest tax increase in history that's automatically set to go up January 1st. I believe that those tax rates ought to stay the same permanently. Our taxes aren't too low, our spending is too high. That's another debate we're going to be having. But right now, our whole goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs. Raising taxes on anybody doesn't do that.

    BLOCK: So you would want a permanent extension, then. Curious, then, how that can be justified with the widespread fear about ballooning deficits and the talk about the future that we're leaving for our grandchildren. How do you justify a package of tax cuts that adds $900 billion to the deficit?

    Sen. ALEXANDER: You keep calling them tax cuts and I have to respectfully disagree with you. You don't cut taxes when you leave tax rates at the same level they are. This is a big tax increase that will happen January 1st. The debt is the second big problem we have. Jobs is the first, debt is the second.
    One way to reduce the deficit is to increase the revenues. And you increase the revenues of the government by growing the economy. So this is one way to help reduce the deficit by getting revenues up. A second way is to reduce spending and the debt commission, with five out of six senators of both parties voting yes, has recommended a very dramatic way that we could move in reducing spending, which I hope we get to and I intend to try to support.

    BLOCK: Senator Alexander, thanks for talking with us.

    Sen. ALEXANDER: Thank you for your time.

    BLOCK: That's Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

  47. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    The Adult In The Room speaks
    President Obama tells Democrats to pass tax cut or we will all pay more

    President Obama Saturday called on Democratic lawmakers to pass a Republican-backed tax-cut deal, telling them it would keep America's recovery on track.
    In his weekly radio address, the President said without the proposal's approval, more than 1 million jobs could be lost nationwide and families would face tax hikes in the new year.
    "If Congress doesn't act, tax rates will automatically go up for just about everyone in our country," he said yesterday. "That's unacceptable to me."



    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...#ixzz17vD3p41H

  48. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Good News to end a Good Nite
    President Obama's goal to double US export over the next 5 years begins to look achievable

    U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services Highlights
    December 10, 2010

    Goods and Services Deficit Decreases in October 2010
    The Nation's international trade deficit in goods and services decreased to $38.7 billion in October from $44.6 billion [[revised) in September, as exports increased and imports decreased.
    http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html



  49. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352

    “Clinton was always selling himself. Obama seems always to be selling reality.”

    and a bonus

    Bailout is making the USA money

    Treasury: Financial bailout income at $35 billion
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...13c24125d77357
    [[AP) – 2 days ago

    WASHINGTON [[AP) — The government's heavily criticized $700 billion financial rescue program has earned nearly $35 billion in income over the past two years, according to data obtained by The Associated Press.
    The data showed that income from the Troubled Asset Relief Program rose nearly 17 percent through November, compared to where it stood in October. The income was boosted by the government's ongoing sales of Citigroup stock.
    The $35 billion estimate will be included in the monthly report on the bailout that is due to be released later Friday. The AP obtained the data in advance.
    The new total is up from the nearly $30 billion in income shown in the previous report covering the program's finances through October.

    Much of the added income came from the government's sale of Citigroup common stock. The Treasury Department sold off the last of its stake in the giant banking company Tuesday, ending up with a profit of $12 billion on the government's investment of $45 billion.

    Smaller amounts came from dividend payments from other banks that received support from the bailout fund, and also from dividends from the support provided to the former financing arm of General Motors.
    While income from the bailout has risen, the estimates of its overall final costs have been dropping. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office slashed its estimate of the projected losses from the bailout program to $25 billion, down from an August projection of $66 billion and a March forecast that the program would cost the government $109 billion in losses.

    The CBO credited TARP's brighter prospects to continued repurchases of preferred stock by banks that received the bailout funds, a lower estimated cost for assistance to insurance giant American International Group and automakers Chrysler and GM.

    TARP, which was developed by the previous Bush administration and passed by Congress at the height of the financial crisis in October 2008, became widely unpopular with the public.
    Republicans used voter unhappiness with the bailout and soaring federal budget deficits to pick up six Senate seats in the November elections and take control of the House.

  50. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    In each of the articles below, all written last Sept, the #1 reason cited by the Senate, for not taking the tax cut votes before the midterms was based on a fear of losing their seats. Many lost their seats anyway...
    Senate Democrats give up push for pre-election tax cut vote
    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-23/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

    September 23, 2010|From Dana Bash and Brianna Keilar, CNN Congressional Correspondents

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders have expressed desire to extend the tax cuts.

    Senate Democrats will not vote on extending Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year before the upcoming congressional elections, the spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Thursday.

    "We will come back in November [after the elections] and stay in session as long as it takes to get this done," said a statement from Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley.
    The announcement followed reports by CNN, citing senior Democratic sources, that Senate Democrats would hold off for now on forcing a vote on the measure pushed by President Obama.
    No tax cut vote before election: Democrat
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68M3AL20100924

    [[Reuters) - The Senate will not vote on renewing Bush-era tax cuts before the November 2 elections, a spokesman for the Majority leader said on Thursday, as Democrats face internal divisions and potential Republican obstacles.
    Democrats faced a potential Republican filibuster of their plan plus unease among some Democratic lawmakers who worry that voting on extending tax cuts enacted under former President George Bush could hurt re-election chances. Democrats are expected to lose seats, and perhaps even control of at least one chamber of Congress.
    Dems put off votes to extend Bush tax cuts until after elections

    By Alexander Bolton and Russell Berman - 09/23/10 05:49 PM ET
    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...after-election

    Similar divisions have roiled Democrats in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi [[D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer [[D-Md.) split over voting on the tax rates before the election, according to Democratic aides.
    Hoyer on Thursday reiterated his position that the House should wait to see what the Senate would do, and that delaying a vote would not hurt his party’s chances in November.

    “We don’t need to have a vote to let the American public know where we stand,” Hoyer said.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.