The Only Adult In The Room

[ms_m]

Random Thought

If the Dem Congress Critters and the Progressive base had screamed, push back and fought as hard against the Republicans as they have against the President....

We are the change we've been looking for

Hope We the people, figure that out soon, really soon.

[ms_m]

I posted this in the Wikileaks thread but I wanted to re post here. There is a lot we simply don't understand and the truth is, unless we have the resources and access to every law and detail on our books at a moments notice, unless we are apart of the 3 branches of government in this country, it will be almost impossible to understand everything that's going on. However, jumping to conclusions without knowing at least a few of the facts will only muddy the waters. Which I'm willing to bet is exactly what the folks pulling the strings want; to muddy the waters and keep us from seeing the truth.

Jumping on every conspiracy theory and every piece of info that conforms to our views or beliefs does not make that info correct, and that goes for me just as much as it goes for anyone else. That's why we have to research, ask questions, read and use every ounce of critical thinking skills we have to even begin to get through the maze of how things are working, and why many things are being done.

Whether I post it, or you read and or hear it from the media or the internet PLEASE, check it out for yourself and use as many resources as possible.

The " deliberate dumbing down of American" has been a part of our culture since Reagan.

It's not all about if you can spell, use the correct grammar or come up with the latest 5 dollar word, its about using your mind to THINK.

I cannot come up with one good reason we have to remain dumb, not one....unless we choose to.

With reading and accessing WikiLeaks documents, some law to consider
By Professor David Glazier

There has been significant discussion over the past week about potential consequences of downloading and sharing WikiLeaks documents classified by the U.S. government, ranging from schools' cautions to their students about potential job consequences to government agencies restricting access or discussion. One thing missing from most of this discussion is the relevant law. It does not seem to be widely understood that the public exposure of these documents does NOT declassify them. WikiLeaks can disclose classified information, but it cannot declassify it. As a matter of law these documents retain the original classification assigned to them until such time as an executive branch official with legal authority to alter the classification formally does so, or until the period of time established for them to remain classified has expired. [[Many classified documents will be marked with a specified duration for their classification). While it may seem like government agencies endeavoring to limit access to the WikiLeaks site or public discussion of the documents by their employees are engaging in politically motivated censorship, it is in fact consistent with their obligations to enforce the law.

The reason that the fact that these documents continue to be classified really matters is federal espionage law, particularly 18 U.S.C. sec. 793. Most subsections of that statute contain a mens rea requirement that the perpetrator intends or has reason to believe that the information they are accessing or distributing "is to be used to the injury of the United States." I would contend that a citizen accessing information online for the purpose of informing themselves about what the U.S. government has been doing does not satisfy this requirement and could not reasonably be prosecuted under those sections. It is not hard to see, however, that those responsible for leaking the information to WikiLeaks, and potentially those responsible for posting it--knowing it would almost certainly be accessed by foreign governments and groups with interests inimical to those of the U.S. might reasonably be prosecuted under these sections. But the way U.S. espionage law currently reads, any American who simply retains or forwards any of these documents could also find them self violating federal law.

The specific legal provision of most concern is subsection [[e) of 18 U.S.C. sec. 793, which reads [[with some omissions simply for clarity):

[[e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any . . . information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated . . . to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Read More

[MotownSteve]

Jon Stewart talking to First Responders to 9/11. A MUST WATCH! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNDmKorWJn0

[ms_m]

Great video MS.

I still cannot get over the Republicans determination to destroy this country and everyone in it, just to bring down the current President of the United States.

The fact so many people, are so dayum determined to dislike the man [[for every reason under the sun and more) they can't even see who their real enemies are.

Un effn real!!!!

[MotownSteve]

Hi ms_m,

Thanks.

If you want a good but not really funny laugh, go to youtube and look for Mitch McConnell videos and read the comments about the video where he cries over one of his buddies leaving. While we are on the subject of crying, a friend of my has seen Boehner put on his act many times.

[ms_m]

Setting the Record Straight on a False Statement

The tax cut deal is giving "$700 billion to millionaires and billionaires."
Sherrod Brown on Thursday, December 9th, 2010 in a CNN interview

Sen. Sherrod Brown overstates amount that 'millionaires and billionaires' would get in tax deal

The rich are different from you and me.

With apologies to F. Scott Fitzgerald, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown has been prone recently to talk about the rich. They tend to want tax breaks. To be more precise, Republicans want lavish tax breaks for their rich constituents, says Brown, an Ohio Democrat.

And some of these breaks go too far, says Brown, citing the recent deal to extend all Bush-era tax breaks, which President Barack Obama and congressional Republican leaders announced on Dec. 6. Three days after that announcement, Brown told Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer on CNN, "You know basically what we're doing here is we're borrowing $700 billion from the Chinese. We're charging it to our kids’ and grandkids' credit cards for them to pay off later and then we're giving that $700 billion to millionaires and billionaires."

That’s a lot of money, even for billionaires, so PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look.

We’re not here to ask whether whether it’s fair or whether it will trickle down and help the economy. We’re asking something more basic: Will there really be $700 billion worth of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires?

A short answer: No. That’s because Brown’s figure is loaded with an assumption and a rhetorical flourish.

The assumption is that the top income tax bracket for people with high incomes will remain at 35 percent for 10 more years. That’s roughly what it would take for the tax cuts for the nation’s top 2 percent of earners to reach a cost of $700 billion, according to projections in August by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Republicans at the time were pushing for a permanent extension of all the cuts that Congress passed in 2001 and 2003, and tax writers in the House of Representatives asked the joint committee to run a cost projection.

The problem with using that figure now is that the Obama-GOP deal, and the resulting tax package that Congress could approve this week, calls for extending the tax breaks for only two more years. A 10-year extension is not on the table.

It is true, as Brown’s communications director, Meghan Dubyak notes, that Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other economic advisers used the $700 billion figure as recently as September. They sounded a lot like Brown. But that was before the White House cut the two-year extension deal.

What figure should Brown have used? The answer depends on the rhetorical flourish we mentioned, which is this: That $700 billion figure for ten years includes a whole lot of people who are neither millionaires nor billionaires.

The figure, in fact, includes all single filers earning more than $200,000 a year and joint filers earning more than $250,000.

If you added up all the tax filers expected to report incomes of more than $200,000 in 2012, you’d get 7.5 million people, according to a rough calculation using figures from the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. But out of that 7.5 million people, only 531,000 would be from people with incomes of $1 million or more.

So the figure used by Brown -- and previously used by others -- includes "millionaires, billionaires and a whole bunch of people with incomes below that," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Using a slightly different technical perspective, the Joint Committee on Taxation said that out of 161 million tax filers nationwide, 315,000 earn at least $1 million.

People earning less than that can be considered millionaires, of course, because of their home values, investments and net worth. But to call a two-earner couple making $251,000 "millionaires and billionaires" exaggerates matters, and the $700 billion projection that Brown used never included such an assumption.

So if the cost is not $700 billion for millionaires and billionaires, what is it?

The Joint Committee projections earlier this year showed that a single year of extensions for just the $1 million-and-above filers would cost $32.7 billion. Run out over 10 years, that would come to $327 billion, although this is a rough estimate because the number of filers and their incomes and deductions can vary year to year.

The best estimate available comes from Joint Committee projections released on Dec. 10, a day after Brown spoke on CNN. They show the cost of retaining both the 33 percent tax bracket and the 35 percent bracket for two more years would come to $60.7 billion. This, too, covers a lot more people than millionaires and billionaires.

There is a chance that the two-year deal will be extended again in 2012. Obama, who is up for re-election that year, has not said as much, but Spitzer suggested it to Brown on CNN, and Brown agreed.

"Nobody really believes this is only a two-year extension of middle class tax cuts or the payroll tax holiday or the income tax cut or frankly the estate tax cut," Brown said. "I don't think anybody thinks that's only a two-year extension. I think it's well into the future. Who knows how to predict, five or 10 years out?"

But he did know how to project, and he chose 10 years.

How to rate Brown’s statement, then?
• His $700 billion cost figure certainly was used by the Obama White House when rejecting another 10 years worth of tax cuts for top earners. Yet by the time Brown appeared on CNN [[three days after the administration announced the compromise), the deal was for two years, and it was that very deal that Brown went on the air to criticize.

• Even if the deal had been for 10 years, Brown misapplied the cost figure by describing the whole $700 billion as going to millionaires and billionaires. Joint Committee projections from earlier this year estimated that cost would be more like $327 billion over 10 years.

Those are two key points on which Brown’s statement simply is not accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate his statement False.

No one disputes this deal continues tax cuts that the rich do not deserve, but let's make sure we are at least truthful in presenting the facts.

[ms_m]

Hi ms_m,

Thanks.

If you want a good but not really funny laugh, go to youtube and look for Mitch McConnell videos and read the comments about the video where he cries over one of his buddies leaving. While we are on the subject of crying, a friend of my has seen Boehner put on his act many times.

Funny video.
Thanks for the link

[ms_m]

The DREAM Act was voted down earlier but debates for DADT are going on now and the word, it has the votes to pass.

The actual vote is scheduled at 3pm.

Click Here to Watch it on Cspan

Note:McCain is coming up soon though so you may want to skip him.

[ms_m]

I forgot to add. the cloture vote was taken earlier and passed with more than the needed 60 votes. The vote was 63-33

The final vote at this point, is a forgone conclusion.

Pre victory congrats. I met a lot of people who worked really hard on this one. Great job!

By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will patriotic Americans be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love. ~ President Barack Obama, via Twitter and Facebook, 12/18/10

[ms_m]

Final Vote
65-31

Next Step: The President's Desk to be signed into law!

[ms_m]

Last night, the Senate voted on the House approved budget to continue federal spending in order to keep the government running through next Tuesday. The stop-gap measure will allow the House and Senate time to come up with a new resolution to fund the government through early next year.
The Senate also hopes to complete debate and vote on the START Treaty before the Christmas holiday.


Background on START and what it means to our National Security



Moscow wants START ratified, Iran engaged diplomatically


December 18 2010 19:29
At long last, the US Senate has opened a debate on ratifying the latest Russian-American strategic arms reduction treaty, signed at a summit on Prague on April 8th. The contention is over the preamble, which the Republican members want changed in a way that eliminates an agreed link between strategic weapons and missile defence. →

Remember during the campaign it was said negotiating with Iran
was naive?

President Obama presses Senate into ratifying START


December 18 2010 14:00
The US President Barack Obama insists that the Senate should ratify the new START treaty, or else America could forget about improving relations with Russia. President Obama says that Washington needs Moscow’s aid in settling numerous problems, specifically those related to Afghanistan and Iran’s nuclear programme. →

Democrats ready to initiate vote on START today

December 17 2010 19:25
The Democrats in the US Congress are ready to initiate the vote on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [[START) already on Friday if the Republicans don’t come up with new amendments, John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Friday. →

Moscow hopes US ratifies START by year end

December 17 2010 15:49
Moscow hopes that the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [[START) will be ratified by the US Congress by the end of the year, a spokesman with Russia’s Foreign Ministry Alexei Sazonov said Friday. →

US Senate debates "killer" amendments to START


December 17 2010 15:18
The US Senate is debating the new START treaty with Russia. The Democrats are asking their colleagues to vote for the agreement. The Republicans are criticizing the document and suggesting either postponement of the ratification until next year or adoption of important amendments. →

US will hopefully ratify START this year – Russian Foreign Ministry

December 17 2010 14:16
The Russian Foreign Ministry hopes that the United States will ratify the START treaty this year, says a Foreign Ministry official Alexei Sazonov. He told a news briefing in Moscow that one shouldn’t rule out that the United States may ratify the treaty before the end of the year. →

Republicans to offer 12 amendments to START


December 17 2010 10:24
The Republican Senators say they will make up to 12 amendments to the Russian-American Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, and will come up with a resolution on ratification. This comes in a statement by the deputy leader of the Republican faction in the Senate John Kyl. →

[ms_m]

Bo goes to Hawaii



Last year Bo the First Dog didn't get the chance to go on the annual family Hawaii Christmas vacation.


What a difference a year makes. He's packed and ready to go!

...and a few words from the First Dog

In an exclusive interview with this DogTime.com reporter, Bo Obama revealed, "Yes, it's true, the President scoops my poop whenever the need arises. Hey, he's had plenty of practice considering all the manure he had to move when he first took office. The previous administration left a virtual mine field of meadow muffins he had to bag and toss before he could get down to business!"

[MotownSteve]

Cute. During W's first term a NYC radio personality said it will take generations to undo what this president has done.

[ms_m]

I hope it's never undone with two exceptions.

I'd like a public option [[for health care)
and the tax cuts for the 2% permanently repealed.

I also have some wish list items that he's working on but.....he has six more years to deliver

[ms_m]

And I also want to see the DREAM ACT passed but I plan to talk about that later.

[ms_m]

oops...my bad, I was thinking of what President Obama had done.
sorry about that MS.

pays to put on ya glasses

[MotownSteve]

Well, I got official notice today, no increase in social security. I'm sure the house and senate won't get raises either. Or will they? Hmm.

[ms_m]

I really don't know what they will get MS but I'm a glass half full kinda gal. You get a check every month, it didn't decrease. I'm sure there are many that would love to take your place.

Have a great evening.

[ms_m]

DREAM Act Fails in Senate, 55 to 41

The DREAM Act would put young undocumented immigrants with a clean criminal record on a long path to citizenship if they commit two years to the military or higher education. In order to qualify, young people must have lived in the country for at least five years, entered the country before the age of 16 and still be under 30 years old. The bill passed the House earlier this month.

In the end, the bill, which has always enjoyed bipartisan support, actually got enough Republican votes to secure its passage. But the Democratic caucus disintegrated when North Carolina’s Kay Hagan, Arkansas’ Jon Pryor, Montana’s Max Baucus and Jon Tester, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson all voted against ending debate on the bill. Meanwhile, some key Republicans voted for the DREAM Act: Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, Richard Lugar from Indiana and outgoing Sen. Bob Bennett from Utah.

President Obama on the DREAM Act: "My Administration Will Not Give Up"

Posted by Kori Schulman on December 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM EST

Following a disappointing vote in the Senate, President Obama released the following statement on the DREAM act:
In an incredibly disappointing vote today, a minority of Senators prevented the Senate from doing what most Americans understand is best for the country. As I said last week, when the House passed the DREAM Act, it is not only the right thing to do for talented young people who seek to serve a country they know as their own, it is the right thing for the United States of America. Our nation is enriched by their talents and would benefit from the success of their efforts. The DREAM Act is important to our economic competitiveness, military readiness, and law enforcement efforts. And as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported, the DREAM Act would cut the deficit by $2.2 billion over the next 10 years. There was simply no reason not to pass this important legislation.

It is disappointing that common sense did not prevail today. But my administration will not give up on the DREAM Act, or on the important business of fixing our broken immigration system. The American people deserve a serious debate on immigration, and it’s time to take the polarizing rhetoric off our national stage.

I thank Senators Durbin, Reid, and Menendez for their tireless efforts. Moving forward, my administration will continue to do everything we can to fix our nation’s broken immigration system so that we can provide lasting and dedicated resources for our border security while at the same time restoring responsibility and accountability to the system at every level.

[ms_m]

What They Are Saying: The Affordable Care Act and the Courts

Posted by Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President for Special Projects
On Monday, a Virginia judge issued a narrow ruling on the constitutionality of the individual responsibility provision in the Affordable Care Act. In two other cases – including a separate case in Virginia -- federal judges looked at the merits of the opponents’ arguments and upheld the law. 12 other challenges to the law have been dismissed by courts across the country. You can learn more about these court cases and the Administration’s arguments here.
In the days following the ruling in Virginia, editorial boards nationwide have examined the decision and the Affordable

Care Act’s individual responsibility provision. Here’s what they are saying:

Los Angeles Times: The individual mandate: It's constitutional

In that sense, what's at stake isn't Americans' cherished "right to be let alone." It's whether they'll continue to be stuck in a system in which millions of uninsured people force those with insurance to pick up at least part of the tab for their visits to the emergency room and for the untreated diseases that they spread....


USA Today: Our view on 'individual mandate': Ruling on health law offers a victory for freeloaders


.... If the requirement that most Americans buy insurance is thrown out, but the insurance reforms remain in place, premiums would skyrocket for existing policyholders.
The individual mandate once enjoyed significant support among conservatives, who saw it as promoting an ethic of personal responsibility, but the drive to oppose President Obama's signature reform led many of them to abandon that principle and denounce the insurance mandate as big government run amok. They had it right in the first place.

Las Vegas Sun: A poor decision; Judge misses point on health care law, not seeing how everyone is affected

The law certainly has a constitutional basis. Congress has a right to address health care, which accounts for one-sixth of the nation’s economy, and it has a right to regulate an industry that affects everyone.
.... yet some conservatives are more interested in protecting the insurance industry over the public, claiming the law violates their liberty. But that’s a disingenuous argument.

The reality is that by providing more equity in the system, the health care law isn’t undercutting liberty, it’s actually upholding it.

St. Louis Post Dispatch: Health care reform and the freedom to freeload

.... The final word will come from the U.S. Supreme Court, as has always been expected....
Judge Hudson is entirely and demonstrably wrong. His grasp of health care economics and the realities of the marketplace are, to put it charitably, flawed. His ruling is an exercise in sophistry...
...[[H)is ruling would be a blow to the vast majority of responsible Americans who already have health insurance. They’ll have to continue footing ever-higher premiums to cover freeloaders who refuse to take responsibility for their own care.

New York Times: The Latest Health Care Decision

Yet it seems clear that decisions not to buy insurance will, in the aggregate, affect costs in the broader health care markets. We hope higher courts will find that a decision to forgo insurance simply shifts much of the cost for subsequent illness to hospitals, doctors and insured individuals. Taxpayers’ costs would rise to pay for billions of dollars in uncompensated care given to individuals who can’t pay for it....

Washington Post: Judge Hudson's flawed but restrained ruling on the health law

Importantly - and correctly - Judge Hudson, in invalidating the individual mandate, declined to bring down the rest of the law with it, as Virginia had asked.... On the constitutionality of the individual mandate, he made what we consider the wrong call in a difficult case. But he did it in a thoughtful way that will be minimally disruptive to implementing the law and obtaining a final determination on its constitutionality.

[ms_m]

Obama Urges Swift Approval of START Treaty

President Barack Obama is urging the U.S. Senate to rafity the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia before the end of the legislative session.

President Obama says approving the New START treaty is an urgent national priority. "Ratifying a treaty like START is not about winning a victory for an administration or a political party. It is about the safety and security of the United States of America," he said.

The president again appealed for approval of START during his weekly address on Saturday.

Senators are expected to debate and vote on the treaty in the coming days, as their session ends.

Republicans who oppose ratifying the treaty are threatening amendments to the legislation to slow the process.

Mr. Obama reminded them that the previous nuclear arms treaty has expired, and that the U.S. is no longer able to verify Russia's nuclear arsenal. "Every minute we drag our feet is a minute that we have no inspectors on the ground at those Russian nuclear sites," he said.

Full Story

[ms_m]

GOP Reversal on 9-11 Health Bill

9/11 Health Bill Wins Support From G.O.P.

WASHINGTON — Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand said Saturday that she and other sponsors of a stalled 9/11 health bill had won new Republican support for the measure and intended to try again to pass it before the end of the 111th Congress.
Following the Senate’s vote to repeal the ban on gays serving in the military, Ms. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, said Democrats intended to resurrect the health initiative in the coming days after falling three votes short of breaking a filibuster against it earlier this month.
“We have the votes we need,” Ms. Gillibrand said. “We have indications from several Republicans that they very much want to vote for this bill.”

The $7.4 billion measure is intended to provide medical care to workers and others who had become ill as a result of being exposed to toxic debris and fumes at the site of the World Trade Center attack in 2001.

Republicans have raised concerns about how to pay for the program, and Ms. Gillibrand said the bill’s authors have identified ways to cover the costs through new federal fees that are acceptable to enough Republicans to advance the measure. It stalled on a party line vote of 57 to 42 when 60 votes were required.

[ms_m]

Editorial

Justice Scalia and the Tea Party

Published: December 18, 2010

When the Tea Party holds its first Conservative Constitutional Seminar next month, Justice Antonin Scalia is set to be the speaker. It was a bad idea for him to accept this invitation. He should send his regrets.

The Tea Party epitomizes the kind of organization no justice should speak to — left, right or center — in the kind of seminar that has been described in the press. It has a well-known and extreme point of view about the Constitution and about cases and issues that will be decided by the Supreme Court.

By meeting behind closed doors, as is planned, and by presiding over a seminar, implying give and take, the justice would give the impression that he was joining the throng — confirming his new moniker as the “Justice from the Tea Party.”

The ideological nature of the group and the seminar would eclipse the justice’s independence and leave him looking rash and biased.

Full Story

[ms_m]

The Supreme Court and Obama’s Health Care Law

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: December 18, 2010

So far in three lawsuits against the plan, two federal judges appointed by Democrats have upheld the law; one Republican-appointed judge has declared an important part of it unconstitutional. Use party as your measure, send the cases up the appeals ladder, and you quickly get to a 5-4 decision at the Supreme Court: the justices appointed by Republican presidents will vote to strike down the law. Game over, thanks for playing.

But the votes of the Supreme Court are not that easy to divine, and while political considerations can creep into any judge’s views, deeper factors are at play, said Mark Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School. Supreme Court justices, for the most part, “are attuned to their reputations as individuals in history, and their overall place in the government as a whole,” he said.

Read More

[ms_m]

Intriguing article

Soros vs Murdoch: The battle for the soul of America

Two billionaires – one liberal, the other conservative – are at war. The prize is the future of the US. David Usborne reports

Who knew that Rupert Murdoch and George Soros, two billionaires of not so tender years, had it in them? But consider.

While the one means to impose a right-wing "dictatorial democracy" on America, the other is a "master puppeteer" bent on collapsing the dollar and forming a socialist world government.

Cartoonish this may be, but a joke it is not. These two behemoths of media and finance might, as they approach retirement, have restricted themselves to brandishing their ideological differences over an occasional dinner at their clubs in New York and London. Instead they are projecting their increasingly bitter fight on to the canvas of American politics. To whose benefit exactly, it's not clear.

Full Story

[MotownSteve]

Food for thought.

[ms_m]

sunshineonacloudyday
Chk this out
Yeah!

The Little Bill That Could

Little noticed but extremely important to progressives, on Saturday afternoon Congress also passed the Local Community Radio Act.

This legislation opens up radio spectrum to hundreds, if not thousands, of local independent radio stations [[also known as LPFM).

Its passing will bring new choices and voices on the radio dial nationwide, but is especially relevant to a broadcast area reaching 160 million people who lived in areas where these stations had previously been barred from local airwaves.

Anyone tracking the rise of radio personalities like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage understands the primary political significance of gaining access to spectrum.

With the opening of the airwaves to LPFM stations, progressives can gain a small but consequential spot on the radio dial. The challenge now is to organize local groups to gain access to licenses. Follow and support the Prometheus Radio Project to learn more.

Read More

[jillfoster]

sunshineonacloudyday
Chk this out
Yeah!

that's wonderful news! Of course, television has had low power television stations for as long as it's existed, but that has been primarily used by religious channels, spanish channels, and most notably low power translators, which simply "re-broadcast" the signal of network affiliates in highly mountainous and remote rural areas. This is wonderful news, and will increase the amount of voices heard over the airwaves. I'm sure large corporation broadcasters are bemaoning this, because it can only further erode their market share, but hey... tough crap! Corporate ownership of multiple stations in a single broadcast market has virtually killed radio for me, luckily I live in a rural area, so there are a "few" left out here in the boondocks where the audience is too small for the big guys to want to pay attention.

[ms_m]

Jillfoster not only will it cut into their market share but it loosens the control they have over many of these communities.

For a lot if these places the only thing they hear are folks like Limbaugh. That's about to end and yes, that
is good news!

[ms_m]

Missed this op ed when it first came out but I’m glad I ran across it.
For all those that think the President sold out. This article should give you a few things to consider.

He has always said he didn’t like the tax cuts for the rich but like it or not, the Republicans held the middle class tax cuts hostage in order to keep them.

The purist said, don’t cave no matter who gets hurt. Thank goodness he didn't listen to 20% of the extreme left.

The President wasn’t willing to throw the middle class under the bus. Personally, I call that principled with a backbone of steel!

Does Obama have contempt for the left?
By Adam Serwer

Yesterday, President Obama gave a combative response to criticism he's been receiving from the left for his proposed deal with Republicans to extend both the middle and upper income tax cuts. Sounding a note that resembled his rebuke to neoconservatives regarding the "satisfying purity of indignation" in his Nobel acceptance speech, the president said:

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.

More

FYI

The newest meme coming from the Progressive left; [[or the I hate Obama Dems)
pushing the idea he wants to dismantle Social Security.

SS is one of the cornerstone pieces of legislation in the Dem Party. The POTUS is a lot of things but stupid he's not. PLEASE, check things out before buying into that meme.

Questioning is a good thing. Accepting without questioning is not.

[ms_m]

Geesh, where was all this bipartisan support
Two years ago?

Senate Approves Food Safety Bill

Capping off a productive weekend, the Senate passed a food safety bill by unanimous consent on Sunday night—approving the legislation in a brisk, surprise move that caught some staffers by surprise. The bill, which would give new powers to the FDA to prevent contamination in food products, had already been passed by the Senate several weeks ago, but a parliamentary snafu invalidated the vote. “Our food safety system has not been updated in almost a century,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid, who vowed to again send the completed bill back to the House for final approval—this time with the correct language. "This is a common-sense issue with broad bipartisan support.”

In Sunday-evening surprise, Senate unanimously passes food safety bill

The Senate unexpectedly approved food safety legislation by unanimous consent Sunday evening, rescuing a bill that floated in limbo for weeks because of a clerical error.

The Senate passed the Food Safety and Modernization Act on Nov. 30 by a vote of 73-25. But the bill was later invalidated by a technical objection because it was a revenue-raising measure that did not originate in the House — Senate staff had failed to substitute the food safety language into a House-originated bill.

A coalition of groups supporting the bill sent a letter Sunday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [[D-Nev.) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell [[Ky.) calling for action on food safety.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...nimous-consent

[ms_m]

Amendment Would Enable States to Repeal Federal Law

This is NOT a good thing...

And to refresh your memory, here is a reminder of a few major acts of congress,http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress including a little something called, Civil Rights.


The idea a repeal of this magnitude would pass in the next 2 years is pretty preposterous, but the fact Republicans/Tea Party folks are even going down this road, should give rational thinking people serious pause.

You think you have issues with the current WH resident?

Well take a look at what the future could bring with a Republican at the helm.

Amendment Would Enable States to Repeal Federal Law

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: December 19, 2010
The same people driving the lawsuits that seek to dismantle the Obama administration’s health care overhaul have set their sights on an even bigger target: a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of the states to overturn any act of Congress.

Jay Paul for The New York Times

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the attorney general of Virginia, wrote to his counterparts in every state this month, asking them to support a constitutional amendment that would allow the states to vote to overturn acts of Congress.
Under the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.
The idea has been propelled by the wave of Republican victories in the midterm elections. First promoted by Virginia lawmakers and Tea Party groups, it has the support of legislative leaders in 12 states. It also won the backing of the incoming House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, when it was introduced this month in Congress.

Read More

[sunshineonacloudyday]

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I'll do a thread for LPFM, this is BIG news for little radio stations!!!!

[ms_m]

Page1
Social Security

Earlier I made a foot note about Social Security. The underground buzz on this is getting louder which means sooner or later, MSM will probably pick up on the crazy and run with it.

To refresh your memory, the new meme is, President Obama is trying to gut Social Security. I cannot find any concrete evidence to support this meme.

Let me give you a little background on all of this. During the volatile tax cut debate on Democratic blogs, things really got out of hand. There are two camps, supporters of the President and non supporters. From what I’ve observed, both sides were over the top. Both sides said pretty hateful and vile things, when charges of racism starting flying, all hell broke loose. Were there racist comments made? YES.
Was ALL the criticism against the President racist? NO.

Personally, I think some of it was intentionally being stirred up by outside agitators on both sides, but it reached the point where you really didn’t know what the heck was going on. In the middle of all this, the idea of SS being gutted started to appear. It died down for awhile but now it’s coming back with a vengeance.

For the life of me I can not figure out why anyone would think the President would want to gut SS. He’s never said anything remotely close to wanting to do so and, it would be political suicide if he tried.

It seems some of the suspicions’ come from the SS Holiday Tax that was placed in the Tax Deal. Some think it’s the beginning of the end. I have checked numerous sources and the overall opinion of many highly respected economists; SS is sound for now, possibly thorough 2027 or beyond. Are there dissenting and conflicting ideas? Yes, but they seem more opinion based than fact based, whereas the other guys are coming up with some pretty hard facts. I went back and checked the 2010 Fiscal Budget and found the following.

See next page [[2)

[ms_m]

Page 2

Budget of the United States Government: Browse Fiscal Year

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010
Funding Highlights:

Social Security Section [[PDF)
• Provides $11.6 billion for the Social Security Administration, a 10-percent increase targeted at completing crucial workloads and providing the American public with better service.
• Enables processing of a rising number of retirement and disability claims.
• Provides funding for increasing program integrity efforts to ensure payments are made to the right person and in the correct amount.
• Modernizes rules for evaluating disability.
• Looks forward to working in a bipartisan way to preserve Social Security for future generations.

Please keep in mind this budget that was submitted by the President and passed by congress. Note the 11.6 billions dollars which was a 10 percent increase in the SS portion of the budget.

Then I checked the 2011 Fiscal Budget and found the following:

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011
Funding Highlights:


Scroll to the SS section

• Provides $12.5 billion for the Social Security Administration, an 8 percent increase, targeted at
reducing backlogs and improving service for the American public.
• Expands program integrity efforts to make sure payments are made to the right person and in
the right amount.
• Restructures Federal Wage Reporting.

Here is the catch, the 2011 budget has not been passed and is in Dem/Repub gridlock. That gridlock seems to be what’s scaring the crap out of people.

Another thing I ran across was this:

US tax deal, budget feud set stage for 2011 cuts

Democrats and Republicans in Congress are gridlocked over the $1.1 trillion budget for 2011. So they will probably pass a temporary spending measure to keep the government running for another month or two. This creates a situation next year where the flood of new Tea Party Republicans can combine a threat of government shutdown with a refusal to raise the national debt ceiling so as to squeeze spending cuts out of Obama and congressional Democrats.

Indeed, some GOP insiders believe the president – with a bit of nudging — may be ready to strike a deal to reform the tax system and cut future Social Security benefits along lines suggested by his own debt commission earlier this month. And as the tax compromise shows, Obama now seems willing to anger some within his own party in order to get legislation passed.

The key to any longer-term deal on the deficit is to make it happen before presidential politics starts to intrude by the middle of 2011. That’s not going to be easy — but the flurry of activity at the end of 2010 provides a glimmer of hope.

I’m sure there are some that will read this and say, he’s going to gut SS. Nowhere does it say that. It does theorize he may be willing to anger Dems by cutting back but it’s a theory and nothing more. As a matter of fact, under the heading of the author it says:

The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.



…Theory, opinion, but no concrete evidence.


But think about this, why put billions of dollars in SS if your plan is to gut it? Does that really make any rational or logical sense?

[ms_m]

Page 3

In August of this year the President said:

Obama: Social Security 'is not in crisis'
By Jordan Fabian - 08/18/10 10:31 AM ET

President Obama said Social Security is not in crisis and only modest changes are needed to keep it solvent.
The president acknowledged at a small town hall gathering in Columbus, Ohio, Wednesday that the pension fund "has to be tweaked because the population is getting older" but said Republicans' plans to drastically overhaul the program are wrong.

"Social Security is not in crisis," Obama said. "We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it."

Social Security has become a significant campaign issue during the August recess — Democrats have attacked the GOP, accusing them of wanting to privatize the Great Depression-era program. They cite Rep. Paul Ryan's [[R-Wis.) budget roadmap, which proposes raising the retirement age to 70 and cutting benefits for wealthy retirees.
In the past, the GOP has proposed putting some Social Security benefits in private accounts. But many Republicans have said they do not support the plan.

Still, some economists worry the program will soon become insolvent because there are more retirees and, thus, fewer workers paying into the system. Recent polling also shows that most people believe they will not receive their benefits upon retirement.

But the president said these problems can be solved so everyone can receive benefits.
"There are some fairly modest changes that could be made without resorting to any newfangled schemes that would continue Social Security for another 75 years, where everybody would get the benefits they deserve," he said.

"I have been adamant that Social Security should not be privatized, and it will not be privatized as long as I am president," he added.

Obama also said his bipartisan fiscal commission could come up with proposals to extend the life of the program.
"I am absolutely convinced it can be done," he said.
Read More

He wants to preserve the program but for all we know SS is wasting money on things that have nothing to do with benefits and trust me it’s possible. Government waste such as spending 100 bucks for a toilet seat has been known to occur and, it’s been documented.

[ms_m]

Page 4

Another thing that has the Progressive Left in a tizzy is the President’s Deficit Commission, affectionately known as the Cat Food Commission.

Personally, I’ve always thought Democrats were allergic to cutting back on spending but in all fairness, a lot of that has to do with, usually the things that are cut hurt the middle class and poor. Although it’s rather ironic the middle class folk that are complaining now, didn’t get their panties in bunch when Clinton cut back Welfare that ended up hurting the children of Welfare mothers…hmmmmm….but I digress.

Anyhoo, this Cat Food Commission came up with the following recommendations and I will admit many are quite extreme and go after entitlement programs, yet many make perfect sense.

Obama's deficit commission calls for talks with Congress

The co-chairmen of President Obama's bipartisan deficit commission are urging him to enter into serious negotiations with Congress about specific ways to cut spending, raise taxes and control the $13.8 trillion national debt.

Those would be interesting talks, given that Obama and proponents of a tentative agreement to temporarily extend President George W. Bush's tax cuts acknowledge it would increase the deficit by more than $700 billion over the next two years.

The commission issued its final report last week calling for nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. It included tough proposals to eliminate special-interest tax breaks, charge more for Medicare and give less in Social Security benefits. It also called for big cuts in defense and domestic spending.

Members of the panel met this morning at the White House with budget director Jacob Lew and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. After the meeting, co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson said lawmakers should come together on a deficit-reduction plan before they vote to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling next year.

If you're wondering what the recommendations were, you can read a summary by scrolling through the text document: Click on link

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41938747/I...ive-List-11-10

Which recommendations the President will take, I do not have a clue. Neither does any of the people running around screaming their hair is on fire.

And yes, I do understand people are suspicious, and do not like Geithner and a few others.

But suspicions and dislike do not equal proof of gutting anything.

HOWEVER…

If you have any concerns or feeling uneasy, now is the time to be proactive, let your congress critters and the President know by emails, phone calls, petitions or carrier pigeon, you are concerned and will not accept any major cuts in SS.

Please do not accept hyperbole and unsubstantiated rumors or speculations based on distrust or hate of the POTUS. Do not follow the hysterical people into bizzaro world and then at the last minute, blame the President because you don’t like the way he’s doing his job.

Then again, do the opposite, your choice, but understand choices bring consequences. Those consequences could come wrapped in Republican/Tea Party clothing sitting in the WH or in the majority of both the House and Senate come 2012.

To paraphrase a saying, if you are not working to be part of the solution, you ARE a part of the problem.

There is something else I would like to add to this and I’m just as guilty as anyone but like it or not, folks on the left need to face the fact our deficit needs to be addressed. Many of the programs the President has created pay for themselves but many do not. We can’t keep spending without looking at ways to make cuts. That’s reality.

President Obama is a long term thinker so at some point he will be making what he feels are necessary budget cuts. My guess many if not all will be addressed in his State of the Union Speech.

These cuts will hurt some and not others so this will be another one of those major fights that will not please everyone and will get twisted with talking points and spin.

Don’t have a clue what measures he will take and it’s possible I may not agree with all of them, but gutting SS is not on my list of concerns.

I don’t want to tell anyone what they should or should not be concerned with. All I’m asking is for people to verify first. Trust can come after.

[ms_m]

One more thing

THE 2011 Fiscal Budget, has not been passed by Congress.
This also has many people concerned.

This Dem/Repub gridlock is in Congress not the WH
but, IF THEY DON'T TAKE CARE OF THIS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS...THERE WILL POSSIBLY/PROBABLY BE A DEAL!

[ms_m]

Jobs and Solar Power

Back in Black: US Now a Net Exporter of Solar
by Timothy B. Hurst on December 18, 2010

“The U.S. imports and exports product from every continent. But in addition to being a major net exporter of solar energy products, the industry is creating significant wealth in the United States and jobs in all 50 states,” said Rhone Resch, President and CEO of Solar Energy Industry Association, the largest solar industry trade association in the U.S.

Read More

I like these types of stories but it's sad we don't get more of this on constant rotation in the MSM.

[ms_m]

Attention Fox News Viewers[[?)




There was a story reported that Emanuel Clever a member of the Black Caucus submitted a 48 billion dollar earmark request. Yes I said 48 billion dollars

The story IS NOT TRUE!!!!!

"I think it would be hilarious if thousands of people did not believe it."
— Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri

A $48 billion earmark? Blogosphere runs wild with erroneous report

Read Full Story




Rep. Cleaver is one of the more than 25 or so members of Congress, who lists ALL earmark ideas submitted to his office. No matter how crazy. No matter who they are from. He does this in the name of transparency.




Transparency….
Too easy, won’t even go there.


Just to be clear, he writes them all down, He does not submit them all to congress

[ms_m]

Two down: Obama ends first half of term with big victories

President Obama chalks up victories on taxes and 'don't ask, don't tell' as the first half of his presidential term ends. He's getting a fresh look from voters as engaged and involved — a deal maker.

By Paul West, Washington Bureau
December 19, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama is ending the first half of his term the same way he began it — with a storm of activity of impressive, even historic, dimensions. Year-end victories on taxes, economic stimulus and landmark cultural change are reshaping the image of a president who seemed isolated and out of touch only a month ago in the wake of an enormous midterm election defeat.

Suddenly, he looks like a deal maker who can reach across party lines to get things done and, perhaps, make progress that Americans found lacking when they went to the polls in November.

Obama is "a progressive leader who, in fact, understands that politics is all about the art of the possible," Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday on NBC. Both parties, Biden said, had "heard the message" of the election, that voters "want us to reasonably compromise to move the business of the nation forward."


Read More

[ms_m]

Obama Scores a Victory, Along With Some Vindication
Posted on Dec 21, 2010

By Eugene Robinson

President Obama must be tempted to respond to his progressive critics with a quote from the old-school rapper Kool Moe Dee: “How ya like me now?”

Repeal of the military’s bigoted and anachronistic “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military—a campaign promise that seemed to be slipping out of reach—doesn’t fully mend the relationship between Obama and the Democratic Party’s liberal wing. But it’s a pretty terrific start.

Progressives needed a clear, unambiguous victory to ease the sting of those extended tax cuts for the rich. They got one Saturday with the Senate’s historic vote to end “don’t ask, don’t tell”—and Obama won vindication for the slow, patient, step-by-step approach that drove gay and lesbian activists crazy but ultimately produced a stunning result.

Obama’s 2010 Successes and Failures in the Middle East

By Juan Cole
Posted on Dec 21, 2010

As 2010 dawned, President Barack Obama had four big issues on his plate regarding the Middle East. These were Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran, and Afghanistan. The year has been as unkind to him on those issues as it was with respect to unemployment and the Republican resurgence. As the decade draws to a close, it is clear that the bright hopes inspired by Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech have markedly faded, and the disappointments have outweighed achievements in the most important arena for contemporary American foreign policy. In some important respects, the fault lies with Obama himself for being less a leader than a coordinator.

In Iraq, the U.S. State Department’s hopes that the March 7 parliamentary elections would contribute to national reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites and form a bridge to a successful American withdrawal have been put in doubt. The Iraqiya Party, headed by former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, had attracted the support of Iraq’s minority Sunnis, and was backed by Saudi Arabia and, initially, the United States. Although it had the largest single number of seats in the new Parliament, it never found enough partners to form a majority.

[ms_m]

Obama Is Suffering Because of His Achievements, Not Despite Them

With this weekend’s decisive Senate repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gay service members, can anyone seriously doubt Barack Obama’s patient willingness to play the long game? Or his remarkable success in doing so? In less than two years in office—often against the odds and the smart money’s predictions at any given moment—Obama has managed to achieve a landmark overhaul of the nation’s health insurance system; the most sweeping change in the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression; the stabilization of the domestic auto industry; and the repeal of a once well-intended policy that even the military itself had come to see as unnecessary and unfair.

So why isn’t his political standing higher?

Read More Here

[MotownSteve]

The Dems, [[I think I've said this before, have no ability to market themselves.) Meanwhile, I'm tired of the republicans complaining about work the week before Christmas. If they had worked earlier in the year they might be home by now. But now, it is all the fault of the Democrats. And McConnell today. I wonder if the guy has ever really worked a day in his sorry life. Enough ranting for now.

[ms_m]

I know the feeling MS.
Jim DeMint is trying to back peddle on his involvement with the fake Christmas outrage and he still sounds foolish.

Jim DeMint and the war on Christmas vacation

South Carolina GOP Sen. Jim DeMint repeated today his claim that "millions of Americans" are "outraged" that Congress would dare work on major legislation, namely New START, this close to Christmas. He previously called it "sacrilegious."

"Don't tell me about Christmas. I understand Christmas," Vice President Joe Biden responded in a Dec. 16 interview. "There's 10 days between now and Christmas. I hope I don't get in the way of your Christmas shopping, but this is the nation's business. National security's at stake. Act."

Less than a week later, DeMint is back at it again. "It's clear with this treaty that [the administration is] trying to cram something down the throats of the American people under the cover of Christmas," DeMint said in a press conference on Tuesday. "They're not looking at politics right now, they're celebrating their holy Christmas holiday, and the fact that we're doing this under the cover of Christmas...is something to be outraged about."

Full Article Here

[ms_m]

Senate Continues Work on START Treaty and 9/11 Health Bill
Senate Passes Defense Bill‎

Washington, DC
Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The Senate continues to work on major legislation to wrap up 111th session, including the START treaty and 9/11 first responders’ health bill. Earlier today, Senators passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 by unanimous consent.

The Senate plans to finish taking up amendments on the START treaty and take a final vote. Also, negotiations continue on the 9/11 first responders’ health bill. If the Senate is able to approve the legislation, the House is standing by to act on it.

Earlier today, the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 by unanimous consent. The House, which approved the measure last week, will review it this week.

Read More


Senate Now On C SPAN2 – click to watch

[ms_m]

Obama Signs DADT Repeal Into Law

President Obama this morning signed into law the bill repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
"I am just overwhelmed," Obama said as he took the stage among chants of "Yes we can!" and whoops from the audience. "This is a very good day."

"No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military, regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay," he said. "No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie."

Read More

It's Over: Senate Repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell/Slideshow

[ms_m]

Sarah Palin is such a twit…
…and that’s me being nice.

Mike Huckabee Defends Michelle Obama Against Sarah Palin [[AUDIO)

The Huffington Post | Nick Wing Posted: 12-22-10 09:49 AM

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took a moment on Tuesday to counter Sarah Palin's recent claim that Michelle Obama is out to rob children and parents of their rights to eat dessert.

"With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin, I think she's misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do," Huckabee said Tuesday during a radio appearance the "Curtis Sliwa Show."

On Sunday's episode of "Sarah Palin's Alaska," the state's former governor quipped on a camping trip that she planned to make her family s'mores "in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert," an apparent jab at the first lady's campaign anti-obesity campaign, which does include, among other things, an encouragement that American families attempt to find dessert replacements.

Huckabee, who struggled with weight issues himself, but later took up marathon running and had managed to lose significant weight through exercise [[another staple of Michelle Obama's initiative), wanted to make clear that the program is not, as Palin has claimed, simply a move to try to get big government on "our back."

Read and listen to audio here



Personal Opinion:
Out of all the names that have been discussed as a possible Republican Presidential Candidate in 2012,
I’ve always believed Mike Huckabee would be the most difficult for the President to beat. He can come off a little goofy at times though. That could be an issue in terms of a credible leader that would demand respect. But all in all, I think he could give President Obama a run for his money. We shall see.

[ms_m]

Must See TV

Many people know I’m not a TV watcher but I do watch clips from time to time on the net. I prefer Maddow over Olbermann because Rachel is calm and reasonable, even when she criticizes the President. She also gives opinions that are fact based and well researched, and she doesn’t have any problems admitting when she has gotten something wrong. Wow, another Adult In The Room.

Anyhoo, for those who may have missed her show yesterday you can watch it here. [[see link below)

She gives an excellent breakdown of why the START TREATY is important not only for the US but for the world.

She gives the President praise [[based on facts) for what he’s been able to accomplish in the last two years and, she shows how hard Republicans have tried to undermine his presidency and the lengths they are willing to continue to try.

[[rather ironic since the talking points from his critics is, he’s a Republican in sheep’s clothing, a sell out and another Bush Jr.)

I’ve said this before but current Republicans care more about destroying President Obama than they care about …..WE THE PEOPLE!


The Rachel Maddow Show

[ms_m]

Deal struck to pass 9/11 workers' health bill

By Michael O'Brien - 12/22/10 01:16 PM ET

Democrats struck an agreement on Wednesday on a bill funding health benefits 9/11 first responders, clearing its way for passage by the end of the day.

Sen. Tom Coburn [[R-Okla.) said he'd reached an agreement with Democratic leaders that would let the legislation move forward without the procedural hurdles he had threatened.
“I’m pleased the sponsors of this bill agreed to lower costs dramatically, offset the bill, sunset key provisions and take steps to prevent fraud," Coburn said in a statement. "Every American recognizes the heroism of the 9/11 first responders, but it is not compassionate to help one group while robbing future generations of opportunity. I’m pleased this agreement strikes a fair balance and improves the bill the majority attempted to rush through at the last minute."

Read More


FYI: In spite of what Coburn states this was NOT a last minute bill. It has been stalled by Republicans for months AND, it’s paid for. It’s sad the only way to get the votes to pass this was to “hostage” 2 billions dollars that was already paid for, but that’s how Republicans operate. It’s all about what the Republicans’ want, how to screw the President and not what is best for the country.

Take the deal or screw 9-11 First Responders?
We take the deal. [[been there done that)

Playing politics with the lives of people is stupid but that’s what the current Republican leadership does, [[with the help of many bluedog Dems) time and time again.