# Obama Makes Picks for Debt Commission



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WASHINGTON-President Barack Obama rounded out his appointments to his new deficit commission, naming former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Alice Rivlin and three others to serve on the panel.

In addition to Ms. Rivlin, Mr. Obama appointed Honeywell International Inc. Chief Executive David Cote, Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern, and former Young & Rubicam Chief Executive Ann Fudge to the commission.

"I am proud that these distinguished individuals have agreed to work to build a bipartisan consensus to *put America on the path toward fiscal reform and responsibility," Mr. Obama said in a statement. "I know they'll take up their work with the sense of integrity and strength of commitment that the American people deserve and America's future demands."*

This he does AFTER the Trillion dollar TARP.

AFTER the Trillion dollar stimulas.

AFTER a Trillion dollar Healthcare reform proposal.

I get the feeling that if Pres. Obama crapped on his livingroom couch,
he form a panel to find out why it stinks so much in there!!


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I see he put his boss, Andy Stern, on the commission.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)




----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Why do we need commissions? Can't we just go "hey, we're taking in $x, so we must spend $y where y<x." And "hey, because of the Laffer curve, if we raise taxes, tax receipts won't really go up."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

brokencycle said:


> Why do we need commissions? Can't we just go "hey, we're taking in $x, so we must spend $y where y<x." And "hey, because of the Laffer curve, if we raise taxes, tax receipts won't really go up."


We need commisions to make simple solutions look complicated and expensive!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

February's finished, the month the bunch above waxed on about how much they didn't want them damn ***** in the army (not you, Earl).

Now comes March. Today's the first. Let's all ooze together and start a thread about what Sore Losers we are.​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Actually, Feburary was the month I emplored P&P not to behave like an ass.

Why should March be any different!!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Actually, Feburary was the month I emplored P&P not to behave like an ass.


That you did, sir. And I've just spent a month in a'hole rehab, but'ja know, in the eyes of the Right minded, I'm still not cured. (And I see that your spelling's just as poor in March. And lose the exclamation marks; I'm not hard of hearing.)​


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Now, now, men, we're going to have a bally hard time of it if you yankee chappies can't rub along together like good eggs and help us beat the Bosch before Christmas! Tally Ho! Chocks away! See you in the mess at 7 for a snifter! What! :icon_smile:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

So now, more than a year since forming his own debt comission whos recommendations have been ignored, a new panel commision is formed to lower the national debt as a result of the debt limit debate which further increased the debt. 

And on the Big Black Bus Tour in Iowa, The President Who Has No Clothes anounces that he will annouce a new job plan after he gets back from vacation in a few weeks while admonishing those who keep America at peril for the purposes of Political Gain.

WOW!!

Stones, baby, Stones!! 

It's time for Obama to get laughed off the Dais.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Yeah dump Obama so we can get back to the good ol' days. We need Sarah Palin to get into the race so the Republicans can have a serious candidate!:icon_headagainstwal

The only thing I hate worse than a Democrat is a Republican.

And mindless Americans keep cheering for one extreme or the other as if they have no choice.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Infuriating, isn't it??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> Yeah dump Obama so we can get back to the good ol' days.


To 1979??

Those were the days my friend!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's time for Obama to get laughed off the Dais.


...and last night, right after he tried to perpetuate that ridiculous "Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does" BS, he almost was!!

Equating the capital gains rate with the earned income rate is as dishonest as omitting "illegal" from alien.

But the wordgame idiocy is just starting to crank up I suspect...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!


LOL. You mean they too elected one of those 'gosh, darn' Democrats(!)?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and last night, right after he tried to perpetuate that ridiculous "Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does" BS, he almost was!!
> 
> Equating the capital gains rate with the earned income rate is as dishonest as omitting "illegal" from alien.
> 
> But the wordgame idiocy is just starting to crank up I suspect...


Even Warren Buffet has said that the super-rich need to be taxed more...


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

All elected officials should have to pass a basic economics test. They should be able to explain the following verbatim. If they can, they pass. If they can't, they fail.

*Taxation does not equal Revenue at the national level.

*Congress (specifically the HoR) has the ability to MAKE money, aka define what is. If we have the ability to produce something as a country, _cut the frigging check_. If we don't have the ability to produce it, don't cut the check.

It's not about taxation. Taxation is an excuse. Ross Perot had the right idea years ago. Treat the government like a business. Run it like a business. Pick each "department" and run a cost benefit analysis. If it doesn't balance, cut it.

The best way to increase "profit" in any business is to reduce cost. The % increase in gains just outweigh comparable amounts of revenue. Start hacking and slashing. But no body wants to give up their pet projects. Everybody thinks the government should pay fox X. Screw that. As much as I hate the DMV, it's a service based organization. You pay for the services you use.

Other "departments" need to start pulling their own weight in the same way. Want airport security, have a line item on your plane ticket that says "TSA surcharge." I'm willing to bet people would be more open to H&S if the cost wasn't spread-load over 300 million people.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Even Warren Buffet has said that the super-rich need to be taxed more...


So it isn't just the 250k+ crowd now. It's just the "super-rich."


----------



## Upperguy (Jul 26, 2011)

It's just a shame that everything gets so twisted by rhetoric that most people don't even know what's going on. I wish I could take some time and write a really eloquent response but I've got a very full day and my sister's 20th B-day ahead of me.

So you guys have fun


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So it isn't just the 250k+ crowd now. It's just the "super-rich."


???

I don't believe I said anything about the 250k+ crowd. I'm simply stating the fact that Warren Buffett said he should be taxed more.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Upperguy said:


> It's just a shame that everything gets so twisted by rhetoric that most people don't even know what's going on. I wish I could take some time and write a really eloquent response but I've got a very full day...


We'll be here when you get back!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> ???
> 
> I don't believe I said anything about the 250k+ crowd. I'm simply stating the fact that Warren Buffett said he should be taxed more.


Correction; 200k

WASHINGTON-President Barack Obama will pay for his $447 billion jobs plan by ending a series of tax breaks for oil and gas companies, hedge-fund managers and people making more than $200,000, the White House said Monday.

In total, Mr. Obama's plan will end about $467 billion of tax breaks over 10 years, said White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew.
https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904353504576566802250477510.html

BTW~Why have you and others been mislead about the marginal income tax rate vs. the capital gains rate?? And why is increasing the rate now more important than when Democrats controlled the Congress and still managed not to pass an increase??


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Commissions are important to government. The theory is that if one person does something wrong he is to blame. If a group of people do something wrong no one is to blame. Thus we need commissions to be sure no one is answerable for his actions.

It may be misguided, corrupt or stupid but it is simple and blameless. That is what government wants for the leaders. The actual results can be as complicated and stupid as we are used to but that is a different story.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> Commissions are important to government. The theory is that if one person does something wrong he is to blame. If a group of people do something wrong no one is to blame. Thus we need commissions to be sure no one is answerable for his actions.
> 
> It may be misguided, corrupt or stupid but it is simple and blameless. That is what government wants for the leaders. The actual results can be as complicated and stupid as we are used to but that is a different story.


Commissions also exist because nothing can get gone with a full congress (600 people). You have to break it down to 3-7 people to actually get meaningful thought and action on anything. Commissions help do that. The military does the same thing with planning teams for various courses of action, as well as staff sections. People work best in small groups. The fact that congress can acknowledge this with commissions shows they aren't always complete idiots.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Obama sends jobs bill to Congress, urges "no games, no politics, no delays"

President Obama is sending this $447 billion jobs bill to Congress today, with a forceful message to Republicans to put politics aside. 
"The only thing that's stopping it is politics," Mr. Obama said from the White House Rose Garden on Monday. "We can't afford these same political games... Let's get something done. Let's put this country back to work."



Heck, just pass it. No debate. Why even read it?? 

Every week the President out-chutzpah's himself!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Obama jobs plan a secret Muslim, say Republicans09-09-11 
PRESIDENT Obama's £400bn jobs plans shows all the signs of being a secret Muslim, leading Republicans have claimed.

The jobs plan is a coded attack on middle-class bacon​As Obama outlined tax breaks and investment to boost the ailing US economy and give the rest of the world a chance to just end this grimness for Christ's sake, the Republican party said he may as well have called it 'Muhammed al-Job's Ramadan Bomb Factory'.

Louisiana congressman Jeff Landry, said: "If I backed this plan I would be flying a plane into the living room of every hard working American family. "

"I may as well strap on 18 sticks of dynamite and blow myself up right next to a middle class bread winner who is sick of the president and his political games."

John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives said: "I want to thank the president for coming here today and setting out his plans so clearly. I am sure we can find common ground but at this stage I am wondering why didn't he just sing this announcement from the top of a minaret? In Tehran." 
Joe Wilson, a Teapot congressman from South Carolina, said: "As I read through this jobs plan I noticed certain letters on the page seemed to glowing red. Sure enough when these letters floated up off the paper and rearranged themselves about six inches from my face they spelled out 'death to America'."

Presidential candidate Michelle Bachman added: "This jobs plans contains nothing to help the American alcohol industry, the American pork industry or the American short skirt industry. And even though it does, secretly, it doesn't."

But Republican frontrunner, the Texas governor Rick Perry, disagreed, adding :"I don't think this jobs plan is Muslim. I think it's atheist. Say what you like about dangerous, fundamentalist Muslims but at least they largely believe the same things as I do."

A White House spokesman later confirmed that if Republicans block the jobs plan Obama is incredibly close to just saying 'f... this'.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

The problem gentleman is that the majority of Americans have not yet accepted that our government is corrupt. This debt commission is yet one more political fiasco.

The United States is now governed by a “permanent political class” drawn from both political parties and it is increasingly cut off from the concerns of what they call “ordinary Americans.” These Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create “corporate crony capitalism.”

The real divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of big government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions. (both public and private)

This permanent political class stays in power because they position themselves between two deep troughs; the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

Why do the politicians never get anything done? It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed – a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the “good times” and the money rolling along.

Most politicians, especially the Republicans, have agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics,…This exacerbates the issue all the more.

There’s a huge difference in the United States between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones are those small businesses that take risks and sink or swim in a churning market; the bad ones are politically well connected mega-corporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes, and profit terrifically while creating statistically insignificant numbers of jobs in the United States. 

This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, an innovation of hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and risk; it’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of everyone else.


 The United States desperately needs a new voice, a new political alignment that would put vigorous localism against this kind of national-global institutionalism that is rotting our republic from within. On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, The Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google, and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world a better place. On the other side would be those who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and the more anonymous it becomes.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, The Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google, and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world a better place.
> 
> On the other side would be those who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and the more anonymous it becomes.


I'm down with plan B!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The political emasculation of the majority of voters creates the relatively extremist rhetoric and idiot party political statements that even we in the UK are increasingly depressingly hearing on our news about the US.
Surely American political activists, of both parties can't be as stupid as their statements make them appear to be?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Chouan said:


> Surely American political activists, of both parties can't be as stupid as their statements make them appear to be?


My best reply to you would be to quote Winston Churchill; "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

It's not just our political activists but it's the majority of the entire electorate, yes we are collectively, that stupid.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The political emasculation of the majority of voters creates the relatively extremist rhetoric and idiot party political statements that even we in the UK are increasingly depressingly hearing on our news about the US.


Why is the UK press so obsessed with radical rhetoric in the US as to make you beleive such statements are unique or exclusive to the US??

Are you a victim of a biased news source??


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> The political emasculation of the majority of voters creates the relatively extremist rhetoric and idiot party political statements that even we in the UK are increasingly depressingly hearing on our news about the US.
> Surely American political activists, of both parties can't be as stupid as their statements make them appear to be?


Politicians on both sides have always occasionally spouted extremist rhetoric, but not that often really -- unless of course one counts the quotes in the Daily Mash.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

UK politicians and parties are equally satirised:
'Feral' comment wrong because it came from Ken Clarke, say experts06-09-11 
DESCRIBING the semi-literate moral vacuums who looted England as 'feral' is wrong because Ken Clarke said it, experts have confirmed.

Many liberals refuse to accept this is a wig​In a long article in the _Guardian_, the justice secretary condemned the rioters before setting out in detail how he really had no idea what to do about it.

But it is his description of the rioters as a 'feral underclass' that has caused outrage among thousands of metropolitan liberals who were using precisely the same phrase right up until this morning.

Jane Thompson, from Finsbury Park, said: "Actually, I think you'll find I was calling them a 'floral underclass'. If only they would bloom in the full colour of their amazing potential."

Her partner, Nathan Muir, added: "I suspect you may have misheard me when I was talking about my old university friend, Beryl Underpass."

Professor Henry Brubaker, from the Institute for Studies, explained that very often a statement can be factually correct until the very moment it comes out of Ken Clarke's mouth.

"At that point it becomes the sort offensive rubbish typical of fat, out-of-touch, old Tory bastards."

He added: "However we did also establish that people who use the term 'feral overclass' seem unable to understand that just because bankers are shits doesn't mean the rioters aren't shits.

"We have therefore devised a simple test which involves asking Mr Carpetright whether he would prefer to pay an extra quarter of a percent interest a month on his overdraft or have his f...ing shop burned to the ground."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

AP to Obama;

"You Lie!!"

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.



That's not satire, it's the AP doing it's homework instead of carrying the President's water for him like they have been.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Obama sends jobs bill to Congress, urges *"no games, no politics, no delays"*
> 
> President Obama is sending this $447 billion jobs bill to Congress today, with a forceful message to Republicans to put politics aside.
> "The only thing that's stopping it is politics," Mr. Obama said from the White House Rose Garden on Monday. "We can't afford these same political games... Let's get something done. Let's put this country back to work."
> ...


This week...

White House Press Secretary *Jay Carney* said the White House understands why its jobs bill has yet to see movement in the Senate, even though President *Barack Obama* is traveling the country to demand immediate action.

Asked Wednesday whether Senate Democrats, who control that chamber, are part of the problem, Mr. Carney said no. "There has been business that the Senate had to get done in September because of the fiscal year constraints," he told reporters, citing government spending bills and extensions of highway and aviation legislation. "I mean, these were things that had to get done."

https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011...-jobs-legislation-doesnt-involve-legislators/

Sure, that makes sense...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> White House Press Secretary *Jay Carney* said the White House understands why its jobs bill has yet to see movement in the Senate, even though President *Barack Obama* is traveling the country to demand immediate action.
> 
> Asked Wednesday whether Senate Democrats, who control that chamber, are part of the problem, Mr. Carney said no. "There has been business that the Senate had to get done in September because of the fiscal year constraints," he told reporters, citing government spending bills and extensions of highway and aviation legislation. "I mean, these were things that had to get done."


This week....

(AP) WASHINGTON - *Senate Democrats are rewriting portions of President Barack Obama's jobs bill to include a new 5 percent tax on income above $1 million - a proposal that is sure to be blocked by Republicans.
*
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday he is changing the plan to make sure the nation's wealthiest families pay their fair share, picking up on a theme the White House has promoted throughout this year's budget battles.

The changes won't affect any of Obama's proposals to cut payroll taxes or provide *money for teachers, firefighters and infrastructure*. The changes are expected to attract more votes from Democratic senators, though Reid wouldn't predict whether Senate Democrats would unite behind the measure, which is unlikely to get any support from Republicans.

Reid said he plans to bring the bill to the floor next week.

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/05/ap/business/main20115770.shtml

Unless, Reid needs to find new income to confiscate or more special interests to pay off.



> Obama sends jobs bill to Congress, urges *"no games, no politics, no delays"*


So that lasted about what, ten days??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

...and now this!!

*WASHINGTON (CNN)* -- Partisan bickering over President Barack Obama's failed $447 billion jobs plan intensified Wednesday, with Republicans accusing Democrats of political gamesmanship and Democrats charging Republicans with costly obstructionism.
*The measure failed to get the 60 votes necessary to advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate Tuesday night. Top Democrats have indicated they will now try to break the measure up into several smaller bills,* but it remains unclear what -- if anything -- is capable of winning approval in a Congress completely divided along partisan and ideological lines.
The latest stalemate takes place against the backdrop of a looming campaign that appears increasingly likely to degenerate into a political blame game over the shaky economy.
"Republican obstructionism has once against cost this nation millions of jobs," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Wednesday morning. "It seems as if Republicans don't really want to put Americans back to work. They believe a weak economy means a weak president."
If Obama "were willing to work with us on more bipartisan legislation like this, nobody would even be talking about a dysfunctional Congress," countered Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.
"But as we all know that doesn't fit in with the president's re-election strategy. The White House has made it clear that the president is praying for gridlock, so he has somebody -- besides himself -- to point the finger at next November."

https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/politics/jobs-bill/

Which House Republican Leader Cantor suggested WEEKS AGO!!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Given the poor economic data that have been reported for months now; it's clear that the federal gov't will have to engage in some massive pump-priming like FDR did in the '30s. I don't mean bring back the WPA but I do mean that there are infrastructure projects; i.e. roads, bridges, tunnels, schools; that have been sitting on the shelf for years that can and will have to be financed through deficit spending (i.e. borrow more money from the Chinese) that will put people back to work, put money in their pockets, and as we all know consumer spending is 2/3s of the economy. It's clear now that the economy isn't going to come back on its own. The previous stimulus bill of $800 billion was insufficient. Christina Romer was right; we needed a bigger stimulus on the order of $1.2 trillion or more. The politicos quailed at that (as in Dan Quayle, get it? Remember that deer-in-the-headlights look of his? But I digress) and went for what they thought they could get - $800B, and now look where it got us. Not much. We need a bigger stimulus that creates a lot of jobs and puts money in the pockets of consumers. The republicans are just playing political games. They're obstructing every effort the democrats make to improve the situation and try to lay the blame on the dems in the vain hope that the dems will be blamed for the current mess and repubs will get elected. I say vain because the voters know who got us into this mess in the first place: G.W. Bush, the republican party, and the banks making fraudulent sub-prime loans. Come the next election I expect to see a republican bloodbath.:icon_smile_wink:

Final note: Since the knucklehead politicos didn't listen to her, Christina Romer resigned. Serves them right. They don't deserve her.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> I expect to see a republican bloodbath.:icon_smile_wink:


No one, I mean NO ONE will be safe if the "Jobs Bill" doesn't pass!!






Have you no sense of decency, Mr. Biden??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Oh No!!

Let the raping and murdering begin!!

Senate rejects slimmed-down Obama jobs bill - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

President Barack Obama and his allies in the Senate promise to press ahead with separate votes on pieces of his failed $447 billion jobs measure despite unanimous opposition from Republicans. But there also are signs of slippage among Democrats and evidence the strategy isn't working with voters.

Future votes on individual pieces of the measure, however, aren't likely to fare better than a pared-back jobs measure designed to boost hiring of teachers and first responders that Republicans and a handful of Democrats scuttled on Thursday.

Obama's revised plan failed on a 50-50 test vote that fell well short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. Three Democrats abandoned Obama on the vote and two more who voted with the president said they couldn't support the underlying Obama plan unless it's changed.

Thursday's $35 billion measure combined $30 billion for state and local governments to hire teachers and other school workers with $5 billion to help pay the salaries of police officers, firefighters and other first responders. The White House says the measure would "support" almost 400,000 education jobs for one year. Republicans call that a temporary "sugar high" for the economy and say it's a taxpayer-funded bailout of state and local governments.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let the *raping* and murdering begin!!


I just have to point out that no woman would compare the above to the act of rape. I doubt many reasonable people would logically compare it to murder as well.

Other than that carry on.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I was refering to the comments of Mr. Biden.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

'Super committee' fails to reach agreement on debt reduction.

Article~


> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Democrats "were prepared to strike a grand bargain that would make painful cuts while asking millionaires to pay their fair share, and we put our willingness on paper," but Republicans "never came close to meeting us halfway."
> 
> His GOP counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, argued that an agreement "proved impossible not because Republicans were unwilling to compromise, but because Democrats would not accept any proposal that did not expand the size and scope of government or punish job creators."
> 
> Republican presidential contenders complained that Obama had failed to display necessary leadership to forge an agreement, an accusation rejected by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.


https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/21/politics/super-committee/index.html

Guess they thought the third try would be the charm!!


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 'Super committee' fails to reach agreement on debt reduction.


I was so shocked at learning the super committee failed to reach a grand compromise, that you could have knocked me over with a... well, not a feather... maybe with an 8,000 lb. wrecking ball, at the end of an 80 foot chain.
-- 
Michael


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

We as the electorate should continue our partisan war of rhetoric just like the Republicans and Democrats want us to. After all we're only running cover for these plainly corrupt animals.
:deadhorse-a:

The most rainbow liberals and the most pious bible banging conservatives should be joining hands and marching in every major city in the United States against our corrupt political process. 

If we can just get rid of Obama things will get back to "The good ol' days" right?:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
+1 and very well put. Career politicians are going to be the demise of us all. We badly need term limits for all elected officials. As for me, my intent in future elections is to vote for anyone but the incumbent! :crazy:


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> +1 and very well put. Career politicians are going to be the demise of us all. We badly need term limits for all elected officials. As for me, my intent in future elections is to vote for anyone but the incumbent! :crazy:


We already have term limits. They're called elections. I am surprised at the super-committees failure. I thought that the repubs would realize that it was time to stop playing games and get serious about cutting a deal. As everyone knows, you don't always get everything you want in a deal, but you try to get enough that it makes the deal worthwhile. Repub intransigence over no new taxes killed it.

This is quite interesting. From Slate:

"People say this every four years, but in many ways the total lack of bipartisan agreement during the 112th Congress means the 2012 elections are shaping up to be the mother of all pivot points for the long-term budget deficit. Consider: A provocative argument in today's Wonkbook extends the logic of my argument about the deficit cutting benefits of Super Committee failure. It's possible that by refusing to agree to a relatively modest tax increase relative to current policy (i.e., relative to full extension of the Bush tax cuts) the congressional Republicans have locked into place a much more left-wing deal in which the majority of deficit reduction is done by tax hikes and a majority of spending cuts come on the national security side. My non-expert political judgment had been that Democrats in congress were likely to fold in the face of Republican pressure and agree to rescind the 'automatic' defense cuts mandated by the debt ceiling deal, but Jennifer Steinhauer reports that's not the case. Similarly, Brian Beutler reports that the White House is clearly stating that unlike in 2010 they will veto any attempted full extension of the Bush tax cuts even if that results in the expiration of even those portions of the tax cuts that the White House favors.

...if Obama gets re-elected, they'll [Repubs] have fumbled the policy substance in a catastrophic way and put in place a budget framework that's much more left-wing than the one Obama was begging them to agree to a few months ago."

Why, you don't think Obama would be so sneaky, would you?:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Why, you don't think Obama would be so sneaky, would you?:icon_smile_wink:


Of course not, he's different than the rest!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Surely, the President's own "budget" would match his debt reducing rhetoric documented here over almost two years!!

https://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-13...h-era-tax-cuts-trillion-budget?_s=PM:POLITICS

A piece of advice: If you're worried about President Barack Obama's budget, find something else to fret over. The president's blueprint has about as much chance of becoming law as yours. It's all about election year 2012, not fiscal year 2013.

Don't take my word for it. Take Harry Reid's. The Senate majority leader -- the Democrat most responsible for moving Obama's agenda through Congress -- said Friday that there's no need to bring the budget to a vote this year.

"It's done. We don't need to do it," Reid said, citing spending outlines agreed to in August's debt ceiling agreement.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Here we go again...



> WASHINGTON-President  Barack Obama  will propose government spending that is 7%-or $74 billion-over caps he and congressional Republicans agreed to in a bipartisan deficit-reduction deal over three years ago, a White House official said Thursday.
> Mr. Obama's fiscal 2016 budget, due to be released Monday, will propose some $561 billion in defense spending and $530 billion in nondefense spending, the official said.
> The amounts exceed the levels set under the 2011 budget law by $38 billion for defense and $37 billion for nondefense, the official said.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-...-spending-above-sequestration-caps-1422555332


----------

