Pages

Monday, February 13, 2012

Obama sends 2013 budget to Congress, GOP pounces


By Chris Moody
The Ticket – 6 hrs ago

Copies of the White House budget are delivered to the House Monday. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


On Monday morning, President Obama sent to Congress his federal budget for fiscal year 2013, a non-binding blue print of the White House's spending priorities that calls for raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting spending in certain areas of government and increasing the budgets of infrastructure projects and job training programs.

If implemented, the White House says that the plan would decrease the federal deficit by $4 trillion within the next decade, although it leaves the federal government with a budget shortfall of $901 billion by the end of fiscal year 2013. Obama introduced his budget in a speech at the Northern Virginia Community College near Washington, D.C.

"The main idea in the budget is this: At a time when our economy is growing and creating jobs at a faster clip, we've got to do everything in our power to keep this recovery on track," Obama said. "Part of our job is to bring down our deficit, and if Congress adopts this budget, then along with the cuts that we' already made, we'll be able to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion by 2022."

"The last thing we need is for Washington to stand in the way of America's comeback," he went on to say, calling on Congress to extend a payroll tax cut, which expires at the end of this month, "without drama, without delay."

The Budget Control Act, passed by Congress last August to end the damaging stand-off over the debt ceiling, cut discretionary spending by $900 billion over the next decade. That all but forced the White House to make major cuts to discretionary spending across the board -- including agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration -- in today's budget proposal.

The plan unveiled Monday also includes $360 billion in cuts to federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Most of those cuts come from reduced payments to providers, including drug companies. By contrast, a plan put forward last year by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), and embraced by much of his party, calls for a broader restructuring of Medicare; many analysts say cuts in the Ryan plan would fall more heavily on future beneficiaries.

Congressional Republicans criticized the budget, citing the tax increases and calling the level of deficit reduction in the plan inadequate.

"This budget does nothing to prevent the bankruptcy of critical programs, threatening the health and retirement security of current and future seniors," said Ryan in a statement.

The GOP also knocked Obama for submitting a budget that does not cut the federal deficit in half by the end of the president's first term, a promise Obama made in February 2009.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowed to introduce the President's budget as a bill--largely a symbolic gesture intended to embarrass the White House--in the upper chamber. The last time the Democrat-controlled Senate voted on the president's budget in 2011, it was unanimously defeated.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney panned the budget for not addressing entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and vowed to overhaul the way the government spends on the programs.

"The President has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors," Romney said in a statement in which his campaign also referred to the budget as "an insult to the American taxpayer."

"I believe we can save Social Security and Medicare with a few commonsense reforms, and," Romney added, "unlike President Obama — I'm not afraid to put them on the table."

One of Romney's rivals for the GOP nomination, Rep. Ron Paul, also slammed the plan.

"When President Obama talks about spending 'cuts' it's always some plan that will supposedly unfold over a decade and that the next president or Congress can change at whim," Paul's campaign said in a statement on its website. "In other words, cuts never happen. But budget deficits, as evidenced above, happen every year. And they will continue to happen every year. President Paul would offer $1 trillion cuts in the first year."

And Grover Norquist, the influential small-government conservative who runs Americans for Tax Reform, was even more dismissive. "Obama's 'new' budget: higher taxes, higher spending, higher debt. Who is surprised?," he tweeted.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based group that advocates deficit reduction, was more measured. "It's a step in the right direction from past budgets put out by the president," Jason Peuquet, the group's research director, told Yahoo News, praising the plan's specificity on spending cuts. "But we need to be doing much more on the deficit and debt front, to put the debt on a downward trajectory. And it doesn't look like it'll be able to achieve that goal."

Both Republicans and Democrats have press conferences planned Monday afternoon to address the details outlined in Obama's plan.

Zachary Roth contributed reporting.



Sunday, February 12, 2012

Romney boasts of 'severely conservative' record in CPAC speech


At CPAC, Jindal revives attack on Obama administration over oil spill recovery



J. Scott Applewhite / AP
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana addresses activists from America's political right at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Saturday.

By NBC's Jamie Novogrod

WASHINGTON – Speaking before an audience of Republican activists Saturday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal blasted the Obama administration over its response to the 2010 BP oil spill in the gulf, saying Obama officials “wasted precious time while that oil was coming in to our coast.”

The remarks came at the conclusion of his speech at CPAC, the annual gathering of Republican activists held here in Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“They wasted precious time while that oil was coming in to our coast,” Jindal said. “They refused to listen to the people who lived along the coast that knew better than all the experts.”

Jindal – whose state was hit hardest by the spill – was a central figure in the recovery effort. His criticism, first expressed in his book, "Leadership and Crisis," represents a stinging rebuke of a Democratic administration with which he was partnered throughout the recovery effort.

“You’ve had a lot of speakers come up here and talk to you about the importance of this year’s election,” Jindal said, before adding that he wanted to offer “one more reason” why the election is important.

“What I saw and what I heard were people that were maybe very, very book smart, but had never run anything in the private sector,” Jindal continued.

“During our regular meetings and calls, the president would talk regularly about his “Nobel Prize-winning energy secretary.’ I’d begin to think that was part of his title,” Jindal said, refering to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “I didn’t understand what that had to do with stopping the oil from coming to our coast.”

(Chu won a Nobel Prize in 1997, for physics; Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.)

Jindal’s attack represents another expression of a complaint about an elite or out-of-touch White House that has marked many of the CPAC speeches throughout the three days here.

Much of Jindal’s speech prior to the remarks concerned privatizing and reforming public education in Louisiana, an effort which he said would involve expanding charter schools and scholarships, and cracking down on underperforming teachers.

“For the ineffective teachers that refuse to get better, maybe they should look into another profession. Maybe they don’t belong in the classroom anyway,” Jindal said.

Bin Laden told children 'live in peace in the West'

Do as I say, Not as I do!  Or is this total hypocrasy?  I only post and comment once in a while, especially when I can type.  If this is true...and I do not know if it is or not....maybe he was letting his children and grand children know that peace is the only way to live together without fighting.  Or maybe it has a deeper meaning, and there is where the hypocrasy comes in....


A screen grab of Osama bin Laden, taken from Qatar's al-Jazira TV in 1999. The slain Al-Qaeda chief urged his children to go live peacefully in the West and get a university education, his brother-in-law said in an interview

AFP – 9 hrs ago 
.

Slain Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden urged his children to go live peacefully in the West and get a university education, his brother-in-law said in an interview published Sunday.


Zakaria al-Sadah, the brother of bin Laden's Yemeni fifth wife Amal, told Britain's Sunday Times newspaper that the Saudi-born extremist believed his children "should not follow him down the road to jihad."

"He told his own children and grandchildren, 'Go to Europe and America and get a good education,'" al-Sadah told the Sunday Times.

Al-Sadah said bin Laden told them: "You have to study, live in peace and don't do what I am doing or what I have done."

Bin Laden was killed in a commando raid in May 2011 by US Navy SEALS at a house in the garrison town of Abbottabad, northwest Pakistan, where he had been living for several years.

Al-Sadah said that in November he had seen his sister for the first time since she was shot in the knee during the raid, and had since been allowed to have a number of meetings with her in the presence of guards.

He said the three wives and nine children who were in the compound -- some are bin Laden's children and others are his grandchildren -- have been held for months in a three-room flat in Islamabad.

They are guarded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency, he said.

The Sunday Times published what it said was the first photograph to show some of the young children from the compound: two sons and a daughter, and two grandsons and a granddaughter.

The children were still traumatised after seeing the raid in which bin Laden died, al-Sadah said.

"These children have seen their father killed and they need a caring environment, not a prison -- whatever you think of their father and what he has done," he said.

A Pakistani commission investigating the raid said in October that it had lifted travel restrictions on Bin Laden's family and al-Sadah flew to Islamabad in November to take Amal and her children home.

But he said Pakistani officials had refused to let him take them.

There was no immediate response to the claims from Pakistani officials..

US Marines posed with Nazi symbol in Afghanistan



By JULIE WATSON
Associated Press – Fri, Feb 10, 2012.....


.knightarmco.com - This Sept. 2010 photo posted recently on the Titiusville, Fla.- based arms manufacturer Knight's Armament's Internet blog, shows members of Charlie Company, 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, out …more of Camp Pendleton, Calif. in Sangin, Helmand province, Afghanistan. The Marine Corps confirmed Thursday Feb. 8, 2012 that one of its scout sniper teams in Afghanistan posed for a photograph in front of a flag with a logo resembling that of the notorious Nazi SS. (AP Photo/knightarmco.com)



..SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Marine Corps on Thursday once again did damage control after a photograph surfaced of a sniper team in Afghanistan posing in front of a flag with a logo resembling that of the notorious Nazi SS — a special unit that murdered millions of Jews, gypsies and others.


The Corps said in a statement that using the symbol was not acceptable, but the Marines in the photograph taken in September 2010 will not be disciplined because investigators determined it was a naïve mistake.

The Marines believed the SS symbol was meant to represent sniper scouts and never intended to be associated with a racist organization, said Maj. Gabrielle Chapin, a spokeswoman at Camp Pendleton, where the Marines were based.

"I don't believe that the Marines involved would have ever used any type of symbol associated the Nazi Germany military criminal organization that committed mass atrocities in WWII," Chapin said. "It's not within who we are as Marines."

The Corps has used the incident as a training tool to talk to troops about what symbols are acceptable after it became aware of the photograph last November, Chapin said.

The image has since surfaced on an Internet blog, sparking widespread outrage and calls for a full investigation and punishment, including bringing those in the photograph and anyone who condoned it to court martial.

"This is a complete and total outrage," said Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, headquartered in Albuquerque, N.M.

His organization sent a letter to the head of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday, demanding punishment for those involved.

It was the second time this year the Marine Corps has had to do damage control for actions of its troops. It's also investigating a separate group of Marines recorded on video urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban fighters..

"First we have Marines peeing on dead bodies and now this," Weinstein said.

The Marines in the photograph are no longer with the unit. Chapin said she did not know if they are still in the Corps.

In the photo taken in the Afghanistan town of Sangin, the Marine Corps unit is posing with guns in front of an American flag and a large, dark blue flag with what appear to be the letters "SS" in the shape of white jagged lightning bolts.

Camp Pendleton spokesman, Master Gunnery Sgt. Mark Oliva, said he did not know where the flag came from but it was likely the property of one of the Marines in the photograph.

The photograph appeared on the blog for a military weapons company called Knight's Armament in Titusville, Fla. The company did not respond to emails or phone messages left by The Associated Press.

The SS, or Schutzstaffel, was the police and military force of the Nazi Party, which was distinct from the general army. Members pledged an oath of loyalty to Adolph Hitler.

SS units were held responsible for many war crimes and played an integral role in the extermination of millions of Jews along with gypsies and other people who were deemed undesirable. The SS was declared to be a criminal organization at the Nuremberg war crime trials.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, headquartered in Los Angeles, said he does not buy the explanation that posing with the flag was an innocent mistake and insisted the American public has a right to know what happened.

"If you look at any book on the Nazi period, this is the dreaded symbol of the SS, and to have a Marine Corps unit adopt it and put it beside the American flag when 200,000 Americans died to free the world of that dreaded symbol is just beyond the pale," he said.

President Obama’s State of the Union: Ten Skirted Issues

Nomi Prins
Infowars.com

January 25, 2012

I confess; I expected to be bored out of my mind listening to President Obama’s campaign – I mean, State of the Union – I mean campaign, speech. I kept hoping some truly earth shattering story would sneak in there beforehand, like say some discovery that Mitt Romney had been having an affair with Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife while he was creating jobs at Bain capital, and we could all focus on that instead.

It turned out that my pre-determination proved accurate. I wonder if the members of Congress felt the same sense of same déjà vu that I did, as they were bopping up and down and applauding.

Obama’s speech was a compilation of highlights from his past ones. One part optimism, two parts repetition equals one total uninspiring. Maybe it’s so boring, because it matters so little at this point. Taking away popularity polls, our national threshold for belief in hope or change has been trampled, not just because of Obama or Romney, but of the whole political apparatus that thrives on deflection of reality and posturing. We don’t have the same energy to expend listening to politicians, the endless spin that renders fact obsolete, responsibility absent, and true accomplishment, unnecessary.

We saw Optimistic Obama in his first address to Congress in 2009: “While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

We got Presumptuous Obama in 2010: “As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.”

We watched Philosophical Obama in 2011: “We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here… The future is ours to win.”


Now, we had Campaigning on Fairness Obama. He returned to the roots of his pre-Presidential words, having accomplished little to attain the goal that his words implied. Here are ten things that President Obama skirted:

1) The cost of healthcare insurance. Obama tried to play both sides, slapping a populace spin on an insurance industry gift. “That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.” He claimed he won’t “go back” on things like health insurance companies being able to cancel policies. He didn’t say that insurance premiums have already risen 22% in the past two years. Republicans hate Obama’s ‘signature’ healthcare reform bill because it unconstitutionally forces people to purchase insurance. Democrats support the bill because Obama passed it. The reality is – by the time it takes effect in 2014, premium costs may have doubled. Frame it however you want, that means health insurance could cost twice as much when this bill takes effect as it did before it was passed. Meanwhile, there are more people without insurance (because they can’t afford it) even though insurance companies can’t cancel policies or deny insurance for pre-existing conditions. This bill merely offers insurance companies a wider pool of customers, with a few restrictions on how much they can pillage them.

2) Student Loan Defaults. Obama claimed he wants to cap interest rates on student loans – which would be great, but can only work in this particularly low rate environment. He urged colleges to keep costs down – again, something that’s worked out really well when he’s mentioned it before. This year, student loan debt surpassed credit card debt, breaching the $1 trillion mark, at an average of more than $25,000 per student (and up 47% over a decade ago, not all under Obama, but a bi-administration problem is still a problem). Not surprisingly, student loan defaults rates have risen alongside this debt increase. Nearly 9% of loans defaulted in 2010, of those that began repayment in 2009, vs. 7% that began in 2008.) Obama didn’t mention this growing problem.

3) Youth unemployment. Obama took credit for the creation of 3 million jobs (I’m not going to debate that here). Regardless, youth unemployment is at its highest rate since 1948. The unemployment rate for those under age 25 is 18.1%, (31% for blacks) havin risen sharply since 2008. Do the math. High student loan debt + diminishing job prospects = bad ending. Work-study programs have to be intense to really alter that.

4) Big banks. The largest firms continue to grow their asset bases and fee extrapolation strategies from their captive customer base (If you’re say, a JPM Chase customer, it costs you $5 to extract your own money from a Bank of America ATM – both banks get a cut). It was Obama that re-confirmed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke for another fourteen years (and yes, a bi-partisan Congress agreed), and who still keeps Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner around. Both men were gung-ho about the merger mania that dotted Wall Street in the fall of 2008 and making the ‘too-big-to-fail” banks bigger, as they now are.

5) Small banks. President Obama didn’t address the smaller bank closings occurring because the big banks got disproportionate subsides;, 389 smaller banks (with $297 billion in assets) failed from 2009 to 2011. Like during the early years of the Great Depression, this means less choice for individuals, less loans for local businesses, and consolidation of influence and market share for the big banks – which comprise Obama’s largest bundling base.

6) Borrowers. Despite a few tepid programs to help homeowners, the sheer number of foreclosures is higher today than it was in 2008. There were a record number of foreclosure filings: 2.9 million in 2010 and 2.7 million in 2011. These are predicted to rise in 2012 amidst default surges and more lender notices than in 2011.

Why? Because Obama’s program (that was supposed to help 5 million borrowers, and helped half a million) had to be approved by the banks. Banks don’t like citizen aid programs, even if they screwed them to begin with by fueling a $14 trillion toxic asset pyramid repackaging risky (for people), high interest-bearing (for them). Obama said, “The banks will repay a deficit of trust”? What?! When?! Where?!

7) Recent regulator incompetence. Regulators looked the other way, Obama said, pre-crisis. But he mentioned nothing about the regulators giving a pass since; the SEC bestows banks settlements for fraudulent mortgage asset products, without extracting any admission of wrongdoing. He missed saying anything about the lack of related DOJ criminal indictments. The top five banks agreed to pay $1.149 billion to the SEC to settle subprime-mortgage related fraud charges, with no admission of guilt or criminal indictments. (The SEC settlement of $285 million with Citigroup was rejected by Judge Rakoff in November, 2011 and is being re-negotiated.) And Obama wants to create a Financial Crimes Unit? What’s the SEC supposed to be doing? or the DOJ? or the FBI?

8 ) MF Global and customer money. On the same topic – the deficit of trust thing: Obama avoided any talk about his buddy, Jon Corzine or MF Global, the nation’s eight largest bankruptcy. He didn’t point out how diabolical it was to use and ‘lose’ customer funds that were supposed to have been kept separate from bad bets. He didn’t suggest having a solid separation between customer money and financial firm money – as in – don’t have it at the same firm. He claimed to ‘we will not bailout you out again” and yet, we still are.

9) Banks hoarding. Obama neglected to mention the $1.6 trillion that banks are stashing at the Fed in the form of excess (and interest-bearing) reserves, which do nothing for the Main Street economy. Meanwhile, small business loans are at a 12-year low, having shrunk continuously since 2008.

10) Obama conveyed that we dodged a bullet with getting the banking system under control. He didn’t note the rising risk in the banking system: the largest four US banks (JPM Chase, Citibank, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs) control nearly 95% of the US derivatives market, which has grown by 20% since just last year, to $235 trillion JPM Chase holds 11% of the world’s derivative exposure, Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman comprise about 7% each. Goldman has 537 times as many (from 440 times last year) derivatives as assets and it’s still considered a bank holding company (as per Bernanke) that gets federal backing.

In all, the President’s speech was reminiscent of George Clooney’s in Ides of March. We’ve heard it all before, maybe with slightly different words: America lost 4 million jobs before I got here, and another 4 million before our policies went into effect, but in the last 12 months, we added 3 million job. We must reduce tax loopholes, and provide tax incentives to businesses that hire in America. We must reform taxes for the wealthy (though he signed an extension of Bush’s tax cuts.) We must train people for an apparent abundance of expert jobs. We need more clean energy initiatives. We created regulations (big sigh of relief he didn’t use the word ‘sweeping’) to avoid fraudulent financial practices. We will help homeowners. Wall Street must ‘make up a trust deficit.” Like Jamie Dimon cares.

In other words, Obama gave Wall Street a pass, while waxing populace. Don’t get me wrong. I expected nothing different. I will continue to expect nothing different, when he gets a second term, given the lame duo the GOP favors his key contenders to be.

Nomi Prins’ article first appeared on her blog.

Gingrich targets Republican establishment


days
ago


WASHINGTON – Newt Gingrich relied on his standard campaign speech Friday afternoon to win over conservatives at CPAC 2012, hitting hard on both the Republican establishment and President Barack Obama.
“This is the year to re-set this country in a decisive, bold way. We need to teach the Republican establishment a lesson,” Gingrich told the crowd inside a Marriott Wardman Park Hotel ballroom.
The former House Speaker took the stage after his wife, Callista, made a rare public speaking appearance and introduced her husband.

“We believe our current path puts the future of our great nation in jeopardy,” Callista said about President Obama’s leadership in her roughly 3-minute remarks. “And we believe bold solutions and fearless leadership are necessary to rebuild the America we love.”
Gingrich, who uncharacteristically looked down at a handwritten outline while at the podium, picked up on this theme while he spoke, criticizing President Obama for his “war on religion.”
“We cannot trust him,” Gingrich said about the President, noting Obama will “wage war on the Catholic Church” if re-elected. “We know who he really is, and we should make sure the country knows who he really is.”
The Speaker was the final presidential candidate to speak at the annual conservative convention. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney spoke earlier Friday.
But not everything was policy. There were even a couple lighthearted moments during both the Speaker and Callista’s speeches.
"Newt is an enthusiastic and committed golfer. It’s true. He gets in and out of more sand traps than anyone I have ever seen,” Callista joked with the crowd. “Newt golfs the way he does everything, with enthusiasm and determination. He’s willing to learn and he never gives up.”
But when the Speaker started his speech, he almost contradicted his wife.
“What she didn't tell you, by the way, is I'm a very bad golfer,” Gingrich said to laughter in the crowd. “She just wouldn't say it.”
The campaign spokesman told NBC News that Callista will be seen more frequently on the trail and will even start doing campaign events on her own soon.
151comments below
The more CPAC is broadcast the higher President Obama's approval ratings go. Glad he sent the Catholic Church back to their congregations where they belong. Glad he upheld a women's right to birth control since all the responsiblity for family planning is on our shoulders. Glad he will be reelected 2012. Pass the popcorn!
  • 32 votes
#1.3 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:07 PM EST

I assume Newt required that his lady friends who were not his wife use contraceptives when they visited him in his office or car? What about the other married GOP hypocrites who like to have a good time while serving the Koch Bros. and Grover Norquist in DC?
And Willard? Explain this please - from Markos M/DailyKos tweet:
RT@ThinkProgress: Romney in 2002: "My views are progressive." Romney in 2012: "I'm severely conservative."
  • 26 votes
#1.4 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:16 PM EST

Ana, no one ever holds the males accountable. All these strict rules we grow up with are aimed at women, not men. Men have always done whatever the hell they wanted. Yet it is they who attempt to make all the rules.
The Catholic Church was always a male dominated institution and always will be. Just like the GOP and media. So it was wonderful to see women speak up as they did. They surely did a great job this week showing zero tolerance for the way the Catholic Church continues to attempt to keep us in our place.
The men in the Democratic Party were awesome this week as well. It was comforting to see the support they showed to women. Especially President Obama.
The Democratic Party is awesome. Truly awesome.
  • 24 votes
#1.5 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:23 PM EST

CNN carried his speech ... basically he will fire all the Czars leaving but one, him. Other than that, moving the capital of Israel to Jerusalem would somehow make America respected again. Fire the Judges. Left out the moon. Came about as close as one can get to calling the President a traitor ... basically all the stuff the right likes to hear.
  • 25 votes
#1.6 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:37 PM EST

As long as the "party of responsibility" only holds women responsible for unwanted pregnancies and not the men who make the women pregnant, this woman is voting for Democrats. I cannot stand the blatant hypocrisy of men who refuse to use contraception but engage in sexual activities. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I tell my daughters, "You bear all of the burden. Be careful what you choose to do." Some men may step up and take responsibility, but it is the woman who must carry and bear the child. People against contraception are against women.
  • 25 votes
#1.7 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:56 PM EST

The conservative gadflies really poked a hornet's nest with all of the talk lately about restricting women's access to contraceptives and requiring government's custodial permission for any decisions about her body. Now Newt wants to try and turn the same topic around - but even women faithful to the Catholic church see this as a woman's rights issue.
  • 20 votes
#1.8 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:17 PM EST
Why are you claiming the Conservatives started this church thing, wasn't it someone from HHS that made the announcement? isn't she a democrat, or did she change parties?
Obama's administration started this whole catholic church/birth control snafu. Heck even his own loyal representatives running for re-election begged that he back off. Guess what He DID! He lost!
All your spinning it doesn't change the facts.
1. The end result is exactly what we started out with.
2. I guess there are liberal pundits that claim this was only to give some hard pressed democrat congressmen something to distance themselves from the President during this election cycle.
3. The alienation of another constituency.
These are the only things accomplished with this mess, all started by the director of HHS, a Democrat.
  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:34 PM EST

Katheryn ,
Yes, the GOP has decided to make their case against woman's right. they think the social conservative card is a winning ticket now.
They really think we will not notice if they wrap it up in religious talk, their hatred of the HCA, and big government rhetoric.
It took about 3 days for Komen foundation to backtrack about their PPH decision.
Women , regardless of party or religious denomination, are paying attention!
  • 20 votes
#1.10 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:42 PM EST

Egilman - I do think there are conservative gadflies (and I didn't say the majority - but those out to create soundbites) who are emboldened enough to talk about women as though women are not capable of thinking for themselves.
Rep.Wayne Christian said,"Well,of course, it's war on birth control and abortions and everything. That's what family planning is suppose to be about."
Joe Pitts of Pennsyvania - proposed bill to allow hospitals to refuse to provide an abortion when the procedure is necessary to save women's lives.
GA bill - to redefine victims of rape,stalking, and domestic violence as "accusers" instead of victims of abuse
Wendy Rogers - Women should not have an abortion even to prevent the unfortunate death of the mother.
Thomas White - Baptist Theological Seminary - declared use of birth control pills is murder of a life
Mitt Romney - "I hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions."
You are right about alienating a constituency -that constituency is the women of America
  • 21 votes
#1.11 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:34 AM EST

Oh yeah,Northstar - I didn't even mention the whole Karen Handel fiasco. I do believe they've " awakened a sleeping giant".
  • 16 votes
#1.12 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:44 AM EST

War on religion! What war on religion, Newt?
  • 11 votes
#1.13 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:06 AM EST
Katheryn,
You might be right, I'm sure some ladies will feel that they are politically alienated there have been many that have felt that way for a long time by both the republicans and democrats.
I was thinking more along the lines that Catholics were and are being alienated from the democrat party. (a very large constituency for Obama in '08) And, they weren't before this garbage was brought up by democrats.

  • 3 votes
#1.14 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:24 AM EST

There they are!!!: All TV'd Up! Like Dracula, Frankenstein and The WolfMan; MittTaxPittance Rommel, THEGangrene and, last BUT NOT in the least, The WolfManVomitorium! YESSSSSS!!!!! First off is DRAC: aka MittTaxPittanceRommel, Who will START A WAR WITH Iran, A very Profitable War for his RepublicanCrimeCartelCorporateMasters AT THAT!! The Count was "nice enough" to expose his taxes!! Let Me Seeeee Now...Drac paid 13% on $42,000,000 income EEEZZZZ MONEY: $5,450,000 And! WE American Taxpayer Victims PAID The Count's REMAINING $7,800,000!!!! Thanks for SUCKING US Dry Drac!!! AND Aren't We "LittlePeople" Thrilled that The Count is nice enough to Let US have the Honor of Paying His Taxes!! He WILL ALLOW Even, the Poor, Whom HE HAS STATED He "DOES NOT CARE ABOUT" To coughUp his Tax Liability!; 'Long as they got A BloodyJob with deductions Drac can get his FANGS into their BloodMoney as small as it might be!
Then There is Frankenstein, err...THEGangrene who, with his department store mannequin "Other Half", will turn to Destructive Rage at the drop of a wrong word or moment!!! EGADZ, This SelfEntitled Creature of Pleasure will Start A War for his RepublicanCorporateMasters AnyWhere, AnyHow, AnyWay, EVEN On The Moon!, as long as there is profit and Franky gets a stipend from it!!! Let alone: ANYTHING TheGangrene Touches will Putrify and Rot like what is left of OUR AmericanBodyPolitic.. Watch Franky TRY to Come alive with "lightening" speed at the RepublicanNationalCrimeCartelConvention!!!
Now Comes The WolfMan Vomitorium... What Can be said!! Such a Goot'Lookin'Boy! Ooh Facime! What A Face!! how could he do Anything Unsavory!!! BUT When The CORPORATE SYMBOLS rise in his eyes TheVomitorium begins his hungry and Very Hairy Growling for American Taxpayer's Blood!!!!
Yes!! THERE is your victim Wolfy!! Go and Savage It WolfMan with BloodLust Fangs and All! Our American UniversalHealthCare System!! All of OUR Allys have it, EVEN the TowelHeads Have A NationalHealthCareSystem!, This Political Beast Savaged and ALSO Struck down OUR Bill for AnAmericanNationalHealthCareSystem!!! Then, when The Killing Is Over, Out Steps The 'A nica'Boy Vomitorium; Ooohh!! How CleanCut!! Yes And so are His savage sever wounds on OUR AmericanHealthCareBill!!!!Brother And Sister American Putting these guys In Power is Having Dracula Guard our BloodBanks!!! You Saw What the Count Did......
  • 5 votes
#1.15 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:49 AM EST
Elaine111Deleted

Egilman - yeah, I realized you and I were on were on two different tangents. Okay,here's my take on the proposal you were speaking of... This November will be a tough,close call and all candidates are looking for money and votes. Being a politician, (and they are all politicians,with maybe Ron tacking away from the general armada-I'm unsure what his course is) Obama sees the dramatic reaction of women to the whole Komen episode and his campaign advisors say, let's jump on this train. And there on his desk is the perfect vehicle to demonstrate his solidarity with women on the contraceptive/women's rights issues. If he can get women motivated - he's tapped into a huge group of potential voters (sadly women do not tend to stand up as a group-so we often tend to be overlooked). Whether he did it out of heartfelt beliefs or political gamemanship,it was not a good move politically,as we saw. But he doesn't have to do anything- the social conservatives are stirring up women all on their own by attacking women and birth control(even Evangelical and Catholic women use contraceptives). As women become aware that the access to contraceptives is seriously being contemplated for elimination -they will start to come together as a deciding factor in the November race. So yes - his move may have alienated Catholics,but a large portion of that constituency are women - and the other side have alienated them.
  • 10 votes
#1.17 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:13 AM EST
Feisty:
We will find it acceptable for you to bend the language a bit and go for "Quitta from Wasilla"
  • 2 votes
#1.18 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:30 PM EST

PTNY -- and Fox didn't even cover his speech at all.
Well why would FOX cover it, since FOX is part of the "establishment?"
Romney wants to be president so bad (he'll say anything), but wanting to be president so bad is not compelling to voters as a reason to vote for him. Same goes for Gingrich. He wants to teach the establishment a lesson, but this is not compelling to voters as a reason to vote for him.
Gingrich wears out code words (like "Czar") almost as fast as Bachmann did. Let's define "bold" or "bold contrast." This means someone SO extreme that even half of Republicans are appalled. The "Personhood" legislation that couldn't even pass in Mississippi is a good example, which would make all forms of contraceptives illegal as well as many other things like fertility procedures.
Ron Paul is just an outright anarchist -- who, BTW is quietly getting his supporters designated as delegates regardless of who is winning caucuses.
Egilman- Obama's administration started this whole catholic church/birth control snafu.
The Affordable Health Care Act in regard to labor laws and the horrible health insurance-via-employer-system we have in the US applies to ALL religions. I have asked why Romney defended Catholics instead of his own religion and institutions like the LDS Hospital, BYU, etc.
No, this was started by Gingrich and Santorum, both Catholic candidates, and Romney joining in so as not to be outdone (and at the same time not talk about his Mormon faith). Gingrich taking the moral high ground on anything is a joke, but we all know he just throws red meat -- How could he pass up an opportunity to attack "Obamacare?" Santorum is VERY sincere about "Personhood" big-brother-government theocracy. Just go back and read about his involvement in the Terri Schiavo fiasco.
There is NO attack on religion. This propaganda has been around forever, whether Bill O'Really on Christmas, or creationism and school prayer in public schools, etc. In fact, why the heck are priests reading legislation from the pulpit? These violations against non-profit status go back to the Equal Rights Amendment, and more recently Prop 8 in which churches like the Mormons were political activists. The IRS needs to crack down on this (the IRS, which wouldn't exist if Ron Paul had his way).
Katheryn Brandy -- Good points (and Pat).
The real attacks are against other religions, races, and of course women. The problems of maternity leave, child support and affordable child care, and equality in coverage (e.g., Viagra) and a uterus as a pre-existing condition have been around a long time. Contraceptives reduce health care costs and abortions. This is the 21st century--Enough!
  • 11 votes
#1.19 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:17 PM EST

Correction to post #1.19 above, the "Personhood" legislation -- that life begins at conception, i.e., defined as a fertilized egg -- would make most forms of contraceptives illegal. And call into question miscarriages, the mother's life at risk, obviously rape even in cases of incest (and verified deformity) as no excuse for abortion... Condoms would still be okay, but that would put responsibility on men - Ha!
When will this argument stop, just friggin stop? Roe v Wade with the Hyde Amendment has served us just fine thank you. We don't need to keep going backward and having the same old, idiotic arguments in this country.
JOBS, Boehner/McConnell and Teapublicans in congress -- Where are the jobs?!
  • 10 votes
#1.20 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:40 PM EST
We will find it acceptable for you to bend the language a bit and go for "Quitta from Wasilla"
OBXRon,
Most excellent idea! I will have to remember that in the future!
Thanks! ☺
  • 4 votes
#1.21 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:41 PM EST
newt is his own worst enemy; to far right for the mainstream republican party, to far out for a rational person and to long ago in the political mainstream, only Winston Churchill made a come back of that long out, the political world will not see the likes of his greatness again.
  • 2 votes
#1.22 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:13 PM EST
Saxon - Winston takes umbrage with his name being in such close proximity to Newt's!
  • 2 votes
#1.23 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:30 PM EST

Obama's budget offers short-term help for economy

hours
ago


Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew and President Obama said the new budget would put the country on track to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next 10 years.
The president will send Congress a budget that will provide short-term help to a struggling economy while offering a long-term plan to deal with soaring deficits, the White House said Sunday. Republicans attacked the spending blueprint as offering more of the same failed solutions for the economy.
The 2013 budget being released Monday will propose public works spending while seeking tax increases on the wealthy and corporations to claim progress on the federal deficit in his upcoming budget. The spending plan projects a deficit for this year of $1.3 trillion, the fourth straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficits, and $901 billion next year.
Jacob Lew, the president's chief of staff, said the new budget would put the country on track to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next 10 years, achieved by raising taxes on the wealthy and trimming government spending. Lew said the president's budget would cut spending by $2.50 for every $1 it raises in new taxes.
"In the long run, we need to get the deficit under control in a way that builds the economy," Lew said during appearances on the Sunday talk shows. "We do it in a way that's consistent with American values so that everyone pays a fair share."
The release of Obama's spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 marks the official start to an election-year budget battle over taxes and spending as the nation's debt tops $15 trillion.
Republicans on Sunday criticized the document for its proposals to increase spending in such areas as infrastructure and for its tax increases.
House Republicans will put forward a sharp alternative to Obama's plan that will provide deficit reduction through an overhaul of Medicare and other programs and without tax increases.
"We're taking responsibility for the drivers of our debt," said the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "So when the dust settles and people see actually what we're doing, how we're promoting bipartisan solutions."
The president's plan is laden with stimulus-style initiatives, like sharp increases for highway construction, school modernization, and a new tax credit for businesses that add jobs. But it avoids sacrifice, with only minimal curbs on the unsustainable growth of Medicare even as it slaps a 10-year, $61 billion "financial crisis responsibility fee" on big banks to recoup the 2008 Wall Street bailout.
The budget, administration officials say, borrows heavily from Obama's September submission to a congressional deficit "supercommittee" assigned to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings as part of last summer's budget-and-debt pact that avoided a first-ever U.S. default on its obligations. The panel deadlocked and left Washington to grapple with bruising across-the-board spending cuts that kick in next January.
Obama's plan predicts deficit savings of more than $4 trillion over a decade, mixing $1 trillion already banked through last summer's clampdown on agency operating budgets with $1.5 trillion in higher tax revenues reaped from an overhaul of the tax code. It also claims savings from reduced war costs and takes just a nip at federal health care programs even as it promises $476 billion for road and other surface transportation programs over six years, a significant increase.
It's already received a chilly reception from Republicans who say Obama isn't doing enough to tame the deficit or curb the rapid growth of benefit programs like Medicare.
The budget will also call for a "Buffett Rule" named after billionaire Warren Buffett that would guarantee that households making more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.
Lew appeared on ABC's 'This Week," CNN's "State of the Union," "Fox News Sunday," NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS' "Face the Nation." Ryan was on ABC.

201comments below