The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Ya, worthless pieces of shit or not, I find this rhetoric very surprising and very promising. There might be a chance for some big debt reduction bill after all.

[larrymcg421]

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm happy to see it happen. But just because he came to the obvious conclusion that we need to increase revenues doesn't overcome the disgusting attacks he used against Max Cleland.

[cuervo72]

Not too keen on the mortgage deduction part of that statement. But not surprised that something like that would go rather than something affecting the $250k+ crowd (not that that won't, but it'll get me too).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Not too keen on the mortgage deduction part of that statement. But not surprised that something like that would go rather than something affecting the $250k+ crowd (not that that won't, but it'll get me too).

I have no problem in eliminating the mortgage deduction part of the statement. (Simpson-Boyles plan pushed this, as well). The $200,000/$250,000+ crowd will be already tax more thanks to Obamacare, (3.8% additional tax on investment income, 0.9& income on ordinary income for all earners that are in the $200,000/$250,000 (married) and up bracket.

[GrantDawg]

"In the meantime, maybe you'll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won't go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds," Buffett said. "Send him my way. Let me unburden him." - Warren Buffet

He is calling for a 30% flat tax on income $1 mil to $10 mil, and 35% over that. He mocks the idea that investors will run hide their money if they have to pay more taxes.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

He is calling for a 30% flat tax on income $1 mil to $10 mil, and 35% over that. He mocks the idea that investors will run hide their money if they have to pay more taxes.

As he rightly should. Anyone who would decide to do that based solely (note my use of solely) on US tax laws is a poor investor.

[Passacaglia]

Buffett probably doesn't want his "terrific investment idea" after all, then.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Saxby, Graham, McCain ... I like the trend.

Lindsey Graham: 'I Will Violate The Pledge' To Not Increase Taxes

Saxby, Graham, McCain ... and Corker, King ...

Interesting that the below article did not name McCain (may have been premature).

The GOP’s ‘Read my lips’ moment

Four big-name Republicans have broken with Grover Norquist in recent days, saying they won’t be bound by their Norquist-sponsored pledges to oppose any and all tax increases.

The moves by Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Rep. Peter King (N.Y.) represent the opening steps of a delicate dance for the GOP — and one that could come to define the just-begun talks over the looming “fiscal cliff.”
:
:
Sal Russo, the founder of the Tea Party Express, said his group would obviously prefer that Republicans vote against tax increases, but that it doesn’t believe in litmus tests and is willing to look at the entire package.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

He is calling for a 30% flat tax on income $1 mil to $10 mil, and 35% over that. He mocks the idea that investors will run hide their money if they have to pay more taxes.

I think the question isn't about "investment", but selling the investments.

[Edward64]

Obama playing a dangerous game to see how much he can get. Let's get it done soon.

Will President Obama push us over the cliff? - CNN.com

In the weeks since his victory, President Barack Obama has argued -In short, we have known the framework of a grand bargain for a long time, and in theory, we should be closer to it than ever. But this week, there is a palpable sense in Washington that the parties are drifting apart and chances of an agreement before Christmas are diminishing. Erskine Bowles, a former White House chief of staff and former co-chairman of Obama's debt commission, now puts the chances of a deal that prevents us from going over the fiscal cliff at only one in three.

Why has a grand bargain become so much harder than it should be? Last year, it was clearly the Republicans who were over-playing their hands, being obstinate when they should have been more flexible. (The deal they could have gotten then would have been considerably better than the one they are looking at now.) But frankly, it is the president and the Democrats who are over-playing their hands now.

Instead of turning the GOP willingness to deal on taxes into a win-win, the White House seemingly wants to humiliate them by insisting they cave entirely on increasing tax rates -- or take responsibility for going over the cliff. Instead of sitting down and negotiating directly with leaders from the other side in private getaways, as presidents like Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan did, the president launches a campaign-style offensive against them.

[Edward64]

Interesting insight, I didn't think about the below.
First Thoughts: A laughing matter? - First Read

But is the offer really a laughing matter? From what we understand, the White House is sending two messages from the offer it presented yesterday. One, it’s trying to force House Republicans to pass the middle-class extension of the Bush tax cuts -- with the idea of punting everything else until next year. The message: Extending the middle-class tax cuts is MUCH LESS painful than the other revenue, the debt-limit demand, and additional stimulus. (Think Team Obama has learned from its past negotiating offers, when it started out negotiating from the middle?)

Two, the White House is sending the message that if Republicans want entitlement reform, they’re the ones who will have to propose it. After all, the administration’s offer is very specific when it comes to taxes, but not specific at all when it comes to entitlements. In other words, the White House is saying: We’re dragging you to agreeing to higher revenues, but you guys need to drag us to entitlement fixes. It is very possible that the White House’s sky-high offer could blow up in its face. But it’s also quite possible that it forces Republicans to think long and hard about the middle-class extension and what they exactly want on entitlements.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama is receiving a lot of negative feedback towards his plan to send astronauts to an asteroid........

Expert panel: NASA seems lost in space, needs goal - Yahoo! News

[JediKooter]

That's really going to hurt his chances for a 3rd term.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Obama is receiving a lot of negative feedback towards his plan to send astronauts to an asteroid........

Expert panel: NASA seems lost in space, needs goal - Yahoo! News

I'm sure there's a rationale for it but why don't we send someone to Mars now instead of an asteroid. I bet there are some astronauts that would be willing to take the risk.

Obama told the space agency in 2010 to plan to send astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 as a training ground for an eventual Mars landing. But the 80-page panel report and its authors said there is little support for that idea within NASA and the international space community.

[Edward64]

It'll be interesting to see what Obama (or NATO or UN) does if the line does get crossed. My guess is increased and public support for rebels.

Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order - World News

The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.
:
U.S. officials stressed that as of now, the sarin bombs hadn't been loaded onto planes and that Assad hadn't issued a final order to use them. But if he does, one of the officials said, "there's little the outside world can do to stop it."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated U.S. warnings to Assad not to use chemical weapons, saying he would be crossing "a red line" if he did so.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting.

DeMint leaving Senate to head Heritage Foundation | Fox News

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting.

DeMint leaving Senate to head Heritage Foundation | Fox News

wow that is a surprise, but as a South Carolinian, very happy to see him leave the Senate.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting.

DeMint leaving Senate to head Heritage Foundation | Fox News

I'd imagine a lot more money and a lot less bullshit is pretty appealing for a guy that won't ever be the GOP leader in the Senate.

[Edward64]

Arab spring not done ... another one of those who/what will take over when its done.

Syria's endgame in sight as rebels advance - CNN.com

Hell came to Damascus months ago. It's loud and scary in Syria's capital. But now, this week, something seems different.

It feels worse. And that makes Leena feel better.

The Damascus resident, who sides with the rebellion, says it means the forces fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad are winning.

[stevew]

I thought the plan was to mine the asteroids for water/fuel? It makes so much sense

[Edward64]

Great job Obama.

(But lets not forget it was GWB that started the drone strikes in Pakistan and he should be given kudo's for that).

Which made me think there wasn't much during the Presidential debates about Pakistan and it's not been in the news much. Wonder what's the strategy from the WH.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...cials-say?lite

A senior al-Qaida official and potential successor to the group’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed Friday morning in a Predator drone strike, according to reports on jihadi web forums and U.S. officials.

Sheikh Khalid Bin Abdul Rehman Al-Hussainan, aka Abu-Zaid al Kuwaiti, was killed in Pakistan while eating breakfast, according to the accounts. The 46-year-old cleric was seen as part of the “very top tier" of al-Qaida's remaining leaders in the wake of the death of Osama bin Laden, according to one expert on the terror group.
:
The U.S. killed three other up-and-coming members of the terror group’s next generation leadership in the months after bin Laden was killed in a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs in May 2011. Ilyas Kashmiri, the leader of a Pakistani group associated with al-Qaeda was killed June 3. Atiyah Abd-al Rahman, bin Laden’s chief of staff, was killed on Aug. 22 and Ayman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was a leader of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, was killed Sept. 30. US officials say that hints about their whereabouts were found in materials gathered by the Navy SEALs in the raid on bin Laden’s compound.

Al-Hussainan is the highest ranking al-Qaida official to be killed since those leaders were killed.

[Edward64]

I get you can't run for a third term but this is not good.

Anti-American rap won't keep PSY from performing for president - NBC News Entertainment

South Korean sensation PSY will perform at the "Christmas in Washington" concert taping Sunday as planned despite furor over a graphic anti-American rap he delivered in 2004, TNT told NBC News on Friday. President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are scheduled to attend the concert.

The singer issued an apology Friday after a pair of America-bashing incidents became public.

[stevew]

Now we're not even proclaiming to have killed AQ #2. It's potential #2 now.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

Now we're not even proclaiming to have killed AQ #2. It's potential #2 now.

Well, duh. It's always been AQ's #3. Because everyone knows who #1 and #2 are, you can claim pretty much any AQ middle manager is #3 so we've killed AQ's #3 like 50 times.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get you can't run for a third term but this is not good.

Anti-American rap won't keep PSY from performing for president - NBC News Entertainment

Yawn. It's really boring and silly.

SI

[stevew]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, duh. It's always been AQ's #3. Because everyone knows who #1 and #2 are, you can claim pretty much any AQ middle manager is #3 so we've killed AQ's #3 like 50 times.

SI

I wonder if the guys always ask themselves why there is always a listing for that position on jihad.indeed.com.

"No experience needed!"

Must be tough working conditions or something.

[sterlingice]

"Pays better than nothing, so sounds good!"

SI

[Buccaneer]

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, argued that the $1 trillion in spending cuts agreed to by Congress in the past two years should be counted toward deficit reduction in the current negotiations.

What a stupid bitch. Is she and others like her so afraid of any cuts that they can only think of adding more spending or to play stupid games counting non-cuts as cuts?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What a stupid bitch. Is she and others like her so afraid of any cuts that they can only think of adding more spending or to play stupid games counting non-cuts as cuts?

Nice misognyistic lead-in to your post there. Overcompensating a little much methinks?

[Buccaneer]

Yeah. It's just that I really didn't have a problem with much of anything in the CNN article until I read that part. Do you think that's really stupid?

[molson]

That's similar to the Obama statement fairly recently where he wanted to increase taxes first, and THEN they'd start the real negotiations to determine how much (more) to raise taxes and how much to cut spending.

It makes them seem like used car salesman, but I guess they're learning, for the first time here in 2012, how to try to get things done in Washington. You have to be a car salesman and you have to be disingenuous.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Nice misognyistic lead-in to your post there. Overcompensating a little much methinks?

So what term would be better? Dick? Prick? Bastard?

I guess jackass could work, that's not really gendered. Dumbfuck, maybe,

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

So what term would be better? Dick? Prick? Bastard?

I guess jackass could work, that's not really gendered. Dumbfuck, maybe,

How about an actual argument against the politics instead of an ad hominem opening? It was completely unnecessary and pointless.

[Edward64]

I am disappointed with Obama on this. I wonder if he really believes this or just political payback/pandering.

Obama blasts 'right to work' in Michigan, presses 'fiscal cliff' - latimes.com

President Obama criticized Michigan’s Republican leaders during a visit to a Detroit-area auto plant Monday for advancing a new “right-to-work” bill, saying it would hurt workers’ ability to bargain for better wages.

Obama had traveled to Daimler’s Detroit Diesel facility as the company announced plans for new technology and expanded production at the 74-year-old plant. The $100 million investment will add 115 jobs to the 2,200-member workforce
:
But Obama, who earlier greeted Snyder after touching down in the state, said “right to work” laws have nothing to do with economics, and “everything to do with politics.”

“We should do everything we can to keep creating good middle-class jobs that help folks rebuild security for their families,” Obama said to Daimler workers. “What we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions.”

“What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money,” he said.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

How about an actual argument against the politics instead of an ad hominem opening? It was completely unnecessary and pointless.

Pot. Kettle.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Pot. Kettle.

you called the House Minority leader a stupid bitch Bucc. What the hell is wrong with you?

[JediKooter]

All I have to say is, Pelosi is one of several members of Congress/Senate that have wayyyyyy over stayed their welcome.

[Buccaneer]

Am I the only one that has ever called a politician a derogatory name?? What did some of you call the previous president/vice president/cabinet members? Or how many called Hillary a bitch when she was running against Obama?

But congrats on deflecting away from her...comments.

[larrymcg421]

Bucc has spent so much of his time here pointing out the hypocrisy of posters for criticizing the other side when they do the same thing that it's so deliciously ironic to see him deflect criticism from his name calling of Pelosi by saying others do it, too.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Bucc has spent so much of his time here pointing out the hypocrisy of posters for criticizing the other side when they do the same thing that it's so deliciously ironic to see him deflect criticism from his name calling of Pelosi by saying others do it, too.

Pretty much. Bucc is the political version of the asshat type of atheist.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Pot. Kettle.

Really? Go back and find a post where I used the "b" word on Palin. Did I call her stupid? Sure...but I never resorted to a misognystic ad hominem.

[Buccaneer]

It was inappropriate, sorry. Should've just stuck with stupid.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

All I have to say is, Pelosi is one of several members of Congress/Senate that have wayyyyyy over stayed their welcome.

Agreed and I say that as a hard left liberal.

I thought Luke Russert's question to her a few weeks ago about leadership positions was spot on.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by molson

That's similar to the Obama statement fairly recently where he wanted to increase taxes first, and THEN they'd start the real negotiations to determine how much (more) to raise taxes and how much to cut spending.

It makes them seem like used car salesman, but I guess they're learning, for the first time here in 2012, how to try to get things done in Washington. You have to be a car salesman and you have to be disingenuous.

I think the GOP is doing a very poor job in the PR campaign on this. They need to frame the discussion harder and better publicly and insert more pressure on Obama and the Dems.

Originally Posted by Grover

Agreed and I say that as a hard left liberal.

I thought Luke Russert's question to her a few weeks ago about leadership positions was spot on.

She is out of touch, power hungry and frankly, corrupt. When she mentioned that they needed to pass the ObamaCare bill first to see what's in it, that should of been the end of her.

What was his question and her response?

Originally Posted by Edward64

I am disappointed with Obama on this. I wonder if he really believes this or just political payback/pandering.

Obama blasts 'right to work' in Michigan, presses 'fiscal cliff' - latimes.com

Isn't he just playing politics as well? Kind of the pot calling the kettle black.

He, and union members, are missing the big economic future picture. Which is sad, and why we need forward, innovative leaders, not the standard, stupid, and greedy political leaders.

It's kind of sad to see some of the liberals defend the behavior of some of the protestors yesterday. Absolutely disgusting, and it makes me hate the unions even more.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Grover

Agreed and I say that as a hard left liberal.

I find it's way too convenient to be able to claim to represent the traditional
Democratic principles when your husband is extremely wealthy. You can easily sell reform while at the same time not jeopardizing anything that will personally affect you on a dramatic level. In many ways the ultra-rich/ultra left is the worst convergence of policies. Claim to represent the best interests of the little people while at the same time being personally gluttonous with the distribution of public funds.

[JPhillips]

But in our system you can't win without being wealthy. Wouldn't that just eliminate any policies that don't benefit the rich?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think the GOP is doing a very poor job in the PR campaign on this. They need to frame the discussion harder and better publicly and insert more pressure on Obama and the Dems.



She is out of touch, power hungry and frankly, corrupt. When she mentioned that they needed to pass the ObamaCare bill first to see what's in it, that should of been the end of her.

What was his question and her response?




Isn't he just playing politics as well? Kind of the pot calling the kettle black.

He, and union members, are missing the big economic future picture. Which is sad, and why we need forward, innovative leaders, not the standard, stupid, and greedy political leaders.

It's kind of sad to see some of the liberals defend the behavior of some of the protestors yesterday. Absolutely disgusting, and it makes me hate the unions even more.

Right to work laws lead to workers pay dropping by an average of $1,500/year through weakening the union's ability to look out for workers because they enable free-riding on the union's work by people who don't pay dues.

Aren't Republicans adamantly against free-riding? Didn't we just go through an election cycle where that was proudly proclaimed by all Republican candidates? So suddenly free-riding is okay if it weakens unions and thus workers (the little guy)?

That's some serious hypocrisy.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Right to work laws lead to workers pay dropping by an average of $1,500/year through weakening the union's ability to look out for workers because they enable free-riding on the union's work by people who don't pay dues.

Aren't Republicans adamantly against free-riding? Didn't we just go through an election cycle where that was proudly proclaimed by all Republican candidates? So suddenly free-riding is okay if it weakens unions and thus workers (the little guy)?

That's some serious hypocrisy.

My point is the standard union-type job are going to become more and more obsolete over time. Not due to right-to-work laws or even outsourcing, but due to technology. Robotic machinery is getting more sophisticated each year, computer software and programming is pushing the limits, mobile technology is here and only going to grow, and education and medicine are going to start feeling the technological revolution. The current union manufacturing, and perhaps in the education and health care, jobs are going to be replaced by highly-skilled, highly technology talent who can manage and engineer these technological programs.

Free-riding? The argument is against being forced to join an union, and to pay dues to have a job, not necessarily against forming unions. Aren't a lot of state and local governments facing a lot of financial squeezes due to the costs from their union deals? The Big 3 has been getting beaten by the foreign automakers who aren't saddle with incredibly high expensive labor costs (GM has said that health care costs add $1,400 to each car it makes alone). Why are Democrats for freedom and pro-choice, but not when it comes to the freedoms of workers?

[ISiddiqui]

Why do corporations force employees to have a dress code? How is joining a union as a condition of employment different? It is simply another condition of joining a particular job that potential employees have to decide whether or not they can live with.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why do corporations force employees to have a dress code? How is joining a union as a condition of employment different? It is simply another condition of joining a particular job that potential employees have to decide whether or not they can live with.

I can see that, but also how it's a tough pill to swallow if you don't agree with the organization you're being forced to join. How would people feel if they had to join the Republican party and pay dues to support them for example, just to take a job at a factory worker or teacher or something? Maybe they'd just say, "to hell with the job", but I bet a lot of them would think it was unfair too. I know there's been cases of employers trying to subtly influence employees' voting, and people go apeshit over that.