The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[gstelmack]

Can someone tell me what I'm missing? On the Fiscal cliff, I keep hearing (generally ABC news, also some CNN.com) about "compromise" and how the Republicans aren't willing to give, yet the last presidential sound bite I heard was "don't let taxes go up on the middle class, we can talk spending cuts later" and that seems to be the theme. Right now the President wants a tax increase on the wealthy, no tax increase on everyone else, and to punt on spending cuts for future discussions, but the Republicans are the ones refusing the compromise? Exactly what part of this proposal has the Democrats compromising?

[Flasch186]

Yup, Boehner delivered his votes to the table. I look forward to the resolution before the end of the year. Oh wait....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Exactly what part of this proposal has the Democrats compromising?

I believe they've offered to draw & quarter successful people without tarring & feathering as many of them first.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Can someone tell me what I'm missing? On the Fiscal cliff, I keep hearing (generally ABC news, also some CNN.com) about "compromise" and how the Republicans aren't willing to give, yet the last presidential sound bite I heard was "don't let taxes go up on the middle class, we can talk spending cuts later" and that seems to be the theme. Right now the President wants a tax increase on the wealthy, no tax increase on everyone else, and to punt on spending cuts for future discussions, but the Republicans are the ones refusing the compromise? Exactly what part of this proposal has the Democrats compromising?

If the last leaked proposal is to be believed,

Chained CPI
A few hundred billion in discretionary cuts
Raising the tax increase level from 250000 to 400000
Lowering overall tax raise from 1.6 trillion to 1.2 trillion
Restoring the defense cuts from the sequester

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If the last leaked proposal is to be believed,

Chained CPI
A few hundred billion in discretionary cuts
Raising the tax increase level from 250000 to 400000
Lowering overall tax raise from 1.6 trillion to 1.2 trillion
Restoring the defense cuts from the sequester

See, the President needs to be saying "here are the spending cuts we've agreed to, now show us the tax increases you are willing to make". Instead he's been saying (at least everywhere I've seen) "raise taxes on the rich, then we'll discuss spending". The above list is the first list of proposed spending cuts I've seen mentioned anywhere.

[JPhillips]

I got that from several newspapers. It is out there.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Gun crime (in the UK) soars by 35%
...Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871...

Please do bear in mind most of these 'handgun' offenses aren't what Americans would consider 'handguns' these are often immitation or air-pistols all of which are counted as 'armed' crimes.

For instance any person on private property without permission is trespassing; possession when doing so of even a low-power air weapon with no ammunition makes this the serious crime of armed trespass, subject to heavy penalties.

So while there has been a 'rise' in offenses its not really that surprising as many will undoubtably have involved things which might have been legally previously and resulted mainly in a 'slap on the wrist' and education of the offender - ie. its unlikely a poacher using a rifle for hunting without licence etc. would be slapped in prison, however he would undoubtably lose his weapon and get a fine - hence the initial rise in offenses.

Finally a paragraph from wikipedia - a 2006 study using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) statistical analysis found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation[15] but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".[16] Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).
Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So to summarise - after the new policies were put in place higher offenses were recorded, at least partially as society got used to their new restrictions. Subsequently 7 years of falling firearm related offenses have occurred (despite including imitation weapons and airguns in the statistics).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Please do bear in mind most of these 'handgun' offenses aren't what Americans would consider 'handguns' these are often immitation or air-pistols all of which are counted as 'armed' crimes.

For instance any person on private property without permission is trespassing; possession when doing so of even a low-power air weapon with no ammunition makes this the serious crime of armed trespass, subject to heavy penalties.

So while there has been a 'rise' in offenses its not really that surprising as many will undoubtably have involved things which might have been legally previously and resulted mainly in a 'slap on the wrist' and education of the offender - ie. its unlikely a poacher using a rifle for hunting without licence etc. would be slapped in prison, however he would undoubtably lose his weapon and get a fine - hence the initial rise in offenses.

Finally a paragraph from wikipedia - a 2006 study using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) statistical analysis found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation[15] but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".[16] Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).
Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So to summarise - after the new policies were put in place higher offenses were recorded, at least partially as society got used to their new restrictions. Subsequently 7 years of falling firearm related offenses have occurred (despite including imitation weapons and airguns in the statistics).

MV knows the Motherland.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I got that from several newspapers. It is out there.

Again, you have to dig for details. But when I watch the morning news and see Obama say things like "extend the tax cuts for the middle class and let's talk spending later", it's not the message he's putting out there. For example:

Obama urges smaller ‘fiscal cliff’ deal | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Obama pressed polarized lawmakers to extend current tax rates on household income up to $250,000, extend unemployment benefits due to expire and set the stage for broader talks in 2013 on reducing the deficit. “That’s an achievable goal that can get done in 10 days,” he insisted.

That's the kind of stuff I see all the time. No mention of spending cuts by him (and I saw video of him saying exactly the above, so it's not a misquote / paraphrase / summarization issue), just "Republicans do this, and I'll talk about the other stuff later".

[Buccaneer]

People believe the "we'll cut spendings later" part?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Again, you have to dig for details. But when I watch the morning news and see Obama say things like "extend the tax cuts for the middle class and let's talk spending later", it's not the message he's putting out there. For example:

Obama urges smaller ‘fiscal cliff’ deal | The Ticket - Yahoo! News



That's the kind of stuff I see all the time. No mention of spending cuts by him (and I saw video of him saying exactly the above, so it's not a misquote / paraphrase / summarization issue), just "Republicans do this, and I'll talk about the other stuff later".

That quote came after the GOP completely rejected the ideas above and failed to pass their plan B. At this point it's the only possible plan that could be passed before Jan. 1. At this point, the only way to keep taxes from going up on everyone is to pass that separately.

[Flasch186]

Pardon my incredulousness. So you're saying that the liberal media isn't doing everything in its power to help Obama? Church lady say, isnt that convenient.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Again, you have to dig for details. But when I watch the morning news and see Obama say things like "extend the tax cuts for the middle class and let's talk spending later", it's not the message he's putting out there. For example:

Obama urges smaller ‘fiscal cliff’ deal | The Ticket - Yahoo! News



That's the kind of stuff I see all the time. No mention of spending cuts by him (and I saw video of him saying exactly the above, so it's not a misquote / paraphrase / summarization issue), just "Republicans do this, and I'll talk about the other stuff later".

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Please do bear in mind most of these 'handgun' offenses aren't what Americans would consider 'handguns' these are often immitation or air-pistols all of which are counted as 'armed' crimes.

For instance any person on private property without permission is trespassing; possession when doing so of even a low-power air weapon with no ammunition makes this the serious crime of armed trespass, subject to heavy penalties.

So while there has been a 'rise' in offenses its not really that surprising as many will undoubtably have involved things which might have been legally previously and resulted mainly in a 'slap on the wrist' and education of the offender - ie. its unlikely a poacher using a rifle for hunting without licence etc. would be slapped in prison, however he would undoubtably lose his weapon and get a fine - hence the initial rise in offenses.

Finally a paragraph from wikipedia - a 2006 study using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) statistical analysis found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation[15] but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".[16] Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).
Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So to summarise - after the new policies were put in place higher offenses were recorded, at least partially as society got used to their new restrictions. Subsequently 7 years of falling firearm related offenses have occurred (despite including imitation weapons and airguns in the statistics).

Thanks.

So if I have the events of the UK down right, the first action was to ban rifles and then the second act was to ban handguns. It was a progressive, "baby-steps" approach to banning firearms in general...essentially "easing" the public into the full ban.

We seem to be walking right in your footsteps here as well. We will have a rifle ban in place before 2013 is out (I suspect) and then the big political battle will take place (handguns).

I suspect part of the reason so many weapons are being purchased right now is to hope people are "grandfathered" in when the new laws are passed.

[JPhillips]

That's paranoia. We'll never have either a rifle or handgun ban as federal law. We likely can't even get a return to the assault weapon ban passed.

[Dutch]

JPhillips,

Well, I suppose rejection is still possible, but I'll be very surprised if the Dem's don't push for a new ban on rifles before 2013 is out.

[JPhillips]

That will never happen. Maybe some backbencher will say something, but it will never have support of the leadership or the President. Even if it did happen the SC would overturn it.

[Edward64]

I like Obama not playing nice.

WSJ: Obama Threatened Boehner With Using Inauguration, SOTU Address To Blame GOP - Obama - Fox Nation

President Obama has threatened House Speaker John Boehner that if no deal is struck on the “fiscal cliff,” he will use his Inaugural address and State of the Union speech next month to blame Republicans, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt From The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

[Buccaneer]

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

Why?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Why?

In simple terms, because the tax cut was temporary and is set to expire on January 1st if the house does not present an extension. The house GOP has been negotiating as if they were in a position of power on an extension and I think the quote from Obama is a reminder that doing nothing triggers the increase in tax revenue (it isn't a compromise or "putting something on the table" -- it is the path that we are on if nothing else happens).

[ISiddiqui]

Yep. He's not really putting it on the table when its just the part of the default that's going to occur if no deal is reached. It just goes back to Clinton era rates (whereas the spending cuts aren't just "going back" to something that was in place).

[Edward64]

I did not realize tea partiers were "sitting back" on this fight (and I don't think we've heard much since the elections). No Ron Paul, Palin, Bachmann.

- The Washington Post

The tea party movement has been nearly invisible in the intensive lobbying campaign over the “fiscal cliff,” even as Congress and the White House debate the issues of government spending and national debt that are at the core of the movement’s identity.

In many ways, the tea party was made for this moment. The grass-roots opposition to President Obama’s agenda that arose in 2009 has been so focused on fiscal concerns that leaders once prevented speakers at tea party rallies from even discussing abortion and other social issues.

And in fact, it is the tea party that helped bring the country to this moment. The automatic spending cuts at the heart of the year-end fiscal cliff grew out of the tea party’s fierce campaign last year to slash federal budgets and cap government borrowing.

Yet as groups across the political spectrum seek to influence any deal to avert the cuts and tax increases set to kick in Jan. 1, the tea party has been unusually — and deliberately — quiet. Members still call and e-mail Congress but have held no rallies and done little lobbying.

When tea party leader Jenny Beth Martin recently journeyed to the Capitol from her Atlanta area home, for example, she did not bring with her the bus loads of tea party members who once descended on Washington to rally for fiscal restraint.

As she toured the offices of several Republican House members, Martin barely brought up the fiscal cliff negotiations that could chart the nation’s budgetary future, according to Martin and congressional aides.

Her focus instead? Fighting over spending at the state level.

“We’re sitting back’’ on the fiscal cliff, said Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest tea party group. Republicans in Congress, she said, “have proven they’re not going to listen to us,’’ adding that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is a “cave man” for his willingness to consider tax increases.

Tea party activists say they feel despised by Democrats and ignored by Republicans, and they still resent the blame they received for last year’s debt ceiling crisis, in which tea-party backed lawmakers demanded deep spending cuts in return for increasing the federal borrowing limit and helped push the nation to the brink of default.

[sterlingice]

"Because we don't have a realistic plan and people blame us for being obstructionist, we're going to take our ball and go home. Because next year we can sit up there in the cheap seats and blame everyone for something we didn't want to craft because we sat it out"

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I like Obama not playing nice.

WSJ: Obama Threatened Boehner With Using Inauguration, SOTU Address To Blame GOP - Obama - Fox Nation

I think it would be in bad taste.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"Because we don't have a realistic plan and people blame us for being obstructionist, we're going to take our ball and go home. Because next year we can sit up there in the cheap seats and blame everyone for something we didn't want to craft because we sat it out"

More likely that they'll block anything put forward until things go over the cliff ....

(personally I think going over the cliff is incredibly likely to happen - I don't think its the end of the world at all, initially the markets will go haywire - but subsequently I expect some things will happen very quickly because of that)

[cartman]

Not really Obama/government related, but gun related. I was taking the Texas Concealed Handgun License class on Saturday, and there was a lady in the class that didn't know what the 2nd Amendment was. The instructor thought it was a joke at first, but the lady truly didn't know.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

Not really Obama/government related, but gun related. I was taking the Texas Concealed Handgun License class on Saturday, and there was a lady in the class that didn't know what the 2nd Amendment was. The instructor thought it was a joke at first, but the lady truly didn't know.

I guess that's a bigger deal in a handgun class but there are a lot of people who probably couldn't name the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th and only know the 5th because of court tv shows.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

More likely that they'll block anything put forward until things go over the cliff ....

(personally I think going over the cliff is incredibly likely to happen - I don't think its the end of the world at all, initially the markets will go haywire - but subsequently I expect some things will happen very quickly because of that)

I think it's the only way the deal gets done. That way the GOP has coverage as they didn't "raise" rates and has room to work within the parameters of the losing battle they're fighting. Sin of omission rather than sin of commission.

Blame GWB for this: if he had worked out a better deal back in the early 2000s rather than having to ram it through via reconciliation then they would be more permanent. But, really, they were tax cuts on money that should have been spent paying off the debt from his 2 pet wars anyway.

SI

[Edward64]

T-3.

Listened to Obama's speech and the pundits after. Only a few days to work this out and "this" is only a subset of what needs to be negotiated. I'm thinking the only way we get increased revenues and spending cuts is to go over the cliff.

My taxes will go up. But there is a certain satisfaction knowing that everyone's taxes will go up. I know Defense will hurt but I have to believe there is alot of fat and less-than-useful pet projects. We'll likely go back into a recession but if we get increased revenue and significant spending cuts ... wouldn't it be worth it?

CNBC showed Mon DOW futures to be off by 300 pts. I'm about 50-30-20 in stock, bonds and cash so feeling okay.

[Swaggs]

Sounds like Obama is pressing Reid for a simple up/down vote on extending the cut for those who earn under $250K. This will essentially force each senator to vote for or against "middle class" tax cuts. Who knows if the house would sign off on it, but it is going to lead to upheaval for the GOP either way.

I think Boehner is a goner as the speaker. I think it would be better for everyone if he and Pelosi would just retire.

[GrantDawg]

No one wants the job.

[Vegas Vic]

We need to make sure to soak those evil rich people (>250k per year) for tax increases that will decrease the national debt by 6%. The remaining 94% can't be touched with any measure of substantive cuts.

[panerd]

Yep as a person whose family isn't close to 250K I still think it is hilarious how easy it is for some people to justify spending other people's money. "What's another 10 grand?" like ten grand doesn't spend the same for someone making 300K a year as it does for them. What if all of the third world countries wanted to impose taxes on those making fifty grand a year because nobody needs that kind off money? And what if it went to some wasteful organization that had intention on cutting back any of the waste? Populism have never been more rampant than this fiscal cliff nonsense. What happened to the panel that was supposed to make these tough decisions last year? Good God the American public gets what it deserves sometimes when they continue to be swindled by these con artists in DC.

[rowech]

Maybe it's time for term limits to Congress.

[Edward64]

I think part of the gridlock is the ease of doing a filibuster nowadays. Also been hearing about the Hastert rule about majority of majority have to agree before being submitted as a bill.

To be honest, I suspect the Democrats would be doing the same if the position was reversed.

Weakened Filibuster Reform Plan Unveiled In Congress By John McCain, Carl Levin

"What we're proposing on a bipartisan basis is a way to end the major sources of gridlock around here," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), one of eight senators who crafted the proposal that would give the Senate two new ways to end filibusters.

The filibuster has been used nearly 400 times in the 112th Congress, which will go down as the least productive since the 1940s. The classic filibuster -- made famous in the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" starring Jimmy Stewart -- involves a lawmaker taking to the floor and doggedly making his point.

In the modern Senate, the invoking of cloture to stop such debating requires 60 votes. But it's been decades since the objecting senator has had to take floor.

The proposal by Levin and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), doesn't propose a new rule requiring a talking filibuster, but a document they distributed explaining their proposal said the leaders of the two parties would require it.

"If a senator wants to block legislation, he or she should go to the floor of the Senate, and be there for that objection," said McCain.

"You must talk," said Levin, adding that no new rule is needed because the talking requirement has never actually been dropped. It's only been waived by senators as a courtesy, McCain and Levin said.

Majority of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The majority of the majority is a governing principle (not a legal procedure) used by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990's to effectively limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the house.[1] Under the majority of the majority doctrine the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill to take place unless the majority of the majority party supports the bill.[2] This is sometimes referred to as the “Hastert Rule”,[3] as its introduction is widely credited to former Speaker Dennis Hastert (1999-2007); however, Newt Gingrich, who directly preceded Hastert as Speaker (1995-1999), followed the same rule.[4] Hastert was vocal in his support of the rule stating that his job was "to please the majority of the majority."[5]

In practical terms this keeps the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a small number of members of the majority party. It takes 218 votes to pass a bill. Even when there are 218 votes to pass a bill, the rule prevents votes from taking place when those 218 votes do not include the majority of the majority party. If the Democrats are the minority party and the Republicans are the majority party, under the majority of the majority rule it would not be possible for 170 Democrats and 50 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 50 Republicans votes is far short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.[6] As an example, if the Republican Party is the majority party and has 234 seats in Congress, it would take 118 (117+1) Republican votes in support of legislation before a vote could take place. With less than 118 Republican votes the legislation would be blocked, even if 218 or more votes could be found between the two parties.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I guess that's a bigger deal in a handgun class but there are a lot of people who probably couldn't name the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th and only know the 5th because of court tv shows.

SI

Do you think that 99.9% people know all the amendments?

[Edward64]

T-1. At least they are still talking.

- The Washington Post

Vice President Joseph Biden and Sen. Mitch McConnell were locked in urgent talks late Sunday over the “fiscal cliff” after Democrats offered several significant concessions on taxes, including a proposal to raise rates only on earnings over $450,000 a year.

With a New Year’s Eve deadline hours away, Democrats abandoned their earlier demand to raise tax rates on household income over $250,000 a year, as President Obama vowed during the recent presidential campaign.

They also relented on the politically sensitive issue of the estate tax, promising to stage a vote in the Senate that would guarantee that taxes on inherited estates remain at their current low levels, a key GOP demand.

Still, McConnell (R-Ky.) was holding out to set the income threshold for tax increases even higher, at $550,000, according to people close to the talks in both parties. And he was protesting a Democratic proposal to raise taxes on investment profits for households with income above $250,000.

The two sides were also sharply at odds over automatic spending cuts set to decimate budgets at the Pentagon and other federal agencies next month. Democrats were seeking to delay the cuts, known as the “sequester,” until 2015, without identifying other savings to compensate. They were also pressing to extend unemployment benefits, farm subsidies and Medicare payments to doctors, again without offsetting cuts as Republicans demand.

[Galaxy]

So basically the Dems want the tax hikes, but seem unwilling to make any decisions on spending reforms/cuts?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So basically the Dems want the tax hikes, but seem unwilling to make any decisions on spending reforms/cuts?

No, not really.

Basically, the GOP president and GOP majorities in 2001 and 2003 temporarily cut taxes without making any spending/reform cuts and they are set to expire in 2013 if nothing is done. The Dems are willing to maintain the cuts for all but those making over a certain figure (reportedly only after your first $450K, negotiated up from $250K), but the GOP are trying to attach and/or withhold other essential provisions. The Dems caved under a similar situation in 2010, but now that Obama doesn't have to run again, he isn't willing to "punt" again.

[SirFozzie]

The Dems are willing to do some cuts, on a bigger deficit deal (that protects some of the things that they want), but the Republicans want the same thing with a smaller revenue package (for example, "Chained CPI" was on the table when a big deficit deal was being discussed, but when a big deal was off the table, the Republicans said "We still want Chained CPI in the package, even though you're not getting as much revenue as you want", and the Democrats are saying "No deal."

The Republicans have the losing hand (and every indication is they still know it) in that a majority of independents and even some Republicans will blame them if there's pain (The fact they couldn't even get "Plan B" to pass is a major embarassment to them), but they are fighting hard to get as much as possible from any deal.

[cougarfreak]

I'm embarrassed to be from KY and associated with McConnell. He's an idiot, and he's wrong. Not just on this issue. A good friend of mine's wife received teacher if the year in our state, and part of tge deal was she went to Washington to meet Obama, senators, etc. Upon meeti.g McConnell, his first response was......so do you teach in Kentucky?

[SirFozzie]

Seeing reports that some framework is now done between biden and McConnell. Cautiously optimistic.

[Buccaneer]

Neither side should get what they want. A democrat solution will make the government even worse. A republican solution will do harm to a lot of people. The solution is to do the minimum possible - a series of short-term fixes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

President Obama Quietly Renews Warrantless Wiretap Law for 5 Years | TheBlaze.com

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

President Obama Quietly Renews Warrantless Wiretap Law for 5 Years | TheBlaze.com

The scariest thing is that considering my naturally left wing viewpoint and Irish heritage I fear some poor sod is having to listen long and hard to me discussing my sisters new job and how my dads legs are feeling these days

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Seeing reports that some framework is now done between biden and McConnell. Cautiously optimistic.

They've had something done for weeks. This is all for show.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by rowech

They've had something done for weeks. This is all for show.

I concur - this is about both sides making out that they've 'played tough' and got a decent deal for their extremists (who will still moan and complain anyway ).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The scariest thing is that considering my naturally left wing viewpoint and Irish heritage I fear some poor sod is having to listen long and hard to me discussing my sisters new job and how my dads legs are feeling these days

Yeah, that was my thought as well. I know a lot of people get fired up about it. I'm just thinking that they're wasting a lot of taxpayer money if they want to bother listening to my conversations.

[Dutch]

I seriously doubt they are listening to anything you say unless you have been identified/flagged for some reason. Like making phone calls to England. (I kid, I kid.)

In all seriousness, we would need thousands of trained intel analysts to do that and I don't recall us hiring a bunch of those to handle that sort of workload.

[Edward64]

I'm pretty sure this will get taken care of at least.

Lawmakers push one-year extension of farm bill in bid to avert spike in milk prices | Fox News

The leaders in both parties on the House and Senate Agriculture committees have agreed to a one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill that expired in October, a move that could head off a possible doubling of milk prices next month. But House leaders have yet to say whether they will allow a vote on it

[GrantDawg]

There is some strange and interesting drama here about Hillary's collapse and now hospitalization. The National Enquire the day before she was hospitalized said that she had brain cancer and would need to secretly have a battery of tests to confirm the diagnosis. Now, her reps say she has a blood clot, and is being treated with blood thinners. The thing is, if she does have a blod clot stemming from a blow to the head, they would not be using blood thinners. Has the National Enquirer stumbled on another actual scoop?