Barack Obama, our next President

[OldRaider]

John Galt wrote:

Market crashing today.

Great news, money's the only thing that will motivate Republicans to act on sequestration!

[sonicfilter]

Woodward Misses The Mark

....But in this case Woodward is just dead wrong. Obama and Democrats have always insisted that a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher taxes replace sequestration. It’s true that John Boehner wouldn’t agree to include new taxes in the enforcement mechanism itself, and thus that the enforcement mechanism he and Obama settled upon — sequestration — is composed exclusively of spending cuts. But the entire purpose of an enforcement mechanism is to make sure that the enforcement mechanism is never triggered. The key question is what action it was designed to compel. And on that score, the Budget Control Act is unambiguous.

First:“Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 is enacted by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced.”

Key words:“deficit reduction.” Not “spending cuts.” If Republicans wanted to make sure sequestration would be replaced with spending cuts only, that would have been the place to make a stand. Some of them certainly tried. But that’s not what ultimately won the day. Instead the, law tasked the Super Committee with replacing sequestration with a different deficit reduction bill — tax increases or no.

“The goal of the joint committee shall be to reduce the deficit by at least $1,500,000,000,000 over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021,” according to the BCA. The bill even provided the House and Senate instructions for advancing a Super Committee bill if it included revenue. This couldn’t be clearer. In the Super Committee’s waning hours, Republicans tried to entice Democrats into a spending-cut heavy agreement by acceding to a small amount of revenue. Democrats balked — the balance was off — but all of that just goes to show that a tax increase has always been a likely element of a replacement bill, and Republicans know it.

Woodward just biffed this one.

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives...

David Brooks got ate up for the same thing. in his 'retraction' he pleaded 'frustration'.

happens when you write an opinion based on nothing.

[sonicfilter]

A Denver man was arrested last week over allegations that he harassed a lawmaker sponsoring legislation that would expand background checks for gun sales and ban high-capacity magazines, the Denver Post reported Monday.

Franklin Glenn Sain was arrested Friday, the report said, for allegedly harassing Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora) via emails and a voice mail. Sain was released on bond, according to the Denver Post.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/d...

the gun nut PR campaign stumbles on.

[sonicfilter]

OldRaider wrote:

<quoted text>
Great news, money's the only thing that will motivate Republicans to act on sequestration!

how much this time?

[OldRaider]

Cway wrote:

Where's Jimmy? I want my good friend Jimmy to come out.
(Shaking can of Raid.)

That's funny but jimmy/waxturd/goober/nosrupriz e et.al. is only frightened by men with white coats and nets.

[proud2bwhite]

Cway wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the translation of my sarcastic remark is, he was being unintelligible.
I see you didn't attempt to decipher it, either.
Right, cochroachie?
spray-spray-spray
(proud2bwhite: "Oh no! The truth... not again! Ahhhhh! scurry-scurry-scurry)

does your mommy know that you are playing on her pc? You sound like an 8 year old with the imaginary can of coddie spray. But please use caution that stuff kills parasites , don't hurt yourself.

[Cway]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
"1. GOP policies such as tax breaks clearly favor the wealthy."
Only half the goddam country is paying all the income tax for the entire country. Perhaps the Democrats have a fair tax plan where EVERYONE will pay their fair share of what the government they voted for costs?
"2. GOP legislators constantly oppose Wall Street reform."
Wall Street reform written by the very criminals that orchestrated the economic collapse, that being Dodd and Frank, isn't any kind of reform we want.
"3. GOP constantly fights against minimum wage.(And who benefits from that the most? The poor.)"
Why should an employer be forced to pay more for the same useless employee? Why does anyone need minimum wage? Why don't Democrats get off their ass and become worth more than minimum wage?
That will solve their income problem without instituting a Marxist program like minimum wage.
"4. GOP constantly fights social security benefits."
Let's fix Social Security right here and now:
IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
Now that we've fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?
"5. GOP constantly fights affordable healthcare."
What you call "affordable health care" is paid for by the only half of the goddam population paying all the income taxes for the entire population. Of course, it's affordable to the half of the population that won't have to pay for it. It's not affordable to the other half of the population that pays all the income taxes for the entire population.
"6. GOP under Bush allowed credit card companies to charge 30% interest rates."
If you don't like that, don't earn for yourself an horrible credit rating by not paying any of your bills. If you pay your bills, you will have a normal credit card interest charge.
All of your problems are self-induced.
We are tired of subsidizing your problems. It's time you fixed them yourself, or just live with them.

1. Well, only 53% make enough to pay taxes. Hmmm. Now which president led us to that situation? Yuh think maybe eight years of chimp had something to do with it?

2. Avoids the question of who opposes Wall Street reform, doesn't it, Sir Cochroachie? Try to stay on topic. As for the banks, they willingly made out predatorial loans and are now being investigated for it. Try to stay in the news loop.

3. The issue is not your irrelevant queries, but the simple fact that your kind opposes minimum wage increases. Nothing more be said. The jury is in and the verdict lies on that simple fact.

4. More evasiveness on your part which pretends to address the issue. The bottom line is that Republicans hate social security and would like nothing better than to do away with it, as they tried under Bush. In that case, to privatize it. More specifically, turning over what was a trust over to Wall Street wolves.
Well, doesn't that once more reinforce the alliance between GOPers and Wall Street?

5. More nonsensical whining on your part, with the silly concluding remark that those who pay the taxes can't afford medical care, while the poorest can. Stop, take a deep breath, and listen to your idiocy once in a while.

6. Sorry, but I fail to see the morality or legal justification for jacking up credit card rates to 30%. The people who suffer from this the most are the poor. This is one of several points I made and nothing you state above refutes it.

Profits over people, right Mr. cochroachie?

Or have you forgotten how HMOs denied legitimate, long-term clients the kind of life-saving care they needed in order to pad the bottom line? The HMOs would just cancel their subscription under the bogus excuse "pre-existing condition".

But you don't want us to know that, do you?

Face it, Republicans are the party of the rich and big business. It's their class against everyone else. Actions speak louder than specious denials.

[Cway]

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
That's what I thought...move along.

You don't think. And you don't have the power to make me do anything.

[Cway]

To Mr. Galt,

1. Well, only 53% make enough to pay taxes. Hmmm. Now which president led us to that situation? Yuh think maybe eight years of chimp had something to do with it?

2. Avoids the question of who opposes Wall Street reform, doesn't it? Try to stay on topic. As for the banks, they willingly made out predatorial loans and are now being investigated for it.

3. The issue is not your irrelevant queries, but the simple fact that your kind opposes minimum wage increases. Nothing more be said. The jury is in and the verdict lies on that simple fact.

4. More evasiveness on your part which pretends to address the issue. The bottom line is that Republicans hate social security and would like nothing better than to do away with it, as they tried under Bush. In that case, to privatize it. More specifically, turning over what was a trust over to Wall Street wolves.
Well, doesn't that once more reinforce the alliance between GOPers and Wall Street?

5. More nonsensical whining on your part, with the silly concluding remark that those who pay the taxes can't afford medical care, while the poorest can. Stop, take a deep breath, and listen to your idiocy once in a while.

6. Sorry, but I fail to see the morality or legal justification for jacking up credit card rates to 30%. The people who suffer from it the most are the poor. This is one of several points I made and nothing you state above refutes it.

Profits over people, right Mr. cochroachie?

Or have you forgotten how HMOs denied legitimate, long-term clients the kind of life-saving care they needed in order to pad the bottom line? The HMOs would just cancel their subscription under the bogus excuse "pre-existing condition".

But you don't want us to know that, do you?

Face it, Republicans are the party of the rich and big business. It's their class against everyone else. Actions speak louder than specious denials.

[John Galt]

proud2bwhite wrote:

<quoted text> does your mommy know that you are playing on her pc? You sound like an 8 year old with the imaginary can of coddie spray. But please use caution that stuff kills parasites , don't hurt yourself.

Just the usual Chicago scumbag.

[Cway]

proud2bwhite wrote:

<quoted text> does your mommy know that you are playing on her pc? You sound like an 8 year old with the imaginary can of coddie spray. But please use caution that stuff kills parasites , don't hurt yourself.

Trying to get a night gig in the comedy business?

Better keep the day job. In your case, the window at McDonalds.

[Waxman]

OldRaider wrote:

<quoted text>
Great news, money's the only thing that will motivate Republicans to act on sequestration!

Sequestration was Bullwinkle's idea and he said he would VETO any bills that would not abide by it, so why not humor the most divisive president in history?

By the way hypocrite, money in you losers pocket is why you support what you do, old ballsack.

[John Galt]

sonicfilter wrote:

A Denver man was arrested last week over allegations that he harassed a lawmaker sponsoring legislation that would expand background checks for gun sales and ban high-capacity magazines, the Denver Post reported Monday.
Franklin Glenn Sain was arrested Friday, the report said, for allegedly harassing Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora) via emails and a voice mail. Sain was released on bond, according to the Denver Post.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/d...
the gun nut PR campaign stumbles on.

Do you have any specifics on the so-called "harassment"?

Far as I know there is no law against sending critical emails and voice mails to public officials.

[Cway]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
You still didn't tell us what subsidies you are talking about. Read that New York Times article again and just copy and paste the subsidies they identified. An idiot can do that.
What subsidies?
I hear the word "subsidies" said a lot. I just have never seen anything to back that Democrat propaganda bullshit up.
What subsidies is Obama talking about?

Ohhhh, I see. So in other words, it's not enough that the NY Times mentions $4 billion in federal oil subsidies.

You demand a break down for each oil company, right? Or else you're right and the NY Times is wrong.

Seriously, this kind of hair-splitting shows you to be the fool you are.

[John Galt]

February 25, 2013 10:47 am

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd criticized Monday the new fundraising efforts of President Obama’s dark money group, Organizing for Action, calling a scheme for high donors to meet regularly with Obama “the definition of selling access.”

Todd was describing the quarterly meetings that will be enjoyed by OFA’s $500,000 donors, the New York Times reported over the weekend:

But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

“This just looks bad–it looks like the White House is selling access,” Todd said Monday.“It’s the definition of selling access. If you believe money has a strangle hold over the entire political system this is ceding the moral high ground.”

The perk was first reported by the Los Angeles Times earlier in February after a meeting between OFA leadership and top Los Angeles and Bay Area fundraisers for Obama’s reelection campaign.

OFA is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) and therefore not required to disclose the identities of its donors, nor the amounts they give. In addition to major campaign donors, the organization’s leadership has been courting corporate donors.

[Nj raider 1]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
"1. GOP policies such as tax breaks clearly favor the wealthy."
Only half the goddam country is paying all the income tax for the entire country. Perhaps the Democrats have a fair tax plan where EVERYONE will pay their fair share of what the government they voted for costs?
"2. GOP legislators constantly oppose Wall Street reform."
Wall Street reform written by the very criminals that orchestrated the economic collapse, that being Dodd and Frank, isn't any kind of reform we want.
"3. GOP constantly fights against minimum wage.(And who benefits from that the most? The poor.)"
Why should an employer be forced to pay more for the same useless employee? Why does anyone need minimum wage? Why don't Democrats get off their ass and become worth more than minimum wage?
That will solve their income problem without instituting a Marxist program like minimum wage.
"4. GOP constantly fights social security benefits."
Let's fix Social Security right here and now:
IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
Now that we've fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?
"5. GOP constantly fights affordable healthcare."
What you call "affordable health care" is paid for by the only half of the goddam population paying all the income taxes for the entire population. Of course, it's affordable to the half of the population that won't have to pay for it. It's not affordable to the other half of the population that pays all the income taxes for the entire population.
"6. GOP under Bush allowed credit card companies to charge 30% interest rates."
If you don't like that, don't earn for yourself an horrible credit rating by not paying any of your bills. If you pay your bills, you will have a normal credit card interest charge.
All of your problems are self-induced.
We are tired of subsidizing your problems. It's time you fixed them yourself, or just live with them.

Hey dumass, ever since the republicans deregulated housing scandal crashed thee economy, even those further educated than H.S are forced to accept lower paying jobs. Your thought process is totally stupid! There's a need for minimum wage workers. They often perform work that snobbies like you consider yourselves too good for. Everybody can't be rich & minimum wage serves as a wage scale for employers. Not to mention protection against modern day slavery. If they were useless they would'nt have a job in the 1st place. As for every other BS response you posted, you can deny it all you want, but the fact remains. Thats the reason the republicans were demolished in the last 2 elections. Still believe the minority outweighs the majority, hows that going? 2014 democratic majority in both house & senate. Change you can believe in! Lol!

[Waxman]

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>Jane you ignorant slut!!! If they don't get that one, then the rest of our schtick will sail right over their pointy little heads!

Selecia you baggy jowelled dike!!! If you don't get that one, then the rest of our schtick will sail right over your air filled, boxy squinty eyed Sponge Bob head!

[sonicfilter]

John Galt wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have any specifics on the so-called "harassment"?
Far as I know there is no law against sending critical emails and voice mails to public officials.

are you a lawyer?

because 'as far as you know' has been demonstrated to not be very far.

[proud2bwhite]

Cway wrote:

<quoted text>
Trying to get a night gig in the comedy business?
Better keep the day job. In your case, the window at McDonalds.

I'm not trying to make a fool of you. You achieve that on your own.

[Cway]

Waxman wrote:

<quoted text>
Sequestration was Bullwinkle's idea and he said he would VETO any bills that would not abide by it, so why not humor the most divisive president in history?

Obama "the most divisive president in history".

Seems you'd like us to forget how Bush and friends described anyone who criticized the bogus war in Iraq as "enabing the terrorists".

The same administration that enjoyed putting the political spotlight on gays and drumming up hate against them to win votes.

And when Obama took office, how long was it before Congressman Joe Wilson yelled "You Liar!" at him from the aisle? And Senator Mitch McConnell stated the GOP's first priority was to defeat him. This said over three years before the next general election.

Sorry, but the lines of division were clearly drawn when Obama came in. Your side hated him before he could get the word "hello" out of his mouth.

Because he is the living symbol of the public's rejection of YOU.