9/28/2011 4:46:53 PM

bye, obamacare.

9/28/2011 4:49:26 PM

Quote :

"Faced with serious questions after the Solyndra failure as to their ability to make intelligent investments, the government is reacting by…. accelerating the approval of other green energy loans. Again, the difference with the private sector is not that the private sector makes no mistakes, but there is real accountability for those mistakes which lead to changes in behavior."

9/28/2011 5:03:15 PM

yeah, 1bn dollars worth i heard.

they just never learn.

9/28/2011 5:07:10 PM

Good, fuck the haters.

9/28/2011 6:40:21 PM

Obama's Budget Plan

http://www.raystevens.com/raytv.html?ma_id=2&mc_id=27&p=1

[Edited on September 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM. Reason : w]

9/30/2011 6:14:45 PM

cant get his job bill through a dem senate? hmmm

10/1/2011 3:08:32 PM

^Obviously you dont know anything about what is required, although it has been written a million times...need 60 votes to pass ANYTHING in the Senate...no 60 votes, no pass, dont make it sound so simple...if the GOP was majority in the Senate, it would be reverse, they would need 60 votes and of course the dems will play the GOP card and not let anything come to a vote.

Just in case you reply...but, all that is needed is 51...no, the minority can keep anything from advancing to the floor (filibuster to death) unless the majority has 60 votes to kill the filibuster.

[Edited on October 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM. Reason : w]

10/1/2011 4:27:40 PM

it's not even Obama's jobs bill in the Senate. He still hasn't introduced "his" jobs bill. the Pubs did, but Obama still has yet to formally introduce any legislation via democratic congressmen

10/1/2011 5:16:12 PM

Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Quote :

"There are some senators who are up for election who say ‘I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people.’ So, we’re not gonna have 100 percent of Democratic senators."

They aren't talking about 60, they are talking about Democrats.

10/1/2011 5:40:33 PM

Crediting ThePeter

Seriously?

These people.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-says-gop-blocking-jobs-bill-after-reid-blocks-jobs-bill_595022.html

Quote :

"Obama Campaign Says GOP Blocking Jobs Bill--After Reid Blocks Jobs Bill The Obama campaign sent out an email today asking supporters to urge Congress to at least vote on the president’s jobs almost immediately after Democratic majority leader Harry Reid blocked a vote on the bill in the Senate. On the Senate floor today, Republican leader Mitch McConnell asked for unanimous consent to proceed on voting on the bill. Reid, who has struggled to find enough votes for the bill in the Democratic caucus, objected to the motion and killed the opportunity for a vote. About ten minutes later, Jim Messina, Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, emailed this message to supporters: === President Obama is in Dallas today urging Americans who support the American Jobs Act to demand that Congress pass it already. Though it's been nearly a month since he laid out this plan, House Republicans haven't acted to pass it. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is out there actually bragging that they won't even put the jobs package up for a vote -- ever. It's not clear which part of the bill they now object to: building roads, hiring teachers, getting veterans back to work. They're willing to block the American Jobs Act -- and they think you won't do anything about it. But here's something you can do: Find Republican members of Congress on Twitter, call them out, and demand they pass this bill. === So will the Obama campaign be asking its supporters to "call out" Harry Reid and "demand" he and Senate Democrats pass the bill?"

10/4/2011 7:58:16 PM

115,730 jobs cut last month

51k in August.

10/5/2011 8:24:02 AM

If we just passed the bill all would be well. Stop thinking about whats in it and its effects, how much it costs....thats what racist old people do..you dont want to be one of those do you?..just do what feels good man and pass it. You like me, trust me on this one.....yeah that other one didnt go so well, but hey it was fun...you saw all the signs by the road right.....good times...good times...

10/5/2011 10:33:40 AM

that sounds creepily familiar

10/5/2011 10:37:24 AM

Quote :

"President Barack Obama appointed Shakira to his education advisory board in the hopes of assisting children in need throughout Latin America, The Associated Press reported."

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/entertainment/2011/10/05/obama-appoints-shakira-to-education-advisory-board/

ಠ_ಠ

althought she does at least have some history in helping poor people

10/7/2011 8:46:44 AM

She has a non-profit foundation for educating children:
http://fundacionpiesdescalzos.com/ and has been working on education programs in America with Dora The Explorer for years.

You're seriously misinformed. I mean hell, it explained it in the very article you've linked. She's always been about promoting education and supporting children.

[Edited on October 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

10/7/2011 10:04:57 AM

atleast shakira's hips don't lie.

10/7/2011 10:21:22 AM

-50 for berating BoA over imposing a new fee to make up for the bullshit regulation he put in to place that took away other legitimate ways to pay for a service. absolute fucking stupidity

10/7/2011 8:15:07 PM

^^^I was aware of her nonprofits. I'm choosing to ignore them and focus instead on Obama putting a Latino celebrity in charge of educational outreach. What do you think the average Hispanic voter will know about, that a non-descript Latino with extensive experience (hence very well qualified) would be appointed to the educational advisory board? Or that *~*~*~OmG ShAkIrA~*~*~* was given a job by Obama.

Shakira is borderline qualified to do the job (fuck its just an advisory board), but absurdly popular in the Latino community. Its a no-brainer popularity move by a President trying to help his image for him to point to Shakira and say "I respect Shakira in my administration". I know you're a mindless automaton for the guy, but come on man.

===

Now, this one is a wiki-leaks based hit, but fuck it I just lih:

Excerpts from http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/587698/201110111829/Apologies-Not-Accepted.htm

Quote :

"Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'""

10/12/2011 12:17:41 PM

Quote :

"Shakira Obama is borderline qualified to do the job (fuck its just an advisory board the Presidency), but absurdly popular in the Latino elitist liberal community."

10/12/2011 1:24:26 PM

Heard this on an episode of Bill Maher. Nothing new but a nice reminder of what this "borderline qualified" President was able to pull off despite some of the worst social, economic, and political conditions in our history.

-averted a depression
-saved the American automobile industry
-passed health care reform which no one else before him was able to do
-passed wall street reform (again, hadn't been done since 1933) and created a consumer protection bureau
-student loan reform
-credit card reform
-got the troops of out Iraq
-got rid of DADT
-killed Bin Laden, Awlaki, along with a multitude of other "wins" against foreign terrorists that the previous administration couldn't manage

To the people who say he could/should have done more, especially in his first 2 years, I'll be the first to nod in agreement. The stimulus especially was handled very poorly, both from a political and practical standpoint. Health care would have probably turned out the way it did no matter what, but I would have least liked single payer mentioned or stronger support of the public option. Just way too much back seat driving in general, and getting trolled by the Tea Party, are his most glaring failures. However, to the people who say he's done nothing to deserve a second term, that's factually untrue, especially in respect to his supporters in 2008. There are plenty of things for us to applaud the man for.

10/12/2011 2:18:15 PM

10/12/2011 4:40:40 PM

Quote :

"-averted a depression - are you that blind to think we aren't headed for one? -saved the American automobile industry - How so? When was General Motors given its $50B and Chrysler given its $14B (from December 2008 until January 16, 2009)...and how about that Chevy Volt and Ford? -passed health care reform which no one else before him was able to do - Not sure anyone else would want to take credit for this job-killer -passed wall street reform (again, hadn't been done since 1933) and created a consumer protection bureau - The Wall Street reform and Bureau that caused (and didn't prevent) BoA from charging $5/mon for its debit cards? -student loan reform - Which was tucked away in ObamaCare, and does what for students?[b] -credit card reform - [b]Agreed. This made it legal to possess a firearm in a National Park -got the troops of out Iraq - Um...he did?[b] -got rid of DADT - [b]Agreed. -killed Bin Laden, Awlaki, along with a multitude of other "wins" against foreign terrorists that the previous administration couldn't manage - If you claim that BHO killed OBL, why do you not credit BHO for having DEVGRUTWO killed? "

10/12/2011 5:38:15 PM

Shrike, I'm gonna go ahead and actually engage you in conversation unlike the rest of these mouth-breathers. I generally agree with your posts, but Obama shouldn't get a pass from us progressives.


I'm disappointed with Obama. Not because he's a socialist-radical-muslim-pinko, but because he's not a socialist-radical-muslim-pinko.

1)averted a depression - Sort of. We've staved off a depression by feeding the monster, I suppose. His extension of the bush tax cuts is fucking unacceptable. Let's be honest, Obama knows who his daddy is, and it's the people who fund him. He said he did it as a compromise, but what did he gain out of it? Nothing. He seems to think caving is the same as compromise. He's also done nothing to stop the short-selling that is prolonging a recovery.


The banks have paid off their debts and the taxpayer has seen a return of investment, but that really doesn't mean a goddamn thing to the waves of unemployed people who are waiting for businesses to establish confidence back into the marketplace.

2) saved the American automobile industry - Yeah, I guess that's an accomplishment, but as a progressive and an urbanist, I would rather see an investment into national infrastructure that focuses on rail/public transportation. The stronger the infrastructure, the better the conditions for businesses to distribute goods and for residents to get to and from their workplaces/dwellings. The nations that are emerging in the global markets are nations that are creating new cities and creating infrastructure. And a strong infrastructure in my opinion creates a grid that can accommodate multiple industries rather than just one industry (see detroit). The industrial city is dying, and we need to look to the future to stay competitive and design cities that are flexible enough to adapt, but I'm getting off topic.

3) Health care reform - he didn't get a public option. we need a public option, not the "car insurance" model. Yeah, you can blame the tea-partiers for this one, but really we should blame the democratic congress that had a super-pussy-majority. I'm fucking fed-up with my party for not realizing just how many progressives are in this country that wanted a public option.

4) wall street reform - I'll believe it when I see it. Reinstating glass-steagal would help, but I'm no economist, so I won't go into specifics that i'm unclear of.

5) student loan reform - GG Obama. He gets credit on this one.

6) repeal DADT - he gets credit on this one too.

7) Troops/Iraq. Numbers game. just shuffling them to other territories doesn't really change anything.

8) Bin Laden dead - Good job. Although it would have been a lot sweeter if he did it after closing Gitmo. He just left the door open for conservatives to (falsely) claim that torture is effective. having closed gitmo would have removed all doubt.


And no, my expectations of him were not that high. I simply expected him to be the next Clinton. Hell, I didn't even think he was as liberal as Hillary. But even with that, he loses major cool points in my book for not letting the dubya tax cuts expire, and he gets ZERO credit for wall street reform in my book until he actually dares bite the hand that feeds him.

What is going to upset me, is when the Democratic party takes ownership of the Wallstreet protesters in the next couple of weeks. It will happen, and he will rise to the occasion and make speeches that are sympathetic with the populist frustration. I just don't know if I can expect him to deliver in a second term after he already made promises of relieving the burden of the 98% in 2008. As of right now, he's a trickle-down, Reagan Democrat.

[Edited on October 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM. Reason : terror-tories....lulz]

10/12/2011 6:13:27 PM

Quote :

"Health care reform - he didn't get a public option. we need a public option, not the "car insurance" model. "

actually, it's funny you say that, because we NEED the car insurance model: choose what you want, buy it anywhere, mainly catastrophic coverage, making it cheap. Instead, we got the opposite: no choice, get it from your employer, covers all kinds of shit, making it massively more expensive.

Quote :

"student loan reform - GG Obama. He gets credit on this one."

what credit does he get for making the problem worse?

[Edited on October 12, 2011 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ]

10/12/2011 7:15:29 PM

He got the banks and the universities off the hook for losses, bro. That's a win for the god damn American people.

10/12/2011 9:13:57 PM

Let's not forget a civil liberties record equal or worse than Bush. Honestly for us on the left there is no viable candidate for 2012. Then again both the Dems and Republicans are corporate owned and operated anyway.

10/12/2011 10:22:14 PM

Ron Paul is the furthest left on the table right now. Unless Jeb Bush gets in.

10/12/2011 10:35:44 PM

Quote :

"Shrike, I'm gonna go ahead and actually engage you in conversation unlike the rest of these mouth-breathers. I generally agree with your posts, but Obama shouldn't get a pass from us progressives."

I guess the short answer is I'm a bit more pragmatic than a lot of liberals, and I look at what I wished Obama had done vs. what I believe was possible given the current state of American politics.

Still,

Quote :

"1)averted a depression - Sort of. We've staved off a depression by feeding the monster, I suppose. His extension of the bush tax cuts is fucking unacceptable. Let's be honest, Obama knows who his daddy is, and it's the people who fund him. He said he did it as a compromise, but what did he gain out of it? Nothing. He seems to think caving is the same as compromise. He's also done nothing to stop the short-selling that is prolonging a recovery. The banks have paid off their debts and the taxpayer has seen a return of investment, but that really doesn't mean a goddamn thing to the waves of unemployed people who are waiting for businesses to establish confidence back into the marketplace. 2) saved the American automobile industry - Yeah, I guess that's an accomplishment, but as a progressive and an urbanist, I would rather see an investment into national infrastructure that focuses on rail/public transportation. The stronger the infrastructure, the better the conditions for businesses to distribute goods and for residents to get to and from their workplaces/dwellings. The nations that are emerging in the global markets are nations that are creating new cities and creating infrastructure. And a strong infrastructure in my opinion creates a grid that can accommodate multiple industries rather than just one industry (see detroit). The industrial city is dying, and we need to look to the future to stay competitive and design cities that are flexible enough to adapt, but I'm getting off topic."

This comes back to how badly he fucked up the handling of the stimulus, and yeah, are unforgivable. He should have come out guns blazing for the $1.2 trillion of infrastructure spending, which is the minimum every sane economist agreed the country needed to create any kind of permanent recovery. Instead, he listened to bad advice from Lawrence Summers and others who told him that only $1 trillion was possible (politically), and we ended up with that $800 billion stimulus of about 50/50 infrastructure spending and tax cuts. Then, by coming out and saying "mission accomplished" in the summer of 2009, he made it politically toxic to propose further stimulus when the inevitable happened and the recovery stalled when the money ran out.

Basically, he hired a lot of the wrong people and allowed them to drive his economic policies in his first 2 years, wasting what should have been golden opportunity to do some real good. It's also why the Wall Street reform bill lacked teeth (didn't target incentives), and why the Bush tax cuts weren't allowed to expire. I chalk that up to inexperience and yeah, knowing who is "daddy" is and hiring the people Wall Street wanted him to hire. I'm at least a little heartened that most of those people have since been replaced, and he seems to have finally given up on trying to compromise with anyone from the right. We'll see if anything comes of it.

Quote :

"3) Health care reform - he didn't get a public option. we need a public option, not the "car insurance" model. Yeah, you can blame the tea-partiers for this one, but really we should blame the democratic congress that had a super-pussy-majority. I'm fucking fed-up with my party for not realizing just how many progressives are in this country that wanted a public option."

I truly believe the health care reform bill is the best we could have gotten at the time. It's no where near perfect, and should have a public option, but at least the door is open now. For now, it puts an end to the some of the worst practices of the health insurance industry and should result in near universal coverage, which are big wins. I know a lot of liberals see it is a pay out to a health insurance industry they want to see burn, but no worries, their day will come. It's no secret that health sector dollars have shifted almost unanimously to Republican lawmakers and candidates. They are scared.

Quote :

"7) Troops/Iraq. Numbers game. just shuffling them to other territories doesn't really change anything. 8) Bin Laden dead - Good job. Although it would have been a lot sweeter if he did it after closing Gitmo. He just left the door open for conservatives to (falsely) claim that torture is effective. having closed gitmo would have removed all doubt."

Again, I'm not so much anti-war, as I am anti-useless/unjustified wars. I was 100% for Afghanistan, as that was the proper and logical response to the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was pure insanity and we needed to get out, which Obama did. I wish we were getting out of Afghanistan sooner, but I believe Obama when he says we'll be out by 2014 since he kept his promise on Iraq. Yes, Gitmo should have been closed, but the problem is what to do with the prisoners? The practical options are all politically toxic. I wish I had the answer, but I don't.

The war against terror started out as a pure intelligence/special ops war, and should have stayed that way. I have no problems with using drone strikes as a our main weapon against these people. It's cheap, clean and effective. Al-Qaeda is operationally impotent at this point, and is fighting just to stay relevant among Islamist's. The shift in strategy that Obama brought when he took office is what made that happen.

Our involvement in Libya made sense at the time, was extremely successful, and gave Republicans a giant black eye due to their criticism of it. Win, win, win.

The bottom line is that Obama/Democrats aren't going to do what progressives want unless we actually make them do it. Yeah, we did great in 2008, but went back to being complacent right after. The whole country got trolled by the Tea Party in 2010 because liberals didn't turn out in the same way they did in 2008. We took our foot of the gas and really have no one but ourselves to blame. I see OWS as progressives finally realizing that, and doing something about it.

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 1:54 PM. Reason : :]

10/13/2011 1:50:25 PM

Quote :

"He should have come out guns blazing for the $1.2 trillion of infrastructure spending, which is the minimum every sane economist agreed the country needed to create any kind of permanent recovery. "

Except for the one thousand sane economists which signed a letter to Washington proclaiming the government spending yet another $700 billion on top of the current deficit would prolong the recession, which it seems to have done.

Quote :

"Our involvement in Libya made sense at the time, was extremely successful, and gave Republicans a giant black eye due to their criticism of it. Win, win, win."

Yes, the Republicans will know next time to support the war, whatever it is, be it with Iran or invading Iraq for the third time.

Sometimes killing people pays off. Doesn't mean killing people is a good thing to do.

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/13/2011 2:03:00 PM

reinstatement of Glass-Steagel = many trillions more in credibility

10/13/2011 2:55:44 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/12/MN5N1LH0LN.DTL#ixzz1alEh4oz2

credibility--

10/14/2011 3:45:08 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/world/africa/africa-obama-troops/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

credibility ++;

IBT OMGZ HE DOING IT TO GET TO DEM OIL FIELDS IN SUDAN DERP

10/14/2011 5:05:27 PM

As of yesterday, Obama has invaded as many countries as Bush did. Way to go! I wonder how many people can even find Uganda on a map?

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 9:49 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/15/2011 9:49:15 AM

Actually, about 20 more than Bush!

http://news.yahoo.com/yemen-us-strike-kills-local-al-qaida-media-083407970.html

Quote :

"An American drone strike in southern Yemen has killed seven al-Qaida-linked militants, including the media chief for the group's Yemeni branch and the son of a prominent U.S.-born cleric slain in a similar attack last month, government officials and tribal elders said Saturday."

10/15/2011 11:01:51 AM

I dont like the idea that we're attacking in so many countries, but you have to admit there's a big difference between drone attacks and no-fly zones versus putting thousands of troops on the ground and toppling governments.

10/15/2011 11:39:50 AM

It sucks that this is another fucking sports rivalry for you people. Obama doesn't understand blowback, and that's why he'll go down as another foolish President that couldn't see the writing on the wall. His idiotic supporters will go down as the people with slavish devotion to their leader with apparently no understanding of economics, history, or anything else that would have informed them of the administration's incompetence.

10/15/2011 1:12:58 PM

Timswar is right.

Invading territories with drones and robotic military elements is fine.

Since we didn't invade with human troops, we can pretend there are no human lives involved and that nobody will suffer

10/15/2011 1:18:53 PM

Did I not say that I don't like that we're attacking in these countries? At least in Yemen we were invited (check with Poland, punch was served).

But yeah, I make a distinction between bringing in drones and planes versus bringing in the Marines and the Infantry.

10/15/2011 1:22:54 PM

Very interesting read on how piss-poor of a leader Obama is - from the experience of a Democratic billionaire.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576628673446417268.html

Quote :

"The Exasperation of the Democratic Billionaire 'It's as if he doesn't like people," says real-estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman of the president of the United States. Barack Obama doesn't seem to care for individuals, elaborates Mr. Zuckerman, though the president enjoys addressing millions of them on television. The Boston Properties CEO is trying to understand why Mr. Obama has made little effort to build relationships on Capitol Hill or negotiate a bipartisan economic plan. A longtime supporter of the Democratic Party, Mr. Zuckerman wrote in these pages two months ago that the entire business community was "pleading for some kind of adult supervision" in Washington and "desperate for strong leadership." Writing soon after the historic downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt by Standard & Poor's, he wrote, "I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country." His words struck a chord. When I visit Mr. Zuckerman this week in his midtown Manhattan office, he reports that three people approached him at dinner the previous evening to discuss his August op-ed. Among business executives who supported Barack Obama in 2008, he says, "there is enormously widespread anxiety over the political leadership of the country." Mr. Zuckerman reports that among Democrats, "The sense is that the policies of this government have failed. . . . What they say about [Mr. Obama] when he's not in the room, so to speak, is astonishing." We are sitting on the 18th floor of a skyscraper the day after protesters have marched on the homes of other Manhattan billionaires. It may seem odd that most of the targeted rich people had nothing to do with creating the financial crisis. But as Mr. Zuckerman ponders the Occupy Wall Street movement, he concludes that "the door to it was opened by the Obama administration, going after the 'millionaires and billionaires' as if everybody is a millionaire and a billionaire and they didn't earn it. . . . To fan that flame of populist anger I think is very divisive and very dangerous for this country." This doesn't mean that Mr. Zuckerman opposes the protesters or questions their motives. When pressed, he concedes that the crowd in Lower Manhattan may include some full-time radicals, but he argues that the protesters are people with a legitimate grievance, as the country suffers high unemployment and stagnant middle-class incomes. It is a subject he has obviously studied at length, and he explains how the real unemployment rate is actually well above the official level of 9.1%, which only measures people who have applied for a job within the previous four weeks. In fact, he says, unemployment has even surged beyond the Department of Labor's "U-6" number of 16.5% that has received increasing attention lately because it includes people who have given up looking for work within the past year, plus people who have been cut back from full-time employees to part-timers. Mr. Zuckerman says that when you also consider the labor-force participation rate and the so-called "birth-death series" that measures business starts and failures, the real U.S. unemployment rate is now 20%. His voice rising with equal parts anger and sadness, he exclaims, "That's not America!" [passages about how Zuckerman is a billionaire real estate mogul] At that time he supported Mr. Obama's call for heavy spending on infrastructure. "But if you look at the make-up of the stimulus program," says Mr. Zuckerman, "roughly half of it went to state and local municipalities, which is in effect to the municipal unions which are at the core of the Democratic Party." He adds that "the Republicans understood this" and it diminished the chances for bipartisan legislating. Then there was health-care reform: "Eighty percent of the country wanted them to get costs under control, not to extend the coverage. They used all their political capital to extend the coverage. I always had the feeling the country looked at that bill and said, 'Well, he may be doing it because he wants to be a transformational president, but I want to get my costs down!'" Mr. Zuckerman recalls reports of Mr. Obama consulting various historians on the qualities of a transformational president. "But remember, transformations can go up and they can go down." Now comes the latest fight over Mr. Obama's jobs plan, which has as its centerpiece a tax increase on the wealthy with obvious populist appeal. Mr. Zuckerman supports raising taxes on the rich but says such a proposal cannot be taken seriously unless it's paired with other measures to grow the economy and restrain deficit spending. He also wonders why, if the president wanted to get a plan enacted, he didn't begin with private bipartisan discussions with House and Senate leaders, instead of another address to a joint session of Congress. "Even if you want to do this to revive your support in the base, to revive your credibility on the issues of the economy and jobs, which has fallen off the table, this isn't going to accomplish it. Another speech from this guy? The country knows this is just another speech. They understand it almost instantaneously, and his numbers have continued to go down for that reason. What the country wanted was some way of coming up with a solution." The only solution Mr. Zuckerman sees now to juice the economy "is to broaden the tax base and simplify and lower tax [rates]. To me that will be as close to revenue-neutral as you're going to have so it isn't going to be seen as a budget buster." He views GOP candidate Herman Cain's "9-9-9 plan" as a "little bit simple-minded," but he says that a reform that closes loopholes and reduces compliance costs will stimulate both business and consumer spending. Mr. Zuckerman sees a need for a cooperative effort like that of President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill when they reformed Social Security in 1983. That wasn't a permanent solution, of course, as Social Security needs more significant changes now, but Mr. Zuckerman sees it as a model of bipartisan progress. Unprompted, he spends much of our discussion reminiscing about the Reagan presidency. Mr. Zuckerman has for years owned U.S. News and World Report, and in 1986 its Moscow correspondent Nicholas Daniloff was seized without warning by the KGB. Mr. Zuckerman immediately flew to Russia but returned home when Soviet officials refused to release their new prisoner. "I worked in the White House for the next four weeks virtually every day and through that I met Reagan," says Mr. Zuckerman. Reagan secured Mr. Daniloff's release in a swap that included a Soviet spy held in the U.S. "Reagan surprised me," says Mr. Zuckerman. "He got the point of every argument. . . . He was very decisive. And everybody loved working for him. They followed his lead because they really respected his decisiveness and his instincts." 'I was not a Republican and I was not an admirer of his before I knew him," continues Mr. Zuckerman. "And you know, Harry Truman had a wonderful definition for the presidency. He said the president has to be someone who can persuade the American people to do what they don't want to do and to like it. And that's what you have to do. Somebody like Reagan had that authority. He was liked so much and he had a kind of moral authority. That's what this president has lost." "Democracy does not work without the right leadership," he says later, "and you can't play politics." The smile inspired by Reagan memories is gone now and Mr. Zuckerman is pounding his circular conference table. "The country has got to come to the conclusion at some point that what you're doing is not just because of an ideology or politics but for the interests of the country.""

10/16/2011 9:33:31 AM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZy3s_o35Ql7WlURTZrmSfZLug6Q?docId=3d3680538b1f41de960b0cfc5455ab9e

Quote :

"In recent months, Washington has been discussing with Iraqi leaders the possibility of several thousand American troops remaining to continue training Iraqi security forces. A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday that no final decision has been reached about the U.S. training relationship with the Iraqi government. But a senior Obama administration official in Washington confirmed Saturday that all American troops will leave Iraq except for about 160 active-duty soldiers attached to the U.S. Embassy."

10/16/2011 11:11:03 AM

^ I'll believe it when I see it. How about leaving Afghanistan too? If he actually manages to do it, I'd probably vote for him in the coming election. Sure, he has wrecked everything else, but ending a war is a sufficiently big deal to swamp everything else.

10/16/2011 11:43:41 AM

Why would you vote for him AFTER he pulled the troops out? Seems like that's his only possible saving grace. If he does pull them out before the election (highly likely simply due to his own political motives) then there is nothing good left for him to do, so he will simply continue to obliterate the country.

10/16/2011 11:51:43 AM

It's not even like its for a good reason, it's just because the iraqi leaders won't give the troops immunity.

Then again, over is over and it'll be nice to wrap up this sad chapter of our history.

/Just gotta figure out how to get out of Afganistan without the country collapsing.

10/16/2011 11:55:07 AM

To repost something in addition to ThePeter's post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Diagnosis

Quote :

"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) - CHECK 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love - CHECK 3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) - CHECK 4. Requires excessive admiration - CHECK 5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations - CHECK 6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends - CHECK 7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others - CHECK 8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her - CHECK 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes - CHECK"

MAN, THIS GUY HAS IT ALL





[Edited on October 16, 2011 at 11:18 PM. Reason : //]

10/16/2011 11:17:28 PM

Your ability to psychoanalyze some you've never met is truly remarkable. You should definitely try and make some money off of a talent like that, perhaps a Dr Phil-like show?

/ I'm in awe here. That's just such an amazing talent.

10/17/2011 10:58:11 PM

no jobs bill = $1000 tax hike for most Americans

-1 credibility

10/18/2011 3:32:51 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/beltway-earnings-make-u-s-capital-richer-than-silicon-valley.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/188443-reid-says-public-sector-jobs-must-take-priority-over-private-sector-jobs

10/19/2011 8:29:52 PM

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44963294

Energy Department Altered Loan-Related Releases - CNBC - Eamon Javers

Quote :

"Someone affiliated with the Department of Energy has been going back to make changes to press releases posted on the Internet weeks and months ago, CNBC has found. The changes occurred in two press releases from the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program — the same program that has been the center of controversy surrounding the failed solar company Solyndra. Both were changed to remove the name of a company that has received negative press attention in recent days, SunPower, and replace it with the name of another company, NRG Energy. Generally, it is not considered correct procedure to revise old press releases retroactively on the Web. More commonly, government agencies will issue a new press release with a current date explaining any changes that have occurred. In the April case, the Department of Energy loan programs office announced in a press release on April 12 "conditional commitment" to a $1.187 billion loan guarantee to support the California Valley Solar Ranch project, which it said was "sponsored by SunPower Corporation." But that release was later changed on one website to say the project was "sponsored by NRG Energy." The date on the release remained "April 12, 2011." The two companies are closely linked. Just before the announcement of the loan guarantee in September, NRG completed its long-in-process acquisition from SunPower of the same California Valley Solar Ranch project that had received federal support. But in April, that project was still owned by SunPower, not NRG. In a second instance of retroactive press release revision, someone changed a release from September 30 that announced the finalization of the California Solar Generation project. In an early version of the September 30 press release, the government said the project was "sponsored by SunPower." That was later changed to "sponsored by NRG Energy." In a statement, a spokesman for the Department of Energy said that the changes were made by outside contractors for the department responsible for maintaining the Loan Programs Office website. "The only website that changed was a separately maintained loan program webpage that is managed by support services contractors," the spokesman said. "While updating the project fact sheet to reflect the changes in the ownership of the California Valley Solar Ranch project, those contractors inadvertently changed the news bulletins posted on the LPO website." Update: On Wednesday evening, a Department of Energy spokesman said that the press releases had been returned to their original content as a result of CNBC's inquiry about the changes. Correction: A previous headline on this article incorrectly characterized the press releases as being related to Solyndra."

10/20/2011 4:17:29 PM

set em up

10/20/2011 5:26:02 PM