More than a century after Teddy Roosevelt's famous "New Nationalism" address, President Barack Obama sounded similar themes Tuesday in the same town in the Republican heartland of Kansas, delivering a populist speech that called for extending the payroll tax cut set to expire at the end of the year.
Obama described stark differences between a Republican ideology he described as leaving people to fend for themselves and his vision of government helping provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of where they begin in life.
"It's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America," Obama said in the 55-minute speech, which frequently prompted applause. "It's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all society's problems.
"It's a view that says in America, we are greater together -- when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share."
The Roosevelt speech in 1910 was intended to unite a Republican Party divided by a reform movement seeking curbs on industrial might.
Obama also seeks Republican unity, but this time the goal is to push through economic stimulus proposals and seek a political advantage for his Democratic Party.
He called for Congress to "immediately" extend the payroll tax cut, saying: "If we don't do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January, and it would badly weaken our recovery."
He framed the issue as a choice between making vital investments in future growth or the Republican position he characterized as maintaining "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country."
"We can't afford to do both," Obama said. "That is not politics. That's just math."
In an initial Republican response, conservative Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama called Obama's speech "a virtual declaration that, for the remainder of his term, his focus will be on campaigning rather than governing."
At issue is the tax on workers that helps fund the Social Security Trust Fund. As part of a budget-cutting deal last December, Obama and Congress negotiated a reduction of 2 percentage points in the payroll tax rate -- from 6.2% to 4.2%.
The cut meant a family of $50,000 paid about $1,000 less in payroll taxes. With the reduced rate expiring on January 1, Obama and Democrats seek to expand the provision by lowering the rate even further -- to 3.1% -- for another year.
Republicans initially opposed the idea, saying the provision failed to create jobs last year. Now Republican leaders say they support an extension, but they differ with Obama and Democrats on how to pay for it.
The Democratic plan calls for a surtax on income over $1 million, as well as other provisions to cover the $180 billion cost. Republicans oppose any tax increase as part of their push to shrink the size of government.
Obama took aim at that position Tuesday, saying congressional Republicans "want to go back to the same policies that have stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for too many years."
"Their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules," Obama said in a speech pushing for passage of provisions of his jobs package. "Well, I'm here to say they are wrong."
Sounding a theme from Roosevelt's speech more than a century earlier, Obama said: "I'm here to reaffirm my deep conviction that we are greater together than we are on our own."
In his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, back in 1910, Roosevelt made a similar appeal.
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well-used," Roosevelt said, but added: "We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
Describing what he called a "new nationalism," Roosevelt said it "regards the executive power as the steward of public welfare."
"It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than in property, just as it demands that the representative body shall represent all the people rather than any one class or section of the people," Roosevelt said.
On Tuesday, Obama called restoring opportunity for America's middle class "the defining issue of our time."
"This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class," the president said. "At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement."
Economic inequality in America today is at "a level we haven't seen since the Great Depression" and "hurts us all," Obama said.
"Inequality also distorts our democracy," he added to applause. "It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. And it leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them -- that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most Americans."
In particular, Obama cited tax disparity, saying tax shelters and loopholes allow a quarter of all millionaires to pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class families, adding that "some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%."
"This is the height of unfairness," Obama said. "It's wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker (who) maybe earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million."
He said the issue "isn't about class warfare," a charge leveled by Republican opponents.
"This is about the nation's welfare," he said. "It's about making choices that benefit not just the people who've done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole."
Sessions, however, took issue with Obama depicting himself as a champion of the middle class.
"The middle class must pay for the president's failed policies twice—first, they have to pay the bill for profligate federal spending, and then they must pay the price for its economic consequences in the form of lost jobs and mounting debt," Sessions said in a statement. "The middle class bears the brunt of the president's misguided big-government vision."
On another issue, Obama said he would veto any effort by congressional Republicans to "delay, defund or dismantle" a new consumer protection panel by blocking the confirmation of the nominated director, Richard Cordray.
"The Republicans in the Senate refuse to let him do his job," Obama said of Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general. "Why? Does anyone here think the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors? Of course not."
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Tuesday that Republicans will prevent a vote on Cordray's nomination until changes are made to strengthen congressional oversight of the new panel.
Obama, however, said that "consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them." To applause, he said, "I intend to make sure they do," adding that "I will veto any effort to delay, defund, or dismantle any of the new rules we put in place."
On the payroll tax impasse, moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who cast the lone GOP vote in favor of an earlier Democratic plan that included the so-called "millionaires tax," proposed a compromise Tuesday that would exclude small businesses from the provision.
A revised Democratic proposal unveiled Monday by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, contains a reduced version of the millionaires tax, down to 1.9% from the original 3.25%, and calls for it to expire after 10 years, according to a statement by the senator.
In addition to revenue from this "millionaire's surtax," the new proposal would be paid for by increasing fees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge mortgage lenders to guarantee repayment of new mortgage loans, Casey's statement said.
The provision was discussed during negotiations by the congressional "super committee" that failed to reach a deficit reduction deal last month, and would raise $38.1 billion, according to Casey's statement.
A softening of Republican opposition to extending the lower payroll tax rate has raised expectations for eventual congressional approval of a compromise plan.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, last week agreed with Obama and Democrats that extending the payroll tax cut would help the economy by putting more money in the pockets of consumers.
Boehner's comment broke from conservative GOP orthodoxy that contends the payroll tax cut enacted last year had failed to benefit the sluggish economic recovery.
House Republican leaders have assembled their own proposal to extend the payroll tax cut in conjunction with other steps.
Boehner has insisted that any extensions of tax cuts or other programs be paid for through adjustments elsewhere, and he outlined a list of spending cuts over 10 years to offset the impact on the deficit, according to House Republican aides.
However, a group of fiscally conservative Republicans opposed the GOP leaders' plan because the offsetting spending cuts would take a decade to complete.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Personal Opinion 8: Sexual Abuse Paterno
This is what I don't understand...Paterno told who he needed to legally tell what he heard from the Grad assistant. If you are in graduate school, you must be old enough that if you witness some illegal act that you should go to the authorities yourself. Paterno did not witness the act therefore he cannot answer questions about what happened because he didn't see it. IT IS THE GRAD ASSISTANTS RESPONSIBILITY. I hope because they are ruining everyone else's life this person's life gets ruined as well because it was their responsibility to report it because they were a witness. And technically if they were of age, which I assume because they were in grad school, witnessing it and then not stopping it makes them an accessory. They are only coming down on Paterno because he is a big name. Come down on who committed the crime, who witnessed it and didn't put a stop to it, and also who was supposed to follow through with it; not just someone that will draw media attention
Penn State's Unrest Appalling
How does a survivor of sexual abuse respond to students rioting at Penn State?
"You're not getting it. You just don't get it," said Dave Lorenz who was abused by a priest as a teen.
"It's just stupid youthfulness."
Earlier this week, legendary head football coach Joe Paterno was removed in the midst of a scandal involving sexual abuse allegations against a former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky.
Penn State student explains riot What started as an apparent celebration of Paterno turned into a riot in the Pennsylvania town of State College. The crowd tipped over a news van and decried the media in anger Wednesday night. They held signs in support of "JoePa" -- a nickname for Paterno.
Some said their frustration stemmed from the media's focus on Paterno, rather than the charges against Sandusky.
Watching footage of Penn State students rioting in the streets Wednesday night, Lorenzo shuddered, then hung his head.
What bothered Lorenz is that students "rallied around (Paterno's) house, cheering him up."
"The kids up there just don't understand what this does," he said.
"Stop thinking of the adult and start thinking of what happens to a child that goes through this. You love the adult, you may not know the kid. Start thinking of the kid and the horror they go through, because it's hell."
Paterno has been under scrutiny because of his response to allegations brought to him in 2002 by a graduate assistant. The assistant allegedly said he witnessed Sandusky, now 67, having sex with a young boy in a shower at the campus football complex, according to a grand jury indictment.
Paterno reported the allegations to his boss and Pennsylvania's attorney general said it appeared Paterno had met his obligations under state law. But critics said the coach should have reported the suspected abuse to police.
Sandusky is accused of sexual offenses, child endangerment and "corruption of a minor" involving eight boys.
Many within the Penn State community condemned the crowd's actions. In the campus newspaper The Daily Collegian, an editorial read: "Wednesday night was an embarrassment for Penn State... The way students reacted set our university two steps back."
Earlier this week, as questions about the coach's action mounted, students began swarming Paterno's home. The gatherings had the tone of a pep rally.
Kayla Garriott, a 22-year-old college student who was sexually abused as a child, said the open support for Paterno was disrespectful to survivors.
"That's the first thing people look at -- that their football team is without their head coach that's been there so many years. Nobody looks at the eight children."
The rioters are "never going to be in those children's shoes. It's not about football. It's about eight children who are never going to get back their lives back. They're going to live with this the rest of their lives. They might not get over that."
This kind of spectacle could even make abused kids more reluctant to go to the police, she said.
The Penn State scandal prompted numerous calls from sexual abuse survivors, said Barbara Dorris, the outreach director at Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
"I have talked to people all over the country who have dealt with their abuse," she said. "This is bringing it all back. It's so upsetting. They were crying. They were angry."
The reaction of the crowd could send an unintended message to children and teenagers who've been abused: They may feel blamed for what happened to the football team and the rioting, said Dorris, who was also abused as a child.
It's a "horrible statement that a winning football team is more important than the safety of the children. It mirrors what happened in the (Catholic) church."
Jerry Needel, a Penn State alum who graduated in 1999, watched the news unfold and felt he had to do something.
"This just shook my beliefs and a big part of my identity to the core," he said.
He started a campaign to shift the attention to supporting victims of child abuse, by raising money for RAINN, which stands for Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.
In addition, some Penn State students are planning to dress in blue for their next football game to support the victims of child abuse worldwide.
Jennifer Marsh, the director of the National Sexual Assault Hotline said the news story is bringing awareness and facilitating a national discussion about abuse, a topic often cloaked in secrecy.
"The biggest takeaway we've seen is just the outpouring of support to victims and survivors."
"You're not getting it. You just don't get it," said Dave Lorenz who was abused by a priest as a teen.
"It's just stupid youthfulness."
Earlier this week, legendary head football coach Joe Paterno was removed in the midst of a scandal involving sexual abuse allegations against a former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky.
Penn State student explains riot Some said their frustration stemmed from the media's focus on Paterno, rather than the charges against Sandusky.
Watching footage of Penn State students rioting in the streets Wednesday night, Lorenzo shuddered, then hung his head.
What bothered Lorenz is that students "rallied around (Paterno's) house, cheering him up."
"The kids up there just don't understand what this does," he said.
"Stop thinking of the adult and start thinking of what happens to a child that goes through this. You love the adult, you may not know the kid. Start thinking of the kid and the horror they go through, because it's hell."
Paterno has been under scrutiny because of his response to allegations brought to him in 2002 by a graduate assistant. The assistant allegedly said he witnessed Sandusky, now 67, having sex with a young boy in a shower at the campus football complex, according to a grand jury indictment.
Paterno reported the allegations to his boss and Pennsylvania's attorney general said it appeared Paterno had met his obligations under state law. But critics said the coach should have reported the suspected abuse to police.
Sandusky is accused of sexual offenses, child endangerment and "corruption of a minor" involving eight boys.
Many within the Penn State community condemned the crowd's actions. In the campus newspaper The Daily Collegian, an editorial read: "Wednesday night was an embarrassment for Penn State... The way students reacted set our university two steps back."
Earlier this week, as questions about the coach's action mounted, students began swarming Paterno's home. The gatherings had the tone of a pep rally.
Kayla Garriott, a 22-year-old college student who was sexually abused as a child, said the open support for Paterno was disrespectful to survivors.
"That's the first thing people look at -- that their football team is without their head coach that's been there so many years. Nobody looks at the eight children."
The rioters are "never going to be in those children's shoes. It's not about football. It's about eight children who are never going to get back their lives back. They're going to live with this the rest of their lives. They might not get over that."
This kind of spectacle could even make abused kids more reluctant to go to the police, she said.
The Penn State scandal prompted numerous calls from sexual abuse survivors, said Barbara Dorris, the outreach director at Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
"I have talked to people all over the country who have dealt with their abuse," she said. "This is bringing it all back. It's so upsetting. They were crying. They were angry."
The reaction of the crowd could send an unintended message to children and teenagers who've been abused: They may feel blamed for what happened to the football team and the rioting, said Dorris, who was also abused as a child.
It's a "horrible statement that a winning football team is more important than the safety of the children. It mirrors what happened in the (Catholic) church."
Jerry Needel, a Penn State alum who graduated in 1999, watched the news unfold and felt he had to do something.
"This just shook my beliefs and a big part of my identity to the core," he said.
He started a campaign to shift the attention to supporting victims of child abuse, by raising money for RAINN, which stands for Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.
In addition, some Penn State students are planning to dress in blue for their next football game to support the victims of child abuse worldwide.
Jennifer Marsh, the director of the National Sexual Assault Hotline said the news story is bringing awareness and facilitating a national discussion about abuse, a topic often cloaked in secrecy.
"The biggest takeaway we've seen is just the outpouring of support to victims and survivors."
"One's" in a lifetime :)
In the middle of cake and presents last year, Lynsie Schuman had a revelation about her twins. They were destined to celebrate their golden birthday on a special day -- "ones" in a lifetime, so to speak.
Kyra and Tyler are turning 11 on 11/11/11.
"It's pretty cool," said Kyra, who will be leaving her native Wisconsin for Cancun, Mexico, with her family for a special celebration. Not just because she will probably not see another 11/11/11 in her lifetime, but because of her grandpa, Philip Schuman, who served in Vietnam.
"It's Veterans Day," Kyra said.
People around the world have made special plans for Friday. Think of when the clock strikes 11:11:11 on 11/11/11. A perfect palindrome -- the time and date reading the same backwards and forwards -- and the only double-figure palindromic date.
And 11/11/11 won't come around again for another 100 years.
Wake Forest University Physicist Eric Carlson, who studies numbers as a hobby, said the date has no significance other than its numeric perfection, marred only by the use of all four numbers of the year 2011. Consider the uniqueness of the day in 1111.
The way Carlson looks at it, people can take whatever they want from the date.
"I have no problem with Americans celebrating the day," he said. Just like he did on the day he turned 1 billion -- seconds, that is. Only a numbers guru would do something like that.
If some folks consider 11 lucky, so be it. Just as 13 (the number of people present at the Last Supper before Jesus' death) is thought of as unlucky. But it's still just a number. You might not want to sit on the 13th row in an airplane, but would you turn down the 13th roll in a baker's dozen?
Carlson said part of the reason times and dates are heightened in people's minds is because of the digital age -- phone numbers, passwords, PINS. So many numbers to remember.
"Such phenomena involving numbers have become much more prominent," he said.
And human brains are naturally inclined to look for patterns. If you look at an analog clock, you might not notice 11:11 as much as you would on a digital one with four lighted numerals, all the same, staring at you.
"These patterns stick in our minds," Carlson said. "But I don't think there is any mystical significance to it."
Maybe not.
But if you ask Daniel Hardt, president of Life Path Numerology Center in Indianapolis, 11/11/11 is sure to be different.
"It's going to be a powerful day. No question about it," said Hardt, a numerologist who deals with numbers as symbols of energy of the universe. "Any time you add intensity of the same number, it's going to have some effect."
So, on Friday, your dreams could be more vivid or you could be more on edge, Hardt said.
"People will experience their emotions more," he said.
Those who are happy, well, they'll be more happy, he said. And those who are having a pity party will have a doozy. That's the world according to Hardt.
So, if you are visiting the grave of a loved one on Veteran's Day or attending an emotional war remembrance ceremony, take extra tissues, he said.
Conversely, it's a good day for love, and Las Vegas chapels will be busting at the seams with couples wanting to tie the knot on 11/11/11.
Chapel of the Flowers on average marries 20 to 30 couples a day. But Friday, it has about 80 planned, said Aimee Stephens, the marketing director.
Every ceremony is a half-hour process, so the two chapels, their ministers and staff will be going full steam all day Friday.
"We have been prepared for this," Stephens said. "People seem to love these numeric occurrences."
Although, she said, she's not sure whether it's the romance of the date or a matter of making sure that a husband never forgets an anniversary. Kinda hard not to remember 11/11/11.
Tiffany Masters, known as the queen of nightlife in Sin City, is planning what she billed as the world's largest reception Friday night to mark all the 11/11/11 weddings in Vegas.
She's opening the doors at the Tropicana for the couples who have nowhere special to go after saying, "I do."
She said her research showed that about 75,000 people were getting married in America on Friday, many of them in Vegas. As of Wednesday, 3,400 couples had signed up.
The Viva Las Vegas Wedding Chapel, which specializes in Elvis Presley ministers, anticipates performing more than 300 weddings Friday.
"A few years ago, the lucky number was 7/7/7," the chapel said on its website. "Throwing a 7 or an 11 is considered to be lucky in Las Vegas. 2007's 7/7/7 was a huge day for Viva Las Vegas weddings, with a record 160 weddings performed that day. Numeric configurations have only become more popular. 2010 brought us 205 happy couples for 10-10-10 weddings and this year, we already have a whopping 170 ceremonies in progress for 11/11/11. By the time the day is over, we anticipate performing over 300 wedding ceremonies for 11/11/11!"
But 11/11/11 has not always been a day of luck.
The last time there was such a date, in 1911, a Great Blue Norther cold front swept the central United States, plunging temperatures in some states from record highs to record lows, and even blizzard conditions in some areas.
Springfield, Missouri, recorded a high of 80°F before the cold front. By midnight, the temperature plunged to a record low of 13°F.
The drastic change in weather led some to believe supernatural powers had taken hold on 11/11/11.
Darren Bousman's new film "11-11-11," being released Friday, is about an American author plagued by strange happenings and constant sightings of the number 11. Joseph soon realizes that 11/11/11 is more than just a date, says the director's website. It's a warning.
Others see the day as one of harmony.
A group of friends were inspired to celebrate the extraordinary date like New Year's Eve. It morphed into something much bigger. The "Ones in a Lifetime" event is linking people and organizations online to promote peace and unity.
Other things happening Friday:
Verizon Wireless is launching its new Droid Razr at 11:11 a.m. 11/11/11.
Daniel Ortega, freshly re-elected president of Nicaragua, will celebrate his 66th birthday. Others born on this day include actors Demi Moore and Leonardo DiCaprio, author Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and cult killer Charles Manson.
So there you have it. You can make what you want of 11/11/11.
But perhaps Masters, the Vegas socialite, said it best: "One is such a lonely number. It's nice when you have two ones together."
Even better, perhaps, when you have six.
Kyra and Tyler are turning 11 on 11/11/11.
"It's pretty cool," said Kyra, who will be leaving her native Wisconsin for Cancun, Mexico, with her family for a special celebration. Not just because she will probably not see another 11/11/11 in her lifetime, but because of her grandpa, Philip Schuman, who served in Vietnam.
"It's Veterans Day," Kyra said.
People around the world have made special plans for Friday. Think of when the clock strikes 11:11:11 on 11/11/11. A perfect palindrome -- the time and date reading the same backwards and forwards -- and the only double-figure palindromic date.
And 11/11/11 won't come around again for another 100 years.
Wake Forest University Physicist Eric Carlson, who studies numbers as a hobby, said the date has no significance other than its numeric perfection, marred only by the use of all four numbers of the year 2011. Consider the uniqueness of the day in 1111.
The way Carlson looks at it, people can take whatever they want from the date.
"I have no problem with Americans celebrating the day," he said. Just like he did on the day he turned 1 billion -- seconds, that is. Only a numbers guru would do something like that.
If some folks consider 11 lucky, so be it. Just as 13 (the number of people present at the Last Supper before Jesus' death) is thought of as unlucky. But it's still just a number. You might not want to sit on the 13th row in an airplane, but would you turn down the 13th roll in a baker's dozen?
Carlson said part of the reason times and dates are heightened in people's minds is because of the digital age -- phone numbers, passwords, PINS. So many numbers to remember.
"Such phenomena involving numbers have become much more prominent," he said.
And human brains are naturally inclined to look for patterns. If you look at an analog clock, you might not notice 11:11 as much as you would on a digital one with four lighted numerals, all the same, staring at you.
"These patterns stick in our minds," Carlson said. "But I don't think there is any mystical significance to it."
Maybe not.
But if you ask Daniel Hardt, president of Life Path Numerology Center in Indianapolis, 11/11/11 is sure to be different.
"It's going to be a powerful day. No question about it," said Hardt, a numerologist who deals with numbers as symbols of energy of the universe. "Any time you add intensity of the same number, it's going to have some effect."
So, on Friday, your dreams could be more vivid or you could be more on edge, Hardt said.
"People will experience their emotions more," he said.
Those who are happy, well, they'll be more happy, he said. And those who are having a pity party will have a doozy. That's the world according to Hardt.
So, if you are visiting the grave of a loved one on Veteran's Day or attending an emotional war remembrance ceremony, take extra tissues, he said.
Conversely, it's a good day for love, and Las Vegas chapels will be busting at the seams with couples wanting to tie the knot on 11/11/11.
Chapel of the Flowers on average marries 20 to 30 couples a day. But Friday, it has about 80 planned, said Aimee Stephens, the marketing director.
Every ceremony is a half-hour process, so the two chapels, their ministers and staff will be going full steam all day Friday.
"We have been prepared for this," Stephens said. "People seem to love these numeric occurrences."
Although, she said, she's not sure whether it's the romance of the date or a matter of making sure that a husband never forgets an anniversary. Kinda hard not to remember 11/11/11.
Tiffany Masters, known as the queen of nightlife in Sin City, is planning what she billed as the world's largest reception Friday night to mark all the 11/11/11 weddings in Vegas.
She's opening the doors at the Tropicana for the couples who have nowhere special to go after saying, "I do."
She said her research showed that about 75,000 people were getting married in America on Friday, many of them in Vegas. As of Wednesday, 3,400 couples had signed up.
The Viva Las Vegas Wedding Chapel, which specializes in Elvis Presley ministers, anticipates performing more than 300 weddings Friday.
"A few years ago, the lucky number was 7/7/7," the chapel said on its website. "Throwing a 7 or an 11 is considered to be lucky in Las Vegas. 2007's 7/7/7 was a huge day for Viva Las Vegas weddings, with a record 160 weddings performed that day. Numeric configurations have only become more popular. 2010 brought us 205 happy couples for 10-10-10 weddings and this year, we already have a whopping 170 ceremonies in progress for 11/11/11. By the time the day is over, we anticipate performing over 300 wedding ceremonies for 11/11/11!"
But 11/11/11 has not always been a day of luck.
The last time there was such a date, in 1911, a Great Blue Norther cold front swept the central United States, plunging temperatures in some states from record highs to record lows, and even blizzard conditions in some areas.
Springfield, Missouri, recorded a high of 80°F before the cold front. By midnight, the temperature plunged to a record low of 13°F.
The drastic change in weather led some to believe supernatural powers had taken hold on 11/11/11.
Darren Bousman's new film "11-11-11," being released Friday, is about an American author plagued by strange happenings and constant sightings of the number 11. Joseph soon realizes that 11/11/11 is more than just a date, says the director's website. It's a warning.
Others see the day as one of harmony.
A group of friends were inspired to celebrate the extraordinary date like New Year's Eve. It morphed into something much bigger. The "Ones in a Lifetime" event is linking people and organizations online to promote peace and unity.
Other things happening Friday:
Verizon Wireless is launching its new Droid Razr at 11:11 a.m. 11/11/11.
Daniel Ortega, freshly re-elected president of Nicaragua, will celebrate his 66th birthday. Others born on this day include actors Demi Moore and Leonardo DiCaprio, author Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and cult killer Charles Manson.
So there you have it. You can make what you want of 11/11/11.
But perhaps Masters, the Vegas socialite, said it best: "One is such a lonely number. It's nice when you have two ones together."
Even better, perhaps, when you have six.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Feel Like Paying More Taxes?
Love it or hate it, the debt-reduction plan put forth by Republican Senator Pat Toomey has opened the door to tax increases in the negotiations of the Congressional debt committee.
Many top Democrats rejected it, saying that the door isn't open nearly wide enough.
But the Senate's No. 2 Democrat -- Dick Durbin -- took a broader view. Without endorsing the Toomey plan, Durbin said it could be the "breakthrough" needed to end the deadlock.
That's because it's the first time a Republican member of the debt committee has proposed that tax increases be part of the plan to achieve at least $1.2 trillion in debt reduction. That's the minimum target the committee must meet by Nov. 23. If it fails to, the law calls for automatic spending cuts in 2013.
And importantly, Republican leaders back the Toomey plan, aides told CNN.
It comes less than a week after House and Senate Republicans were sending mixed messages about their position on tax increases.
The plan would reduce deficits by roughly $1.4 trillion over 10 years, according to a Republican aide.
Roughly $400 billion of that would come from additional tax revenue.
However, $110 billion of that is assumed to come from the "benefits" of tax reform -- namely, economic growth and greater compliance, which are difficult to forecast. So only $290 billion of the $400 billion might be considered an "increase" in terms of what taxpayers would pay.
The estimate is a far cry from the $800 billion in additional tax revenue that House Speaker John Boehner proposed during the debt ceiling negotiations this summer with President Obama .
But it's also a big shift from the near-religious stance most Republicans have adopted that tax reform be revenue neutral -- that is, raise no more revenue than the current code would.
First, it would reduce all six income tax rates by roughly 20%. So the top rate would fall from 35% to 28%, and the bottom rate would fall from 10% to 8%.
Second, Toomey would impose a cap on itemized deductions so the total amount of deductions a taxpayer claimed would not exceed a certain percent of adjusted gross income.
Capping deductions would bring in revenue to offset the loss that comes from lowering rates.
The cap would be "aggressive," the aide said.
Democrats, in memo obtained by CNN, said the plan would benefit the rich because of the lower tax rates. The aide countered that high-income households benefit the most from itemized deductions, so any curb on those deductions would also heavily affect those households.
"On average [high-income households] will pay more than they do today," the aide said.
For instance, which deductions would be counted under the cap and which would be exempt? And how high would the cap be set?
Also, which benchmark would the Toomey plan be judged against?
Assuming current policies like the Bush tax cuts stay in effect, the Toomey plan would likely raise more revenue.
Against current law, which assumes the Bush tax cuts expire, the Toomey plan would be a tax cut. However, most lawmakers -- Democrats and Republicans -- consider the current-law baseline to be unrealistic.
In any case, politically and practically, the Republicans' opening bid isn't high enough, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
"The revenue number is far short of what's needed to get a deal," MacGuineas said. "But that revenue is on the table is incredibly encouraging.
Many top Democrats rejected it, saying that the door isn't open nearly wide enough.
But the Senate's No. 2 Democrat -- Dick Durbin -- took a broader view. Without endorsing the Toomey plan, Durbin said it could be the "breakthrough" needed to end the deadlock.
That's because it's the first time a Republican member of the debt committee has proposed that tax increases be part of the plan to achieve at least $1.2 trillion in debt reduction. That's the minimum target the committee must meet by Nov. 23. If it fails to, the law calls for automatic spending cuts in 2013.
And importantly, Republican leaders back the Toomey plan, aides told CNN.
It comes less than a week after House and Senate Republicans were sending mixed messages about their position on tax increases.
The plan would reduce deficits by roughly $1.4 trillion over 10 years, according to a Republican aide.
Roughly $400 billion of that would come from additional tax revenue.
However, $110 billion of that is assumed to come from the "benefits" of tax reform -- namely, economic growth and greater compliance, which are difficult to forecast. So only $290 billion of the $400 billion might be considered an "increase" in terms of what taxpayers would pay.
The estimate is a far cry from the $800 billion in additional tax revenue that House Speaker John Boehner proposed during the debt ceiling negotiations this summer with President Obama .
But it's also a big shift from the near-religious stance most Republicans have adopted that tax reform be revenue neutral -- that is, raise no more revenue than the current code would.
Taxes and debt: Left and right dare to agree
Toomey's plan would reform the tax system in two big ways:First, it would reduce all six income tax rates by roughly 20%. So the top rate would fall from 35% to 28%, and the bottom rate would fall from 10% to 8%.
Second, Toomey would impose a cap on itemized deductions so the total amount of deductions a taxpayer claimed would not exceed a certain percent of adjusted gross income.
Capping deductions would bring in revenue to offset the loss that comes from lowering rates.
The cap would be "aggressive," the aide said.
Democrats, in memo obtained by CNN, said the plan would benefit the rich because of the lower tax rates. The aide countered that high-income households benefit the most from itemized deductions, so any curb on those deductions would also heavily affect those households.
"On average [high-income households] will pay more than they do today," the aide said.
GOP and taxes: Mixed message
Without a detailed plan and a nonpartisan third party analysis, it's impossible to referee that dispute. There are too many unknowns.For instance, which deductions would be counted under the cap and which would be exempt? And how high would the cap be set?
Also, which benchmark would the Toomey plan be judged against?
Assuming current policies like the Bush tax cuts stay in effect, the Toomey plan would likely raise more revenue.
Against current law, which assumes the Bush tax cuts expire, the Toomey plan would be a tax cut. However, most lawmakers -- Democrats and Republicans -- consider the current-law baseline to be unrealistic.
In any case, politically and practically, the Republicans' opening bid isn't high enough, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
"The revenue number is far short of what's needed to get a deal," MacGuineas said. "But that revenue is on the table is incredibly encouraging.
Personal Opinion 6: Down You Go
Why Cain's scandal will likely sink him: Public fear of black-on-white sexual assault is embedded in the consciousness of most American whites. Why? Read the Department of Justice crime statistics document "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005.", table 42.
In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man
In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man
Releasing Everything? Common Cain
When you consider the array of public men who have been forced, in one way or another, to come clean on their bad behavior, the list is not insubstantial: a president (Bill Clinton), presidential candidates (John Edwards, Gary Hart), governors (Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer), senators (John Ensign, David Vitter). And that's just the top tier.
The bar has been set -- and it's awfully low.
And by the way, many of these men managed to crawl right under that bar and survive, even thrive.
Eventually, they found there was just one way out -- owning up to their own shortcomings. Sure, it may have been due to legal pressure. Or political reality. Or both. But some discovered the public can be forgiving, especially if it believes you have something important to offer to the nation. Just ask Bill Clinton, now serving as philanthropist to the world.
So now comes Herman Cain, accused of sexual harassment by four women. He calls the charges baseless and defends his integrity. His political campaign and supporters have gone into full damage-control mode, scrutinizing the women. All predictable -- and reflexive -- enough.
But here's the rub: Cain also tells us that the National Restaurant Association investigated the charges against him and found them to be "baseless." If he wants to get this behind him, how about getting the facts out? Give the association's board permission to release the results of their internal investigation, if there was a formal inquiry.
Then, as they say, the truth will out.
And there's another plus: The partisans and the interest groups will have to start dealing with the facts. And the public can decide for itself.
It's not as if this predicament is new to us. Recall back in the day when Clinton was in the middle of the Lewinsky mess. Republicans were (rightly) outraged, demanding his resignation or impeachment. Feminist groups, by and large, remained largely on the sidelines or supportive of Clinton -- because he was, um, not a sexual harasser. Oh, and yes, he was good on their issues.
Now the tables have turned. Feminist groups are outraged by the charges against Cain and lots of Republican partisans are defending him, choosing to level their scrutiny on the women instead. (We've come a long way, baby, in that some conservative women's groups are criticizing Cain's I-don't-recall defense.)
Conservative CNN contributor Bill Bennett sees the hypocrisy of those who raised the red flag about Clinton, but not Cain. "For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn't matter makes us the hypocrites as well," he wrote. He is, of course, right.
And it is exactly what we are seeing, much of it from the Cain campaign itself.
When declarations of innocence do not seem to be enough, there's the change-the-subject tack: How about fingering a leaker, say from Rick Perry's staff? When that's denied, back off. Then take a turn, and start decrying "anonymous" charges. When the charges are on the record, take on the accuser. And when all else fails, blame the media. And the liberal "Democrat machine."
Ah, it takes me back to the days when Monica Lewinsky was whispered to be a "stalker" and Hillary Clinton was taking on the "right wing conspiracy."
But here's what we learned in that case: The fact that Monica inappropriately bared her underwear to the president did not excuse his behavior. And the fact that Hillary was right about those who were "out to get" Clinton does not mean he was in the clear. It's just not that simple.
The voters will figure it all out, as always. The bar may be set low for the politicians, but the public somehow manages to rise above it.
The bar has been set -- and it's awfully low.
And by the way, many of these men managed to crawl right under that bar and survive, even thrive.
So now comes Herman Cain, accused of sexual harassment by four women. He calls the charges baseless and defends his integrity. His political campaign and supporters have gone into full damage-control mode, scrutinizing the women. All predictable -- and reflexive -- enough.
But here's the rub: Cain also tells us that the National Restaurant Association investigated the charges against him and found them to be "baseless." If he wants to get this behind him, how about getting the facts out? Give the association's board permission to release the results of their internal investigation, if there was a formal inquiry.
Then, as they say, the truth will out.
And there's another plus: The partisans and the interest groups will have to start dealing with the facts. And the public can decide for itself.
It's not as if this predicament is new to us. Recall back in the day when Clinton was in the middle of the Lewinsky mess. Republicans were (rightly) outraged, demanding his resignation or impeachment. Feminist groups, by and large, remained largely on the sidelines or supportive of Clinton -- because he was, um, not a sexual harasser. Oh, and yes, he was good on their issues.
Now the tables have turned. Feminist groups are outraged by the charges against Cain and lots of Republican partisans are defending him, choosing to level their scrutiny on the women instead. (We've come a long way, baby, in that some conservative women's groups are criticizing Cain's I-don't-recall defense.)
Conservative CNN contributor Bill Bennett sees the hypocrisy of those who raised the red flag about Clinton, but not Cain. "For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn't matter makes us the hypocrites as well," he wrote. He is, of course, right.
And it is exactly what we are seeing, much of it from the Cain campaign itself.
When declarations of innocence do not seem to be enough, there's the change-the-subject tack: How about fingering a leaker, say from Rick Perry's staff? When that's denied, back off. Then take a turn, and start decrying "anonymous" charges. When the charges are on the record, take on the accuser. And when all else fails, blame the media. And the liberal "Democrat machine."
Ah, it takes me back to the days when Monica Lewinsky was whispered to be a "stalker" and Hillary Clinton was taking on the "right wing conspiracy."
But here's what we learned in that case: The fact that Monica inappropriately bared her underwear to the president did not excuse his behavior. And the fact that Hillary was right about those who were "out to get" Clinton does not mean he was in the clear. It's just not that simple.
The voters will figure it all out, as always. The bar may be set low for the politicians, but the public somehow manages to rise above it.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Attack the plans, NOT the man
The president's approval numbers have sagged again, to just about the
lowest point in his presidency. He's trailed below 50% since the spring
of 2010; now he's sunk to 43%.
Bad poll numbers obviously create a vulnerability for an incumbent president. They also create a dangerous temptation for opponents to overplay their hand -- as Democrats did in 2004 facing George W. Bush.
Bush's approval rating had spiked to 90% in the aftermath of 9/11. Over the course of 2002 and 2003, his numbers returned to earth. By the fall of 2003, Bush had hit 50%, the lowest approval rating to that point in his presidency. Through 2004, Bush would struggle to remain north of 50%. To the amazement and disgust of Democrats, Bush heaved himself over the magic line just in time for Election Day.
Democrats often attribute their unexpected defeat in 2004 to the negative campaign against their candidate.
That hurt for sure. Also true, however, was that the Democrats misjudged their affirmative campaign. They succumbed to their own anger and contempt for George W. Bush. As John Kerry put it in his 2004 speech accepting the nomination:
"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a secretary of defense who will listen to the best advice of the military leaders. And I will appoint an attorney general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States."
That's a scorching indictment. It just happened not to be the indictment the American voter was waiting to hear in 2004 after three difficult economic years. The US economy produced 2 million new jobs in 2004 -- but even so, fewer Americans were at work on Election Day 2004 than on Election Day 2000. Almost one-half of the new jobs of 2004 were claimed by foreign-born workers, many of them illegal. Perhaps as a result, wages for non-supervisory workers actually declined in 2004 even as payrolls grew.
If the Democrats had credibly focused on that issue -- if they had nominated a candidate who spoke about wages with the same intensity and conviction that Kerry spoke about Iraq -- the election might have had a very different result.
Flash forward to 2011.
Republican partisans loathe Barack Obama even more viscerally than core Democrats despised George W. Bush. Yet as with Democrats in 2004, it's hard for Republicans to keep in mind: The typical voter does not feel as they do.
Even now, only 48% of Americans blame Barack Obama for the state of the economy, as opposed to 71% who blame George W. Bush.
Even now, Americans continue to show considerable personal support for Barack Obama, even as the Republican brand remains toxic, with 68% disapproving of the job Republicans are doing in Congress.
The message for Republicans in these polls would seem to be: Fight the plan, not the man. Americans may be persuaded that Obama is a basically decent guy, in over his head. They won't be persuaded that Obama is an anti-American radical on a jobs-destroying rampage.
And yet it is precisely that kind of implausibly angry anti-Obama talk that Republican primary voters delight to hear. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has displaced Mitt Romney as the Republican front-runner by offering Republicans a stronger anti-Obama message. As for Perry's own vulnerabilities -- vulnerabilities that get bigger every time the Texan unburdens himself of new qualms about Social Security and Medicare -- Republicans gripped by anti-Obama emotion just cannot see them, any more than Democrats could see John Kerry's disconnect from the economic concerns of middle-class voters.
Partisans love a fighter. They want a candidate who expresses strong feelings in strong language. It's very difficult for them to remember that less partisan Americans have different feelings -- and that for every American who regards Obama with anger and dislike, there are perhaps two Americans who regard him with regret.
If the Republican presidential nominee can connect with voters' feelings of disappointment in Obama, he or she may find a way back to the White House. If the nominee expresses the rage of the Republican base, he or she will only alienate the much larger number of voters to whom that rage is alien and off-putting. The challenge for Republicans in 2012: Before they can defeat Obama, they must first overcome themselves.
Bad poll numbers obviously create a vulnerability for an incumbent president. They also create a dangerous temptation for opponents to overplay their hand -- as Democrats did in 2004 facing George W. Bush.
Bush's approval rating had spiked to 90% in the aftermath of 9/11. Over the course of 2002 and 2003, his numbers returned to earth. By the fall of 2003, Bush had hit 50%, the lowest approval rating to that point in his presidency. Through 2004, Bush would struggle to remain north of 50%. To the amazement and disgust of Democrats, Bush heaved himself over the magic line just in time for Election Day.
Democrats often attribute their unexpected defeat in 2004 to the negative campaign against their candidate.
That hurt for sure. Also true, however, was that the Democrats misjudged their affirmative campaign. They succumbed to their own anger and contempt for George W. Bush. As John Kerry put it in his 2004 speech accepting the nomination:
"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a secretary of defense who will listen to the best advice of the military leaders. And I will appoint an attorney general who will uphold the Constitution of the United States."
That's a scorching indictment. It just happened not to be the indictment the American voter was waiting to hear in 2004 after three difficult economic years. The US economy produced 2 million new jobs in 2004 -- but even so, fewer Americans were at work on Election Day 2004 than on Election Day 2000. Almost one-half of the new jobs of 2004 were claimed by foreign-born workers, many of them illegal. Perhaps as a result, wages for non-supervisory workers actually declined in 2004 even as payrolls grew.
If the Democrats had credibly focused on that issue -- if they had nominated a candidate who spoke about wages with the same intensity and conviction that Kerry spoke about Iraq -- the election might have had a very different result.
Flash forward to 2011.
Republican partisans loathe Barack Obama even more viscerally than core Democrats despised George W. Bush. Yet as with Democrats in 2004, it's hard for Republicans to keep in mind: The typical voter does not feel as they do.
Even now, only 48% of Americans blame Barack Obama for the state of the economy, as opposed to 71% who blame George W. Bush.
Even now, Americans continue to show considerable personal support for Barack Obama, even as the Republican brand remains toxic, with 68% disapproving of the job Republicans are doing in Congress.
The message for Republicans in these polls would seem to be: Fight the plan, not the man. Americans may be persuaded that Obama is a basically decent guy, in over his head. They won't be persuaded that Obama is an anti-American radical on a jobs-destroying rampage.
And yet it is precisely that kind of implausibly angry anti-Obama talk that Republican primary voters delight to hear. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has displaced Mitt Romney as the Republican front-runner by offering Republicans a stronger anti-Obama message. As for Perry's own vulnerabilities -- vulnerabilities that get bigger every time the Texan unburdens himself of new qualms about Social Security and Medicare -- Republicans gripped by anti-Obama emotion just cannot see them, any more than Democrats could see John Kerry's disconnect from the economic concerns of middle-class voters.
Partisans love a fighter. They want a candidate who expresses strong feelings in strong language. It's very difficult for them to remember that less partisan Americans have different feelings -- and that for every American who regards Obama with anger and dislike, there are perhaps two Americans who regard him with regret.
If the Republican presidential nominee can connect with voters' feelings of disappointment in Obama, he or she may find a way back to the White House. If the nominee expresses the rage of the Republican base, he or she will only alienate the much larger number of voters to whom that rage is alien and off-putting. The challenge for Republicans in 2012: Before they can defeat Obama, they must first overcome themselves.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Obama A Clinton-Copy?
Have you noticed how many liberals lately have been piling on President Barack Obama? Their criticism has been harsh and intense. They mostly focus on his supposed willingness to make concessions to conservative Republicans. They charge that he lets himself be bullied because it’s part of his non-confrontational nature.
There was similar criticism in 1995 and 1996 when President Bill Clinton was hammered for making deals with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republicans. Clinton, for example, agreed to major welfare reform, which infuriated many of his liberal base. He was accused of selling out long-standing Democratic Party principles.
It later became clear that Clinton - and it may be the case with Obama as well - was engaged in “triangulation,” a political strategy where he would position himself as a moderate centrist. He was reaching out to independent voters who were not blindly aligned with core Democrats or Republicans.
It was a strategy, by the way, that helped Clinton win re-election in 1996 against Republican nominee Bob Dole.
Clinton’s aides used to say they were happy when liberals criticized him. They thought that would position him well with moderate and independent voters who, of course, are critical in carrying Ohio, Florida and other major swing states in the Electoral College.
All of which raises the question now: Do Obama political aides secretly welcome the criticism from the left? I’ve been checking around, and the short answer - at least for now - is no. Unlike those Clinton aides in the ‘90s, they don’t like the criticism. But I suspect that could change as we get closer to November 2012.
There was similar criticism in 1995 and 1996 when President Bill Clinton was hammered for making deals with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republicans. Clinton, for example, agreed to major welfare reform, which infuriated many of his liberal base. He was accused of selling out long-standing Democratic Party principles.
It later became clear that Clinton - and it may be the case with Obama as well - was engaged in “triangulation,” a political strategy where he would position himself as a moderate centrist. He was reaching out to independent voters who were not blindly aligned with core Democrats or Republicans.
It was a strategy, by the way, that helped Clinton win re-election in 1996 against Republican nominee Bob Dole.
Clinton’s aides used to say they were happy when liberals criticized him. They thought that would position him well with moderate and independent voters who, of course, are critical in carrying Ohio, Florida and other major swing states in the Electoral College.
All of which raises the question now: Do Obama political aides secretly welcome the criticism from the left? I’ve been checking around, and the short answer - at least for now - is no. Unlike those Clinton aides in the ‘90s, they don’t like the criticism. But I suspect that could change as we get closer to November 2012.
Monday, August 8, 2011
TERRIBLE Day on Wallstreet
When President Barack Obama started speaking at the White House at 1:52 p.m. today, the Dow Jones was down around 400 points. When he wrapped up 10 minutes later, it was down around 430 points. And when the market closed at 4 p.m., the Dow was down 635 points for the day – a drop of more than 5.6%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq index was down nearly 6.9% for the day. The S&P 500 was down 6.7%. In short, it was a horrendous day on Wall Street – as it was earlier in Europe and Asia.
It’s certainly not fair to blame only the president for this awful downslide. There are limits to what he can do in the current economic and political climate. There is plenty of blame to go around – including to congressional Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.
But it’s also clear that Obama and his top advisers are focusing much more aggressively now on steps he might be able to take to try to turn things around. In his remarks today, he said he would soon be coming up with new recommendations for the proposed congressional super committee of 12 members who are supposed to come up with new deficit reduction plans. The president said they should include increased tax revenue – meaning higher taxes on the wealthy – and “modest adjustments” to Medicare. Conservatives won’t like higher taxes; liberals won’t like Medicare cuts.
By the way, it wasn’t just Standard & Poor’s downgrading of the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ that caused today’s market collapse. The markets have been falling steadily and ominously for two weeks. Investors in the United States and around the world have lost trillions of dollars in equity. Their portfolios have suffered big time, and no one can say when this slide will stop.
It’s certainly not fair to blame only the president for this awful downslide. There are limits to what he can do in the current economic and political climate. There is plenty of blame to go around – including to congressional Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.
But it’s also clear that Obama and his top advisers are focusing much more aggressively now on steps he might be able to take to try to turn things around. In his remarks today, he said he would soon be coming up with new recommendations for the proposed congressional super committee of 12 members who are supposed to come up with new deficit reduction plans. The president said they should include increased tax revenue – meaning higher taxes on the wealthy – and “modest adjustments” to Medicare. Conservatives won’t like higher taxes; liberals won’t like Medicare cuts.
By the way, it wasn’t just Standard & Poor’s downgrading of the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ that caused today’s market collapse. The markets have been falling steadily and ominously for two weeks. Investors in the United States and around the world have lost trillions of dollars in equity. Their portfolios have suffered big time, and no one can say when this slide will stop.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Personal Opinion 6: What the...
Afghanistan is a lost cause - USA is outspending the Taliban/Rebels by a factor of at least 1000 for more than 9 years now. If you are outspending your enemy by 1000 times for 9 years and still not manage to win the war, something is very wrong and you need to seriously re-examine your strategy and may be evne pull out. I haven't heard conclusively from the military on EXACTLY what we are doing wrong there. Why haven't we won already after outspending the Taliban/Rebels by 1000x for 9 years?
30 Troops Die In Afghanistan
In the single deadliest loss for U.S. troops since the Afghan war began in late 2001, 30 service members died early Saturday when a helicopter carrying them went down while they were reinforcing other troops, officials said.
Insurgents are believed to have shot down the CH-47 Chinook, a U.S. military official said. The Taliban claimed militants downed the helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade.
Among the 25 U.S. special forces killed in Wardak province were 22 Navy SEALS, considered to be the "best of the best." Seven Afghan troops also died.
The majority of the Navy SEALs who died belonged to the same covert unit that conducted the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, though they were not the same men, the military official said.
The troops died during a "quick reaction" mission to assist military personnel pinned down by insurgents in a fierce firefight, a U.S. military official told CNN.
Mohammad Hazrat Janan, head of the provincial council, said Tangi village elders reported that insurgents shot at the craft when it was returning from an operation.
Officials are being especially tight-lipped because recovery operations at the site are still underway and body identifications and family notifications are just beginning, a U.S. military official said.
ISAF has not said how the incident occurred. Spokesman Justin Brockhoff acknowledged the helicopter had been flying in an area where there was reported insurgent activity.
"No words describe the sorrow we feel in the wake of this tragic loss," said Gen. John R. Allen, ISAF commander. "All of those killed in this operation were true heroes who had already given so much in the defense of freedom. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who are now waiting for their loved ones to return home. We will do everything in our power to support them in this time of need."
The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which said the helicopter went down Friday evening, said ISAF "is still assessing the circumstances that resulted in these deaths."
Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi said it's too early to say if the Taliban caused the crash. He called for an investigation.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama and others offered condolences.
"Information is still coming in about this incident. I think it's important that we allow investigators to do their work before jumping to too many conclusions," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"It's also important that we respect the process of notifying family members, no matter how long that takes. We ought to remember that the troops we lose in this war aren't just statistics or numbers on a wall. They were parents and siblings, and someone's child. We need to make sure we do all we can to comfort and support the families whose lives are now forever changed."
Obama was first notified of the incident shortly after 8 p.m. Friday, a White House official told CNN. The president led a telephone briefing midmorning Saturday.
The CH-47 Chinook is the workhorse helicopter of the Army, used for decades to haul large numbers of troops and quantities of equipment.
The military is looking into whether the helicopter was vulnerable to being shot down.
Depending on the configuration, the tandem-rotor Chinook can carry 33 to 55 troops, plus two pilots on the flight deck, according to Jane's Defence Equipment and Technology. It is capable of speeds up to 159 mph. The front rotor turns counter-clockwise while the rear rotor turns clockwise.
The SEALs, and other special forces, are given dangerous missions and go after insurgents in remote areas. A huge amount of money, training and expertise is poured into their careers. Along with carrying out counter-terrorism assaults on the Afghan-Pakistani border, they conduct training and military missions around the world.
The Afghan street is buzzing with reflection about the significance of the incident.
"It shows that the Taliban are very strong and have not been defeated by the U.S.," said Kabul resident Saifurahman Ahmezai.
But others said the incident is not emblematic of a new-found insurgent strength.
"The Taliban are not that powerful," said Hezat, a police officer in Kabul who goes only by one name. "But if the international forces leave Afghanistan, the situation will get even worse."
Last month, a NATO helicopter was brought down by insurgent fire in the country's eastern province of Kunar. The Taliban also claimed responsibility for that attack, though no injuries were reported.
In a separate incident, a NATO service member died Saturday after an improvised explosive device detonated in southern Afghanistan. Elsewhere, a joint Afghan and coalition force conducted raids in the eastern province of Nangarhar, killing "several insurgents," NATO reported.
The operation also targeted a "Taliban facilitator," who NATO said was responsible for supplying ammunition and bomb-making materials to the Taliban.
In July, a series of gun battles in Nangarhar between insurgents and NATO forces left at least 10 militants dead.
Insurgents are believed to have shot down the CH-47 Chinook, a U.S. military official said. The Taliban claimed militants downed the helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade.
Among the 25 U.S. special forces killed in Wardak province were 22 Navy SEALS, considered to be the "best of the best." Seven Afghan troops also died.
The majority of the Navy SEALs who died belonged to the same covert unit that conducted the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, though they were not the same men, the military official said.
The troops died during a "quick reaction" mission to assist military personnel pinned down by insurgents in a fierce firefight, a U.S. military official told CNN.
Mohammad Hazrat Janan, head of the provincial council, said Tangi village elders reported that insurgents shot at the craft when it was returning from an operation.
Officials are being especially tight-lipped because recovery operations at the site are still underway and body identifications and family notifications are just beginning, a U.S. military official said.
ISAF has not said how the incident occurred. Spokesman Justin Brockhoff acknowledged the helicopter had been flying in an area where there was reported insurgent activity.
"No words describe the sorrow we feel in the wake of this tragic loss," said Gen. John R. Allen, ISAF commander. "All of those killed in this operation were true heroes who had already given so much in the defense of freedom. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who are now waiting for their loved ones to return home. We will do everything in our power to support them in this time of need."
The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which said the helicopter went down Friday evening, said ISAF "is still assessing the circumstances that resulted in these deaths."
Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi said it's too early to say if the Taliban caused the crash. He called for an investigation.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama and others offered condolences.
"Information is still coming in about this incident. I think it's important that we allow investigators to do their work before jumping to too many conclusions," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"It's also important that we respect the process of notifying family members, no matter how long that takes. We ought to remember that the troops we lose in this war aren't just statistics or numbers on a wall. They were parents and siblings, and someone's child. We need to make sure we do all we can to comfort and support the families whose lives are now forever changed."
Obama was first notified of the incident shortly after 8 p.m. Friday, a White House official told CNN. The president led a telephone briefing midmorning Saturday.
The CH-47 Chinook is the workhorse helicopter of the Army, used for decades to haul large numbers of troops and quantities of equipment.
The military is looking into whether the helicopter was vulnerable to being shot down.
Depending on the configuration, the tandem-rotor Chinook can carry 33 to 55 troops, plus two pilots on the flight deck, according to Jane's Defence Equipment and Technology. It is capable of speeds up to 159 mph. The front rotor turns counter-clockwise while the rear rotor turns clockwise.
The SEALs, and other special forces, are given dangerous missions and go after insurgents in remote areas. A huge amount of money, training and expertise is poured into their careers. Along with carrying out counter-terrorism assaults on the Afghan-Pakistani border, they conduct training and military missions around the world.
The Afghan street is buzzing with reflection about the significance of the incident.
"It shows that the Taliban are very strong and have not been defeated by the U.S.," said Kabul resident Saifurahman Ahmezai.
But others said the incident is not emblematic of a new-found insurgent strength.
"The Taliban are not that powerful," said Hezat, a police officer in Kabul who goes only by one name. "But if the international forces leave Afghanistan, the situation will get even worse."
Last month, a NATO helicopter was brought down by insurgent fire in the country's eastern province of Kunar. The Taliban also claimed responsibility for that attack, though no injuries were reported.
In a separate incident, a NATO service member died Saturday after an improvised explosive device detonated in southern Afghanistan. Elsewhere, a joint Afghan and coalition force conducted raids in the eastern province of Nangarhar, killing "several insurgents," NATO reported.
The operation also targeted a "Taliban facilitator," who NATO said was responsible for supplying ammunition and bomb-making materials to the Taliban.
In July, a series of gun battles in Nangarhar between insurgents and NATO forces left at least 10 militants dead.
There are 150,000 ISAF forces in Afghanistan, including nearly 100,000 from the United States -- the largest NATO presence in the region since the U.S.-led war began in 2001.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Personal Opinion 5: Honestly....
COMMENT FROM FL on the previous post:
How is Obama supposed to balance the budget when you have a crop of born-again fiscal conservatives who don't believe in revenue creation or the government doing anything to spur job growth?
Once the tea party and the far-right republicans are out, then we can get a Congress together that can compromise and get things done.
MY OPINION:
'Revenue? For what? To spend billions on the save the spotted owl society? Cut all non essential expenditures, cut defense as much as you can without putting our supremacy at risk and pay off the 14 trillion in debt. Once we are on our way to a balanced budget then we can talk about healthcare and pet projects. The bottom line is that Social Security, Medicare and Defense take up the overwhelming majority of the budget and they are growing. We cannot pay for it much longer and that is a simple fact. It sucks, but it does not stop it from being true. They have waited so long that it cannot be done without pain, and a lot of it. If we took every dollar from every millionaire it would not even put a dent in what we owe, all it would do is make them move on to greener pastures and take their jobs with them'
How is Obama supposed to balance the budget when you have a crop of born-again fiscal conservatives who don't believe in revenue creation or the government doing anything to spur job growth?
Once the tea party and the far-right republicans are out, then we can get a Congress together that can compromise and get things done.
MY OPINION:
'Revenue? For what? To spend billions on the save the spotted owl society? Cut all non essential expenditures, cut defense as much as you can without putting our supremacy at risk and pay off the 14 trillion in debt. Once we are on our way to a balanced budget then we can talk about healthcare and pet projects. The bottom line is that Social Security, Medicare and Defense take up the overwhelming majority of the budget and they are growing. We cannot pay for it much longer and that is a simple fact. It sucks, but it does not stop it from being true. They have waited so long that it cannot be done without pain, and a lot of it. If we took every dollar from every millionaire it would not even put a dent in what we owe, all it would do is make them move on to greener pastures and take their jobs with them'
John Huntsman in New Hampshire
On a breezy evening in August, Jon Huntsman walked into a house party filled with undecided New Hampshire voters and started shaking hands.
Across from the table of hors d'oeuvres, State Rep Joanne Ward, R-Stratham, noticed something was off. And when the GOP presidential candidate made his way to her, she chided him on it.
"I want to know why when you came in you went to the left, instead of the right," she said, laughing. "I strategically said, he's going to start to the right."
Huntsman laughingly blamed his veer to the left on the flow of the room, and promised he would remember Ward's tip in the future. But as he traverses New Hampshire, the man who served as ambassador to China under President Obama may get a boost from voters near the middle.
New Hampshire holds a semi-open primary in January, in which a huge swath of undeclared independents may choose to vote in either the Democratic or Republican race. Of all registered voters here, 42% are undeclared, according to the New Hampshire secretary of state, and with no contest for the Democratic nominee, independents have an outsized influence on the Republican primary.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, benefited from that middle of the road constituency when he won the state's primary in 2008, setting up his path to the GOP nomination despite a loss in the Iowa caucuses.
Huntsman is not putting resources into Iowa, which tends to reward social conservatives, and New Hampshire is probably the biggest hope in 2012 for the candidate who barely registers in recent national polls.
On a recent visit to downtown Manchester, the former Utah governor worked his charm on Angie Content, co-owner of the Styling Souls salon. An undeclared independent voter, Content supported Obama in the last election but said she's shopping around for a new candidate.
"I'm not happy with what he's doing with the country," she said of the president.
Another independent, physician Cindy Cooper, attended a house party for Huntsman this week. Socially, Cooper tends to agree with Obama, especially on issues like abortion and gun control, but she's hoping for a more "fiscally responsible" candidate who would balance the federal budget.
"If it was between Obama and him I would really have to sort it out," she said.
Cooper was impressed by Huntsman's support of Washington's debt deal -- an agreement slammed by every other major GOP candidate.
"Huntsman's been the one so far who's even tried to compromise with the budget," she said.
In many of his stances, however, the governor has moved to distance himself from the president and fought back against claims that he is too liberal to top the Republican ticket.
Huntsman has harshly criticized what he calls the president's "failed" handling of the economy and charged that Obama's lack of leadership on the debt ceiling negotiations almost brought the financial sector to a standstill.
"It would have been better if we had a head start and we actually had some leadership to begin with, if we actually took a look at problem solving months ago as opposed to hours before the deadline,' he told patrons at a Manchester pizza parlor.
And at an event in Derry, Huntsman told a group of Republican voters he would issue an executive order abolishing "Obamacare" his first day in office because the measure couldn't be broken down to meet the needs of each individual state.
But Huntsman supports other initiatives that could win more bipartisan support. He maintains the U.S. should significantly draw down ground troops from Afghanistan and let the Afghans run their own country.
He also supports the DREAM Act, which would give certain illegal immigrants who were brought into the country as children tuition assistance and a path to citizenship.
"I believe that young kids when they're dragged here to the United States have no say over their journey. They have no say over their destiny," he said at an event at the Salem Chamber of Commerce. "And we either have a two-tiered bifurcated system or we allow, somehow, people to achieve the American dream."
Asked about his bipartisan appeal, Huntsman first emphasized his unofficial campaign slogan of "conservative problem solver" and pointed to his record as a tax-cutter in Utah.
But the governor knows undeclared independent voters could be key to his success in the state.
"You gotta get votes to win, and the primary in this state is open last I saw," he said. "I'm going to get to know everybody in this state, and we're going to get every vote we can. Every vote matters."
Huntsman's big challenge will be to appeal to moderate independent voters in New Hampshire without turning off die-hard conservatives elsewhere in the country.
Across from the table of hors d'oeuvres, State Rep Joanne Ward, R-Stratham, noticed something was off. And when the GOP presidential candidate made his way to her, she chided him on it.
"I want to know why when you came in you went to the left, instead of the right," she said, laughing. "I strategically said, he's going to start to the right."
Huntsman laughingly blamed his veer to the left on the flow of the room, and promised he would remember Ward's tip in the future. But as he traverses New Hampshire, the man who served as ambassador to China under President Obama may get a boost from voters near the middle.
New Hampshire holds a semi-open primary in January, in which a huge swath of undeclared independents may choose to vote in either the Democratic or Republican race. Of all registered voters here, 42% are undeclared, according to the New Hampshire secretary of state, and with no contest for the Democratic nominee, independents have an outsized influence on the Republican primary.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, benefited from that middle of the road constituency when he won the state's primary in 2008, setting up his path to the GOP nomination despite a loss in the Iowa caucuses.
Huntsman is not putting resources into Iowa, which tends to reward social conservatives, and New Hampshire is probably the biggest hope in 2012 for the candidate who barely registers in recent national polls.
On a recent visit to downtown Manchester, the former Utah governor worked his charm on Angie Content, co-owner of the Styling Souls salon. An undeclared independent voter, Content supported Obama in the last election but said she's shopping around for a new candidate.
"I'm not happy with what he's doing with the country," she said of the president.
Another independent, physician Cindy Cooper, attended a house party for Huntsman this week. Socially, Cooper tends to agree with Obama, especially on issues like abortion and gun control, but she's hoping for a more "fiscally responsible" candidate who would balance the federal budget.
"If it was between Obama and him I would really have to sort it out," she said.
Cooper was impressed by Huntsman's support of Washington's debt deal -- an agreement slammed by every other major GOP candidate.
"Huntsman's been the one so far who's even tried to compromise with the budget," she said.
In many of his stances, however, the governor has moved to distance himself from the president and fought back against claims that he is too liberal to top the Republican ticket.
Huntsman has harshly criticized what he calls the president's "failed" handling of the economy and charged that Obama's lack of leadership on the debt ceiling negotiations almost brought the financial sector to a standstill.
"It would have been better if we had a head start and we actually had some leadership to begin with, if we actually took a look at problem solving months ago as opposed to hours before the deadline,' he told patrons at a Manchester pizza parlor.
And at an event in Derry, Huntsman told a group of Republican voters he would issue an executive order abolishing "Obamacare" his first day in office because the measure couldn't be broken down to meet the needs of each individual state.
But Huntsman supports other initiatives that could win more bipartisan support. He maintains the U.S. should significantly draw down ground troops from Afghanistan and let the Afghans run their own country.
He also supports the DREAM Act, which would give certain illegal immigrants who were brought into the country as children tuition assistance and a path to citizenship.
"I believe that young kids when they're dragged here to the United States have no say over their journey. They have no say over their destiny," he said at an event at the Salem Chamber of Commerce. "And we either have a two-tiered bifurcated system or we allow, somehow, people to achieve the American dream."
Asked about his bipartisan appeal, Huntsman first emphasized his unofficial campaign slogan of "conservative problem solver" and pointed to his record as a tax-cutter in Utah.
But the governor knows undeclared independent voters could be key to his success in the state.
"You gotta get votes to win, and the primary in this state is open last I saw," he said. "I'm going to get to know everybody in this state, and we're going to get every vote we can. Every vote matters."
Huntsman's big challenge will be to appeal to moderate independent voters in New Hampshire without turning off die-hard conservatives elsewhere in the country.
"Gov. Huntsman has a proven track record as a conservative problem-solver who cut taxes, passed free-market health care reform and oversaw the best state for job growth in the country," said Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller. "We're confident that record is going to appeal to a wide-swatch of voters."
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Personal Opinion 4: Republican Much?
Priebus is like most republicans: inept, incompetent, hateful, anti-American, anti union, anti police, anti firemen, anti government, anti senior citizen, anti veteran, anti teacher, anti hispanic, anti black, anti environment, and anti poor; while being pro war, pro billionaire, pro foreign corporation, and a subscriber to Hoover Economics.
The republican party are the worst of the worst . . . they create a chaotic situation and blames the president, they say no to everything, every policies designed to aid the economy doing this president's watch. The republican party and their candidates are behind the scenes sabotaging this great country. They are like wayward kids throwing rocks at cars on the highway causing all kinds of accidents and traffic back-ups and pointing the finger at the president who is also on that same highway driving out in front. Wake up America to what the republican party have become. Traitors . . . Obama 2012
The republican party are the worst of the worst . . . they create a chaotic situation and blames the president, they say no to everything, every policies designed to aid the economy doing this president's watch. The republican party and their candidates are behind the scenes sabotaging this great country. They are like wayward kids throwing rocks at cars on the highway causing all kinds of accidents and traffic back-ups and pointing the finger at the president who is also on that same highway driving out in front. Wake up America to what the republican party have become. Traitors . . . Obama 2012
Happy Birthday President Obama!
President Obama will head home to Chicago Wednesday for birthday-themed fundraisers.
One thousand five hundred people are expected at the archaic Aragon Ballroom Wednesday night, according to Katie Hogan, deputy press secretary for Obama's re-election campaign. Attendees paid a minimum of $50 per ticket, which will flow to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint account with the Democratic National Committee and the Obama re-election campaign.
Entertainment for the event, on the eve of the president's 50th birthday, will include rock band OK Go, Jennifer Hudson and Herbie Hancock.
The president will attend a 100-person dinner before the larger event. Individuals spent up to $35,800 for a ticket, $5,000 of which will go to the Obama campaign. The remainder of the funds will go to the DNC.
Prior to the fundraisers, the president will hold video teleconferences in 1,100 birthday house parties across the country set to last between 10 and 15 minutes. In addition, top Democrats and campaign officials will host seven "surrogate fundraisers" throughout the country, according to Hogan.
Wednesday's events are the first held by the president during the third fundraising quarter. His last event on June 30th was in Philadelphia.
Republicans jumped on the string of events, accusing the president of playing politics amid rough economic times.
In a conference call with reporters, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said the president's leadership has been nonexistent, "unless of course it's taking the initiative to raise campaign cash."
"The fundraiser in chief is back in Chicago doing the one thing that he's really good at and that's raising money to save his job," Priebus said according to a transcript provided by the RNC.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a video Wednesday morning in-step with his campaign message that "Obama isn't working." The nearly minute-long spot highlighted the rise in unemployment and drop in housing prices in Chicago since Obama took office.
The White House announced a Midwest bus tour on Wednesday to refocus the president's attention on the U.S. economy, one day after he signed legislation to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
One thousand five hundred people are expected at the archaic Aragon Ballroom Wednesday night, according to Katie Hogan, deputy press secretary for Obama's re-election campaign. Attendees paid a minimum of $50 per ticket, which will flow to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint account with the Democratic National Committee and the Obama re-election campaign.
Entertainment for the event, on the eve of the president's 50th birthday, will include rock band OK Go, Jennifer Hudson and Herbie Hancock.
The president will attend a 100-person dinner before the larger event. Individuals spent up to $35,800 for a ticket, $5,000 of which will go to the Obama campaign. The remainder of the funds will go to the DNC.
Prior to the fundraisers, the president will hold video teleconferences in 1,100 birthday house parties across the country set to last between 10 and 15 minutes. In addition, top Democrats and campaign officials will host seven "surrogate fundraisers" throughout the country, according to Hogan.
Wednesday's events are the first held by the president during the third fundraising quarter. His last event on June 30th was in Philadelphia.
Republicans jumped on the string of events, accusing the president of playing politics amid rough economic times.
In a conference call with reporters, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said the president's leadership has been nonexistent, "unless of course it's taking the initiative to raise campaign cash."
"The fundraiser in chief is back in Chicago doing the one thing that he's really good at and that's raising money to save his job," Priebus said according to a transcript provided by the RNC.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a video Wednesday morning in-step with his campaign message that "Obama isn't working." The nearly minute-long spot highlighted the rise in unemployment and drop in housing prices in Chicago since Obama took office.
The White House announced a Midwest bus tour on Wednesday to refocus the president's attention on the U.S. economy, one day after he signed legislation to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Personal Opinion 3: Uhm HELLO?
Despite countless pre-election promises in 2010, the GOP hasn't tried to pass a jobs bill for the simple reason that they have no freaking clue how to actually create jobs! They're only good at distracting people by coming up with the "Crisis of the Month" club - illegal immigration, planned parenthood, gay marriage, debt ceilings, etc. - anything to get voters to forget what they promised us in 2010.
The deficit/debt was NOT a crisis and should only have been dealt with during good economic times, certainly not now. Cutting gov't spending is GUARANTEED to increase unemployment and lower overall consumer demand. The job market will now only get worse.
Did none of these idiots study Japan and see how they made the same stupid (conservative supply-side) mistakes we're now doing? After a decade of economic non-growth, Japan's leaders realized they should have listened to the liberal demand-side economists and increased gov't spending, not decreased it. Demand-side policy puts more money in the hands of the middle class, who buy more stuff, causing businesses to need more help. The GOP's supply-side policy was to give more money to rich people so they would invest it, as if that creates jobs. The Japanese are rightfully talking about how stupid American politicians must be to not learn from their example
The deficit/debt was NOT a crisis and should only have been dealt with during good economic times, certainly not now. Cutting gov't spending is GUARANTEED to increase unemployment and lower overall consumer demand. The job market will now only get worse.
Did none of these idiots study Japan and see how they made the same stupid (conservative supply-side) mistakes we're now doing? After a decade of economic non-growth, Japan's leaders realized they should have listened to the liberal demand-side economists and increased gov't spending, not decreased it. Demand-side policy puts more money in the hands of the middle class, who buy more stuff, causing businesses to need more help. The GOP's supply-side policy was to give more money to rich people so they would invest it, as if that creates jobs. The Japanese are rightfully talking about how stupid American politicians must be to not learn from their example
The Debt Ceiling deal is NOT going to start handing out jobs
The deal to raise the debt ceiling may remove the risk of a 2008-like meltdown in financial markets that had made employers very nervous in recent months.
But even if the debt deal is passed by Congress, labor market experts don't expect it to jumpstart hiring growth.
"I would say this will have little effect if any," said Jeff Joerres, Chairman and CEO of staffing firm ManpowerGroup (MAN, Fortune 500). "It's nice to clear one worry off the desk, but there are a lot of other things to worry about.
"At the end of the day, demand trumps all, and right now demand is sluggish, regardless of industry," he said.
The economy added just 43,000 jobs in May and June combined as the debt ceiling debate dragged out in Washington. And economists surveyed by CNNMoney forecast a gain of only 77,000 jobs for July when the latest employment report is released Friday.
A survey last week found many worried about a new recession if Congress failed to reach a deal by the Aug. 2 deadline.
The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, estimates that the spending cuts will cost the economy 323,000 jobs in 2012. It also estimates that allowing the payroll tax holiday and extended unemployment benefits to expire could cost an additional 1.5 million jobs.
But most of the cuts are fairly modest. Only about $21 billion, or 1%, would come in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, 2012. Without a deal, there could have been an immediate halt of about $134 billion in government spending in August alone, according to a Bipartisan Policy Center analysis.
Jennie Dede, vice president of recruitment for Adecco Staffing, says while the labor market is better off without that kind of shock, the debt ceiling agreement isn't likely to prompt businesses to hire if they didn't already have plans to do so.
"People are just being conservative in general with hiring," she said. "They want to make sure it's going to make an impact on their business. You have to really fight to get a hire approved inside a business nowadays."
Economists who closely monitor the labor market agree they're not expecting hiring to take off in the wake of the deal.
"It would be wonderful if [the debt ceiling agreement] being resolved had the economy take off like a rocket. But I don't think that'll be the case," said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, the firm that compiles the closely-watched ADP monthly employment index.
He said while the continuation of a payroll tax holiday or some other kind of fiscal stimulus could help the job market, the debate over the debt ceiling demonstrates Congress is in no mood to take any kind of action to spur growth or hiring.
But even if the debt deal is passed by Congress, labor market experts don't expect it to jumpstart hiring growth.
"I would say this will have little effect if any," said Jeff Joerres, Chairman and CEO of staffing firm ManpowerGroup (MAN, Fortune 500). "It's nice to clear one worry off the desk, but there are a lot of other things to worry about.
"At the end of the day, demand trumps all, and right now demand is sluggish, regardless of industry," he said.
The economy added just 43,000 jobs in May and June combined as the debt ceiling debate dragged out in Washington. And economists surveyed by CNNMoney forecast a gain of only 77,000 jobs for July when the latest employment report is released Friday.
A survey last week found many worried about a new recession if Congress failed to reach a deal by the Aug. 2 deadline.
Read the debt ceiling bill
Some economists fear that the $2.1 trillion in spending cuts called for in the agreement to raise the debt ceiling will slow the economy.The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, estimates that the spending cuts will cost the economy 323,000 jobs in 2012. It also estimates that allowing the payroll tax holiday and extended unemployment benefits to expire could cost an additional 1.5 million jobs.
But most of the cuts are fairly modest. Only about $21 billion, or 1%, would come in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, 2012. Without a deal, there could have been an immediate halt of about $134 billion in government spending in August alone, according to a Bipartisan Policy Center analysis.
Jennie Dede, vice president of recruitment for Adecco Staffing, says while the labor market is better off without that kind of shock, the debt ceiling agreement isn't likely to prompt businesses to hire if they didn't already have plans to do so.
"People are just being conservative in general with hiring," she said. "They want to make sure it's going to make an impact on their business. You have to really fight to get a hire approved inside a business nowadays."
Economists who closely monitor the labor market agree they're not expecting hiring to take off in the wake of the deal.
"It would be wonderful if [the debt ceiling agreement] being resolved had the economy take off like a rocket. But I don't think that'll be the case," said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, the firm that compiles the closely-watched ADP monthly employment index.
He said while the continuation of a payroll tax holiday or some other kind of fiscal stimulus could help the job market, the debate over the debt ceiling demonstrates Congress is in no mood to take any kind of action to spur growth or hiring.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Note to America
Hello, America, how are you? Well, I hope. And, while you're doing well and doing the things you like to do, please look back over the last ten years. Can you see that our government has put us in two wars at a cost of $3,000,000,000,000 and the lives of almost 6000 of our military? Please notice that those wars have also killed more than a hundred thousand Arabs and Muslims and that the money required to prosecute this carnage was all borrowed and has helped increase our national debt from around 8 trillion dollars to more than 14 trillion dollars. Your kids and grand-kids, of course, will pay it back.
During these years our government also gave tax cuts to many Americans, including some of you, and certainly to the very wealthy. Our elected officials mismanaged our economy beyond normal risk and we had to bail out the banks and investment companies and the insurance and automobile companies with borrowed money. All of this while average Americans faced unemployment, lower wages, foreclosure, and many, many other financial challenges.
And now our government, Republicans and Democrats alike, wants us to reduce this debt and are asking average Americans and even some of our most vulnerable citizens to pay for the wars, the mismanagement of our economy, and the tax cuts. This is to be done by cutting spending on some of our most important programs like education, health care, infrastructure, and even social programs for the elderly and needy. Congress is proposing to divide the older and younger generations health care coverage into different programs; leaving a more generous health care system for older people while younger people have to live with a much more expensive system. This divide and conquer tactic can only result in generational bickering and less quality health care for everyone.
All of this will be done to reduce the national debt incurred by unnecessary wars, huge tax cuts, economic mismanagement, and plain old greed. Of course, the wars are still being waged at a cost of around 250 billion dollars a year and Obama has "compromised " with Republicans to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while Congress works night and day to make average Americans and the most vulnerable pay for these excesses.
During these years our government also gave tax cuts to many Americans, including some of you, and certainly to the very wealthy. Our elected officials mismanaged our economy beyond normal risk and we had to bail out the banks and investment companies and the insurance and automobile companies with borrowed money. All of this while average Americans faced unemployment, lower wages, foreclosure, and many, many other financial challenges.
And now our government, Republicans and Democrats alike, wants us to reduce this debt and are asking average Americans and even some of our most vulnerable citizens to pay for the wars, the mismanagement of our economy, and the tax cuts. This is to be done by cutting spending on some of our most important programs like education, health care, infrastructure, and even social programs for the elderly and needy. Congress is proposing to divide the older and younger generations health care coverage into different programs; leaving a more generous health care system for older people while younger people have to live with a much more expensive system. This divide and conquer tactic can only result in generational bickering and less quality health care for everyone.
All of this will be done to reduce the national debt incurred by unnecessary wars, huge tax cuts, economic mismanagement, and plain old greed. Of course, the wars are still being waged at a cost of around 250 billion dollars a year and Obama has "compromised " with Republicans to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while Congress works night and day to make average Americans and the most vulnerable pay for these excesses.
Personal Opinion 2
We are becoming a country where a signification portion of the population is non-working or non-productive and are dependent on some sort of government program... social security, medicare, medicaid, Section 8. How about people working for the government (sic) inefficiently producing really nothing? Or those omnipresent security guards who add little value to the overall economy!
When the Social Security (ponzi scheme) program was put in place it was easy to support it as there were a lot of workers for each retired individual. Today there are three workers for each retiree, and the pool of retiree is growing rapidly. Same goes for the great Medicare program. I cant imagine how it will be out in the future when each worker will be responsible for supporting one retiree!
And don't get me started about Medicaid, Section 8, Food Stamps and other programs where people who contributed nothing and are living off of the rest of the society! There are women who are making babies without any responsibility for taking care of them, and sticking the rest of us with the check! And there are are equal number of dead beat dads/boys, whatever, who abscond after impregnating these women... and many of them are eligible for these government dependency promoting addictive programs! These are the so called 'poor' and 'vulnerable' of our society.
Hold on, the middle class isn't without fault either. Not having to pay directly out of their pockets for things that they are really responsible to themselves for, such as education for their own kids or for that matter of fact their own healthcare, the middle class has been careless/reckless consumers of these high cost goods & services. As a result, the cost of K-12 is stupendously high and the cost of health insurance is going through the roof.
All of us share blame for it... the rich, the poor and the middle class as well!
When the Social Security (ponzi scheme) program was put in place it was easy to support it as there were a lot of workers for each retired individual. Today there are three workers for each retiree, and the pool of retiree is growing rapidly. Same goes for the great Medicare program. I cant imagine how it will be out in the future when each worker will be responsible for supporting one retiree!
And don't get me started about Medicaid, Section 8, Food Stamps and other programs where people who contributed nothing and are living off of the rest of the society! There are women who are making babies without any responsibility for taking care of them, and sticking the rest of us with the check! And there are are equal number of dead beat dads/boys, whatever, who abscond after impregnating these women... and many of them are eligible for these government dependency promoting addictive programs! These are the so called 'poor' and 'vulnerable' of our society.
Hold on, the middle class isn't without fault either. Not having to pay directly out of their pockets for things that they are really responsible to themselves for, such as education for their own kids or for that matter of fact their own healthcare, the middle class has been careless/reckless consumers of these high cost goods & services. As a result, the cost of K-12 is stupendously high and the cost of health insurance is going through the roof.
All of us share blame for it... the rich, the poor and the middle class as well!
Personal Opinion
The reality is that it is "your job" only if you own the company, are somehow indispensable or are returning superior value. If you can be fired from a job because you don't deliver enough value, it is not really your job.. no matter what you say.
You will not be "fired from your job" only if you are delivering more ROI (return on investment) than somebody else can. The cost of labor is not the only factor. I would rather pay twice the salary to somebody who is three times as productive!
So when companies outsource, they are getting more for their money in terms of ROI, even if the productivity of the offshore resources are lower than US resources, because of the significant cost differential in cost of labor.
The only way the higher cost American and other Western labor can compete with the lower cost offshore labor is by returning back more value to the companies that hire them. This means being more productive, innovative, higher quality, better service, etc. Just doing the same amount of work and returning the same amount of value as the offshore labor, and expecting to get paid five times as much is not realistic.
The other way for the higher cost western labor to compete with the lower cost offshore labor is for the Western governments to put very high import tariffs for products imported from other countries. But then our citizens would not be able to buy so much low cost 'Made in Asia' stuff from the big box retail stores!
It is strange, the same people who complain about jobs being outsourced, are the ones that buy lots of imported stuff! If you do not want jobs to be outsourced, then buy 'Made in America' even if you have to pay three times as much! If not, you are a contributory factor to jobs being outsourced!
You will not be "fired from your job" only if you are delivering more ROI (return on investment) than somebody else can. The cost of labor is not the only factor. I would rather pay twice the salary to somebody who is three times as productive!
So when companies outsource, they are getting more for their money in terms of ROI, even if the productivity of the offshore resources are lower than US resources, because of the significant cost differential in cost of labor.
The only way the higher cost American and other Western labor can compete with the lower cost offshore labor is by returning back more value to the companies that hire them. This means being more productive, innovative, higher quality, better service, etc. Just doing the same amount of work and returning the same amount of value as the offshore labor, and expecting to get paid five times as much is not realistic.
The other way for the higher cost western labor to compete with the lower cost offshore labor is for the Western governments to put very high import tariffs for products imported from other countries. But then our citizens would not be able to buy so much low cost 'Made in Asia' stuff from the big box retail stores!
It is strange, the same people who complain about jobs being outsourced, are the ones that buy lots of imported stuff! If you do not want jobs to be outsourced, then buy 'Made in America' even if you have to pay three times as much! If not, you are a contributory factor to jobs being outsourced!
Update 8:05 p.m. ET
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, whose vote for the debt-ceiling compromise bill Monday was the first vote she cast since she was shot in January, has released a statement:
"I have closely followed the debate over our debt ceiling and have been deeply disappointed at what’s going on in Washington," Giffords, D-Arizona, said. "After weeks of failed debate in Washington, I was pleased to see a solution to this crisis emerge. I strongly believe that crossing the aisle for the good of the American people is more important than party politics. I had to be here for this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash our economy."
Her statement noted that she didn't vote for a debt-limit increase in December 2009 and February 2010. It said that Monday's vote was different, arguing that the strength of the U.S. economy was hanging in the balance.
Giffords had been away from the House since she was shot through the head during a meeting with constituents in Tucson. She was released from inpatient rehabilitation at a Texas medical center in June.
Six other people, including one of her aides and a federal judge, were killed and 12 others were wounded in the Tucson attack.
Update 7:39 p.m. ET
The U.S. Senate is now expected to vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill on Tuesday at noon.
The House passed the bill 269-161 earlier this evening. One of the representatives who voted yes was Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who cast her first vote since she was shot in Tucson in January.
The two-stage deal reached Sunday by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders calls for $2.4 trillion in savings over the next decade, although the the Congressional Budget Office pegs the savings at $2.1 trillion. It also authorizes an increase in the nation's borrowing limit through the end of 2012. A special congressional committee to recommend long-term fiscal reforms is also part of the package.
In the first stage, $917 billion in spending cuts will be accompanied by a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling.
A special joint congressional committee would recommend a further $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions. If approved by the full Congress by year's end, Obama could raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion. If not, the ceiling could rise by $1.2 trillion, but doing so would trigger matching mandatory across-the-board spending cuts likely to be unpopular with both parties.
The legislation needs to reach Obama's desk by Tuesday at the latest, according to the Treasury Department. If the current $14.3 trillion debt limit is not increased by that point, the federal government wouldn't be able to pay all its bills on time, and Americans could face rapidly rising interest rates, a falling dollar and shakier financial markets, among other problems.
The House passed the bill 269-161 earlier this evening. One of the representatives who voted yes was Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who cast her first vote since she was shot in Tucson in January.
The two-stage deal reached Sunday by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders calls for $2.4 trillion in savings over the next decade, although the the Congressional Budget Office pegs the savings at $2.1 trillion. It also authorizes an increase in the nation's borrowing limit through the end of 2012. A special congressional committee to recommend long-term fiscal reforms is also part of the package.
In the first stage, $917 billion in spending cuts will be accompanied by a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling.
A special joint congressional committee would recommend a further $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions. If approved by the full Congress by year's end, Obama could raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion. If not, the ceiling could rise by $1.2 trillion, but doing so would trigger matching mandatory across-the-board spending cuts likely to be unpopular with both parties.
The legislation needs to reach Obama's desk by Tuesday at the latest, according to the Treasury Department. If the current $14.3 trillion debt limit is not increased by that point, the federal government wouldn't be able to pay all its bills on time, and Americans could face rapidly rising interest rates, a falling dollar and shakier financial markets, among other problems.
Update 7:34 p.m. ET
The final tally of the House vote was 269-161 in favor of the debt-ceiling compromise bill. Sixty-six Republicans and 95 Democrats voted no.
The bill goes to the Senate, which is expected to vote Tuesday.
The bill goes to the Senate, which is expected to vote Tuesday.
Update 7:31 p.m. ET
More details on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' dramatic appearance and vote on the House floor - her first since she was shot in January - during Monday evening's vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill:
Giffords, accompanied by her chief of staff, entered to a prolonged standing ovation. She was hugged by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Giffords walked to her seat and sat down to vote.
Democrats cheered more when Giffords voted yes, CNN's Deirdre Walsh reported. Pelosi wiped tears from her eyes.
Dozens of Republicans and Democrats mobbed around her, and she stood to greet them.
Giffords, accompanied by her chief of staff, entered to a prolonged standing ovation. She was hugged by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Giffords walked to her seat and sat down to vote.
Democrats cheered more when Giffords voted yes, CNN's Deirdre Walsh reported. Pelosi wiped tears from her eyes.
Dozens of Republicans and Democrats mobbed around her, and she stood to greet them.
Update 7:14 p.m. ET
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Democrat who was shot in the head during a political event in her home state in January, came onto the House floor during the vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill. She had been away from the House since the shooting, and was released from inpatient rehabilitation at a Texas medical center in June.
Her colleagues in the House applauded as she returned to the floor.
"Her presence ... brings honor to this chamber. ... Thank you, Gabby," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said on the House floor after the vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill, which the House passed a few minutes ago.
Her colleagues in the House applauded as she returned to the floor.
"Her presence ... brings honor to this chamber. ... Thank you, Gabby," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said on the House floor after the vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill, which the House passed a few minutes ago.
Update 7:06 p.m. ET
[Updated at 7:06 p.m. ET] The U.S. House has passed the debt-ceiling compromise bill. The bill now goes to the Senate, which plans to wait until Tuesday to vote on it, according to multiple Senate leadership aides from each party.
Update 6:50 p.m. ET
The U.S. House has started voting on the debt-ceiling compromise bill. The procedure will take 15 minutes.
Update 6:19 pm ET
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, has confirmed during debate on the House floor that she'll support the debt-ceiling compromise bill, though she lamented that the compromise fails to increase revenue from the nation's wealthy to help reduce deficits
Members of the House Democratic leadership generally had been quiet about whether they would support the bill.
The House is expected to vote on the bill this evening. The Senate may wait until Tuesday to vote on it, according to multiple Senate leadership aides from each party.
Members of the House Democratic leadership generally had been quiet about whether they would support the bill.
The House is expected to vote on the bill this evening. The Senate may wait until Tuesday to vote on it, according to multiple Senate leadership aides from each party.
Important Details About Debt Ceiling
– What the accord entails: "A lot of the liberal left, all the liberal organizations, are saying the super committee is going to make Medicare cuts. Nobody's happy. Both the conservative right and the liberal left are very, very unhappy."
– Deadline: Midnight tonight or tomorrow? "Well, that's the big question," King said. "If the Senate holds its vote over, does the administration say, 'OK, you're going to do it sometime during the day tomorrow, we can work it for a couple of hours.' Remember, the president did say he would accept a short-term extension, short-term increase in the debt limit if they had the big framework." If legislators need an extra "24, 48 hours, they could resort to that," he said.
– How legislators feel about the deal: "Essentially the Democrats are saying 'Let's see how many Republicans go forward.' The Democrats are saying, 'Let's let John Boehner deal with his family feud before the Democrats,' " King said. "The Democrats are saying the president sat down at these negotiations and started by giving things away before the game had even started. Democrats are not happy about that," King said.
– Deadline: Midnight tonight or tomorrow? "Well, that's the big question," King said. "If the Senate holds its vote over, does the administration say, 'OK, you're going to do it sometime during the day tomorrow, we can work it for a couple of hours.' Remember, the president did say he would accept a short-term extension, short-term increase in the debt limit if they had the big framework." If legislators need an extra "24, 48 hours, they could resort to that," he said.
– How legislators feel about the deal: "Essentially the Democrats are saying 'Let's see how many Republicans go forward.' The Democrats are saying, 'Let's let John Boehner deal with his family feud before the Democrats,' " King said. "The Democrats are saying the president sat down at these negotiations and started by giving things away before the game had even started. Democrats are not happy about that," King said.
What's the deal in the House?
"First the House passes a rule which lays out how long they will debate this, what amendments can and cannot be offered," King said. "Then they will actually get about to debating the legislation." He said, "They're trying to get the harder vote, the House vote, today."
Obama's Perspective on the Debt Ceiling
President Barack Obama, emerging yet again Sunday night to appeal for public support, named the compromise agreement as an imperfect yet much-needed salve that "will reduce the deficit and avoid default – a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy."
He responded that the deal was configured in a way "that we will not face this kind of crisis in six months, or eight months, or 12 months."
He responded that the deal was configured in a way "that we will not face this kind of crisis in six months, or eight months, or 12 months."
Debt Ceiling: The Plan
The House and Senate are expected to vote Monday on a plan that would lift the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling and avoid an unprecedented default on the nation's debt.
The measure would reduce deficits by at least an estimated $2.4 trillion over a decade and create a bipartisan panel to recommend fiscal reform going forward.
The measure would reduce deficits by at least an estimated $2.4 trillion over a decade and create a bipartisan panel to recommend fiscal reform going forward.
Breakdown of the Debt Ceiling
Each and every day, the government spends more money that it takes in. The federal government makes up this difference by borrowing money. Due to this the national debt is increasing second by second. The debt is predicted to reach $14.3 trillion sometime next week.
There's a law on the books — first passed in 1917, updated many times since — that caps the federal debt at $14.3 trillion. This is the debt ceiling.
Some time very soon, the government either has to raise the debt ceiling or stop spending more than it takes in (in other words, balance the budget).
Balancing the budget would mean cutting spending by about 40 percent, raising taxes by a comparable amount, or enacting some combination of massive spending cuts and huge tax increases. (Context: Every penny of discretionary spending, including defense, amounts to about 40 percent of the budget.)
Balancing the budget immediately bears no resemblance to the budget and tax policies passed by Congress in the past few months. It would be a much bigger, much faster spending cut and/or tax hike than leaders of either party are proposing.
Trying to stay below the ceiling could also ultimately force the government to default on its debt, which has never happened in U.S. history. Because U.S. Treasury bonds are held around the world, and are considered nearly as safe as cash, a U.S. default would create economic chaos.
Congress has raised the debt ceiling
nine
10 times in the past decade, according to National Journal. And it seems likely that the current debate over the debt ceiling comes down to what sort of posturing, or negotiating, or whatever, will happen between now and whenever Congress votes to raise it again.
Here's a peek at the debt clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
There's a law on the books — first passed in 1917, updated many times since — that caps the federal debt at $14.3 trillion. This is the debt ceiling.
Some time very soon, the government either has to raise the debt ceiling or stop spending more than it takes in (in other words, balance the budget).
Balancing the budget would mean cutting spending by about 40 percent, raising taxes by a comparable amount, or enacting some combination of massive spending cuts and huge tax increases. (Context: Every penny of discretionary spending, including defense, amounts to about 40 percent of the budget.)
Balancing the budget immediately bears no resemblance to the budget and tax policies passed by Congress in the past few months. It would be a much bigger, much faster spending cut and/or tax hike than leaders of either party are proposing.
Trying to stay below the ceiling could also ultimately force the government to default on its debt, which has never happened in U.S. history. Because U.S. Treasury bonds are held around the world, and are considered nearly as safe as cash, a U.S. default would create economic chaos.
Congress has raised the debt ceiling
nine
10 times in the past decade, according to National Journal. And it seems likely that the current debate over the debt ceiling comes down to what sort of posturing, or negotiating, or whatever, will happen between now and whenever Congress votes to raise it again.
Here's a peek at the debt clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The US needs a tax increase, the proposed tax increase on the rich is a good idea because they're doing better than ever now, anyone making less than a million (very likely you) will see literally no increase or direct change in your finances due to this. You complain over things that don't effect your life which you KNOW will help bandage this bleeding economy. Destroying education, peoples rights to marry, and removing birth control isn't going to create jobs. defunding community programs for the poor, sick, and disabled won't create jobs.
You vote for people who will smile, ask politely for you to shoot yourself in the foot with a large smile, and you say "yes" without hesitance. You put no research into what these people will actually do and put partisanship ahead of strategies which have historically been successful in dire situations such as the times we're in now.