B-Man
-
Posts
69,609 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
Woodward: Obama's Decision Not To Deploy Carrier "A Kind Of Madness"
Bob Woodward blasted President Obama on Wednesday morning for deciding to recall an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf because of impending budget cuts, calling the decision "a kind of madness."
Woodward: Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’ Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document? Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time. "
-
So the secondhand tale of House Speaker John Boehner’s assessment that President Obama “can’t make a decision. He’s got balls made out of marshmallows” … has a certain precedent, as Exurban Jon reminds me:
“If Hillary gave him [Obama] one of her balls, they’d both have two,” Democratic strategist James Carville told the Christian Science Monitor at a breakfast on Thursday morning.
The editorial board of the Washington Post uses nicer language, but reaches the same conclusion:
… why is Mr. Obama not leading the way to a solution? From the start, and increasingly in his second term, Mr. Obama has presented entitlement reform as something he would do grudgingly, as a favor to the opposition, when he should be explaining to the American people — and to his party — why it is an urgent national need. Obama priorities such as health and energy research, preschool education and job training: Those come from the discretionary budget.Why?
Because it would mean telling his party and his supporters things they don’t want to hear. And he doesn’t have the, er… stomach for it.
.
-
In case you missed the Bloomberg series on entitlement cuts...
Entitlement cuts ???
There are no cuts in spending.
.
-
This just in: the WH has no idea what's going on.
LOL...............no, it's not news...............
They've never had an idea "whats going on" as far as administrating goes.............zero executive skills,
all campaign, no leadership.
.
.
-
The final irony comes from the sideshow over whose idea all this was to begin with. Bob Woodward says it was Obama and Obama says it was the Republicans. Truth is Obama could have scored a big win in historical terms by standing proudly behind this idea and adding: “I expect the heads of each department to exercise maximum discretion and restraint in targeting the cuts to the least vital areas.” Who would have criticized him for that? He would only have earned accolades.
Instead of the accolades Obama spoke to the acolytes and the Kool-Aid drinkers. He wooed the wards of the state and fought Woodward. Too bad, because we could sure use some leadership in Washington, D.C.
.
-
Obama's Next Move
The next two or three weeks should be interesting. Barring some sort of last minute compromise, the sequester will come into effect. Given the size of the federal budget, the actual effects of cutting a few billion -- not from the budget as it existed in 2012 but from its projected increase -- should be trivial. But it is in the power of the President to make it painful; and, if this President is true to form, he will make it as painful as possible.
Everyone has seen this before at the state level. The legislature trims the projected budget, and the Governor, intent on expanding patronage, responds by declaring an emergency and by cutting access to state parks, library hours . . . you name it. The point is to rally the public against the legislature by cutting popular items while carefully protecting the pork that sustains the Governor's political party.
This sort of irresponsibility is, I suspect, what we will soon see at the federal level. The difference is that Obama will be more brazen and audacious than any Governor has ever been. I will be flying to New York on Friday to give a talk at the annual meeting of the National Association of Scholars. I would not at all be surprised if there is a shortage of TSA personnel managing the security lines and if the Air Traffic Controllers are in such short supply that things grind almost to a stop. If my guess is right, it will be Obama's calculation that he can soon bring John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the Republicans in Congress to their knees. If he makes the attempt and they cave, you can kiss even the most modest attempt at fiscal responsibility goodbye. The name of the game for our President is to force a crisis that will eventuate in massive tax increases -- first on high earners and then on the middle class more generally.
The Republicans are at a disadvantage. Obama commands the bully pulpit and our partisan press will make sure that he is heard loud and clear. The Republicans do not have a standard-bearer. There is no one authorized to speak for them, and their leadership in Congress, while canny, is anything but eloquent. Senator McConnell, whom I greatly admire, is the master of mumbling, and John Boehner, whom I also admire, is quiet and plain-spoken.
That is one problem. There is another. CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC are not going to give the Republicans a platform. They will broadcast Obama's remarks over and over again. They will shut out our representatives.
What this means is that it will take courage for the Republicans to stand their ground. They and everyone who supports their stand must speak up or much will be lost. The common thread should be simple: "The sequester cuts nothing from last year's budget. It cuts very little from the projected budget for 2013. The President has it in his power to keep things running smoothly, and the misery being inflicted on our fellow citizens is entirely his doing."
-
Legislator Games
In Connecticut, a “Hoarder’s Tax.”
“Rep. Betsy Ritter, a Waterford Democrat, not only has sponsored a “combined reporting” bill, but she has also proposed a hoarder’s tax.
This would place a levy on liquid assets — companies with a lot of money in the bank — and dedicate the proceeds to job creation programs.”
Gee, I wonder why businesses are fleeing the northeast ?
.
-
none of the above.
.
-
"Partisan gotcha games"...
Really?
You couldn't find ten links to sources citing credible studies completed by doctors and scientists documenting the dangers of smoking in thirty seconds?
Answer me this question: are you uniquely unaware of Google and similar search engines, or are you the laziest !@#$ on the planet?
You're wasting your time.
He doesn't have to back up his (imagined) beliefs !!!........................Everybody just knows they're true don't they ???..................lol
Its common knowledge that the Republicans did (fill in the blank)................why should I have to supply any evidence or links ? ?
Those are just "games"
at least for non-adults..................
.
-
Charles Krauthammer said on tonight’s edition of Special Report that the sequester is causing far more alarm that it merits. “This is the most ridiculously hyped armageddon since the Mayan calendar,” he argued. “This, as you say, can be solved in a day, in an hour, by allowing a transfer of funds.”
Krauthammer went on to say that sequestration remains the subject of controversy because the president “is looking for a fight, and not a solution.”
-
lmao. priceless
you really are clueless.
.
-
So Senator Max Baucus now confirms Bob Woodward’s report that the sequester was proposed by the Obama administration (in the summer of 2011). Thereafter, in November 2011, the president warned, “I will veto any effort to get rid of automatic spending cuts.”
But yesterday, with the sequester barely a week away, the president excoriated those in Congress who won’t halt its implementation, declaring, “If congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place it will jeopardize our military readiness. It will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. It won’t consider whether we’re cutting some bloated program that’s outlived its usefulness or a vital service that Americans depend on every day. These cuts are not smart. They’re not fair. They’ll add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. . . . These cuts are a bad idea, they’re not good for the economy, they’re not how we should run our government. There’s a smarter way to do this.”
That’s quite a parade of horribles caused by something that was proposed by his White House and that he felt so strongly about that he threatened to veto any attempt to undo it.
Good thing the tenacious press corps isn’t preoccupied with something as trivial as being prevented from getting pictures of the president with Tiger Woods, otherwise they might call the president on his historical jiu jitsu.
Still not finished, the president added with a straight face, “It seems like every three months around here there’s some manufactured crisis.”
For his next magical trick: “President Obama Lambasts Republicans for Multiple Catastrophes Resulting from Their Failure to Repeal Obamacare.”
.
-
Hagel ‘Almost Had Tears in His Eyes’ When He Learned Phrase ‘Jewish Lobby’ Was Offensive
According to Chuck Schumer, Chuck Hagel didn’t know that the term “Jewish Lobby” could be considered offensive, and he nearly cried when he heard the explanation:
And I told him what a double standard is. That Jewish people throughout the centuries have suffered a double standard. Everyone could be a farmer except Jewish people. Everyone could live in Moscow except Jewish people. I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative, that’s a double standard. And I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but it harkens to the old days.And he really, you know, he almost had tears in his eyes when he understood. So I believe he will be good.I don’t know what’s sadder, that Schumer was reassured by the possibility that Hagel is just really dumb and not anti-Semitic, or that he believes that this explanation will be comforting to the American people.
.
-
ive never had a problem with requiring ids for voting.
its the shenanigans republicans have been pulling with last minute law changes, closing polling places, and reducing early voting that disgust me. thankfully that crap backfired on their immoral asses as it just pissed people off and drove many to vote for obama despite being dissatisfied with him
Link ?
.
-
yeah i really am clueless bc i honestly have no idea what youre talking about
i support gun ownership. i have a handgun permit (tho i dont own a handgun). i used to go hunting and loved things like target practice
im a registered independant, ive voted for a republican the last two presidential elections, so this isnt about politics for me
and i literally have no idea what your beef is on this (thats for damn sure)
sounds like simple partisan temper tantrums to me, but if somebody wants to try to make a cogent point i will listen
you want reliable useful home protection, get a shotgun. so whats the problem
The whole forest is in front of you and you continue to look at the acorn.
NO ONE is saying that a shotgun isn't good home protection,
or a handgun,
or an "assualt" rifle,
or a baseball bat.
The thread is about the inappropriateness of Biden's comment given the administration's policies towards guns.
you are right............you have no idea...........
.
-
Liberal Bias Central to Obama Media Edge
Traveling press clearly furious because they couldn't ask, "What's Reggie Love doing here?
.
-
Paul on Sequester Cuts: ‘It’s a Pittance,’ Obama ‘Divorced from Any Reality’
On CNN last night, Kentucky senator Rand Paul told Wolf Blitzer that the sequestration cuts that President Obama warned of yesterday were not only the president’s idea, but are also not as drastic as he signaled in his speech. “It’s a pittance. It’s a slowdown in the rate of growth [of spending],” said Paul. There are “no real cuts.” He also said he voted against the sequester because he “didn’t think it was enough” since it “doesn’t really begin to cut [actual] spending.”
Paul said Obama was “divorced from any reality” in blaming the sequester on Congress: “For goodness sake, it was his proposal. He proposed the sequester.”
-
President Obama told America yesterday morning that if the sequester goes through on March 1,
It will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research…. Emergency responders like the ones who are here today — their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings…. So these cuts are not smart. They are not fair. They will hurt our economy. They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. This is not an abstraction — people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again.”President Obama’s federal government is slated to spend $3.6 trillion this year. That is $3,600,000,000,000. The supposedly draconian sequester will reportedly cut that by $85 billion, which is just 2%. In fact, as Mark Levin pointed out last night, the actual cuts for this year from that level are $44 billion, which is1%of the budget.That won’t eviscerate anything. It won’t stop emergency responders from saving victims of disasters, won’t shut down the border patrol, won’t mean longer delays at airports without security or air traffic control, won’t lay off FBI agents, won’t stop criminal prosecutions, won’t terminate thousands of teachers, won’t leave hundreds of thousands of Americans without health care, won’t “add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls.”All that is paid for with just 2% of federal spending? Even after the fearsome sequester, federal discretionary spending will still be $60 billion more than in 2008. The government’s own Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified $125 billion in government waste that can be cut without hurting anybody. Just as I said above about the effects of such tiny cuts.What all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth means is that Obama and the Democrats think even cutting federal spending by 1% to 2% is the end of the world.But after the sequester goes through, only a few hundred Americans out of 300 million will even notice any effects at all.. -
so really those complaining about joes good advice are really just using this issue to say they hate democrats. i wish they would just come out and say that instead of muddying the waters on this important issue with empty partisan bullsh
Incorrect.
You cannot be this clueless.
Why do you think the media is splashing his quote..................to prove they hate democrats ?
Joe Biden's long track record of making statements (true or not) that are in conflict with his own administration is the point.
Its obvious..............................but you just stick with your own little "they must mean this" meme................
"none are so blind........."
,.
-
Why is that an off limits comment? Many political analysts (including inside israel) say the same thing about Israels political future if there's no 2-state solution and the settlements - something netanyahu is a champion of - continue.
Certainly he is free to offer that opinion Joseph,
but since it is not the official view of the United States, then perhaps he would not be the best choice for Sec. of Defense.
In point of fact......................few people think that he is.
.
-
Another day, another anti-Israel Chuck Hagel speech discovered
Chuck Hagel probably regrets ever accepting a speaking engagement at Rutgers University. The Washington Free Beacon has uncovered another Hagel speech on the New Jersey campus, this one from 2010, in which Hagel claims that Israel is 'headed toward apartheid,' that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a 'radical,' and that Hamas must be brought into the negotiations
At the time, Hagel was on campus at Rutgers as the Clifford P. Case Professor of Public Affairs. But the key to this one is the demand that we negotiate with Hamas. That and the term 'apartheid,' which I don't recall any other American politician using in connection with Israel. Hagel is beyond the pale.
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2013/02/another-day-another-anti-israel-chuck.html
-
Where did all these creeps come from? The now [understandably] shut down official Bills forum?
No, no, no,
Don't go blaming us refugees from 14 months ago, for this current round of lightweights.
.
-
Yuval Levin
Every time one of the warnings voiced by Obamacare’s critics before the law was enacted has come true, the law’s most eager champions (i.e. the political press) have seemed deeply surprised. It’s almost as if they just weren’t listening, isn’t it?
The last few days have offered two great examples. In this morning’s New York Times we are treated to the spectacle of a health reporter discovering the existence of economics:
Federal and state officials and consumer advocates have grown worried that companies with relatively young, healthy employees may opt out of the regular health insurance market to avoid the minimum coverage standards in President Obama’s sweeping law, a move that could drive up costs for workers at other companies.It seems that employers with huge amounts of money at stake have discovered that self-insured companies are not subject to many of Obamacare’s requirements, and oddly they have reacted not with indignation at such a regulatory oversight but rather by moving to self-insure. By creating this powerful incentive, Obamacare threatens to draw employers (even quite small ones) with healthy workforces out of the insurance pool fully regulated by the new law, leaving that pool less healthy and therefore leaving it with greater costs. In fact, Obamacare itself actually makes the switch to self-insurance less risky for employers by making it easier to switch back if necessary
Like most of the law’s most significant effects on economic incentives, this wasn’t actually done on purpose. It’s a function of the same attitude on display in the Times article: a view of economic actors as drones awaiting instructions rather than reasonable people considering their options. And so of course, the solution is to take away options. The Times’s description of the administration’s thinking is priceless:
The Obama administration is investigating the use of stop-loss insurance by employers with healthier employees, and officials said they were considering regulations to discourage small and midsize employers from using such arrangements to circumvent the new health care law. “This practice, if widespread, could worsen the risk pool and increase premiums in the fully insured small group market,” the administration said in a notice in the Federal Register.How exactly the existence of a design flaw in the law somehow empowers the administration to fix it by “discouraging” self-insurance through regulation is so quaint and naïve a question as to not even merit mention—a vestige of our barbarous past.
Meanwhile, over the weekend we learned of another surprise. It seems that the temporary program created by Obamacare to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions until the new system takes effect next year has run out of money even though it attracted far fewer people than it was expected to. The Associated Press described the matter in terms we’ll be getting used to as Obamacare unfolds:
Enrollment around the country has been lower than expected, partly because some people could not afford the premiums. But individual cases have turned out to be costlier than originally projected.The arrangement is loosely modeled on an approach that actually has helped people with pre-existing conditions in some states: the high-risk pool. But as Jim Capretta and Tom Miller (among many critics) noted back in 2010, it was cobbled together in haste and involved rules and requirements that plainly guaranteed its failure.
We’ll be getting used to hearing a lot of that too. In fact, in response to the program’s bankruptcy, Gary Cohen (the director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at HHS) offered the Washington Post a statement that seems likely to stand as the unofficial motto of Obamacare as the law is rolled out in the coming years: “What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run.”
Better late than never. But not much better.
.
-
towards this subject;
Barack Obama to actively campaign against the sequester that He Himself proposed
by Moe Lane
And he’s going to do it with the usual living props, too: “President Barack Obama will once again call on members of Congress to avoid the mandatory spending cuts due to hit at the end of the month, joined by first responders whose jobs may be on the line, according to a White House official.”
Some thoughts on this:
-
This is remarkably small-ball for a sitting US President. Watchers of municipality politics are familiar with the gambit, of course: a second-rate mayor (usually Democratic), faced with looming budget cuts (because the money was spent on some mindless enthusiasm of said mayor instead of what it was supposed to be spent on) will come out and cheekily proclaim that if the voters don’t give him more money then all of these firefighters here will get it in the neck. Or school teachers. Or whoever or whatever else the mayor thinks will get the public to panic.
-
If the President’s that worried about first responders, then why did he target them with the sequester in the first place? Nobody in the media really wants to ask that question, huh? Or “Why did you push a policy that you are now scared of seeing implemented?” Or “What else were you wrong about, Mister President?” In no-doubt unrelated news, consumers are still abandoning print journalism.
-
The sequester deadline’s in nine days, Mister President. Indulge my idle curiosity: what else have you got?
…No, “blame Bush” is not a valid answer.
-
This is remarkably small-ball for a sitting US President. Watchers of municipality politics are familiar with the gambit, of course: a second-rate mayor (usually Democratic), faced with looming budget cuts (because the money was spent on some mindless enthusiasm of said mayor instead of what it was supposed to be spent on) will come out and cheekily proclaim that if the voters don’t give him more money then all of these firefighters here will get it in the neck. Or school teachers. Or whoever or whatever else the mayor thinks will get the public to panic.
Trayvon Martin Case
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Stick to the narrative....................
He was "murdered" because of what he looked like.