The Obama Administration thread

[SLCPUNK]

Get a load of this COCKSUCKER.



Cheney warns of new attacks


Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a ?high probability? that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration?s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.

In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration?s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.

And he asserted that President Obama will either backtrack on his stated intentions to end those policies or put the country at risk in ways more severe than most Americans ? and, he charged, many members of Obama?s own team ? understand.

?When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,? Cheney said.

Protecting the country?s security is ?a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,? he said. ?These are evil people. And we?re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.?

Citing intelligence reports, Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration ? ?that?s about 11 or 12 percent? ? have ?gone back into the business of being terrorists.?

[freedom78]

Get a load of this COCKSUCKER.



Cheney warns of new attacks


Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a ?high probability? that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration?s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.

In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration?s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.

And he asserted that President Obama will either backtrack on his stated intentions to end those policies or put the country at risk in ways more severe than most Americans ? and, he charged, many members of Obama?s own team ? understand.

?When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,? Cheney said.

Protecting the country?s security is ?a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,? he said. ?These are evil people. And we?re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.?

Citing intelligence reports, Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration ? ?that?s about 11 or 12 percent? ? have ?gone back into the business of being terrorists.?

I agree that we need to sacrifice rights to fight terror, so I'm sure all conservatives here will stand with me in advocating that we abolish the ownership, sale, and distribution of firearms and ammunition in this country.  We cannot allow terrorists to take advantage of our freedoms.

[pilferk]

Get a load of this COCKSUCKER.



Cheney warns of new attacks


Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a ?high probability? that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration?s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.

In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration?s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.

And he asserted that President Obama will either backtrack on his stated intentions to end those policies or put the country at risk in ways more severe than most Americans ? and, he charged, many members of Obama?s own team ? understand.

?When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,? Cheney said.

Protecting the country?s security is ?a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,? he said. ?These are evil people. And we?re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.?

Citing intelligence reports, Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration ? ?that?s about 11 or 12 percent? ? have ?gone back into the business of being terrorists.?

What an ass.

I do love how they like to throw around that "61" number...a number that's not corroborated by anyone, really, and changed depending on the former administrations mood (up and down like a roller coaster).  I also like that, even by their definiton, that number includes people who have done things as innocuous as condemn their own treatment in Guantanamo...THAT gets them counted as being back "in the business of being terrorists".

Does anyone actually take this guys shit seriously anymore?   

If we adhere to his bullshit...what makes "US" any different than "THEM"?

[SLCPUNK]

House passes kids' health insurance bill

WASHINGTON ? The House overwhelmingly approved a bill extending health coverage to 4 million uninsured children, giving President Barack Obama a much-needed win on health care and taking a first step toward his promise of universal coverage.

The Democratic-controlled House passed the bill 290-135 on Wednesday, with 40 Republicans backing it. Obama plans to sign it into law later in the day.

The bill calls for spending an additional $32.8 billion on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Lawmakers generated that revenue through a much higher federal tobacco tax.

"Unemployment keeps rising and people are going from worried to scared," Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said during House debate on the legislation. "At such a time, it is our most basic economic and moral responsibility to provide health care to the most vulnerable among us."

Republicans criticized the cost of the legislation. They also said it will mean an estimated 2.4 million children who otherwise would have access to private insurance will join the State Children's Health Insurance Program instead.

"The Democrats continue to push their government-run health care agenda ? universal coverage as they call it," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas.

An estimated 7 million children are now enrolled in SCHIP.

To cover the increase in spending, the bill would boost the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes by 62 cents, to $1.01 a pack.

The bill's passages has long been a top priority of Democratic lawmakers. In late 2007, former President George W. Bush twice vetoed similar bills. The Senate passed the same bill last week. Obama made it a top priority in his first 100 days and one step in his push for universal coverage by the end of his first term.

House passage came one day after Obama's choice for health secretary, Tom Daschle, withdrew his nomination, citing the distraction of his delinquent tax payments.

SCHIP was created more than a decade ago to help children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford private coverage.

Federal money for the program was set to expire March 31, barring action by Congress.

Republicans said that they supported SCHIP and providing additional money for the program. However, they argued that Democrats were taking the program beyond its original intent and encouraging states to cover middle-class families who otherwise could get private insurance.

"This debate is about, do we want a children's health insurance program that covers every child in America with state and federal dollars regardless of their ability to pay?" said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "Do we want to freeze out the private sector for health insurance?"

Opponents of the bill also complained that the tobacco tax increase hits the poor the hardest, because they are more likely to smoke than wealthier people. Many also took exception to expanding the program and Medicaid to children of newly arrived legal immigrants.

But supporters said that ensuring children had access to adequate health care was a matter of priorities. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said an estimated 4 million people have lost employer-sponsored insurance in the past year.

"Do they keep their families' health insurance or do they put food on the table at night? During this economic recession, these kinds of decisions are unfortunately becoming more common," Pallone said.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Ouch! It is even more now......calling this a stimulus bill is deceptive & misleading - 30% stimulus,  70%  goody package / spending spree.......Obama needs to tell Pelosi & Reid to pull out the pork and only keep things that will actually stimulate the economy within a short amount of time. Rushing thru the last stimulus proved disastrous (ie.  banks did not use the money  like they should have) - why repeat the same mistake?

Why is this stimulus bill even under consideration? Have you read any of the fourth quarter reports? Manufacturing? Housing? Retail? Auto industry? Financial?

You act as if Obama is just some wide eyed big spender whose doing this for kicks. Did the version prior work?

Prior bill was pretty much a failure - Bush scared the shit out of people telling congress to pass the stimulus bill or the world was gonna end more or less, we all freaked out and the market took a dive. So it was rushed , no stipulations were put in there & banks took the money & paid off their debts and themselves rather than make it available for lending. So it diddn't do much and yet we are still all alive.

The current one is just a big govt spending bill Obama is peddling to the American people, little is actually stimulus which is very misleading when it is labeled as a stimulus package. Best thing he can do is veto it (should it pass the senate in its current form )and send it back to congress to revise it without the massive earmarks and pork. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Where's the pork?


Last week, the House passed the then-$819 billion stimulus bill ? without a single Republican vote. GOP senators vowed to oppose it as well, calling it a colossal waste of money, packed with pork and non-essential spending.

NBC broke down some of the bigger numbers in the bill, for example: $275 billion in tax relief, $90 billion for infrastructure, $79 billion for school funding, etc. Sounds good, right? But in the fine print, there's a lot of proposed spending that may raise a few eyebrows. In an interview with President Barack Obama, CBS' Katie Couric called him on some of the more unusual proposals:

- $6.2 billion for home weatherization

- $50 million for port modernization and water and wastewater infrastructure needs in Guam

-$100 million for children to learn green construction

Obama defended the weatherization spending by emphasizing the long-term effects:

"We're going to weatherize homes, that immediately puts people back to work and we're going to train people who are out of work, including young people, to do the weatherization. As a consequence of weatherization, our energy bills go down and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What would be a more effective stimulus package than that?"

Fair enough. But what about the $800 million for Amtrak? Or the $150 million for the Smithsonian Institute? And there's more: So much more, in fact, that the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has set up a website that allows users to comb through the more than 900-page-long bill. You decide: Economic stimulus or wasteful spending?

- $198 million for U.S. military benefits for Filipinos who fought for the U.S. during WWII

- $75 million for "smoking cessation activities"

- $87 million for the "design of a new polar icebreaker"

- $335 million for HIV/STD screening

- $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees

All projects worthy of money, to be sure, but are they worthy of being part of an economic stimulus plan that's now expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $900 billion?

However, both sides have signaled a willingness to concede. In an interview with CNN, Obama said he would consider cutting items that "may not really stimulate the economy right now." And in the spirit of bipartisanship, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) are working together to compile a list of recommended cuts, with a goal of reducing the bill by $200 billion.

But as the economy continues to shrink and layoffs pile up by the tens of thousands, the nation may not have the patience for cross-party squabbling and finger-pointing. At the White House today, Obama summed it up:

No plan is perfect, and we should work to make it stronger ... Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential. Let's show people all over our country who are looking for leadership in this difficult time that we are equal to the task."

- Lili Ladaga

**Yahoo! News bloggers compile the best news content from our providers and scout the Web for the most interesting news stories so you don't have to.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl238

[jarmo]

Obama unveils executive pay cap


US President Barack Obama has announced a $500,000 (?355,000) limit on executive pay at US firms that need substantial fresh government aid.

The move follows widespread public anger over the levels of pay on Wall Street, but is not expected to be applied retrospectively.

President Obama said it was "shameful" that top bankers had awarded themselves giant bonuses last year.

He added that taxpayers should not be "subsidizing excessive compensation".

Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7870638.stm




/jarmo

[Dr. Blutarsky]

^  In theory that is a great idea, but I bet many banks out of sheer greed will  likely set up shop overseas after taking the money to circumvent that.

[Smoking Guns]

Obama unveils executive pay cap


US President Barack Obama has announced a $500,000 (?355,000) limit on executive pay at US firms that need substantial fresh government aid.

The move follows widespread public anger over the levels of pay on Wall Street, but is not expected to be applied retrospectively.

President Obama said it was "shameful" that top bankers had awarded themselves giant bonuses last year.

He added that taxpayers should not be "subsidizing excessive compensation".

Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7870638.stm




/jarmo

Sounds good to me.... I hope these guys at least pay their taxes.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Obama vs. Pelosi: Can the President Work with the Democrats?

For all his high-minded talk of bipartisanship and common purpose, Barack Obama was always aware that Republicans in Congress weren't going to simply set aside their philosophical differences and embrace the new President's ambitious agenda. But he had reason to hope that Democrats on Capitol Hill, while not going along with everything, would at least give him a honeymoon period. So it must be a bit of a jolt these days for Obama to frequently find himself so out of step with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose tacit support of Obama's campaign was felt long before her endorsement was made official.

On nearly every major issue - from the auto bailout and the stimulus bill to tax cuts and the delicate question of whether to investigate Bush Administration officials for crimes related to torture - Pelosi has voiced and even pushed through the House differing positions from the President, at times to the embarrassment of Democrats. Obama and Pelosi each, of course, have distinct motives, and personalities: Pelosi is a partisan warrior who must tend to her caucus, while Obama got elected as a postpartisan healer, implicitly attacking the old ways of Washington and striving to appeal to a broader national base. (See who's who in Obama's White House.)

But their differences could have serious consequences. Democrats are enjoying expanded majorities in both congressional chambers as well as control of the White House, but their potential to see much of their agenda passed rests on their ability to get along. Past Speakers - most notably Democrat Tip O'Neill, whose intraparty bouts with Jimmy Carter were legendary - have squandered similarly powerful party perches when they've turned on the Executive Branch. "All marriages have ups and downs, but Obama will ultimately win. He is President with significant political capital," says James Thurber, founder of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. "And he must build cross-party support, something Pelosi does not excel at."

Still, even though Obama has an approval rating roughly three times the size of Congress's, Pelosi has shown herself unwilling to quietly execute Obama's agenda the way former Speaker Dennis Hastert did President George W. Bush's. Back then, House Republicans didn't openly revolt against President Bush until the sixth year of his Administration, bitterly but quietly swallowing early bipartisan programs like the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan and No Child Left Behind. By contrast, even before Obama took office, he and Pelosi diverged on bailing out the failing auto companies. Looking to secure as much support as possible for the controversial aid package, Obama did not rule out Republican proposals to use a fund set up in early 2008 to modernize the industry rather than TARP money - a move Pelosi vehemently opposed. Pelosi was forced to swallow a compromise, though that deal died in the Senate and ultimately President Bush used money from the bank bailout to help Detroit. (See pictures of the remains of Detroit.)

Pelosi has also been vocal in calling on the President to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans this year, a move Obama has been unwilling to commit to in the current economic climate; some in the Administration have suggested that it's preferable to just let the cuts lapse when they expire next year. And the House Speaker has refused to rule out investigating former Bush Administration officials, even after Obama said he would prefer to keep the party's focus forward-looking.

But the starkest differences have been over the stimulus plan. In early January, Obama said he would like to see as much of 40% of the stimulus bill be comprised of tax cuts. Pelosi didn't agree, ultimately delivering legislation with just a third in tax cuts. When House Republicans objected to two provisions in the bill - one providing Medicaid family-planning aid to states, and another funding restoration of the National Mall - Obama quickly asked to have the offending items removed. Around the same time, he traveled to the Hill to reach out to and commiserate with the House GOP. (See pictures of Obama behind the scenes on Inauguration Day.)

Sensing the rift, House Republicans have sought to play the two off each other. The message upon leaving their meeting with Obama last week was: "We'd encourage the House leadership to emulate the President in his outreach to our party," as Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican, said archly. Or, as a House GOP leadership aide said at the time, "If you have an opponent with a 70% approval rating and one with a 20% approval rating, you're going to go after the one with a 20% approval rating." In explaining why not a single Republican voted for the stimulus package, the GOP squarely blamed Pelosi for failing to live up to Obama's bipartisan mantra and writing a bill without any input from the other side.

"Is it your fault in some ways," pressed a reporter at Pelosi's weekly press conference last Thursday, "that Barack Obama's first vote was so partisan and not bipartisan?"

Pelosi snapped back: "I didn't come here to be partisan. I didn't come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest."

Obama may have the political capital, but Pelosi has no illusions about the way things work on Capitol Hill. "What she realized with Obama coming in was that, yeah, we can go through this dance, but at the end of the day, this was going to be a tutorial for the Obama folks," a House staffer close to Pelosi told Politico. "They're all going to vote against you and then come to your cocktail party that night." (See pictures of Obama's college years.)

Some of the friction could just be cosmetic to appease both the progressive base and moderates. "It's the old routine of bad cop (Pelosi), good cop (Obama); partisanship vs. bipartisanship," says Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown University. "It is also a bargaining tool to limit what the Republicans can expect from the legislation in exchange for their support."

Ultimately, Pelosi and Obama's relationship is in its early stages, and the first major trial of their marriage is yet to come. But it may come sooner than either would like. "The real test of the Obama-Pelosi relationship will be what Pelosi does if the Senate, as expected, trims the House fat and pumps up the honest stimulus part of the bill," says Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "It seems to me that Obama is very likely to embrace the Senate approach. Will Pelosi go along with Obama or join the House liberals in trying to maintain the party's wish list as a big slice of the stimulus bill?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090204/us_time/08599187691200

[D]

I think the focus has to be on the economy right now. worry about saving the environment later with the Govt hybrids and some of that other stuff.

[pilferk]

I think the focus has to be on the economy right now. worry about saving the environment later with the Govt hybrids and some of that other stuff.

Except...

You buy the hybrid vehicles from an automaker (hopefully a US automaker, but we'll see how that goes...I actually sorta LIKE the "buy American" provisos within the bill...but that's just me).  Someone has to make those vehicles, which means you're providing a fat, pretty much gaurenteed, govertment contract to an industry we KNOW is in trouble, and is laying people off.   So you're saving some jobs AND you're helping the environment.

There seems to be a lot of that stuff in there.  Stuff that will create or save jobs AND have another effect.  That speaks to "bang for the buck" to me.

I'm sure there is stuff in there that can be cut.....but there is also some stuff that people are looking at and going "WHAT??!!" but, in actuality, if you look at it with some logic, you'll see it does fit. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Were talking 900 billion. With that, we don't get that much bang, I heard yesterday after all is broken down each job created will cost $300,000 under the current plan. IT IS NOT A TRUE STIMULUS PACKAGE!

[pilferk]

Were talking 900 billion. With that, we don't get that much bang, I heard yesterday after all is broken down each job created will cost $300,000 under the current plan. IT IS NOT A TRUE STIMULUS PACKAGE!

You heard it according to a Republican, I'd venture...since that's one of their talking points.  The Dems say the cost is more like 10% of that, over 3 years.  I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

YOU don't think there's much "bang".  Looking at the Moody's analysis, they seem to differ.  So do a number of other independant economists who have said that while the bill is not perfect, it should be effective.

Other than Republicans...have you heard any evidence or analysis from anyone stating this bill will NOT be effective and will NOT stimulate the economy?  I haven't, but I'd be willing to read anything you might have seen.

[SLCPUNK]

Were talking 900 billion. With that, we don't get that much bang, I heard yesterday after all is broken down each job created will cost $300,000 under the current plan. IT IS NOT A TRUE STIMULUS PACKAGE!

What's a "true" stimulus package according to you? 600 dollar checks and the message to "go shopping"?

[D]

I think the focus has to be on the economy right now. worry about saving the environment later with the Govt hybrids and some of that other stuff.

Except...

You buy the hybrid vehicles from an automaker (hopefully a US automaker, but we'll see how that goes...I actually sorta LIKE the "buy American" provisos within the bill...but that's just me).  Someone has to make those vehicles, which means you're providing a fat, pretty much gaurenteed, govertment contract to an industry we KNOW is in trouble, and is laying people off.   So you're saving some jobs AND you're helping the environment.

There seems to be a lot of that stuff in there.  Stuff that will create or save jobs AND have another effect.  That speaks to "bang for the buck" to me.

I'm sure there is stuff in there that can be cut.....but there is also some stuff that people are looking at and going "WHAT??!!" but, in actuality, if you look at it with some logic, you'll see it does fit. 

that is a great point. i was watching Larry King last night and he had a bunch on about the economy and I like what one of them said.

Japan, China and other foreign countries can set up businesses in the US but we can't set up business over there.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Were talking 900 billion. With that, we don't get that much bang, I heard yesterday after all is broken down each job created will cost $300,000 under the current plan. IT IS NOT A TRUE STIMULUS PACKAGE!

What's a "true" stimulus package according to you? 600 dollar checks and the message to "go shopping"?

Did that happen....wait for it............when BUSH was President? Hmmmmm.....I'm surprised that you'd  bring him up again. 

[SLCPUNK]

Were talking 900 billion. With that, we don't get that much bang, I heard yesterday after all is broken down each job created will cost $300,000 under the current plan. IT IS NOT A TRUE STIMULUS PACKAGE!

What's a "true" stimulus package according to you? 600 dollar checks and the message to "go shopping"?

Did that happen....wait for it............when BUSH was President? Hmmmmm.....I'm surprised that you'd  bring him up again. 

Nice dodge, but I'd prefer you answer the question rather then assume your default position.

[Smoking Guns]

This is what I call Stimulus.  I like this.  This is what we need.  Incentive to take the plunge and move some homes.  You can even use the money at closing.  I called today and left a message for my senator in support of this bill.

Senate Passes $15,000 Tax Break for Home Buyers More Work Needed
To All GBAHB Members:

 

We have made GREAT progress?from housing barely being discussed in the stimulus bill to now being a key part of the discussion?but we need to keep the heat on our Washington lawmakers.  You know that REPEAT advertising is important?and REPEAT lobbying through your phone calls and emails can be very important.  Even if you called or emailed your lawmakers just a day or two ago, please do so again?today if possible.  The phone number (1-866-924-6242) is toll free and you?ll be in touch with the staff of your lawmakers easily and quickly.  Just your leaving a message with their staffers is very important and helpful. Let them know you appreciate their help and that this portion of the stimulus package is vital and must not be amended or deleted as the package moves through Congress during the coming days.

 

It is YOUR EFFORTS that have gotten us to the point where the Senate yesterday approved the package below.  To keep this package all the way through to the President?s desk for signing, we need one more week of strong contact from you, your family, friends, neighbors and employees.  Thank you!

 

Senator Isakson?s/Senator Lieberman?s Home Purchase Tax Credit:

?        A tax credit in the amount of $15,000 or 10 percent of the purchase price (whichever is less)

?        The tax credit is available to all purchases of any home from date of enactment for one full year.

?        Able to claim the credit against the 2008 tax return.

?        Buyers must occupy the homes for two years as their principle residences.

?        Purchases of homes by investors are ineligible

?        Sunsets the previous $7,500 Housing Tax credit on the date of enactment

 

We anticipate that Senator Ensign will introduce the McConnell substitute which we should include a tax credit proposal that will include a mortgage buy down around 4 ? 4.5%. 

 

As an aside, on the buy down-front, we are hearing that HUD and the Administration are close to unveiling their ?housing? bill, which may include a buy down; possibly TARP-focused.  Clearly the message from the Hill is that a buy down is an important part of a housing recovery and we?re hopeful that the Administration reacts accordingly.     

 

Monetization, the ability to take the credit at the closing table, is viewed by the Hill as a very complicated process. We continue to push for monetization as an essential component to our plan and I encourage you to continue to stress this point with your representatives.

 

As always, thank you for your efforts on behalf of your association and our industry. Together we will make a difference!

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Were talking 900 billion. With that, we don't get that much bang, I heard yesterday after all is broken down each job created will cost $300,000 under the current plan. IT IS NOT A TRUE STIMULUS PACKAGE!

What's a "true" stimulus package according to you? 600 dollar checks and the message to "go shopping"?

Did that happen....wait for it............when BUSH was President? Hmmmmm.....I'm surprised that you'd  bring him up again. 

Who else should we compare him to?

Polk?
Cleveland?
Truman?

Come on Blutarsky, Obama has only been in office for two weeks, who else should we compare him with?  You gotta stop defending Bush as if he was your daddy.