Politics

[Ndaccountant]

It is my understanding that the CIA director wanted to remove indications of who the attackers were so that it would not hinder an investigation or capture of those responsible, so they removed Al-Queda et. al. from the story to not give away who they were looking for. I have heard the movie thing as a distraction do the CIA could focus on who did the attack. This does not excuse it in my book, but..... my book is not worth much.

That doesn't add up tho. If that were the case, why blame a video instead of simply stating that we need more time to review?

If they felt a need to not come forward with the reason, why lie about a cause? They full well know that if they say publicly that X happened because of Y, then everyone assumes it to be fact. There is no valid reason to intentially mislead the public.

 

[chicago51]

Obama released 100 pages of emails and got rid of the head of the IRS.

 

[DSully1995]

That doesn't add up tho. If that were the case, why blame a video instead of simply stating that we need more time to review?

If they felt a need to not come forward with the reason, why lie about a cause? They full well know that if they say publicly that X happened because of Y, then everyone assumes it to be fact. There is no valid reason to intentially mislead the public.

Well, could be to give a false sense of security, terrorists thinking the US is on the complete wrong track, instread of maybe having the cia on your tail

 

[chicago51]

White House releases Benghazi e-mails

 

[Black Irish]

Obama released 100 pages of emails and got rid of the head of the IRS.

The interim head of the IRS was due to leave office soon anyway. Anybody want to bet v-bucks on where he lands next? Government service, private sector, or an in-between job like lobbying or political consulting? Scandals don't kill careers anymore, they just redirect them.

 

[phgreek]

The interim head of the IRS was due to leave office soon anyway. Anybody want to bet v-bucks on where he lands next? Government service, private sector, or an in-between job like lobbying or political consulting? Scandals don't kill careers anymore, they just redirect them.

I know Boehner wants jail time...but reality is :

1) there can only be jail time for senior folks.
2) the department doing the investigation can't do anything penal in nature.

result...scapegoat some lower level people...done, no jail time...no accountability.

And yes miller shows up in the private sector...gonna say an oil company would be smart to snatch him up...many favors owed to him from certain senators who started this witch hunt...if I'm oil I seize on that shield.

 

[chicago51]

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis....News&catid=57584947&feed_id=29&nb_splitPage=0

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis....News&catid=57584947&feed_id=29&nb_splitPage=0

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

Interesting

 

[Ndaccountant]

Again, I ask, who can we trust in Washington? Nobody.

 

[Black Irish]

Again, I ask, who can we trust in Washington? Nobody.

Judging from the last 20 years, you can trust the Redskins to never get past the wild card round of the playoffs.

 

[Cackalacky]

Again, I ask, who can we trust in Washington? Nobody.

I can trust Boehner to cry at inopportune times.
I can trust Biden to never STFU.
I can trust Hilary and Rubio to be setting themselves up for 2016.
I can trust that when given the chance, Obama will side with republicans.
I can trust that Wall Street owns the place
I can trust that profit is privatized and risk is socialized....

 

[chicago51]

I can trust Boehner to cry at inopportune times.
I can trust Biden to never STFU.
I can trust Hilary and Rubio to be setting themselves up for 2016.
I can trust that when given the chance, Obama will side with republicans.
I can trust that Wall Street owns the place
I can trust that profit is privatized and risk is socialized....

?

 

[Cackalacky]

?

Its true. On many, many things, Obama has held strong to and taken further most of Bush's policies. And even this is too left for Republicans.

See appointee's that have been confirmed.
See appointee's that have not been confirmed and Bush appointee's remained.
See interpretation of the Patriot Act,
Guantanamo
Drone Attacks
Deportation of illegals...
Budget negotiations? What Democrat goes to the table offering to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Social security should be off the table as we have paid into it and it is our money.

Initially he was all middle of the road on gay marriage....
I can go on, particularly in the financial sector, federal reserve, etc...

 

[Ndaccountant]

Its true. On many, many things, Obama has held strong to and taken further most of Bush's policies. And even this is too left for Republicans.

See appointee's that have been confirmed.
See appointee's that have not been confirmed and Bush appointee's remained.
See interpretation of the Patriot Act,
Guantanamo
Drone Attacks
Deportation of illegals...
Budget negotiations? What Democrat goes to the table offering to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Social security should be off the table as we have paid into it and it is our money.

Initially he was all middle of the road on gay marriage....
I can go on, particularly in the financial sector, federal reserve, etc...

I know we have been over this many many times in this thread, but there is no money.

I am not on the side of SS will not be there when I retire. But as a younger guy, I believe the benefits will be drastically reduced for higher wage earners and taxes will be increased on me to pay off those who were promised money.

 

[GoIrish41]

Its true. On many, many things, Obama has held strong to and taken further most of Bush's policies. And even this is too left for Republicans.

See appointee's that have been confirmed.
See appointee's that have not been confirmed and Bush appointee's remained.
See interpretation of the Patriot Act,
Guantanamo
Drone Attacks
Deportation of illegals...
Budget negotiations? What Democrat goes to the table offering to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Social security should be off the table as we have paid into it and it is our money.

Initially he was all middle of the road on gay marriage....
I can go on, particularly in the financial sector, federal reserve, etc...

Absolutely. I have been accused more than a few times on this thread of being an apologist for Obama or him being "my guy" but there is a lot I disagree with him about.

 

[chicago51]

Its true. On many, many things, Obama has held strong to and taken further most of Bush's policies. And even this is too left for Republicans.

See appointee's that have been confirmed.
See appointee's that have not been confirmed and Bush appointee's remained.
See interpretation of the Patriot Act,
Guantanamo
Drone Attacks
Deportation of illegals...
Budget negotiations? What Democrat goes to the table offering to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid? Social security should be off the table as we have paid into it and it is our money.

Initially he was all middle of the road on gay marriage....
I can go on, particularly in the financial sector, federal reserve, etc...

I would agree with you Patriot Act.

I he has tried to close Guantanamo but he can't do it alone through executive order he needs Congress's help.

I would say he has failed in the his handling of the wall street and the banks but I wouldn't say he has sided with Republicans. I would say that he has too many people from Wall Street in his administration.

On budget he totally got out flanked with this sequester. He gambled thinking we would get a deal and he lost. So I guess fair critism is justified. He figured the defense hawks like John Mccain still had control of the Republican party but they don't.

 

[ACamp1900]

And here I thought both sides were supposed to work together...

 

[chicago51]

Now as far as the most recent budget I've actually been critized by some my liberal friends and twitter followers for actually sticking up Obama's most recent budget.

First off let me start off with the good from the liberal's perspective:

+Infrastructure funding

+Provides funds for states to provide universal Pre K.

+Makes some education changes with high school and community college providing more opportunities for careers in advance manufacturing and other high tech jobs.

+Republicans would probably on this point being good as well: Provides new tax cuts to encourage hiring and wage increases and to support middle-class families. Provides a 10% tax credit for small businesses that hire new employees or increase wages. Provides a new tax credit to encourage employers to offer retirement savings plans and expands a tax credit that helps middle-class families afford child care. Makes permanent the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which currently helps about 11 million students and families afford college, as well as improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit that help millions of working families with children make ends meet.

+Raises the minimum wage and for those worried about small business at least the small business tax cuts would offset some of the pain.

+It raises revenue from limiting deductions on high income earners and enacts the Buffet rule of those making over $1 million paying at least 30 percent. So basically those that already earn salaries over $1 million will still pay the same tax rate. Those making over $1 million in dividends, bonds, and other invest will have to pay 30% percent instead of 20% which is still less what 200k worker that earns his money through labor would pay.

+By the way the Obama budget closes other loopholes including one's that encourage outsourcing like both Romney and Obama campaigned on (which is actually a good idea) but those are used to pay tax cuts for small business and reduce the corportate tax on American manufacturing companies from 35% to 25%.

+All in all it would bring the taxes as a percentage of GDP to the highest has been since the 1970s and would be the most progressive tax system have had since the 1970s. Liberals should love that.

+Plus like Bill Clinton said tax cuts can be good but not all tax cuts are created equal. Essentially Obama in this budget does a combination of what liberals wanted and what Romney wanted. Close loopholes and limited deductions. Instead of dropping everyone's rates he uses some to reduce the deficit, and some of the revenue to pay for expanded credits to middle class families and small business tax breaks.

This economic growth section of the budget. I think it does a good job taking some of good conservative ideas that Romney was for and balancing them with liberal ideas:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/strengthening.pdf

 

[chicago51]

Now part II of my take I'll give my taking on cutting SS and Medicare.

Let me start by saying I would love to just raise taxes on rich people to pay for all these things but that is not happening. Even most Democrats will only go so far. The progressive caucus "back to work budget" which is a liberal's dream only got 84 votes in the House meaning almost 60% of the Democrats didn't vote for it.

So people have got to be realistic. While can offset it some by getting some revenue. The fact is retirement spending is going to crowd out investments in the economy like infrastructure, wise scientific reserach and community colleges that liberals want.

It is actually the non mandatory discresionary domestic spending that does the most to create ladders into the middle class for low income individuals that are willing to work hard for it. It is that spending that is being cut by the sequester along with defense spending.

So I would argue to other liberals that unless we can't elect a progressive majority in both Houses in the near future, which isn't happening. Then we need to do something to protect investments for our future.

Besides lets look at the cuts:
$140 B of 400 B in Medicare cuts is reduced payments to drug companies. Medicare should be getting a discount on drug prices.

Alot of the other savings comes from means testing. Not means testing that ever take away from guarantee of Medicare but some high income seniors may have to pay a higher premium, as will those that choose to buy Medicare Advantage plans. So the poor are spared.

As for chained CPI. Yes it is a cut to Social Security. Basically about 0.3% percent cut per year. Now ideally I would raise the cap to save SS but lets keep in mind that SS is designed as a Senior anti-poverty program and in that respect SS has worked.

While some will see a decrease. There protections for poor and the very old. Some factions potentially see a slight increase. So these chained CPI cuts have no negative impact on increasing elderly poverty and may actually a slight improvement in terms of poverty.

Plus because of Obamacare Seniors will be saving money on their drugs because over the next decade it closes the Donut hole.

Certain Disability and Veterans groups be excempt from the chained CPI cuts.

Chained CPI Protections | The White House

 

[ACamp1900]

Part of 'no.' Indeed.

Republican House Passing More Bipartisan Legislation Than Democratic Senate

 

[irishpat183]

Judging from the last 20 years, you can trust the Redskins to never get past the wild card round of the playoffs.

HATER!!!!!! LOL



But seriously...he needs to fire Holder if he wants to make a splash.

 

[chicago51]

HATER!!!!!! LOL



But seriously...he needs to fire Holder if he wants to make a splash.

I too want Holder gone, though I have a biased against him for his comments on prosecuting banks so I'm not very objective on this.

 

[chicago51]

Some crazy stuff going in Canada.

Tsunami of ice plows into dozens of Canadian homes; no one injured in freak disaster - NY Daily News

 

[chicago51]

Chilling new report predicts massive earthquake and tsunami for Pacific Northwest - NY Daily News

FYI just posting news no political agenda here.

 

[Cackalacky]

And here I thought both sides were supposed to work together...

I think its moving the goal posts. But I guess that's politics.

 

[chicago51]

I think its moving the goal posts. But I guess that's politics.

It is moving the goal post your right about that. I'm not sure if it was polictically wise for Obama to come in with what he considers a final offer. He needs to hold his ground and not get caught in going in even further. This could work out because Obama could show that he compromised but it could also back fire. Michelle Bachmann criticized the President for cutting Social Security.

As mentioned while I will accept chained CPI. As liberal I expect to a more progressive tax code and investments for the economy in return. Not mention the repeal of the sequester.

As far as the sequester goes I think conservatives feel that we should be able to cut discresionary spending by 5% because there is so much waste in government. Part of the problem is that the sequester didn't cut any waste, it just cut spending. Spending that actually helps people I might add. We should be looking for and cutting waste not programs like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, SNAP programs, Medicare reimbursements to cancer clinics (folks now being turned away), unemployment compensation. The whole design of the sequester was just awful.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It is moving the goal post your right about that. I'm not sure if it was polictically wise for Obama to come in with what he considers a final offer. He needs to hold his ground and not get caught in going in even further.

As mentioned while I will accept chained CPI. As liberal I expect to a more progressive tax code and investments for the economy in return. Not mention the repeal of the sequester.

As far as the sequester goes I think conservatives feel that we should be able to cut discresionary spending by 5% because there is so much waste in government. Part of the problem is that the sequester didn't cut any waste, it just cut spending. Spending that actually helps people I might add. We should be looking for and cutting waste not programs like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, SNAP programs, Medicare reimbursements to cancer clinics (folks now being turned away), unemployment compensation. The whole design of the sequester was just awful.

I am probably wrong here, but didn't the house want to pass a bill allowing for targeted cuts instead of across the board cuts but was threatened with a veto (plus Reid said he wouldn't vote on it)?

 

[chicago51]

I am probably wrong here, but didn't the house want to pass a bill allowing for targeted cuts instead of across the board cuts but was threatened with a veto (plus Reid said he wouldn't vote on it)?

You actually not way off about that put it was the Senate not the House.

I believe what you are reffering to was the Senate Republicans tried to pass a plan that allowed for moving funds. I beleive 2 days before the sequester hit both sides in the Senate tried to pass a plan. The Senate Democrats had there own plan that was 50/50 revenues and taxes. Neither plan had a rats chance at getting 60 votes and neither did.

It still would have been hard to move funds because the sequester only deals with discresionary spending would have been better.

While I prefer not to do austerity, I will say if you are going to do austerity I believe in the cut and invest model. With austerity you make cuts but then I feel you must invest some of the cuts. While I would like more I feel an addition $600B in revenue is a realistic compromise I feel but that won't solve the whole problem. So we also have to curb the growth of elderly spending to keep that spending from drowning out future investments. Then we have to make smart investments now before the baby boomers are all in retirment explode and government health spending explodes. The investments we make must be smart ones that will not only create jobs now and promote long term economic growth. Long term economic growth is important because we ultimately have to grow our way out debt, you can't do on cuts or raising taxes alone.

 

[Cackalacky]

You actually not way off about that put it was the Senate not the House.

I believe what you are reffering to was the Senate Republicans tried to pass a plan that allowed for moving funds. I beleive 2 days before the sequester hit both sides in the Senate tried to pass a plan. The Senate Democrats had there own plan that was 50/50 revenues and taxes. Neither plan had a rats chance at getting 60 votes and neither did.

It still would have been hard to move funds because the sequester only deals with discresionary spending would have been better.

While I prefer not to do austerity, I will say if you are going to do austerity I believe in the cut and invest model. With austerity you make cuts but then I feel you must invest some of the cuts. While I would like more I feel an addition $600B in revenue is a realistic compromise I feel but that won't solve the whole problem. So we also have to curb the growth of elderly spending to keep that spending from drowning out future investments. Then we have to make smart investments now before the baby boomers are all in retirment explode and government health spending explodes. The investments we make must be smart ones that will not only create jobs now and promote long term economic growth. Long term economic growth is important because we ultimately have to grow our way out debt, you can't do on cuts or raising taxes alone.

This is essential for reinvigorating Social Security.

 

[chicago51]

This is essential for reinvigorating Social Security.

Again as liberal I would argue that for Social Security we could just raise or eliminate the cap. There isn't enough Democrats though that would vote for that I don't think.

Obama's budget isn't my ideal plan but I but while l push for a more liberal Congress in the mean time I don't think you can just let the sequester keep killing jobs. Plus if we wait to long we may have to do something really drastic like major benefit cuts, major retirement age increase (which keep more people working and hurt unemployment), and major middle class increases.

So while not jumping up and down for any form of austerity, I willing to go along with for the time being if puts us in a better position.

Hopefully then after a few elections things will be different and we will have a more liberal Congress my friend but elections could always go the other way as well. Both Democrats and Republicans need to consider that.