House Republicans say they'll press on with their efforts to dethrone House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel -- despite the fact that the Republican leading their charge now faces ethical issues of his own.
Rep. John Carter failed to disclose nearly $300,000 in profits from oil stock sales in 2006-07, Roll Call reported Thursday.
Whoops.
When's he resigning from the House?
Carter and the Republicans, though, insisted that they have no intention of backing off their anti-Rangel drive. They note that Carter had paid all the taxes on his stock transactions,
When? and why? Was he caught, or did he realize he'd missed listing an item on his return?
while Rangel was forced to pay nearly $10,000 in back taxes for failing to report rental income on a vacation home in the Dominican Republic.
Republicans also noted that when Barack Obama was a senator, he failed to disclose $2,000 in capital gains from stock transactions in 2005. "My understanding is that many members, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, have made a similar oversight," said Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
"It does nothing to change the staggering array of charges facing Chairman Rangel or the speaker's responsibility to force him to step aside."
"It does nothing to change the staggering array of charges facing Chairman Rangel or the speaker's responsibility to force him to step aside."
But Democrats crowed over the news about Carter's misstep, saying it showed the hypocrisy of the GOP's efforts to force Rangel to give up his Ways and Means gavel. The New York Democrat has been the subject of a yearlong probe by the House ethics committee over his personal finances, including his use of multiple rent-stabilized apartments in a Harlem building, the income from the Dominican home and his fundraising efforts for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York. "It looks like there's $300,000 worth of his own crap he left out of the witch hunt," one Democratic leadership aide gleefully said of Carter.
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), a big Rangel supporter, called the revelations about Carter "ironic." "I'm not filing [an ethics] complaint, but I can't speak for others," Crowley added.
When asked about Carter's disclosure problems, Rangel paused, started to comment, then appeared to think better of it and declined to say anything more.
At issue is Carter's sale of Exxon stock in 2006 and 2007. Carter made $199,000 in profits in the 2006 transaction and an additional $97,000 the following year. The Texas Republican, a former state judge, didn't include those capital gains on either of his financial disclosure forms for those years. While Carter amended his 2007 return in mid-2008 to include "capital gains," he didn't specify the amount earned through the stock sale, which meant there was no way for the public to know how much he made in the transaction.
So he fixed it as soon as he realized, instead of waiting to be caught. Not at all like Rep. Rangel, then.
Carter's office made his federal tax returns available for both years in order to demonstrate that he had fully paid taxes on the capital gains.
Carter's office made his federal tax returns available for both years in order to demonstrate that he had fully paid taxes on the capital gains. "Congressman Carter properly reported his stock sales to the House and on his federal tax returns, paid his taxes on the capital gains from those sales but made the common error of not reporting the dollar amount of the capital gains on his House disclosures, which he will now amend," said John Stone, Carter's spokesman.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has launched a wide-ranging investigation into the role of mortgage lenders in the global financial meltdown and economic crisis.
The Committee will demand information from mortgage giant Countrywide, Bank of America (which now owns Countrywide), Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase (including Chase Manhattan Bank), Citigroup, Residential Capital (GMAC), and U.S. Bank Home Mortgage. The panel also plans to issue subpoenas for records on Countrywide's VIP program, including information on details of any mortgages held by members of Congress, as early as Friday, according to an internal e-mail obtained by The Hill.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
including information on details of any mortgages held by members of Congress,
Just doing this so they can notify the members to get their stories straight and start the coverup.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
10/24/2009 2:37 Comments ||
Top||
President Barack Obama has declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency.
The White House on Saturday said Obama signed a proclamation that would allow medical officials to bypass certain federal requirements. Officials described the move as similar to a declaration ahead of a hurricane making landfall.
Swine flu is more widespread now than it's ever been and has resulted in more than 1,000 U.S. deaths so far. Health authorities say almost 100 children have died from the flu, known as H1N1, and 46 states now have widespread flu activity.
The White House said Obama signed the declaration on Friday evening.
#1
Just another "crisis" to divert attention away from the health care, Afghanistan, falling dollar, slipping poll numbers, feuds with Fox News, Chamber of Commerce, etc. (feel free to add any other(s) you think are important)debacle(s) known as the Obama administration.
#3
Bet you H1N1 kills fewer than normal flu does, just like it did last time. I sure hope so. Our public health institutions remember 1918 when healthy young people would die within 12 hours of the first symptoms of that pandemic flu.
#4
They never declared an emergency when things started getting hot in Mexico. The Chicoms did. Big O. Always reactive. Never proactive in things that matter.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/24/2009 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
When does he start putting controls on travel, speech etc.?
This ISN'T 1918 and this flu will be no worse than any other according to our doctors.
#6
Wait a minute, we don't know how bad it's going to be. A strong response will reduce it's impact considerably. What we do know is that people are pretty hyped up about it so we'll some silly excesses in the responses, but overall we're not as likely as other countries to see a big breakdown. I don't know what medical officals can do now that they couldn't do last week, but it's comforting to me that they do have a few more degrees of freedom.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/24/2009 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Cool! The "Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers" actually declares something.
Maybe something in this to push his poll numbers? Or possibly just a practice lob?
#8
We'd like to think that H1N1 will pass and not kill hundreds of thousands but we don't know. Better safe than sorry.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/24/2009 15:41 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I'm more concerned that there are federal regulations that prevent the medical profession from providing the medical care necessary without the declaration of an emergency by the President. They undoubtedly will be re-implemented after this "emergency" passes. Why?
#10
We have a certain amount of confusion concerning how to identify H1N1. The flu behaves like any other flu in the beginning. Soon however it becomes clear as a pronounced snout appears coupled with a new accessory about six inches long protruding from ones hind parts. Then conformation is achieved with vocalizations similar to a grunt or snort with occasional
squeals. The latter being most unnerving.I had the occasion recently to babysit a child that had all the aforementioned markers. I merely feed him acorns and he had a great hunger for junk foods. I did draw the line and warned him that his gluttony might turn into a hog one day.
#12
Next he'll blow up a balloon and get the Nobel prize in Physics.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/24/2009 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I wondered what requirements they were talking about. According to the article:
Administration officials said the declaration was a pre-emptive move designed to make decisions easier when they need to be made. Officials said the move was not in response to any single development.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now has authority to bypass federal rules when opening alternative care sites, such as offsite hospital centers at schools or community centers if hospitals seek permission.
Then this bit at the end: "Many millions" of Americans have had swine flu so far, according to an estimate that CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden gave Friday. The government doesn't test everyone to confirm swine flu so it doesn't have an exact count. He also said there have been more than 20,000 hospitalizations.
Now say by millions, that is 2 million. That means 1% of those who may, or may not, have had h1n1, had to go to hospital. Before I go on there are sick people out here as well, some feeling quite aweful (including my family) earlier than usual but then so is the winter weather. But this, at the moment, sounds more South Park than The Stand. How come there is nothing out about how this strain performed in the southern hemisphere last season?
Perhaps, using this "!crises!", not reconcilliation, is the game play?
#14
If it's so important why didn't the Obama administration make sure that there's a timely and sufficient supply of vaccine. Oh, my bad Obama's all about "big announcements" not action.
#15
Hmmm... yeah... you're gonna want to stop comparing the One to common swine, or you'll end up at the front of the line at the secret vaccination camps.
#17
Delightful, Dale! Where you perhaps thinking of that charming illustration in Through The Looking Glass?
We had 11,000 people pre-registered at the Butler County Fairgrounds to get the free H1N1 vaccine this weekend, coming in from three states. Hamilton County is to do the same in the near future, I hear.
In a move praised by activists as a way to save lives but criticized by industry as potentially driving up electricity costs, the Obama administration has agreed to adopt rules reducing toxic emissions of mercury, soot and other chemicals from all coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
Activists on Friday circulated a consent decree submitted late Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to end litigation.
If accepted by a federal court, the decree would lead to new rules by Nov. 16, 2011, and end a lawsuit brought by health and environmental groups.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How many environmental activists does it take to turn on a light bulb?
None - they would rather sit and shiver in the dark, and force everyone else to do the same.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
10/24/2009 2:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I doubt that they would rather sit and shiver in the dark. I suspect it's more likely that they don't understand what makes electricity.
#5
Perhaps fellow Rantburgers are not aware that the enviro whackos have gotten the state of Oregon to decree that they're 'not going to build power plants to fill needs through '25, but rather seek to fill 80% of the gap via conservation'.
I have a phrase for environmental whackjobs for this century:
'Enemies of the State'...
#6
Now if they could just get the Chinese and the Indians to do the same it might make a minor dent in global pollution.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
10/24/2009 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Just shut the power plants down and see where support goes. BTW, how much coal fired power does DC get? Just askin.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/24/2009 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Pepco: Energy Source (Fuel Mix)
January 1, 2008 December 31, 2008
Coal 54.2%
Gas 6.5%
Nuclear 34.1%
Oil 0.3%
Hydroelectric (> 30MW) 0.5%
Renewable Energy 4.4%
Freeze your asses off you blowhards.
Posted by: ed ||
10/24/2009 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Electricity is evil because it was invented by some dead white guy. Wouldn't surprise me if coal turned out to be the fossilized remains of dead white dinosaurs.
#10
"How many environmental activists does it take to turn on a light bulb?
None - they would rather sit and shiver in the dark, and force everyone else to do the same."
Not quite, Rambler. They'd rather everyone else sit and shiver in the dark, while they have light and heat and flit around the world on private jets.
I truly think they believe there's special electricity just for them - it comes out of a unicorn's ass.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/24/2009 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#11
if you're willing to put up with the smell, 2.3 eco-activists/KWhr is a good burn conversion.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/24/2009 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
A group of rich Germans has launched a petition calling for the government to make wealthy people pay higher taxes....
Signatory Peter Vollmer told AFP news agency he was supporting the proposal because he had inherited "a lot of money I do not need". He said the tax would be "a viable and socially acceptable way out of the flagrant budget crisis".
The group held a demonstration in Berlin on Wednesday to draw attention to their plans, throwing fake banknotes into the air.
Mr Vollmer said it was "really strange that so few people came". "Ich habe keinen Anhaltspunkt. Schlagen Sie mich bitte mit einem Anhaltspunktstock!"
Posted by: Mike ||
10/24/2009 11:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is being seen by smarter people as a cynical ploy by these rich people to prevent other people from becoming rich, which sheltering their own assets. Remember that taxes are based on income, not wealth.
#2
Taxes now are based upon income, not wealth. However if revenues go down, governments will go after assets to keep revenues up.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/24/2009 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What prevents them from giving the government the money they think they should pay? It would give them creditibility and they may get a bit more support. Pushing the government to do something you can joy well do on your own is irrational behavior.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/24/2009 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Everyone sends their regrets, but they were already committed to attending the self-castration with a rusty nail rally.
#5
They could give the German gummint more of their money, Richard, but that's not really what they want. They want to feel good about themselves and be praised by one and all for their generosity.
Herr Vollmer doesn't even know where money really comes from, apparently: "he was supporting the proposal because he had inherited 'a lot of money I do not need'."
See, money magically comes from somebody else, but he won't just give the gummint the money he "doesn't need" because he won't get any public brownie points.
Moron.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/24/2009 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
He could always send a few Euros my way...if they are weighing him down so much. Just sayin'.
#11
The lesson, good Snaick tse Tung7583, surely involves sipping the Scotch in considerably smaller volumes until the entirety of Rantburg has been read. Save the proper sips until reading something safer. ;-)
One of the most macabre images I've ever heard described came in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami in 2004. Before the tidal wave crashed on shore, beachgoers stood around and idly gaped as the water drastically receded. Bewildered, they didn't realize they were looking at the prelude to a calamity.
The Democratic party looks more and more like those beachgoers every day, watching popular support recede, oblivious to the Perot tsunami coming our way.
In 1992, the incumbent president, George H. W. Bush, was a disappointment to his party's base and a pariah to the Democrats. Government seemed to have lost its grip. The deficit became a massive issue, a symbol of out-of-control government. The hangover of Cold War sacrifices, the S&L bailout, runaway crime, huge trade deficits, the long-term trend of manufacturing decline, and, of course, the recession contributed to the sense that America desperately needed to get its house in order.
Ross Perot, a quirky Texas billionaire, tapped into that anxiety perfectly. Western, pro-business, no-nonsense, pro-choice and pro-gun, culturally conservative but with little interest in culture-war issues, he managed to thread the needle between both parties. He also benefited enormously from the fact that his independent bid for the presidency was seen by the press as an indictment of both the incumbent Republican and the "Reagan deficits" that Democrats and the media had been denouncing for years. At one point, Perot led in the polls, and if he hadn't dropped out and then rejoined (or had he not been so Yosemite Sam-goofy), he might have done even better than his historic 19 percent of the popular vote.
It's still debated whether Perot cost Bush the election. But even if Clinton would have won regardless, Perot's candidacy had an underappreciated significance. He forced Clinton to double-down on his "New Democrat" appeals. Clinton had already fashioned himself as a "different kind of Democrat" who would "end welfare as we know it." But the Perotista revolt of "raging moderates" and "angry centrists" reinforced Clinton's rhetorical commitments and the voters' expectations.
Historian Richard Hofstadter identified the phenomenon decades earlier when he wrote of third parties in U.S. politics: "Their function has not been to win or govern but to agitate, educate, generate new ideas and supply the dynamic element in our political life."
He added: "Third parties are like bees: Once they have stung, they die." The Perotistas stung in 1992.
Once elected - with only 43 percent of the vote - Clinton seemed to betray his promises to govern from the center. His heavy-handed "Hillarycare" effort was exactly the sort of thing the Perotistas didn't want (never mind gays in the military and all that). The Democrats were shellacked in 1994, losing the Senate and the House to Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America," which was a carefully calibrated appeal to centrism.
The liberal interpretation of this sea change has always been freighted with denial. The late ABC News anchor Peter Jennings said the election was a giant hissy fit: "Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums. . . . The voters had a temper tantrum."
In part because Perot voters and sympathizers were disproportionately white and male, and because they expressed their dismay with Clinton by voting for the GOP, the Democrats and the media ginned up the "angry white male" theory of American politics. The same voters who were part of a "vital center" when attacking a Republican president were increasingly recast as dangerous minions of Rush Limbaugh and the forces of hate when they aligned with Republicans.
Fast-forward to today. The tea-party protesters are in large part the heirs of Perotism, and they are being subjected to the same insults. Liberal commentators are deaf to the tea partiers' disdain for both political parties, preferring to cast the protesters as a deranged band of birthers and racists or hired guns of a Republican "AstroTurf" campaign.
Meanwhile, as National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru has argued, the Democrats have convinced themselves that the moral of Clinton's failed health-care push is not that he was wrong to try, but that he was wrong not to cram it through against popular opposition.
President Obama promised a "new era of fiscal responsibility," but he's governing as if exploding the size of government is what Americans want, polls be damned. The Democrats' budget games and giveaways amount to poking the angry Perotista beast with a stick.
If the GOP can convincingly align with and exploit the growing Perotista discontent, it very well might ride to victory on a tsunami the Democrats can't even see.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems to me that it's at least as likely that the same sort off thing may happen on the left. Radical Crazies control the Democratic party and are doing an incredible job of alienated any sane person. Sane-but-deluded Democrats may pull out in large numbers splitting the party. Right now the polarization in Congress that is most significant is that between democrats not between the parties. The Republicans are unified. It shows up in their votes.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/24/2009 6:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ross Perot is as dead an issue as John Anderson (remember him?) The issue today is federalism, and yet the RINO leadership wants nothing to do with either it or conservatism. So it is not going to run any presidential candidates. Instead, it is going to exist at the State level, and exert its power and influence there.
A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill -- and not just from Republicans.
"It's a mistake," said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. "I think it's beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations."
Altmire was talking about the Obama administration's efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.
"There's no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies," added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. "The Chamber isn't an opponent."
POLITICO reported earlier this week on an all-fronts push by the White House to cut the legs out from under its toughest critics, whether it's the Chamber, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News operation.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has defended the push, saying the administration made "a fundamental decision that we needed to be more aggressive in both protecting our position and in delineating our differences with those who were attacking us."
Congressional Republicans counterattacked Thursday. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration was "targeting those who don't immediately fall in line" with "Chicago-style politics" aimed at "shutting the American people out and demonizing their opponents."
Boehner's No. 2, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) complained that the nation's problems are growing while the White House "bickers with a cable news network."
Liberal Democrats have little heartburn over the administration's attacks on Fox and Limbaugh. But the attacks make moderates uneasy -- especially when they extend to the Chamber of Commerce.
While Limbaugh and Fox commentators like Beck make no secret of their dislike for Democrats, the Chamber's Republican lean is partially counteracted by nominal and financial support for pro-business Democrats who need to win votes from pro-business Republicans. The campaign websites of moderate Democrats from across the country are filled with endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce.
Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, for example, has this testimonial from a Chamber official on his site: "On issues ranging from lowering taxes to increasing trade, Indiana's businesses and workers have no better friend than Brad Ellsworth."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When the squeeze comes down on them many will forget their worries. But the more they talk the harder it will be to squeeze 'em.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/24/2009 6:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
FOX has Glen Beck on three times a day not because they are a tool of the Republican party. FOX is in it to make money, to answer to shareholders, they have him on because there is a market out there for what he is saying, a rather large market at that.
America is split right down the middle between red and blue, the votes show this. The media is not so split on the demographics they target. FOX is the only network going after the conservative market and they are doing it because there is a large market share and not out of some patriotic duty. This is how the market work, target the segment left out, agree with their views and advertise products they will buy. Nothing more.
Obama's attack on FOX is an attack on the free market and free speech to silence his political opponents and half of America. Isolating your opponents ability to communicate freely is right out of the communist playbook, plain and simple.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/24/2009 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ann Coulter's remarks on The O'Reilly Factor last night, 10/23/09, were spot on. With some slight paraphrasing ... "the Obama administration is a bunch of whining crybabies" ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/24/2009 15:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
We had a comment from the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday that he rarely watches Canadian newscasts but prefers American instead. Seeing as he is avoiding the rabid left wing CBC and CTV, I'm guessing he does not watch CNN (or MSNBC, which is not available in Canada).
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had a blunt response Friday to the latest broadsides from former Vice President Dick Cheney: "Who cares?"
In the latest exchange between old and new administrations, Mr. Biden rebuffed his predecessor's criticism about President Obama's handling of Afghanistan as "absolutely wrong." And Mr. Biden rejected the last review of the war conducted by the White House under former President George W. Bush and Mr. Cheney as "irrelevant."
The dismissive reply came during in an interview here at the end of Mr. Biden's three-day swing through Eastern Europe and underscored the weariness in the current White House with Mr. Cheney's periodic assaults on the new team's record. At the same time, advisers to President Obama and Mr. Biden consider the former vice president a useful public foil and have not shied away from escalating the debate by taking him on directly.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental disagreement on national security, from how to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan to how to protect Americans at home from possible terrorist attacks. In a speech in Washington this week, Mr. Cheney complained that Mr. Obama was "dithering" in deciding whether to send more troops to Afghanistan and had committed a "strategic blunder" in scrapping the last administration's missile defense plan in Eastern Europe.
Mr. Biden spent much of this week in Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic assuring leaders in the region that cancellation of Mr. Bush's anti-missile shield in favor of a more mobile replacement was not a concession to Russia, as Mr. Cheney and others contended. The vice president secured an agreement with the Czech Republic on Friday to participate in the new missile defense system, just as he did with Poland earlier in the week.
Asked about Mr. Cheney's criticism during a half-hour interview at the American ambassador's residence here, Mr. Biden responded indirectly at first, saying leaders in the region now agree that the Obama plan will be more effective. "They believe that the new architecture is better," the vice president said.
But as he warmed to the discussion, he became sharper in his rebuttals of Mr. Cheney. "I think that is absolutely wrong," he said of the dithering charge. "I think what the administration is doing is exactly what we said it would do. And what I think it warrants doing. And that is making an informed judgment based upon circumstances that have changed."
Mr. Biden shrugged off Mr. Cheney's point that the old administration left behind a review of Afghanistan.
"Who cares what -- " he said, and then stopped himself to find another way to put it. ("I can see the headline now," said the famously free-wheeling vice president. "I'm getting better, guys.")
But he went on to dismiss the Bush-Cheney review as inadequate. "That's why the president asked me to get in the plane in January and go to Afghanistan," Mr. Biden said. "I came back with a different review."
Moreover, he said, the Bush-Cheney review is now dated. "A whole lot has changed in the last year," Mr. Biden said. "Let's assume they left us a review that was absolutely correct. Is that review relevant and totally applicable to today in light of the changes that have taken place in the region, in Afghanistan itself? So I think that is sort of irrelevant. Not sort of -- I think it's irrelevant."
The interview was one of the few times Mr. Biden has talked about Afghanistan publicly recently as the president rethinks his strategy and considers Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for about 40,000 more troops. The vice president has been a forceful skeptic of General McChrystal's request and an advocate for keeping troop levels roughly the same while focusing attention on hunting down Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
Mr. Biden said Mr. Obama has lived up to a pre-election pledge to take his vice president's views seriously and added that he would not be upset if the president rejects them at the end of the Afghanistan policy review. "He has sought my opinion not generically but in detail," Mr. Biden said. "And if he reaches a different conclusion than I do, that's okay. He's the president."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Cluelessness - A great alternative to knowing what is actually happening
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/24/2009 6:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Trivia
U.S. Senator from Delaware, 1973 - present.
Son of a car dealer in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Survived a brain tumor.
Third youngest man ever elected Senator in U.S. history (several weeks before his 30th birthday). His wife and small daughter were killed in a car crash around the same time.
Attended Syracuse University.
Sought the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America in 1987, but had to drop out in September of that year when it came to light that he had lifted part of a speech given by British politician Neil Kinnock during his campaign. It was an aide to fellow presidential candidate (and eventual Democratic nominee for 1988) Michael Dukakis who leaked videotapes of Biden giving that controversial speech.
Attended the University of Delaware.
Was sworn in as the 47th Vice President of the United States on January 20, 2009.
Never drinks alcohol, citing a history of alcoholism in his family. Claims to be dry his entire life.
#4
Jill Tracy Biden (née Jacobs) (born June 5, 1951) is an American educator and, as the wife of Vice President of the United States Joe Biden, is the Second Lady of the United States.
She was born in Hammonton, New Jersey and grew up in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. She married Joe Biden in 1977, and became stepmother to his two young sons from his first marriage, Beau and Hunter, whose mother and baby sister died in a car accident. Joe and Jill Biden have a daughter, Ashley, born in 1981. Jill Biden has a bachelor's degree from the University of Delaware, master's degrees from West Chester University and Villanova University and a doctorate degree from the University of Delaware. She taught English and reading in high schools for 13 years, and also taught emotionally disturbed adolescents at a psychiatric hospital. From 1993 to 2008 she was an English and writing instructor at Delaware Technical & Community College. As of 2009, she is an adjunct professor of English at Northern Virginia Community College, and she is thought to be the first Second Lady to hold a paying job while her husband is Vice President.
She is the founder of the Biden Breast Health Initiative non-profit organization, co-founded the Book Buddies program, and is active in Delaware Boots on the Ground. She participated in her husband's presidential and vice-presidential campaigns while continuing her teaching responsibilities
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/24/2009 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
As far as I am aware, the wife of the nation's vice president is not call anything... even "First Lady" is an unofficial descriptor rather than a title, referring to the fact that she takes social precedence over other women in American society during her husband's term in office, regardless of any title of nobility they might have. This does not reflect the professional standing of any of the ladies involved, nor her social equality to any foreign ladies of nobility in their own homelands.
CNSNews.com) - Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com yesterday that he has organized a group of "about 40 likeminded Democrats" who will vote to kill the health-care bill if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) does not allow a floor vote on his amendment to prohibit federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion.
Under Stupak's plan, the approximately 40 Democrats in his camp would join with all House Republicans in voting to defeat the special House "rule" that would set the terms for debating and amending the health-care bill on the House floor when it is brought up for a final vote. If a majority of the House does not first vote to approve this rule, the health-care bill itself cannot be brought to the floor.
"We will try to--we, there's about 40 likeminded Democrats like myself--we'll try to take down the rule," Stupak told CNSNews.com. "If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule--because we think the Republicans will join us--we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win."
"If you hold all 40 of your guys, how many votes do you have?" asked CNSNews.com.
"About 220," said Stupak.
"So, you've got a two-vote margin there?" asked CNSNews.com
"Correct," said Stupak.
If Stupak's bloc of Democrats holds together against a rule, Stupak said, "They cannot bring the bill to the floor."
Stupak's amendment was defeated by a vote of 28 to 30 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, when that committee was drafting its version of the health-care bill. Stupak's serves on the committee and is chairman of its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Stupak said that House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.) has told him there is "no way" her committee will write a rule that allows a floor vote on his amendment. The Democratic majority on the Rules Committee, Stupak said, acts on the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is suspected of being a cynical ploy, so that they can say they voted against it before voting for it. Pelosi loses nothing by permitting a vote she knows will lose, or just be discarded by the conference committee. But it will give these blue dog Democrats cover from having a rotting albatross hung about their collective necks.
How many times have you heard Barack Obama talk about "the fierce urgency of now"? The president has used the quote, from Martin Luther King Jr., to call for quick action on the war in Iraq, on global warming, on homelessness, on education -- you name it.
Now, Obama and his fellow Democrats are trying to convince the nation of the fiercely urgent need to enact national health care reform this very instant.
"We have been waiting for health reform since the days of Teddy Roosevelt," Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation in September. "We cannot wait any longer. ... There comes a time to remember the fierce urgency of right now."
But the American people simply do not share Obama's sense of urgency about health care reform. In a new poll, the Gallup organization asked the following question: "If Congress is going to reform the health care system, should Congress deal with health care reform on a gradual basis over several years, or should Congress try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year?" Just 38 percent of those surveyed want reform now, versus a clear majority -- 58 percent -- who want reform on a gradual basis.
When you break Gallup's results down by political party, you see that Democrats are the only ones feeling any urgency at all. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats want reform now, but 77 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of independents, want gradual reform. When it comes to health care reform, there is no fierce urgency of now.
The plain fact is, the public's top priority lies elsewhere. "The only issue that people have a sense of fierce urgency about right now is the economy and jobs," says Republican pollster David Winston. "The president is in an uphill battle to try to move the discussion to other topics."
It's not that people think health care is unimportant. They just think the economy and jobs are more important -- far more important.
Obama knows that; that's why he tries to link health care and economic recovery, arguing that we can't have real recovery without health care reform. But people aren't buying it.
For a recent report to House Republican leader Rep. John Boehner, Winston asked people to judge two different approaches to today's woes. The choice was between "Republicans who say Congress should be focusing on long-term policies that create jobs, like small business and family tax relief, and controlling federal spending to get our economy moving again," and "Democrats who say that health insurance reform is key to jump-starting the economy by expanding coverage to the uninsured, lowering costs, and restricting the worst insurance company practices, and we must get it done this year."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Angomolet Bluetooth1153 - you sound surprised that banks that took TARP funds are some of the biggest users of "offshore" services. Just helping to save or create non-US jobs. Kind of like the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Thanks a heap Barack!
"The U.S. Government Accountability Office questions whether the bailout saved anything other than the jobs of greedy Wall Street executives and the political hides of their protectors in government."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...and numerous European banks and investment institutions that had gambled on derivative paper on unsecured mortgages that were subsequently 'honored' by the same Fed-Wall Street cliche.
#3
Bad for capitalism as well. People who didn't take the risks are being forced to pay those who did and lost.
The essence of capitalism is people risking their own money and wearing the loss when the risk doesn't pay off.
It's bothered me for a while that the real problem is the huge pools of money in retirement schemes and similar, which so called professionals are playing with and at the same time paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses, while the real owners of that capital are completely excluded from making the decisions.
#5
The essence of capitalism is people risking their own money and wearing the loss when the risk doesn't pay off. The other part of the definition is people risking their own money and getting the profit when the risk does pay off. The way many corporations are now run, the shareholders are the last to see any profits, while corporate insiders make out like bandits. There used to be a time when small time capitalists could buy stocks (such as those of railroads), hold on to them, and live on the dividends the stocks paid. Charles Darwin financed his own scientific career that way. It seems like a fable now.
Congressional candidate Doug Hoffman said Thursday he would be willing to sacrifice a sizeable portion of his income if it meant the adoption of a simpler, fairer tax code.
But if history is any indication, Hoffman won't be facing a loss of revenue any time soon.
Hoffman, a certified public accountant who is the Conservative Party candidate for New York's 23rd Congressional District seat, called Thursday for replacing the current U.S. income tax with a flat tax. The move would greatly simplify the tax code, allowing people who are intimidated by the existing complex laws governing taxes to avoid having to pay professionals to prepare their tax returns, he said during a press conference across the street from the federal building in Syracuse, the home to the local office of the Internal Revenue Service.
"The tax code that we have is so complex. ... It's basically corrupt," said Hoffman, who estimated that roughly half the business done by his accounting firm is helping taxpayers deal with the IRS. "We need a flat tax system in the United States."
Hoffman is facing Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava in the race to succeed Republican John M. McHugh, who was named secretary of the Army earlier this year by President Barack Obama.
The U.S. currently uses a progressive tax system, under which people who earn more money pay a greater percentage of their total income in taxes. A flat tax would have every wage earner pay the same percentage of their income in taxes - no matter how much or how little they earn. The flat tax would also eliminate deductions that are allowed under the current laws.
Supporters of a flat tax argue that such a tax is fairer to everyone and would result in many people actually paying less in taxes than they do now. Because a flat tax is simple, more people would pay their taxes and the cost of overseeing the income tax system would decrease, they claim.
Opponents argue that a flat tax places a disproportionate burden on lower- and middle-income wage earners.
Hoffman said that because many people would pay less under a flat tax plan, more money would be available for investment in the businesses and industries that create jobs.
"High taxes and complex government regulations and red tape stifles businesses," Hoffman said.
Flat tax plans have been brought forth periodically in recent years, with little success. Democrat Jerry Brown included a flat tax proposal in his platform during his 1992 presidential bid. Republican Steve Forbes proposed a similar plan during his presidential bid four years later. Republican Richard Armey, who served as majority leader in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, championed the idea in the House and has continued to press the proposal since leaving office.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Phew! I first read this as a flatuence tax. That would hurt.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/24/2009 6:20 Comments ||
Top||
(CNSNews.com) -- When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the "Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform," that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:
CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
"You want ME, yes ME to be held back by some unimportant piece of paper"
Which is what Caesar will say to her as she is lead out from his presence. Remember in those last moments, that if it doesn't withhold power from you, it won't withhold power from others. Four thousand years of human history tells us all how it ends.
#7
"argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce."
-they are out of their f*cking mind...keep it up assholes and you will not like the consequences of your actions, a giant is about to wake up.
#8
Sent to me by a friend in the financial community:
The BRIC's (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and the rest of the G20 are very unhappy with the profligate spending and QE (i.e., printing money) the US has used to combat the financial mess that began in 2007. They have privately and very bluntly told Ben B & Timmy G they will NOT accept a 30-40% debasement of the USD and unbridled US Treasury issuance.
Our creditors have given the US a deadline of early-mid November to show we have ceased QE backed up by the threat that they will cease ALL foreign purchases of UST (not just slowing them as they have done so far) as the stick. (Note: To show they are serious witness the current weakness in UST purchases and jawboning by everyone from China to Japan to France.)
Banks are terrified about credit seizing up again as their BS are still stuffed full of crap that they can not heal or sell but refuse to sell in the hopes that "pretend & extend" (ala Japan) might miraculously work out--this time.
As a result of the very credible creditor threats to halt UST purchases (resulting in a huge FAIL in the bond markets and interest rates spiking 5% higher) and the Banksters mounting credit & consumer loan losses which are just now also seeing a huge wave of Comm Real Estate defaults, the banks have begun to hoard cash as evidenced by the huge reserves held at the Fed and the reluctance to lend and/or prefer all cash RE transactions.
This lock down will cause another credit freeze up, a retest of market lows from earlier this year (or worse?) and the USD to strengthen (at least temporarily).
I suspect the day of reckoning is fast approaching.....probably a good idea to stand by for another hurricane.
Randy
#9
Absolutely ridiculous Broadhead. Indomitable majority and a nuclear option, and the Court will stamp anything signed by Emir Obama. There's absolutely nothing that will stop this and you'll suck it up and pay out like the rest of the idiotic Bushies. You've got nobody to blame for this but yourselves, so just f9cking bend over right now.
#12
Is that the educated opinion from Kuala Lumpur these days, Dino Jaique7142? There is no reason to think the Supreme Court will rubber stamp the president's desires. All but one precede him in office by a good many years, and likely all but one will still be there when he retires to Chicago... or Hawaii. They have their own reputations to think about, my dear, an whether they will be known as the Court of Plessy v. Ferguson or the Court of Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas..
I've posted before about the Bahais whom the Islamic Republic of Iran has charged with capital offenses and imprisoned. There is no basis for the charges. The Iranian government's motivation appears, plain and simply, to be religious intolerance. There's background here.
Well, today the House of Representatives voted 407-2 to condemn Tehran for its state-sponsored persecution of its Baháí minority."
The two dissenters: Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/24/2009 07:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Dennis is coming up on the 2 year anniversary Oct 31, 2007 of the report above.
And the other guy :
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. Ron Paul
#4
I think Paul's argument is that this is none of our business, that darn near every nation has to a greater or lesser extent a "persecuted minority", at least in the opinion of that minority, and most importantly, the only reason for pointing this out is to justify foreign adventures.
The Soviet Union used to be very big on this, using "the mistreatment of blacks in the American South", as an excuse to do lots of totally unrelated and abusive crapola that had nothing to do with American blacks. I think they even included it as a reason that America should not involve itself with the invasion of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
House Republicans say they'll press on with their efforts to dethrone House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel -- despite the fact that the Republican leading their charge now faces ethical issues of his own. 
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had a blunt response Friday to the latest broadsides from former Vice President Dick Cheney: "Who cares?"
