Usa Thread

[Steve]

Congress gets whatever pay and benes it wants because they recommend their own package and even though the president signing off on it is a check, no president is gonna say no, espeially with many in his own party and he needs congress to pass his programs. Furthermore its congress that approves his pay and benes so its quid pro quo.

 

What I would like to see is a change that congressional pay is provided by each state. There is probably some issue because they are 'federal' employees. I'm not sure if its rooted in any law. In any event whatever needs to happen to change their pay to be from their state is what i propose. It does mean that each congressperson will have different pay packages according to the state they are from but it least the people of that state can more directly reward or punish bad congresspersons according to how they see fit. The congressmean represents a district or the state so let them pay for it.

 

With regards to the military retirement, there is plenty of money there. The defense budget is bloated. I read a few differnet articles a while back saying that anywhere from a trillion to 2 trillion has disappeared over the years without a trace in the defendse budget, so 100 billion is nothing. The money is there. Its just being wasted elsewhere. The money is there for better VA help as well.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Jesus, I hate these scumbag politicians. First of all, SS and Medicare are not entitlements - since we PAY INTO THEM WITH OUR OWN MONEY.

 

You are correct. They are forms of "annuities", as are retirement plans and health plans for employees/retirees.

 

HH

[Flashermac]

Cleaver: If Obama wasn't president, we would be ‘marching on the White House’

 

 

Unhappy members of the Congressional Black Caucus “probably would be marching on the White House†if Obama were not president, according to CBC Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).

 

"If [former President] Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House," Cleaver told “The Miami Herald†in comments published Sunday. "There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president."

 

CBC members have expressed concern in recent months as the unemployment rate has continued to rise amongst African-Americans, pushing for Obama to do more to address the needs of vulnerable communities.

 

"We’re supportive of the president, but we getting tired, y’all,†Rep. Maxine "The Mouth" Waters (D-Calif.) said in August. “We want to give [Obama] every opportunity, but our people are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don’t know what the strategy is."

 

Rather than targeting Obama’s leadership, many CBC members aimed their fire at the Tea Party movement over the summer’s congressional recess. Waters said in a public meeting in her district that the Tea Party "can go straight to hell." Another member, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), called the Tea Party “the real enemy†seeking to hold Congress “hostage.â€

 

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), the only Republican member of the CBC and also a member of the Tea Party Caucus, objected to hostile language used by members targeting the Tea Party movement and threatened to leave the caucus unless Cleaver condemned remarks made by other members. West singled out comments from Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.), the CBC’s whip, who said that Tea Party-affiliated members of Congress see African-Americans as "second-class citizens" and would be happy to see them "hanging from a tree."

 

Cleaver persuaded West to remain a member of the caucus, with West indicating later that one reason he decided to stay was that the CBC membership needed a conservative presence.

 

“I will not be resigning from the Congressional Black Caucus,†West wrote on his Facebook following a meeting with Cleaver at the beginning of September. “Cowards run from challenges, while warriors run to the sound of battle.â€

 

According to West, he is working with Cleaver to produce a plan to confront the rate for unemployment amongst African-Americans, which at 16.7 percent is nearly double the rate nationwide.

 

Cleaver acknowledged that some of the things members of his caucus say might not be in the best interests of the “aggressive agenda†he said he is seeking to develop as chairman.

 

“Maxine Waters represents central Los Angeles first and she has to represent her constituents first and she's going to say things in order to represent them,†he said.

 

 

My link

[Flashermac]

Why Obama should withdraw

 

 

When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was "Morning in America." For Barack Obama, it's more like midnight in a coal mine.

 

The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette.

 

His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.

 

The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic."

 

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

 

That might be the sensible thing to do. It's hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn't, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

 

It's not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, "Second-Term Blues," that "their second terms did not measure up to their first."

 

Presidential encores are generally a bog of frustration, exhaustion and embarrassment. They are famous for lowest moments rather than finest hours. Richard Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal, and Bill Clinton made the unfortunate acquaintance of Monica Lewinsky.

 

Administration officials get weary after four years and leave in droves. The junior varsity has to be put into service. New ideas are hard to come by.

 

Someone said that when a man is smitten with a beautiful woman, he should remember that somebody somewhere is tired of her. Likewise, the most inspiring presidents get stale after years of constant overexposure.

 

In the event he wins, Obama could find himself with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Then he will long for the good old days of 2011. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner will bound out of bed each day eager to make his life miserable.

 

Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

 

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's.

 

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

 

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.

 

Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president. Oh, and a new Bloomberg poll finds her to be merely "the most popular national political figure in America today."

 

If he runs for re-election, Obama may find that the only fate worse than losing is winning. But he might arrange things so it will be Clinton who has the unenviable job of reviving the economy, balancing the budget, getting out of Afghanistan and grappling with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Obama, meanwhile, will be on a Hawaiian beach, wrestling the cap off a Corona.

 

 

---------

 

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board

 

 

Chicago Tribune

[Bangkoktraveler]

I guess people think the Republicans can do better?

[Steve]

This may be a case of if the media repeats it often enough that Obama won't win then people will not vote for him who otherwise may have.

 

Don't get me wrong, he's in a tough position but national polls still have him ahead of each candidate individually. Romney is a close call and interestingly enough Paul is the next to run best head to head against him. Better than Perry.

[robaus]

More trouble ahead for USA if Perry elected....

 

Last night he criticized Obama's Middle East policy...

 

"The Obama policy of moral equivalency, which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a dangerous

insult."

 

[Which one is he talking about?]

 

Mr Perry accused President Obama of a policy of "appeasement" in the Middle East. The Texas governor said his religious faith was a reason for his support of Israel.

 

"Both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel," Mr Perry told reporters.

 

It's a worry when a Presidentilal hopeful takes guidance for America's foreign policy, safety, and self interest by consulting a popular work of fiction and hearing voices from imaginary supernatural friends.

 

[Julian2]

Just tying up the Jewish vote.

[Steve]

The more Perry (as well as Bachman) makes statements such as those it pushes independents towards Obama. Obama would love to face Perry in the general election instead of Romney. Romney is the best bet...unless he does a 'Palin' and picks a running mate that takes away votes.

Moderate and fiscal republicans like Paul but think he has no chance and some are a wee bit embarassed to publicly back him.

 

Whom ever wins for the Republicans their nomination party will be much better than the Dems. Obama will give a great speech but the effect won't be the same. It will be seen as rhetoric by a lot of folks. The bad thing for him is its becoming 'his' economy and not Bush's any longer. Obama's big advantage is money and organization. Usually that's the advantage of the republicans. However, I don't think near as much people will join his campaign troops as did prior.

[Flashermac]

Palestinian move hits Obama vote base

 

 

 

Barack Obama has been managing a global diplomatic tangle between Israel and Palestine at the UN in New York this week.

 

Mr Obama will hold talks with Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, on Wednesday evening. This will follow planned discussions with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli leader, earlier in the day.

 

The tangle has left the beleaguered president juggling an acutely sensitive domestic issue with ramifications for his re-election.

 

At a time when Mr Obama is sweating on every vote he can muster for the 2012 poll, the Palestinian push for statehood is playing into the Republican narrative that he has let Israel and the US Jewish community down.

 

A sliver of the electorate, making up a little under 3 per cent of voters, the Jewish community is nonetheless pivotal in the swing states of Florida and Ohio, and also important for fundraising.

 

“Mr Obama does not want to get into an unproductive fight with Israel,†said Aaron David Miller, a longtime State Department expert on the Middle East who is now at the Woodrow Wilson Centre.

 

Despite repeated attempts by Republicans to woo them away, Jewish voters have remained a bastion of Democratic support in almost a century of presidential polls. In 2008, Mr Obama was backed by about eight in 10 Jewish voters.

 

“American Jews do not merely favour Democrats; historically, they are the second most reliable bloc of Democratic voters after African-Americans,†said Jay Lefkowitz, a lawyer and a former adviser to George W. Bush.

 

Mr Lefkowitz said the Jewish community had remained avowedly liberal since the first wave of immigrants grew up under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and that most Americans Jews had never been to Israel in any case.

 

“It is almost as if they vote with their right hand, they worry it will fall off. Many Jews can only vote with their left hand,†he said.

 

But Republicans sense an opening in the difficult relationship between Mr Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu, and have publicly taken the Israeli Prime Minister’s side in his disputes with the administration.

 

[More ...]

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Times