- Milestone reached on immigration overhaul
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sits this one out
- New Palestinian prime minister, Rami Hamdallah, offers resignation
- Fed Chairman Ben Bernake said little yesterday in his press conference and the markets plummeted
- Edward Snowden’s extradition will prove complicated
- Prettier in Print
- David Harsanyi on the media’s “shameful” coverage of the abortion debate
- Joe Nocera: “How to tweet in Mandarin“
- RIP James Gandolfini
I never claimed to be a brainy person; it's not really relevant as much as if what I'm arguing is closer to the facts at hand. But if the best we get to argue against are trolls like ahandout and paulejb, I do fear the sane part of GOP is gone.
Amazing the level of discourse in the Obamacare thread. And this one actually got three likes.
mantisdragon91 KillAtWill In that case, all of the non-Democrats should stop paying taxes for OhBumemrCare and every other Democrat program. You don't need us --- so goodbye, bloodsxckers!
This lady is a National Treasure:
I asked the President's nominee to be Trade Representative-Michael Froman-three questions: First, would he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text [the full text of the TPP as it currently stands]? Or second, if not, would he commit to releasing just a scrubbed version of the bracketed text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision... Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made [available] to the trade office's outside advisors. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisors that have access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some labor and NGO representatives too. But there is no transparency around who gets what information and whether they all see the same things, and I think that's a real problem. Mr. Froman's response was clear: No, no, no.
"All throughout her career, from her law students to big bankers to nominees to be trade representative, people have found that it is much better to be able to answer Professor Senator Warren's questions than not to answer them. (600 outside advisors? Really?) She also took off after the entire notion of the Trans Pacific Partnership."
"I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant," Warren explained. "In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States."
This is surreal:
Bill O'Reilly and Kirsten Powers sparred about drones on Wednesday's "O'Reilly Factor," when the Fox News host said he wanted to know why "far-left loons" who oppose drones and Guantanamo are "so crazy."
“Only crazy people don’t want drones, Bill?” Powers asked. O'Reilly asked how else, if not by using drones, people should "protect" themselves against terrorists.
The two disagreed on almost every single point that the other person brought up. Powers demanded evidence that drone warfare has actually protected the United States. An indignant O'Reilly asked if she was saying that the attacks "have not badly damaged the enemy."
Powers argued that by bombing civilians, drones have actually spurred more antagonism towards the United States and created more potential terrorists. "So in a war on terror, you're not supposed to attack the enemy because they might get mad?" O'Reilly asked.
When he pressed on the number of civilians who have been killed, she responded, "Are you seriously saying that civilians are not being killed by drones?"
"They don't launch the drones unless there is a likelihood that civilians will not be killed," O'Reilly shot back.
"That's not true," Powers declared.
"That's what President Obama said flat-out," O'Reilly said, adding that the president should get "the benefit of the doubt" in lieu of other evidence.
The issue has been a contentious one for pundits — particularly at the beginning of the year as Obama readied to nominate John Brennan, the architect of the drone program, to the post of CIA director. The debate about drones, however, has taken a backseat to the Obama administration's other controversies in recent weeks.
I hope the GOP forces a gov't closure, and take the heat for it in the midterms
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday that he would negotiate a debt-ceiling increase with spending cuts, potentially setting up another fight with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.
"Well, you know, I could say the sun's not going to come up tomorrow, but guess what? It is. So the president can say,
'I'm not going to negotiate on the debt limit.' Get over it," he told CNBC, in an interview scheduled to air later Thursday. "We're spending more money than what we're bringing in. We have to deal with this problem. And if we're going to raise the debt limit then we've got to do something about what's causing us to spend more money than what we bring in."
"So guess what? We're going to have a debate and we're going to have a negotiation," said Boehner.
Boehner's comments could set up a repeat of 2011, when House Republicans used raising the debt ceiling to extract spending cuts, which resulted in across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. However, the next time around, in January, the House voted to suspend the debt ceiling until May without concessions.
Because of cash flow, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has anticipated that the United States government will not need new borrowing authority until Labor Day to meet its obligations.
Until 2011, both parties historically had raised the debt ceiling without linking it to other spending priorities.
Government welfare is loved by all. Until it stops.
Stock market plummets amid talk of Fed stimulus slowdown; Dow down 322
WASHINGTON — The House has rejected a five year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.
Those cuts weren't deep enough for many Republicans who objected to the cost of the nearly $80 billion-a-year program, which has doubled in the past five years. The vote was 234-195 against the bill, with 62 Republicans voting against it.
The bill also suffered from lack of Democratic support necessary for the traditionally bipartisan farm bill to pass. Only 24 Democrats voted in favor of the legislation after many said the food stamp cuts could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls. The addition of the optional state work requirements by an amendment just before final passage turned away any remaining Democratic votes the bill's supporters may have had.
Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said the work requirements, along with another vote that scuttled a proposed dairy overhaul, turned too many lawmakers against the measure.
"Our people didn't know this was coming," Peterson said after the vote.
Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said the same, telling reporters the vote "turned out to be a heavier lift even than I expected. "
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., voted for the bill, but Boehner supported the dairy amendment and Cantor supported the amendment that imposed the work requirements.
Lucas and Peterson had warned that adoption of those amendments could contribute to the bill's downfall.
An audit of Washington, DC's paid sick leave program reveals skeptics were wrong about its impact on businesses
@MrObvious I'm waving your IQ at you, and that's a half a digit bonus for you.
They'll never figure it out.
@mantisdragon91 I peeked in on that thread, then backed away in horror.
It's just a snakepit of stupid.
@La_Randy I say again, thank you, Massachusetts.
@La_Randy She's a treasure, as one of the 10 most corrupt politicians.
What a moronic argument - if people knew they would stop it? DUH - if you're not representing American citizens then you have no damn business legislating.
Seems like Kirsten operates based on facts and O'Reilly gets his from the dark place.
They never learn. They must be really confident about their gerrymandered districts in order to repeat what caused them to lose in 2012. At this rate their midterm is going to be a bloodbath.
If Obama concedes one dime of spending in exchange for the debt-ceiling increase, he'll rue the day. He absolutely must stand firm. Let the Republicans crash the economy now -- it's preferable to the slow death of a thousand budget cuts that otherwise awaits us, and maybe when all those Obama-hating gun lovers have their unemployment benefits cut off they'll begin to understand who's really on their side.
@ahandout You mean even the banks and capitalists that are railing against it? Oh the irony.
@outsider2011 $2 billion from food stamps - no problem, but we need to cut more. But a fetus, that may not ever be born as a result of natural circumstances, protect at all costs Once born, meh.
The farm bill also provides the greatest support to corporate agriculture operations.
Oh, sure. Next you'll be tellling us that the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment and that increased taxes on the rich won't hurt job formation. No one who is anyone buys that sort of snake oil. Ask President Romney.
Oh, you would not believe how many of them sport the profile of a domestic terrorist.
I'm serious! I almost had my virtual head virtually blown off be a self-described "patriot"!
I'm doing my part to destroy the thread. paulejb is accusing me of being drunk so I gave up. It's almost at 1000 comments now.
I enjoyed it too.
I thought they killed you. Aren't you supposed to be dead, or something?
It's great when one can do a two man deadpan routine trying to come up with the most hilarious, and frankly, stank, caricatures of their most cherished talking points.
At this point I'm just trolling it; I'm waiting for a sane 'winger to temper me but I guess I make sense.
That way, every state would have two :)
@mantisdragon91 @ahandout @MrObvious Politicians, in general are in it for themselves. Those that put out the most BS about how they are fighting for you, the middle class, or the downtrodden are the ones that are really in it for themselves. You could take away the banks and even the money, and politicians would open up their bordello to trade favors. Its the history of the world.
The Obama administration is guided by and staffed by liberals that slink back and forth between government positions and corporations, such as Citi. Turbo Tax Timmy ring a bell? Barry loves Citibank.
I see, so it wasn't phoney when the previous 3 admins did it? Only when 'Obama' continued pumping money into the system that started as parts of the Feds attempt to kickstart the economy under Bush? Just wondering if you actually care about what's going on or if it's just that 'Obama' did it. Not what's functionally wrong with our center right system.
ahandout is mad that the government is propping up the for profit companies leeching off our political system; he's not actually mad that our private companies have that kind of influence over it.