The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But for society as a whole, it's just not practical

But it's incredibly realistic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

and the lower levels die off.

That's not inherently a bad thing, depending upon the contribution of those lower levels to the eco-system.

Unless of course you just want them there for aesthetic purposes, in which case you have to be able to afford that luxury AND be willing to forego other non-necessities to fund them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

A company doesn't exist in a vacuum to solely provide profits to their shareholders ... That is lazy thinking.

Believing otherwise is astonishingly naive thinking.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Believing otherwise is astonishingly naive thinking.

Yes, a company should do anything at all possible to make money for their investors. In a vacuum, that makes sense. In the real world, that is why there are things like safety regulations, environmental regulations, and financial oversight.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's not inherently a bad thing, depending upon the contribution of those lower levels to the eco-system.

Unless of course you just want them there for aesthetic purposes, in which case you have to be able to afford that luxury AND be willing to forego other non-necessities to fund them.

But if there are no servants available, that silver isn't going to polish itself. Or grow the arugula. Or make the limos.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

But if there are no servants available, that silver isn't going to polish itself. Or grow the arugula. Or make the limos.

If supply exceeds the demand ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yes, a company should do anything at all possible to make money for their investors. In a vacuum, that makes sense. In the real world, that is why there are things like safety regulations, environmental regulations, and financial oversight.

Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste.

Wow. Both lazy AND naive. Congrats.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Wow. Both lazy AND naive. Congrats.

Just painfully realistic and honest to a fault.

[cartman]

Yet you continue to castigate Ron Paul, when he would strive to create your non regulated dream world.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yet you continue to castigate Ron Paul, when he would strive to create your non regulated dream world.

You're confusing legitimate & positive deregulation with anarchy (or at least reasonable & justifiable regulation, which Paul typically lacks).

Not the same thing.

[cartman]

You yourself said "Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste."

There is no possible way that all current regulations are not either legitimate or positive, thus reinforcing my claim of laziness and/or naivete.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I agree but only to a point.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that a large centralized government causes all of this. It's a chicken and egg problem- if you had small state-level governments, don't TW, Cox, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc still all buy up smaller competitors with or without government intervention? And if you have large companies, don't they just try to create a larger more powerful government to help unlevel the playing field for them? Again, so long as there are larger entities, there will be a power arms race.

The large centralized government does this because these companies aren't lobbying 50 individual state governments & their 100s of associated franchises. There is an easy button that was put in place called centralized authority. Again, this centralized authority trumps the local market's ability to set parameters around offering services in their communities. Yes, sometimes those communities are unreasonable & ask for ridiculous amounts of compensation but at the end of the day they are still accountable to their local community. How is the federal (or centralized authority) level accountable to these communities now? How do these communities know that they are being properly compensated for not only the benefit of competition...but the lost jobs that follow because there is "no more business to be done at the local level".

And yes, some level of consolidation with these companies always occurs. I'll give you an anecdotal line I heard one time from a regional director I met a while back when I was first starting in the industry. He said..."I have 2 books in the bottom drawer of my desk. 1 is a playbook for centralizing operations to gain efficiency...the other is a playbook for decentralizing
to gain accountability. I pull 1 or the other out every 5 years."

The point is that companies centralize & decentralize all the time based on market conditions. But adding incentive to centralize everything (more rapidly than its organic path) is a big contributor to the problems we see with "nobody is hiring because there is no work to be done". Our legislation has pulled out the need to do any "work" to offer a product to communities & as such...no need for those job functions or roles. I'm not advocating protectionism in job functions, but accountability was there and now it is not.

Secondly- 20% make that decision? Not in the least. I work for corporate America- I even supervise roughly 20 people. Myself and none of those below me and even none at my level or the next two to four levels up have any sort of real influence towards that. You're talking about a handful of folks, probably 100 or so- certainly less than 1000, in a 300K worker company with any real influence over that process. That's well under 1%.

Top 20% from an income standpoint is what I meant...not literally 20% of the people. Maybe its more fair to say top 10% but my point was that while "decisions" may be made by the 1%...the 10% are the ones with the idea, plan, and knowledge that it takes to execute restructuring plans. But it isn't their job to recommend "hey Mr. CEO...we're tanking right now & not selling a dam thing but since you are rich, can't we just keep some of our redundant job functions around because it will help keep them as customers as well?"

I'm being facetious obviously, but that is what I mean by the "monster" that is corp-America. It doesn't even take the 1% to make such decisions...the decisions are self-evident across the entire management teams that have any insight into the finances. I actually work for some outstanding people that are much more progressive than myself. But reducing costs when you have to reduce your prices because there are less customers with less money isn't a problem my execs can solve with their charity.

At some point, our generation is going to realize the con that is the stock market. Baby boomers will start cashing out and there will be less and less worth in it. We'll reach some tipping point where a significant portion of our generation just is through with it and pull out and the rest of the market just craters without that tent pole. At the end of the day, you can't fucking justify taking away people's livelihood "because of an obligation to the shareholders". People try to moralize it now and it's partially creepy but mostly met with indifference because we all have some skin in the game and that retirement money is greater than our odds of losing our job. But when we're staring a depression in the face with 30% unemployment- no one is going to care about silly rationalizations and mindless corporate worship. Because not having food has an emperor's new clothes effect on "because it's the way it's always been done".

I think you're conflating 2 issues here though.

I agree the stock market is a con. 401k has been a nice economic activity driver for a number of years now but just like all bubbles created by baby boomers (not all purposely, mind you...but sheer numbers) it will also pop some day. The only incentive is how much of your money is matched by your employer...I know I sure as hell wouldn't be putting my money there if I wasn't getting a nice match from my employer as I simply don't have the time or inclination to play the game.

What I take exception with is the notion that "shareholders" don't deserve to be given priority in preserving their investment. That is why their money is there in the first place & why people are entrusted to watch after it...because it is not their obligation to invest, its their choice. You & I are both shareholders in many companies I'd imagine & I would not appreciate some CEO running his company to bankruptcy, losing all my money into a black hole, but telling me "well, we kept em working a little too long on doing nothing despite having no sales & not accepting a salary myself for a year". Not acceptable obviously.

You are seeing society as this place where everybody "should" be looking after each other equally. Guess what? Not everybody shares that view to begin with even if you & I agree in principle...and that view goes across ALL income ranges. The common denominator historically is equal rights, not equal results.

But I will agree that equal results is a more desirable outcome (or flatter)...I just disagree that focusing more authority to centralized government makes that happen. And the risk of a more centralized government becoming well, what we already think it is an Oligarchy is much higher.

[SteveMax58]

Dola,

Holy s--t thats a long post. Thats what happens after some coffee.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yes, a company should do anything at all possible to make money for their investors. In a vacuum, that makes sense. In the real world, that is why there are things like safety regulations, environmental regulations, and financial oversight.

Naturally they need parameters to work within but to me, Jon's point is valid in the sense that the more regulation & adherence to standards that are needed...the larger & larger companies become.

Not always to maximize profit, but to be more influential in that regulation process. And the more piles of regulation documents you stack up on the desk of a 20-person company to adhere to...the less able they are to compete and more willing they are to sell off to the "big guys" because these, in and of themselves, are barriers to market entrance where you need a LOT of capital to even think about getting in.

This is the fundamental problem people like myself have with regulation & overreach of the federal government. You are creating a system where only somebody AS BIG as the government can adhere to...the government. And we wonder why faceless corporations lay us off? Because we are just numbers...we don't work for "Bill" any more...Bill is just some manager now that got put out of business by a faceless conglomerate. But you won't solve any of that with more regulation.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Naturally they need parameters to work within but to me, Jon's point is valid in the sense that the more regulation & adherence to standards that are needed...the larger & larger companies become.

Not always to maximize profit, but to be more influential in that regulation process. And the more piles of regulation documents you stack up on the desk of a 20-person company to adhere to...the less able they are to compete and more willing they are to sell off to the "big guys" because these, in and of themselves, are barriers to market entrance where you need a LOT of capital to even think about getting in.

This is the fundamental problem people like myself have with regulation & overreach of the federal government. You are creating a system where only somebody AS BIG as the government can adhere to...the government. And we wonder why faceless corporations lay us off? Because we are just numbers...we don't work for "Bill" any more...Bill is just some manager now that got put out of business by a faceless conglomerate. But you won't solve any of that with more regulation.

Almost every small business is going to be far more burdened by state and local regulations than by federal. Everything from licensing to zoning to permitting happens at levels lower than the federal government. For example, very few small businesses run into any problems with EPA regulations.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Almost every small business is going to be far more burdened by state and local regulations than by federal. Everything from licensing to zoning to permitting happens at levels lower than the federal government. For example, very few small businesses run into any problems with EPA regulations.

The EPA would prevent them from ever starting.

But my example should probably be more like 50-100 person companies rather than 20. I'm talking small(er) businesses such as the traditional regional type businesses like grocers, an internet access provider, certain types of manufacturing, etc.

But that's the beauty of local regulation...if its too cumbersome, it will give at some point because local communities will demand it. Perhaps not as quickly as you'd like but it will.

[SteveMax58]

Just to add...I'd say there are a lot of local barriers to entry as well. But lets have those localities be more accountable for getting some of those barriers reduced or streamlined rather than adding more from a federal level, or taking complete control away.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

The EPA would prevent them from ever starting.

But my example should probably be more like 50-100 person companies rather than 20. I'm talking small(er) businesses such as the traditional regional type businesses like grocers, an internet access provider, certain types of manufacturing, etc.

But that's the beauty of local regulation...if its too cumbersome, it will give at some point because local communities will demand it. Perhaps not as quickly as you'd like but it will.

What businesses aren't starting because of EPA regulations? I don't think that's a significant barrier to employment.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste.

Perhaps increased growth and productivity shouldn't be the only goal for society--especially, you know, when it comes at the cost of destroying it.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What businesses aren't starting because of EPA regulations? I don't think that's a significant barrier to employment.

The EPA is only 1 arm of government regulation...its the sum of all parts that make it more ideal for a massive entity to do better than a smaller entity.

You gave the EPA as an example of why the federal government is less restrictive than a local government & I said they would be the type of regulation arm to prevent a business from ever conceptualizing. But there are many other factors that have nothing to do with the EPA so I'm not sure there's a valid answer to your question which presumes opposition to any government = opposition to any standards.

[flounder]

One example is the CPSIA. A lot of small businesses were hurt or even forced to shut down because of the cost of compliance. They just couldn't afford to submit their products to a lab for destructive testing. Large corporations? They were granted a waiver to allow them to do their testing internally.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What businesses aren't starting because of EPA regulations? I don't think that's a significant barrier to employment.

Oil and gas drilling here in Colorado (and to some extent recently, hydrofracking in many parts of the country) seem to go through wild swings of not getting permitted from the state and feds. I'll have to look up what caused the massive decline, and shutting of businesses (new and old) of that industry here in Colorado in the 1980s(?) that caused significant unemployment and the ripple effect of devastating the real estate market (and jobs).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flounder

One example is the CPSIA. A lot of small businesses were hurt or even forced to shut down because of the cost of compliance. They just couldn't afford to submit their products to a lab for destructive testing. Large corporations? They were granted a waiver to allow them to do their testing internally.

Do you have specific examples?

I'm not saying regulation can't hurt businesses, but the kinds of regulations that come from the federal government are generally not as important to small businesses as are state and local regulations. Even the energy examples Buc gave are largely about state regulations (at least here in NY and PA).

Gutting federal regulations will benefit big business without doing much of anything for small business. One thing I'd do for small business is severely reduce the license requirements for most professions. That alone would do more to reduce entry barriers than anything with the EPA, and it's state and local controlled so in theory it should be easier to do than changing the federal government.

[Buccaneer]

If I recall from working with our Environmental Services department, many of the state regulations and permits were mandated by the feds, following the feds rules and guidelines. While most of the reportings are submitted to the State EPA, they act as a clearhouse for the feds.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Gutting federal regulations will benefit big business without doing much of anything for small business.

Agreed, but how do you put the genie back in the bottle is the bigger problem at this point.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Do you have specific examples?

I'm not saying regulation can't hurt businesses, but the kinds of regulations that come from the federal government are generally not as important to small businesses as are state and local regulations. Even the energy examples Buc gave are largely about state regulations (at least here in NY and PA).

Gutting federal regulations will benefit big business without doing much of anything for small business. One thing I'd do for small business is severely reduce the license requirements for most professions. That alone would do more to reduce entry barriers than anything with the EPA, and it's state and local controlled so in theory it should be easier to do than changing the federal government.

There's a list of citations from news articles at the Wikipedia link. You can also check out the Handmade Toy Alliance web site for more info.

I'm not sure why you would say that federal regulations aren't important to small businesses. They are still subject to the regulations, and because they don't have economies of scale, the relative cost of regulation is much higher. In addition, a lot of regulations are written by lobbyists for large industries. They have a vested interest in making barriers to entry as large as possible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

You yourself said "Each of which I firmly believe are overly restrictive, to the point of being unreasonably punitive & downright petty to the point of being a detriment to productivity & should be scaled back considerably with all immediate haste."

There is no possible way that all current regulations are not either legitimate or positive, thus reinforcing my claim of laziness and/or naivete.

Which is why I said "scaled back considerably" instead of "eliminated entirely". Seems entirely sufficient for the purposes of this thread (or any other internet thread for that matter).

If you're looking for an itemized laundry list try someone with a great deal more time & patience than I've got. If I end up with the authority to eliminate any with the stroke of a pen/keyboard then I'll have a great deal more enthusiasm for being thorough.

[Edward64]

I don't remember her being so hawkish (or at least in public).

Rice: U.S. Should Do Everything Possible To Bring Down Iran's Government | Fox News

WASHINGTON – The U.S. should consider tougher penalties against Iran's government and "be doing everything we can to bring it down," Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.

As Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday" that sanctions should be removed altogether to get Iran to act differently, the former secretary of state under George W. Bush told ABC's "This Week" that the U.S. should never take the option of military force off the table when it comes to dealing with Iran.

Ron Paul is a little too isolationist for my liking.

But Paul said the U.S. response to Iran's nuclear pursuits is an "overreaction," especially considering that Iran has been saying for 10 years that it is seeking nuclear power for peaceful purposes and neither the U.S. nor the international community has never proven otherwise.

Paul added that a House bill that passed out of the international relations committee last week increasing sanctions on Iran is an aggressive weapon.

The bill says "if any other country, even if an ally, does any trading with Iran, we're going to punish them. So, that is -- when you put on strong sanctions, those are acts of war because we did that in Iraq for 10 years, and little kids died, could [not] get medicines and food. It led to war," Paul said.

Paul said a better art of persuasion would be to offer friendship, the way the U.S. approached the Soviets and Chinese.

"I was in the military during the '60s and it was dangerous. But we didn't think we have to attack the Soviets. They had capabilities. The Iranians can't make enough gasoline for themselves.
For them to be a threat to us or to anybody in the region I think is just blown out of proportion," he said.

Paul, who won Illinois' straw poll of Republican presidential candidates over the weekend and ranks third in many polls of the field, said he is not an isolationist as some charge, but instead wants a very open relationship around the world that does not involve having U.S. troops deployed in foreign places.

"By having too many troops, it helps to bankrupt our country, the wars that we have been fighting, that were undeclared -- and from my viewpoint is unconstitutional and illegal," he said, arguing that the last 10 years of war has cost $4 trillion in fighting as well as debt accrued to be paid to other nations.

Paul added he also opposes drone strikes because of the collateral damage it causes and enmity it builds.

[Dutch]

I wouldn't consider Ron Paul an expert on foreign affairs. Rice on the other hand, has some credibility and experience...and has attended all the same briefings that Presidents have attended. I'm sure she's not just talking out of her ass.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar" in remarks to US President Barack Obama overheard by journalists.

"I can't stand him any more, he's a liar," Mr Sarkozy said in French.

"You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day," Mr Obama replied.

The exchange at the G20 summit was quoted by a French website, Arret sur Images, and confirmed by other media.

The remarks - during a private conversation - were overheard by a few journalists last week but were not initially reported, the BBC's Christian Fraser in Paris says.

BBC News - Sarkozy called Israeli PM Netanyahu 'liar'

Love it! Nice, candid remarks that you never hear from men who are guarded as hell when talking about each other publicly. And although some will try, I don't see it as a comment that can really hurt Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

And although some will try, I don't see it as a comment that can really hurt Obama.

You're probably right. No one who gives a damn about Israel would vote for the miserable SOB anyway.

[Edward64]

Whew, one battle (of many) won.

Appeals court upholds Obama health care law - politics - More politics - msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law, as the Supreme Court prepares to consider this week whether to resolve conflicting rulings over the law's requirement that all Americans buy health care insurance.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the lower court's ruling that found Congress did not overstep its authority in requiring people to have insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. The requirement is the most controversial requirement of Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement and the focus of conflicting opinions from judges across the country. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Thursday during a closed meeting of the justices whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.

[Ksyrup]

• Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear will win a second term, CNN projects, easily beating Republican state Sen. Steve Williams in a race that centered on jobs and the economy.

Williams frequently criticized Beshear's record on creating jobs and balancing the state budget. Beshear kept a tally of the number of jobs that companies were bringing to the state on his website.

Um, yeah. You know you got your ass kicked when CNN can't even get your name right as a candidate for governor. It's David Williams.

[SirFozzie]

Sounds like the D's did well in the year before elections (the Ohio anti-unions vote going down 60-40, Maine same day registration, Mississippi definition of "personhood"m and the recall of the author of Arizona's tough immigration law).

Sounds like the Republican/Tea Party wave has peaked and is starting to recede...

The fact is that the current top two candidates in the Presidential race are either a notorious flip-flopper who actually did a mandatory health care law when he was governor of what R's consider the most liberal state in the Union, or a political neophyte with a catch phrase (Nine Nine Nine!), and harassment charges being brought up more and more every day.. there may not be much drawing power at the top of the ticket.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Whew, one battle (of many) won.

Appeals court upholds Obama health care law - politics - More politics - msnbc.com

Eh, it's going to get decided by the Supreme Court.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Eh, it's going to get decided by the Supreme Court.

This is true - but it's nice "cover" for the Supremes when conservative-leaning Federal appeals courts uphold it (not that they really "need" cover, but you know what I mean).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Eh, it's going to get decided by the Supreme Court.

Yep. Which is why I haven't gotten too high on any previous victories nor particularly discouraged by this setback. They're all just steps toward the inevitable final one.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This is true - but it's nice "cover" for the Supremes when conservative-leaning Federal appeals courts uphold it (not that they really "need" cover, but you know what I mean).

Adds to the number of prominent and well-respected conservative appellate judges that have upheld the law (including a former Scalia clerk). I'd be pretty surprised if it is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. At best they'll adopt one of the lines of reasoning that allow them to punt on jurisdictional grounds and decide the constitutionality later (as one of the conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit did).

[Edward64]

I don't remember Obama admin really talking about the crisis in Europe and how we may be able to "help". I get we don't have alot of disposable income right now but I think we could have helped by paying into whatever Euro pool was established.

Certainly in our interest - Greece and Italy can cause real problems for Europe and by extension, the US.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Death of the euro

PREPARATIONS were under way last night for the break-up of the euro as Europe’s debt crisis spiralled out of control.

As Treasury officials worked through the night to soften the impact on Britain, David Cameron warned that the single European currency was facing its “moment of truth”.

Business Secretary Vince Cable went further and spoke about “Armageddon” while Brussels officials warned that the chaos threatened to plunge us all into a new recession.

Ministers are understood to be deeply concerned that French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel are secretly plotting to build a new, slimmed down eurozone without Greece, Italy and other debt-ridden southern Euro- pean nations.

Well-placed Brussels sources say Germany and France have already held private discussions on preparing for the disintegration of the eurozone.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't remember Obama admin really talking about the crisis in Europe and how we may be able to "help". I get we don't have alot of disposable income right now but I think we could have helped by paying into whatever Euro pool was established.

Certainly in our interest - Greece and Italy can cause real problems for Europe and by extension, the US.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Death of the euro

They don't need our money. They can print as many euros as they want. They have just decided that the pain from a euro breakup is preferable.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They don't need our money. They can print as many euros as they want. They have just decided that the pain from a euro breakup is preferable.

Also the members of the EU don't really consider themselves "countrymen" like the United States. Sure we might have people that say they hate people from Texas or California but in the end of the day most people consider everyone living in the 50 states Americans. I would guess most Germans see bailing out the Greeks as nothing more than WWII war reparations.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't remember Obama admin really talking about the crisis in Europe and how we may be able to "help". I get we don't have alot of disposable income right now but I think we could have helped by paying into whatever Euro pool was established.

Certainly in our interest - Greece and Italy can cause real problems for Europe and by extension, the US.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Death of the euro

And Portaugal and Spain and Ireland... This is just like the war in the Middle East, certainly all of these things are in our interest. Where does the money come from is all I want to know?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

Also the members of the EU don't really consider themselves "countrymen" like the United States. Sure we might have people that say they hate people from Texas or California but in the end of the day most people consider everyone living in the 50 states Americans. I would guess most Germans see bailing out the Greeks as nothing more than WWII war reparations.

The EU is not a country.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The EU is not a country.

I am aware but the richer countries like Germany are still on the hook for bailing out the countries that spend beyond their means and aren't big fans of it either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My mind still boggles at how anyone thought the Euro wasn't doomed to failure from the start.

edit to add: But I'll admit that it survived quite a bit longer than I ever expected.

[Edward64]

T-12

First Read - Obama phones supercommittee leaders ahead of weekend talks

President Obama phoned the bipartisan co-chairs of the deficit reduction supercommittee on Friday as the bipartisan members head into a critical weekend of negotiations.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the president had called Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) from Air Force One today to urge the 12-member supercommittee to strike a "balanced" deal by its rapidly approaching deadline.

According to Carney, the president told the leaders that he would reject any attempt to repeal the automatic cuts that would be triggered if the group fails to reach agreement on at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. The automatic cuts, which includes $600 billion slashed from the defense budget, were installed as a backstop in the August deal to raise the debt ceiling. Until now, the White House has remained largely on the sidelines as the two sides have met over the past two months.

For the supercommitee, time is running out; a flurry of talks are expected to continue into the weekend. The 12 members have until Nov. 23rd to strike a deal. Aides warn, however, that they need to get something done this week to ensure the Congressional Budget Office has enough time before the deadline to provide feedback on how much deficit reduction would be achieved on a particular proposal.

[Edward64]

Gingrich is definitely out for me. Not that I disagree but to state it that way is too "cowboyish".

Iran dominates GOP contenders' debate - Politics - msnbc.com

The Republican presidential contenders met in a debate on foreign policy Saturday with the question of Iran atop the agenda.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said as president he’d order covert operations to stop the Iranian regime from building nuclear weapons, with options including “taking out their scientists” and “breaking the regime and bringing it down.”

And he added, “all of it (is) deniable,” that is, he as president would deny that the United States was behind the operations.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued a report Tuesday in which it said Iran appeared to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said President Barack Obama’s policy toward Iran was his “greatest failing, from a foreign policy standpoint.”

Romney said he work to impose “crippling sanctions” on Iran and would work for regime change. And he said he would be willing to take military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," the former Massachusetts governor declared.

In the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week, while only 40 percent of poll respondents approved of Obama’s handling of the economy, 52 percent approved of his handling of foreign policy.

And 71 percent of poll respondents said Obama’s decision to withdraw all American combat troops from Iraq by the end of December is the right decision.

[SteveMax58]

I think the Repubs are making a gigantic mistake by attacking Obama's foreign policy. 2 reasons for that really...

1) There is no practical improvement with regards to Iran that isn't already being done or tried. ..whether that be covertly (i.e. virus in the nuclear labs cooperating with Israel) or in the public (i.e. economic sanctions & isolation). Perhaps some small technocratic improvements in existing sanctions but certainly none of the Repubs can possibly sell us on uniting a coalition better than Obama to do that...can they?

You can ratchet up the rhetoric if that makes you feel better about the situation but that will only serve to fuel escalation to a point where neither side can back down gracefully when it comes to actual combat.


2) Following on (1)...the American public (imho) is not even remotely interested in combat with Iran. They are much more interested in hearing about how they (and their neighbors) will get back to work. So do what you must as President...but don't try to sell the public on a new war, or the same old rhetoric. It's just not that critical to most people. And of course, how do you answer the question of "funding a new liberation war" without raising taxes on the wealthy. No good can come of this political strategy at all, imo.

Not to mention...I think you can make a much better argument that Iran will eventually succumb to the same Arab spring movements we've seen elsewhere. Certainly there was an initial wave crushed already, but that doesn't mean we won't see people rise up again. It will need a stable & democratic Iraq, same in Libya, same in Egypt...but there is at least a chance it can happen gracefully with influence rather than force. You couldn't say the same thing 10+ years ago with any sort of confidence, but I think you can now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think you can make a much better argument that Iran will eventually succumb to the same Arab spring movements we've seen elsewhere.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss