Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-30-2011, 08:13 PM   #196
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Basically, that he openly criticized the GOP's negotiating tactics on the debt ceiling debate. Why that struck Halperin as an unprecedentedly dirty move justifying unprecedentedly vulgar language (for the media outlet in question), I have no idea.
I think I caught a little of that. . .I was in and out of the car, but again I didn't get a sense of real pissy attitude coming from him.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-30-2011, 08:31 PM   #197
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:53 AM
When did hatin' on our black president become anything but the angry ranting of a racist?
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-30-2011, 08:53 PM   #198
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Rational arguments and blind hatred are unrelated.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 06-30-2011, 09:06 PM   #199
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
When did hatin' on our black president become anything but the angry ranting of a racist?
What are you talking about?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-01-2011, 04:28 PM   #200
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 02:53 AM
US Forces still flying attack sorties

Quote:
Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.

An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.

“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.”

A White House report on Libya sent to Congress on June 15 says that “American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets.” The report also says the U.S. provides an “alert strike package.”

Dalrymple named the Air Force’s F-16CJ and Navy’s EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft as the primary platforms that have been suppressing enemy air defenses.

However, those F-16s are not solely drawn from units based in Spangdahlem, Germany, or Aviano, Italy. The service has reportedly deployed U.S.-based units to Europe to conduct these operations.

Earlier this month, Malta Today reported that two F-16s from the 77th Fighter Squadron, 20th Fighter Wing, made emergency landings on the island. The 20th Fighter Wing is based at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.

The AFRICOM spokeswoman did not address why U.S.-based units were deployed for the mission.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-02-2011, 04:57 PM   #201
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

Barack Motherfuckin' Obama


Confidence. Confidence??!?!? Are you kidding me? He could stop scoring rhetorical own goals, that guy's such a radical liberal I'm having trouble telling him apart from John Boehner.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-03-2011, 06:59 AM   #202
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 02:53 AM
First GE, now Boeing:

This is totally insane:
Quote:
Who would you guess pays more in federal taxes: me or Boeing?

I don't mean in rates but in actual dollars. Has the federal Treasury gotten more money of late from the huge aerospace company, which booked $4.5 billion in pretax profits last year? Or from me?

"It's not even close," says Bob McIntyre. "In the past three years, you have paid way more into the system than Boeing."

McIntyre is a tax wonk, the director of a couple Washington, D.C., think tanks that focus on who actually pays the government's bills.

Last month, his group, Citizens for Tax Justice, released a study showing that 12 major U.S. businesses, with $171 billion in profits, combined to pay negative $2.5 billion in federal taxes the past three years. Meaning that even with all that profit, they paid no taxes.

Boeing was in this group. The company made $9.7 billion in profits in 2008, 2009 and 2010. It paid nothing in federal taxes, booking $178 million back from the government in various credits, for a total federal tax rate of -1.8 percent.

These figures are from the company's financial reports. Still, I was expecting when Boeing executives went to Congress recently to ask for even lower taxes that they would deny this report. But they didn't.

"Over the last three years, we have not paid," confirmed James Zrust, Boeing's vice president for tax.

One congressman was incredulous.

"I think in testimony I heard earlier that Boeing would like lower taxes," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. "How much lower could you possibly need?"

Zrust explained the zero tax bill isn't likely to last. It's due to temporary factors, he said. Such as pension payments, and the costs of the development — but not yet any deliveries — of the 787 Dreamliner.

"Those same things that gave rise to low tax payments in the last three years will reverse in the next few years and result in considerable tax payments," Zrust predicted.

I asked McIntyre about that. Is he casting Boeing as a tax freeloader by looking at only a three-year window?

"Well, let's look at 10 years," he suggested. He tapped away at a database he keeps of financial statements.

"In the 10 years ending in 2010, Boeing had $29 billion in profits, and paid minus-$948 million in federal taxes."

McIntyre said if you include the past 11 years, Boeing's effective tax rate was positive, but only barely.
Well, it does eventually come out of the workers' paychecks. Let's not impede the confidence of big business by increasing their negative tax rate.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-03-2011, 07:43 AM   #203
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 04:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
First GE, now Boeing:

This is totally insane:


Well, it does eventually come out of the workers' paychecks. Let's not impede the confidence of big business by increasing their negative tax rate.
That phrase does give me pause, "The confidence of business."
I understand the need for a good playing field, but it smells a bit of a race to the bottom.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-06-2011, 10:42 AM   #204
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:53 AM
Very good decision


The White House says that families of service members who commit suicide while deployed abroad are now getting condolence letters from the president just like families of troops who die in other ways.

The White House has been reviewing the policy since 2009, lobbied by some military families. A White House official said Tuesday that the change was made this week. The official spoke anonymously to discuss policy deliberations.

“The president feels strongly that we need to destigmatize the mental health costs of war to prevent these tragic deaths, and changing this policy is part of that process,” a senior White House official said in a statement.

Previously, the White House would send presidential condolences to the families of those who died either in combat or as a result of noncombat incidents in a war zone. Condolence letters were not sent to the families of those who commit suicide.

CNN reports that a coalition of senators recently joined the push for a change in policy.

The move comes nearly six weeks after a group of senators -- 10 Democrats and one Republican -- asked President Barack Obama to change what they called an "insensitive" policy that dates back several administrations and has been the subject of protest by some military families.

According to CBS News, the change went into effect Tuesday for soldiers who commit suicide while serving abroad, but will not be enacted retroactively, meaning that soldiers such as Chance Keesling, who killed himself on his second tour in Iraq, will not be eligible for the presidential recognition.

"He was a good soldier and that's the part that I want to know -- that the country appreciates that he fought he did everything that he was asked to do. It didn't turn out well for him, but at least this country could write a simple letter and that president represents our country and just say thank you for our son's service," Keesling's father, Gregg, told CBS News.

While the elder Keesling won't be getting an official presidential condolence letter, he's been told that his son will receive some kind of recognition from the White House to commemorate his service.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-06-2011, 07:04 PM   #205
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 04:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Very good decision


The White House says that families of service members who commit suicide while deployed abroad are now getting condolence letters from the president just like families of troops who die in other ways.

The White House has been reviewing the policy since 2009, lobbied by some military families. A White House official said Tuesday that the change was made this week. The official spoke anonymously to discuss policy deliberations.

“The president feels strongly that we need to destigmatize the mental health costs of war to prevent these tragic deaths, and changing this policy is part of that process,” a senior White House official said in a statement.

Previously, the White House would send presidential condolences to the families of those who died either in combat or as a result of noncombat incidents in a war zone. Condolence letters were not sent to the families of those who commit suicide.

CNN reports that a coalition of senators recently joined the push for a change in policy.

The move comes nearly six weeks after a group of senators -- 10 Democrats and one Republican -- asked President Barack Obama to change what they called an "insensitive" policy that dates back several administrations and has been the subject of protest by some military families.

According to CBS News, the change went into effect Tuesday for soldiers who commit suicide while serving abroad, but will not be enacted retroactively, meaning that soldiers such as Chance Keesling, who killed himself on his second tour in Iraq, will not be eligible for the presidential recognition.

"He was a good soldier and that's the part that I want to know -- that the country appreciates that he fought he did everything that he was asked to do. It didn't turn out well for him, but at least this country could write a simple letter and that president represents our country and just say thank you for our son's service," Keesling's father, Gregg, told CBS News.

While the elder Keesling won't be getting an official presidential condolence letter, he's been told that his son will receive some kind of recognition from the White House to commemorate his service.
Oh my.

__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 07-08-2011, 02:12 PM   #206
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Private sector job growth/losses, newly updated with today's report.


The plateauing/fading appears to coincide with a newly fashionable austerity. If only someone could carry the mantle of Democrats circa early 2009.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-08-2011, 02:25 PM   #207
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:53 AM
clearly, we needed more stimulus in light of today's job's report.

much more.

jobs > deficits.

but, of course, unemployment hurts Obama, and the only thing that matters is harming him so the GOP has a shot at the presidency in 2012.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-08-2011, 06:48 PM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 02:53 AM
I hadn't thought of this:

Quote:
Samuel Beckett’s famous phrase “You must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on” is a pretty good summation of what will face Treasury come August 3 if there’s no deal on the debt limit. Reuters has a fantastic story this evening on the impossible quandary facing Treasury officials should the unthinkable come to pass; purely as a practical matter, it’s far from clear that it’s even possible to stop making the 3 million payments that Treasury makes automatically every day. Doing so involves a massive computer-reprogramming effort which I’m sure could not be implemented overnight — and for political reasons nobody is going to get started on such an effort until after all hope is lost for a deal in Congress.

Realistically, then, the government is likely to breach the current debt ceiling no matter what Congress agrees. A failure to lift it would be a bit like an edict to a steaming supertanker that it had to stop dead: no matter how much force of law that edict has, sheer momentum is going force many basic operations of the public fisc to continue for some period of days or weeks.
and this is worth stated explictly
Quote:
Something that I think has gone missing in most discussions of the “constitutional option” of simply ignoring the debt ceiling is that if you think that’s illegal, it’s not clear what the legal alternative is. Bondholders have a legal right to be paid. But so do Social Security beneficiaries. Contractors have, well, contracts. All the federal government’s spending obligations are spelled out in appropriations bills or laws providing for mandatory spending. If you look at any particular option, it seems legally questionable. But obviously something has to be done.
There seems like an awful lot leading to the idea that a literal debt ceiling is inherently poor policy strictly on its operational merits, is furthermore constitutionally flawed, and finally has become an obnoxious tool to extract concessions.

If you want to cut spending, great, pass an awesome budget.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 01:11 PM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,342
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
clearly, we needed more stimulus in light of today's job's report.

much more.

jobs > deficits.

but, of course, unemployment hurts Obama, and the only thing that matters is harming him so the GOP has a shot at the presidency in 2012.


Republicans spent 8 years doing whatever they could to get Clinton out of office. If it wasn't his investments (Whitewater) it was Lewinsky and his "lying under oath". They ignore the fact that during this whole scandal, Clinton had over 80% approval and most Americans did NOT want this pursued.

Aren't our Congressmen supposed to represent US not their own selfish goals?

During Obama's 2.5 years, Republicans have gone on a tirade about whether he truly is an American (even though that was resolved before he became President). And as he's a tad more "clean" than Clinton, they are doing what they can legislatively to move forward.

But when Bush - the worst President in my lifetime and one of the worst ever - was in office, Democrats did not spend 8 years trying to impeach him over affairs (even though he had them). Bush did deserve impeachment because he openly lied, yet it was pushed aside for the better of the country.

I'm not saying Democrats are all so pure and holy - but they can certainly push bipartisanship aside to get the country going if needed. Apparently, that concept is foreign to Republicans.

If Obama is one term, so be it. But I can't wait to see the next person flop even more. Suddenly, people will wish Obama was back. Because it's Republican policies that got us into this mess. Funny how 2.5 years later everyone forgets this.
__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 01:21 PM   #210
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:53 AM
I just want to know where all the Republican concern was about spending and the deficit when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor in a green Snuggie (well it was snug in his man parts) in front of a Mission Accomplished banner. I know there wasn't a recession then, but HELLLLLOOOOO.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com