American Politics during the Obama Presidency

KABUL (AFP) – The United States is bolstering its presence in Afghanistan with a 500 million dollar expansion of its Kabul embassy and the construction of two consulates, it announced Wednesday.

Washington's Kabul embassy is already its biggest in the world, with about 1,100 employees, projected to rise to 1,200 by the end of the year, officials said.

Hundreds have arrived over the course of this year as part of a "civilian surge" bringing development experts into the country to compliment the military effort already in its 10th year.

Good deal to finally get something done in this country.

Great article.

Doppel- You are correct there are ways in which repeal can happen. I meant it cannot (will not) happen under the current power sharing in Washington. We'll see if/how that changes in 2012.

For anyone who thinks Walleye has even an ounce of credibility, continue reading.

Awhile back, Walleye posted supposed racist statements made by Obama and his wife. When challenged however, he could not provide proof that either of them ever said what he quoted.

More recently, he posted about the cost of Obama's trip to Asia. And then in his last past described my fact checking as 'worthless'. Let's have a look.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413658]Just heard that the daily expense of his junket to India will be around US$200 million. Per f-cking day!

All in this escapism will likely cost the US taxpayers $1.0B.

Just for a little perspective, that $1.0B could pay a US$50,000 salary to 20,000 currently unemployed workers for the next 12 months.

Tone deaf? [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Just more proof that BHO is in this for someone other than the American public. Further, when you can waste, and there is no denying that this is 100% wasteful spending, $1.0B of Americans' hard-earned money just to hide from your own responsibility you show yourself for the POS that you are.[/QUOTE]Well it turns out this also is false. See the video link below from CNN. Watch how Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann dodges questions on other topics to go off on how Obama's trip is costing taxpayers $200 million a day. Conservative talk show pundits also repeat it, including claims of including 34 warships (Walleye also referenced the warships in another post). But none of these guys apparently checked their sources. Both the White House and the Pentagon claim the costs are wildly exagerrated. This quote in particular from the Pentagon Press Secretary is notable:

[i]"I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10% of the navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical, nothing close to that is being done."[/i]

Debunking the myth: The cost of Obama's trip to Asia
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/obama.asia.cost/[/url]

This is just the latest example of countless false statements and stories Walleye has posted, interspersed between his jokes and insults. You would think surely with such an astronomical number for a trip, he would do some fact checking or at least qualify his statements. But nope, he just blindly posts it here as fact, and uses it to slam the President as a "POS".

Readers can judge for themselves the character of such a man, and the credibility of anything he writes.

Back on ignore mode he goes.

[QUOTE=Esten;413830]This is just the latest example of countless false statements and stories Walleye has posted.[/QUOTE]Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now...

Wild Walleye: 468 points

Esten: 1 point

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 413831]Presented by Esten, the king of liberal spinmesters.

By my count, the score is now.

Wild Walleye: 468 points.

Esten: 1 point.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Come on, that's ridiculous! That's really home-court scorekeeping!

Esten,

While I think it possible the current House & Senate could repeal ObamaCare, I agree it is unlikely as Obama will veto it and the required majority at the present time to override the veto is probably not there. That said, the House & Senate only need to withhold the necessary funding to stall it until the 2012 election cycle. I also believe the GOP will force enough bills through both houses which Obama will veto to make him unelectable in 2012 setting the stage for Hillary to run against him splitting the Democrats and setting up a GOP win.

If you did not believe in the 'ruling class' before, surely you must now after the election and Obama's response to the outcome, which was basically 'it not me or my policies, it's the public is too stupid to understand what is good for them'.

Hey Stan, if you are going to Brazil get ready for sticker shock. I spent 3 weeks in Brazil on a job in October and the exchange rate is US$1 to are$1.69 and inflation has been alive and well so things a much more expensive than last year when I was down for three weeks on a job. Still a great country with great people, enjoy.

[QUOTE=Esten; 413830]For anyone who thinks Walleye has even an ounce of credibility, continue reading.

Awhile back, Walleye posted supposed racist statements made by Obama and his wife. When challenged however, he could not provide proof that either of them ever said what he quoted. [/quote]I cited examples. The fact that you are never satisfied with compelling evidence is indicative of your predisposition to your political beliefs over fact.

[quote=]More recently, he posted about the cost of Obama's trip to Asia. And then in his last past described my fact checking as 'worthless'. Let's have a look.[/quote]Thank you for at least quoting me accurately. I was referring to an article that I read on the subject which originated in India with New Delhi TV (which has a bigger audience than the three US majors, combined) which based its estimate upon the president's itinerary, provided by the WH. I no longer am part of the Obama advance team, therefore, I do not have direct access to the payables and receiveables related to the trip.

[quote=]Well it turns out this also is false. See the video link below from CNN.[/quote]I see no reason to place greater value on opinion pieces airing on CNN over other sources of information.

[quote=]Watch how Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann dodges questions on other topics to go off on how Obama's trip is costing taxpayers $200 million a day. Conservative talk show pundits also repeat it, including claims of including 34 warships (Walleye also referenced the warships in another post. But none of these guys apparently checked their sources. Both the White House and the Pentagon claim the costs are wildly exagerrated. This quote in particular from the Pentagon Press Secretary is notable:

"I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10% of the navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia. That's just comical, nothing close to that is being done."[/quote]We are now back to the Clinton Era of parsing, I would be willing to bet that "Wildly exaggerated" is a much smaller margin than one would generally think. Obviously, they didn't "deploy" an carrier group specifically to support this BHO ridiculously, over-the-top spendo-rama. Carrier Strike Group (CSG) deployments are planned years in advance and constantly tweaked to support national defense, based upon available information regarding threats to the US and her interests and are typically for a duration of approximately six months. It would be ludicrous to create a "Deployment" to support a 10-day white-elephant. However, the Pentagon spokesman would be lying if he said that naval assets, including not one, but two carrier strike groups (CSG numbers 9 and 10: USS Abe Lincoln and the Harry S. Truman, already on an existing deployments) have not been redirected to provide close support of the president's trip and are currently off the coast of Mumbai, in the Arabian Sea. While no two carrier strike groups are identical (they are specifically designed to meet the mission) they typically consist of approximately ten ships, including two subs. The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers cost approximately $4.5B to build and the ships complement (that means the number of guys on board) is approximately 5,680. That is just the lead ship of the group, how much do you think it costs to operate such a group? How much do you think it costs to divert two such groups for a week to ten days?

[quote=]This is just the latest example of countless false statements and stories Walleye has posted, interspersed between his jokes and insults. You would think surely with such an astronomical number for a trip, he would do some fact checking or at least qualify his statements. But nope, he just blindly posts it here as fact, and uses it to slam the President as a "POS".

Readers can judge for themselves the character of such a man, and the credibility of anything he writes.

Back on ignore mode he goes.[/QUOTE]That's it, put your head in the sand. Anything you disagree with will disappear. Good luck with that.

By the way, the above cited facts constitute more facts than you have put in all your posts combined.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;413839]Hey Stan, if you are going to Brazil get ready for sticker shock. I spent 3 weeks in Brazil on a job in October and the exchange rate is US$1 to are$1.69 and inflation has been alive and well so things a much more expensive than last year when I was down for three weeks on a job. Still a great country with great people, enjoy.[/QUOTE]OT: Thanks. I still think Brazil is cheaper for me in most ways than Argentina, but it depends on how you do it. In Argentina, I don't like the privados. Never have. I prefer to go to the boliches, mostly Madaho's. That gets expensive because they mark up their drinks to such a great extent. It would be easy to try to cut that cost down, but I'm never down there long and I'd prefer to spend my free time doing what I like, so it's part of doing business.

In Brazil, the drink prices in the termas are next to nothing. The chica fees in the termas are about the same compared to Madaho's chicas. I realize I'm comparing apples to oranges, but my comparison is between what I like to do in both places. As a result, Brazil ends up being cheaper even though things, in general, tend to cost more. They just have a better set-up, in my opinion.

If I was to compare apples to apples, say, a comparison between Madaho's and Cafe Foto, then Argentina would win hands down. But, the chicas at Cafe Foto are an order of magnitude better than anything that exists in any boliche in B A, in my opinion, so that must be included in the mix, as well.

In truth, I'm looking forward to the sticker shock. Well, at least I'm looking forward to the idea of going to a place with stickers on display, unlike here where all the stickers are hidden.

In fairness to my esteemed colleague, Esten, I thought it only appropriate to calibrate my unfounded, reckless postulations (which oddly have almost all been accurate) to his laser-like focus on the issues by revisiting some of his keenest insights. I hope that he will feel free to use his super-fact-checker powers on my posts. To illustrate how 'on point' he tends to be, let's examine the following:

[QUOTE=Esten; 408390]Although it appears the Senate bill will be signed into law, the fix-it package still has to clear the Senate, and the bill must survive the state challenges being planned.

That aside, I must say the events leading up to and including the vote last night have made me very pleased, proud and impressed of Pelosi, Obama and the Democratic party. Since Brown's win in January, they came back and played this thing almost perfectly, with the televised meetings, setting the facts straight and shining the light on Republican lies and fear-mongering, putting together a reconciliation package that addressed budget-related House concerns and stripped out special deals, revised CBO estimates with favorable numbers, Obama's great speech to Dems on Saturday (". We don't just look out for ourselves. We look out for one another.") and the Executive order to address anti-abortion Dem concerns. Brilliant. Like I said before, these are very smart people. It could not have been accomplished otherwise. [/quote]How's that working out for the new minority now?

[quote=]Stan, without going into a point-by-point let me just say I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Your sweeping statement "where everyone is entitled to get something for nothing" sounds like another gross Republican mischaracterization (ie. lie). The vast majority of people will be paying for their insurance, not getting something for free. Especially the rich, which is as it should be. Those who cannot afford health insurance will be helped. Who knows, someday this could be you or one of your children who lost their job, and won't be faced with personal bankruptcy due to medical bills. You'll be glad of this reform then, I'm sure. And your claim that Dems do not have a sincere desire to help the uninsured is utterly obscene, but consistent with right wing cynicism. You have been drinking the Republican kool-aid. [/quote]Right on!

[quote=]Dems ran on a clear platform to reform health care and expand coverage. They were elected. And now they delivered on their campaign promise. [/quote]And now they are in the minority and BHO is on track to be a one-termer with the Senate to fall in 2012, too.

[quote=]20 years from now, this will be seen as a major step forward in US history.[/QUOTE]It is possible. However, if it is repealed, we'll never know.

Please keep illuminating us.

[QUOTE=Esten; 408390]...and stripped out special deals...[/quote]So the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the union exemptions were all removed from the final bill?

This is the first I've heard about that.

[QUOTE=Esten; 408390]...revised CBO estimates with favorable numbers...[/quote]So how are the latest CBO numbers looking now?

[QUOTE=Jackson;413859]So the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the union exemptions were all removed from the final bill? [/quote]Maybe he meant that the nation would come to its senses, kick the left out and repeal the whole f-ing thing, thereby eliminating all of the above.

[quote]=So how are the latest CBO numbers looking now?[/QUOTE]While we're at it, maybe you could sum up all the rate hikes (AARP the latest to do so) and explain how paying more for health care actually means we are paying less for health care.

It is really too bad for the newly departed Dems in congress that they didn't actually read the legislation. Had they, they would have seen the following on the very last page: "If you are dumb enough or corrupt enough to vote for this, the voters will throw you out of office"

Republicans have a rare opportunity given to them by, of all people, Barack Obama. The deficit reduction commission has issued its initial draft. [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606643067587042.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read[/url]

Democrats hate it. Republicans aren't fond of it. The best quote comes from Senator Dick Durbin (D IL)_ In saying he wouldn't vote for it, he added: "there are things in there that I hate like the devil hates holy water." Well put. He's comparing himself to the devil and the plan to holy water. A rare spot of candor from a Democrat. Couldn't have put it better myself.

There are conservative critics as well, but they are the partisan special interests that must be ignored. Business tax breaks get eliminated and, in return, the corporate tax rate and individual tax rates get reduced, and the mortgage interest deduction goes by the wayside. These are all things that the Republican party should be able to live with.

The deficit reduction committee will never vote to approve this draft or anything like it, and they are unlikely to get 14 votes to approve any plan before they adjourn. I guarantee you that there are Obama operatives right now working behind the scenes to ensure that they have at least five of the 18 members who will not approve. There's no reason for Republicans to wait. They need to start getting this ready for the next Congress now. Take this draft and start fleshing out the details within the confines of the draft. Get it up for a vote. Make Democrats reject the plan from the commission that their own party leader established. There's a possibility that the Senate wouldn't be able to muster enough votes to kill it, assuming it gets past filibuster. But, ANY result there would be favorable: It either passes or it puts the lie to Democrats' claims that they are interested in anything other than spending to increase dependency and buy votes. If they filibuster it to death or refuse to even put it up, the American public will crucify them next election. There are at least 23 Democratic Senators who are well aware of that, and who are up for re-election in two years.

If it passes the Senate, it goes to Obama. He would be hard pressed to refuse to sign it, although I suspect he could not bring himself to actually sign his name to legislation that takes 10% from the federal Democrat union workforce. He will squirm; he will hold his nose; he will choke; he will go visit other countries. But, he either signs it or the emperor has no clothes next election. Either way, it's a win.

According to Forbes, the US has the most billionaires, while Singapore has the most millionaires (how did that happen).

According to my own statistics, if you were to check everybodys' pockets / wallets / handbags / underwear (population. 12 million, you would find that everybody in Zimbawe is at least a millionaire, billionaire or even trillionaire.

So much misinformation everywhere! Can't believe all the BS we have to deal with, O'Reilly, Olberman, everyone with an agenda. Good news, with the promise that we are printing even more money, you and I could soon be enjoying new monetary status. Imagine paying $10, 000 for a hamburger, I guarantee it, it will taste better. You still don't believe me! I drove a Lamborghini (I hope I spell that correctly) once, and my dick grew an extra five inches. Of course, adding that to the original 3 inches still make my dick smaller than some of you guys. By the way, I have retain those inches despite not owning a car anymore!

Suffering in Bangkok, and wishing I was in BA

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413899]The deficit reduction commission has issued its initial draft.[/quote]Stan, don't be fooled by this flaming piece of shit, it doesn't reduce anything. In fact it raises both spending and taxes to historical high percentages of GDP. This thind is a red herring. It is no coincidence that it was delivered early, which just so happens to coincide with Obama being on the other side of the planet, bowing to yet another leader. When was the last time something being created in Washington was delivered ahead of schedule?

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a plan for deficit reduction rather it is the codification of the nanny state.

[quote=]The deficit reduction committee will never vote to approve this draft or anything like it, and they are unlikely to get 14 votes to approve any plan before they adjourn. I guarantee you that there are Obama operatives right now working behind the scenes to ensure that they have at least five of the 18 members who will not approve. There's no reason for Republicans to wait. They need to start getting this ready for the next Congress now. Take this draft and start fleshing out the details within the confines of the draft. Get it up for a vote.[/quote]It is Obama that will seek to harvest from this POS things such as means testing social security, raising taxes and eliminating the mortgage interest deduction (you think we have a soft real estate market now? Just wait) and other gems.

Do not be fooled, this group and its findings are phony and do not do anything to reduce anything, especially government.

[quote=] Make Democrats reject the plan from the commission that their own party leader established. There's a possibility that the Senate wouldn't be able to muster enough votes to kill it, assuming it gets past filibuster. But, ANY result there would be favorable: It either passes or it puts the lie to Democrats' claims that they are interested in anything other than spending to increase dependency and buy votes. If they filibuster it to death or refuse to even put it up, the American public will crucify them next election. There are at least 23 Democratic Senators who are well aware of that, and who are up for re-election in two years.[/quote]Right strategy, wrong bone to fight over. The new congress should take a machete to the Fed government and reduce real expenditures by 15% over the next 10 years and riff at least 200K federal employees.

[quote=]If it passes the Senate, it goes to Obama. He would be hard pressed to refuse to sign it, although I suspect he could not bring himself to actually sign his name to legislation that takes 10% from the federal Democrat union workforce. He will squirm; he will hold his nose; he will choke; he will go visit other countries. But, he either signs it or the emperor has no clothes next election. Either way, it's a win.[/QUOTE]It doesn't do any such thing (take 10% from federal unions, this is a 'head fake' and all I can say is don't buy it. We need to justify every last program and cut everything that isn't critical.