Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neil H who wrote (86171)	12/1/2010 4:50:23 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 149317

It's Peace Talks at the White House ... With the GOP Joseph Schuman Senior Correspondent AOL News (Nov. 30) -- Like high-level peacemaking delegates of the past, the adversarial parties met behind closed doors, the brutal battles of recent years put aside in a bid to work together for the sake of their people. But in this case, the diplomacy at the White House today wasn't between two sides in the Middle East or other disputed territories, but rather Pennsylvania Avenue. Of course, the first post-election meeting between President Barack Obama and newly resurgent Republican congressional leaders produced no more sign of progress that the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. "A very frank conversation," was how incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner described it, using the diplomatic code words for quarrelsome summits between national leaders. Lest reporters miss the reference, a minute later Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, too, called his discussion with Obama "frank." Still, Boehner pronounced himself "optimistic," and Obama said he was "encouraged by the fact that there was broad recognition" at the meeting that voters don't want "unyielding partisanship." "It's no secret that we've had differences that have led us to part ways on many issues in the past, but we are Americans first, and we share a responsibility for the stewardship of our nation," the president said. But each side's post-meeting news conference left little doubt that the differences dominated the debate and were far from resolution at its end despite the fact that the meeting lasted about twice as long as the hour the Republicans originally said they could spare. For the most pressing problem on both sides' agenda -- the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at year's end with the potential of significantly increasing many Americans' taxes -- the two sides didn't make progress so much as agree that "we need to work to get that resolved," as Obama put it. Republicans want to make all the tax cuts permanent; many Democrats want to let the tax cuts for the richest Americans expire. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and budget director Jack Lew will work with members of Congress from both parties to "break through this logjam," the president added, noting "there must be some sensible common ground," even if they parties don't know yet where that is. Nor did they make progress on the New START Treaty with Russia, despite rumblings from the leadership in Moscow that without ratification, disputes on other fronts between the countries could heat up. Obama said he reminded Republicans that the U.S. needs the treaty "so we can monitor Russia's nuclear arsenal, reduce our nuclear weapons and strengthen our relationship with Russia," and that it "has been vetted for seven months now; it's gone through 18 hearings; it has support from senators of both parties; it has broad bipartisan support from national security advisers and secretaries of defense and secretaries of state from previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican; and that it's absolutely essential to our national security." McConnell suggested that once Congress has dealt with the expiring tax cuts and budget issues, "if there's time left for other matters," it's possible the Senate could get to START this year. And McConnell said nothing to revoke his declaration after the election that his top goal as Senate majority leader will be to deprive Obama of a second term in the White House, which could prove to be a pretty big impediment to compromise. Obama said the private meeting, without White House or congressional aides, was never going to be easy "in the current hyperpartisan climate" but was nonetheless different from standoffs of the past. "A lot of times, coming out of these meetings, both sides claim they want to work together but try to paint the opponent as unyielding and unwilling to cooperate. Both sides come to the table, they read their talking points, then they head out to the microphones trying to win the news cycle, instead of solving problems. And it becomes just another move in an old Washington game," Obama said. "But I think there was recognition today that that's a game that we can't afford, not in these times," he added. "I was pleased to see several of my friends in the room say: Let's try not to duplicate that; let's not try to work the -- the Washington spin cycle to -- to suggest that somehow the other side's not being cooperative." And if neither side could produce evidence of cooperation, neither was calling the other side names. Obama also said he looked forward to additional meetings. And in case there were still any doubts that today was all about making peace, he said some of them could take place at Camp David. aolnews.com

To: Neil H who wrote (86171)	12/1/2010 12:50:46 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 149317

Yep - It would be great if our elected officials actually quit the partisan crap and worked for the best interests of the people and the country rather than themselves and their special interest groups. Is that why you vote R? Because they are so non partisan?

To: Neil H who wrote (86171)	12/1/2010 1:25:09 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 149317

So, Neil, this is bipartisanship? ALL 42 SENATE REPUBLICANS ANNOUNCE HOSTAGE PLAN.... The AP had an item late last night, noting that Senate Republicans were circulating a letter, "quietly collecting signatures" on a plan to "block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending." This morning, the Senate GOP leadership unveiled their letter -- signed by literally all 42 members of the Republican caucus -- declaring their intention to hold the chamber hostage until the tax policy debate is resolved. "[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike." In practical terms, this means that the Senate Republican caucus will join arms and kill literally every piece of legislation in the lame-duck session -- New START, funding U.S. troops, the DREAM Act, etc. -- until the government is fully funded and they're satisfied with the outcome of the debate on tax policy. When the letter was being circulated yesterday, there was some hope that some of the less-conservative members -- the Maine "moderates," for example -- might not go along with the hostage-taking strategy. This morning, however, we learned that every Republican is on board with this plan. Even Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) is saying our national security needs through the pending arms treaty must take a back seat to tax cuts. Also note the context: President Obama hosted a meeting at the White House yesterday with congressional leaders of both parties, and afterwards, everyone was all smiles. There was a renewed commitment to try to work together, find common ground, with an emphasis on bipartisanship. A few hours later, the hostage letter was circulated by the GOP leadership, and less than a day after the bipartisan confab, literally every member of the Senate Republican caucus effectively told the world, "Screw bipartisanship; we're playing hardball until we get what we want on tax cuts for the wealthy." How Democrats -- on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- respond to this gambit remains to be seen. * Postscript: Also note the unstated truth behind the threat -- Republicans will block literally everything until they're satisfied, at which point, they'll try to block literally everything anyway. —

To: Neil H who wrote (86171)	12/1/2010 3:08:45 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Is this the bi partisanship you were speaking of, Neil? Inquiring minds want to know. The GOP's lame-duck blockade So how's this for leadership in Washington? Senate Republicans plan to block debate on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation that isn't related to tax cuts or government spending in the lame-duck session of Congress. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, and Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republican whip, added the signatures of all members of the Republican Senate caucus to a letter that promises to implement the plan. Never mind that Senate Republicans have obstinately fought most Democratic legislation for the past two years already. Now they want to make it official. Whether it's a political gimmick or a real effort to force a focus on urgent deadlines, the letter sets aside a reality of productive leadership we expect from the people we elect. Democrats certainly aren't blameless for taking part in their own brand of partisanship over the past two years. Obama's so-called "Slurpee Summit" at the White House Tuesday was a first step in trying to bring the two sides together, but may be too belated to do much good. And the Republicans surely believe they have good reason to petition Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: they want to keep Congress's priorities on funding the government and the impending expiration of the Bush tax cuts. "With little time left in this Congressional session," their letter reads, "legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities." Indeed, priorities on both sides should--and will--remain on these issues, particularly with the looming tax-cut expiration deadline. It would be political suicide for any representative, senator or president to be accused of raising taxes on the middle class by preventing a vote from happening this year. Democrats may be pushing their own position--however fractured and vulnerable to compromise it may be--but that doesn't mean they will dilly dally on bringing it to vote because they were messing around on some other pet project. Deadlines are deadlines. Priorities are priorities. All leaders--corporate, governmental or otherwise--know they have to meet the prior and focus on the latter. But they also know they can't completely ignore the rest of their jobs, even if those priorities are lower down the list, just because they've got a big project to finish, a critical deadline to meet, or a particularly thorny challenge to solve. We expect our leaders to be able to focus on more than one thing at a time, to set priorities but not ignore the small stuff. Of course, this is the Senate we're talking about here, where politics has become so corroding and divisive that the chamber has nearly lost its capacity to govern. Perhaps the mere expectation from our leaders of multitasking is too much to ask. Yes, Congress needs to set priorities and focus on coming to a compromise on the tax cuts. But to formalize that into a pledge that opposes any legislation the other party proposes is neglecting the rest of their duties and adding even more political kindling to an already explosive situation.

To: Neil H who wrote (86171)	12/1/2010 5:07:08 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Is this what you meant by bi partisanship? Kyl demands Bush tax cuts by Monday...or no START treaty by Jed Lewison Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:42:04 PM PST Brian Beutler: Kyl: Dems Cave By Monday Or No START Treaty Republicans say no Senate business until tax cuts are extended and the government is funded -- presumably on terms favorable to the GOP. That apparently includes the START treaty. And now the man leading the resistance to ratifying the treaty during the lame duck says Dems have until Monday to come to terms with Republicans on those two issues. "If the taxes all can't be resolved and voted on and completed and spending for the government for the next ten months completed by like next Monday, I don't know how there's enough time to complete START," Kyl told The Hill. Though Kyl's demands may be outrageous, they aren't necessarily crazy. Unless President Obama and congressional Democrats stand up for themselves, there's no reason for Republicans to do anything but keep on taking hostage after hostage. Sure, there's something unseemly about taking national security hostage. And sure, it's brass-knuckle politics to make a demand like this. But if the lesson that Republicans learn is that this is the kind of politics that works, they are going to keep on doing it, over and over again. Remember, it's been just 24 hours since yesterday's "bipartisan" meeting and already Republicans are making a mockery of President Obama's show of good faith. Given how bad it already is, just imagine what it'll be like after the next meeting.

To: Neil H who wrote (86171)	12/2/2010 12:46:16 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 149317

Is this what you and your party call bi partisan cooperation, Neil? St. Paul, Minn. — Tensions continued to mount Wednesday in the governor's race recount in Hennepin County. Elections officials wanted to add more counting tables in hopes of keeping the recount from bogging down with frivolous ballot challenges. They blame Republican Tom Emmer's side for the vast majority of frivolous challenges. The Emmer side threatened legal action if more tables were added, and the chair of the state Republican Party accused Hennepin County's top elections official of being biased toward Democrat Mark Dayton. read more...... minnesota.publicradio.org