Winning The Future!

[maxx]

mikeg:Surely you've also noticed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still showing Obama his clenched fist; Germany, Turkey and most of the Arab League either walked away or sabotaged Obama's Libyan mini-coalition; Hamid Karzai is as uncooperative as ever and deliberately fomenting murderous anti-American and anti-UN riots; Muslim's are burning Obama 's effigy as we speak......

So obviously, he should just bomb them all and forget diplomacy like W did. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, we lost a lot of trust in the world. We went against decades of U.S. policy that stated that we would only invade nations that attacked us first. We can't control the craziness of other leaders, only the craziness of our own leaders.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future!"

"Elections have consequences" Special Edition

Here are some key facts provided by the Speaker of the House about the bi-partisan agreement reached late Friday evening that averted a shut-down of the federal government:

• THE LARGEST SPENDING CUT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. The agreement will immediately cut $38.5 billion in federal spending – the largest spending cut in American history in terms of dollars – just months after President Obama asked Congress for a spending “freeze” that would mean zero cuts.·
• HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN SPENDING CUTS OVER THE NEXT DECADE. The agreement will cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget over the next decade – “real money,” as the Wall Street Journal editorial board recently noted.
• OFFICIALLY ENDS THE “STIMULUS” SPENDING BINGE. The agreement begins to reverse the “stimulus” spending binge that began in 2009 – signaling the official end of a period of unprecedented government intervention that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economists say hurt job creation in America by crowding out private investment.
• SETS STAGE FOR TRILLIONS MORE IN SPENDING CUTS. Clears the way for congressional action on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget – The Path to Prosperity – which cuts trillions in spending and offers a long-term blueprint for American job creation.
• GUARANTEES SENATE VOTE ON REPEAL OF OBAMACARE. The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care in its entirety. The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America.
• NEW TOOLS IN THE FIGHT TO REPEAL OBAMACARE. The agreement will generate new tools for the fight to repeal Obamacare by requiring numerous studies that will force the Obama Administration to reveal the true impact of the law’s mandates, including a study of how individuals and families will see increased premiums as a result of certain Obamacare mandates; a full audit of all the waivers that the Obama Administration has given to firms and organizations – including unions – who can’t meet the new annual coverage limits; a full audit of what’s happening with the comparative effectiveness research funding that was in Obamacare and the president’s failed “stimulus” spending bill; and a report on all of the contractors who have been hired to implement the law and the costs to taxpayers of such contracts.
• DENIES ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE IRS. The Obama administration has sought increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service [[IRS) – money that could be used to hire additional agents to enforce the administration’s agenda on a variety of issues. This increased funding is denied in the agreement.
• GUARANTEES SENATE VOTE & DEBATE ON DE-FUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD. The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
• BANS TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The agreement includes a complete ban on local and federal funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, applying the pro-life principles of the Hyde Amendment [[“D.C. Hyde”).
• MANDATORY AUDITS OF THE NEW JOB-CRUSHING BUREAUCRACY SET UP UNDER DODD-FRANK. The agreement subjects the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the job-destroying Dodd-Frank law to yearly audits by both the private sector and the Government Accountability Office [[GAO) to monitor its impact on the economy, including its impact on jobs, by examining whether sound cost-benefit analyses are being used with rulemakings.

[firstandten]

Why then is the Tea Partiers saying the speaker caved and is threatning him with some competition next election cycle

[Mikeg]

Why then is the Tea Partiers saying the speaker caved and is threatning him with some competition next election cycle

I don't know - you'll have to ask them. I'm a "glass half full" kind of guy.

This part of the budget process is just cleaning up the mess that the Democrats made of the 2011 budget and appropriations process. Any 2011 budget reductions and policy changes that result from it is "gravy" and never would have happened if we still had Speaker Pelosi. This also sets the stage for major and real spending reductions in 2012 - not those typical "Washington DC budget cuts" whereby the only thing reduced is the automatic rate of growth.

BTW, what a pair of geniuses: Nancy Pelosi and "Pinky" Reid! They thought they could delay the 2011 budget process until after the Nov 2010 elections so that they wouldn't hand their political opponents any more ammunition to use against them. Now they have to "eat crow" because of it.
__________________________

Would I liked to have seen more spending reductions? Sure - and the Tea Party members have every right to be upset with the minuscule amount contained in the agreement. But they need to look at the bigger picture and at least recognize what their activism just accomplished. The House of Representatives, with their new Republican majority and fueled by the Tea Party-backed Republican freshmen, have lit a match under the majority leadership and as a result, Congress has gone from debating whether or not to cut actual spending to actually making spending cuts.

For example:

Harry Reid, Feb. 3, 2011, on Paul Ryan’s initial offer of $32 billion in spending cuts:

The chairman of the Budget Committee today, today sent us something even more draconian than we originally anticipated..... So this isn’t some game that people have been playing. The House of Representatives [is] actually sending us some of these unworkable plans.

Harry Reid, April 9, 2011, on a deal to cut $38.5 billion:

This is historic, what we’ve done.

[maxx]

We can all celebrate. And stand in line outside some barn to get the corporatists' form of healthcare courtesy of Remote Medical International.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

But what I saw were doctors who were set up to provide care in animal stalls [in Va.]. Or they'd erected tents, to care for people. I mean, there was no privacy. In some cases-- and I've got some pictures of people being treated on gurneys, on rain-soaked pavement.
And I saw people lined up, standing in line or sitting in these long, long lines, waiting to get care. People drove from South Carolina and Georgia and Kentucky, Tennessee-- all over the region, because they knew that this was being done. A lot of them heard about it from word of mouth.
There could have been people and probably were people that I had grown up with. They could have been people who grew up at the house down the road, in the house down the road from me. And that made it real to me.
BILL MOYERS: What did you think?
WENDELL POTTER: It was absolutely stunning. It was like being hit by lightning. It was almost-- what country am I in? I just it just didn't seem to be a possibility that I was in the United States. It was like a lightning bolt had hit me.


[You were in the U.S., but the picture was from a different century --- the 19th century.]

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with a Stand-up Comedian"

Following an energy policy speech at a "town hall" event held inside a Spanish-owned wind turbine manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania, President Obama was asked by one of the workers, "You were talking about the rise of gas prices..... is there a chance of the price being lower again?" [[starts at the 5:10 mark in this video)

In response, after four minutes of dissembling on the subject of oil demand, production, and proven reserves*, the President shifted from his dry, rambling monologue into an act that sounded like a cross between a stand-up comedian and a car dealer pitchman, saying:

“I know some of these big guys, they’re all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything. . . . If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon — [[laughter) . . . So, like I said, if you’re getting eight miles a gallon you may want to think about a trade-in. You can get a great deal.”

As Mark Steyn so succinctly puts it,

"A man gets driven in a motorcade to sneer at a man who has to drive himself to work."
_____________

* In his comments, Obama repeated his shop-worn lie that "We consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil. We only have 2 percent of the reserves."

There are three things wrong with that statement:

1) It slyly attempts to compare the two, which is like comparing apples and oranges.
2) the companion statistic to the US's share of annual world-wide consumption is that the US produces about 10 percent of the world's oil.
3) The 2 percent number is true only if you use the SEC's legal definition of "proven reserves" and add the US amount to the estimated reserves elsewhere that are all based on the petroleum industry's definition. Using the industry definition throughout gives the US about 15 percent of the world's "proven reserves".

Therefore, if the President really wanted to level with the American people, he would have said "Each year we consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil while only producing 10% of it. We currently only have about 15 percent of the world-wide reserves."

But that doesn't sound dire enough to justify massive Federal Government intervention in the energy sector, does it?

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with a Whiner-in-Chief!"

During an interview with editors and publishers from Hearst Magazines, President Obama confessed,

"I just miss - I miss being anonymous," he said at the meeting in the White House. "I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can't take a walk."

Man-up, big guy - you asked to be President!

Besides, you'll have plenty years of anonymity, beginning in January 2013!

[firstandten]

A common sense approach to attacking the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/st...speech/?iid=EL

[Papasito]

"I'm going to cut the deficit"
"I'm going to control wreckless spending [[that is George Bush's fault)"

... and by the way

"I'm increasing the debt ceiling"

[firstandten]

"I'm going to cut the deficit"
"I'm going to control wreckless spending [[that is George Bush's fault)"

... and by the way

"I'm increasing the debt ceiling"

I wish you would try and understand what the man was saying in the link that was provided instead of throwing out the same old tired crap the folks on the right would have you believe

[1KielsonDrive]

"I'm going to cut the deficit"
"I'm going to control wreckless spending [[that is George Bush's fault)"

... and by the way

"I'm increasing the debt ceiling"

As much as I dislike NO!bama, anyone suggesting he's solely, or even in large part, responsible for our debt and budget problems has had their heads up their asses for over 30 years. Think Star Wars, Medicare Part ??, trillion dollar tax cuts, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc. After the last administration, the debt ceiling had nowhere to go but UP! - through the stratosphere.

[Papasito]

suggesting he's solely, or even in large part, responsible for our debt and budget problems has had their heads up their asses

Change needs to start somewhere.

[1KielsonDrive]

Change needs to start somewhere.

I agree with your statement as it is posted. But not on the backs of the poor and middle class. It wasn't the poor and middle class that started all of this shit. It was bankers, CEO's, traders, politicians, etc, etc. Our RULING CLASS.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with a 590 FICO score!"

U.S. Warned on Debt Load
S&P Signals Top Credit Rating Is in Danger, Stoking Political Battle on Deficit


A blunt warning Monday from a credit-rating firm about the U.S. government's mounting debt pushed stock markets lower and intensified political divisions in Washington about how best to tackle growing deficits......

The White House last week proposed reducing the deficit at a moderate pace through a combination of tax increases, changes to Medicare and cuts in military and other spending.......

[read the rest]

S&P was apparently less-than-impressed with Obama's Version 2.0 of his 2012 Budget proposal!

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with Red Superhero Capes for the Unemployed!"

Can't find a job? Workforce Central Florida wants to give you a cape
By Jim Stratton, Orlando Sentinel
11:20 p.m. EDT, April 15, 2011

It may be hard getting a job in today's labor market, but Workforce Central Florida is prepared to give you a cape — a shiny, red cape.

At least while supplies last.

The region's federally funded jobs agency is spending more than $73,000 on a media campaign to raise awareness of its services.

As part of a superhero theme, it has created a cartoon character named "Dr. Evil Unemployment" and spent more than $14,000 on 6,000 satiny superhero capes......
[read the entire article]

The promoters forgot to include a pair of cheap sunglasses with the cape so they could convince the unemployed that "their future is so bright, they gotta wear shades!"

Another disgusting example of "your Federal tax dollars at work". But let's raise that Federal debt limit so we can borrow more money and spend our way into that economic recovery that's just around the corner!

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future with One Less Distraction!"

Thank goodness President Obama has finally put an end to that sideshow and delivered a well-deserved smackdown to those silly "birthers", their enablers in the press and their "carnival barker" slash "ringmaster"!

At 9:45 a.m. yesterday, President Obama delivered a statement in the White House press briefing room:

“We do not have time for this kind of silliness,” he said to reporters after the White House released a long-form copy of his birth certificate. Potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stirred up the controversy in recent weeks by demanding Obama prove he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya.

“We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do,” Obama said. “We’ve got big problems to solve, and I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them, not on this.”

Immediately following his statement, after which he took no questions from the press, President Obama boarded Marine One on the White House lawn at 10:05 a.m., en route to Andrews AFB and Chicago, where he taped an episode of the Oprah Winfrey TV Show. Following that, he jetted off to New York City to make appearances at three separate DNC fund-raising events. All together last night, Obama raised

".....somewhere between $2 million and $3 million. All profits from the events support the Obama Victory Fund, which splits money raised between the DNC and the reelection campaign."

Perhaps I should have just titled this post

"Winning the Oprah vote with One Less Distraction"
or maybe
"Filling the Obama Victory Fund with One Less Distraction!"

After all, "Winning the Future" is just a gauzy euphemism posing as an "Obama 2012" campaign slogan. Come to think of it, "I've got better stuff to do!" would make a nifty re-election campaign slogan for Obama. I do believe a majority of the voters will decide that he can do his "better stuff" in the private sector.

[maxx]

"I'm going to cut the deficit"
"I'm going to control wreckless spending [[that is George Bush's fault)"

... and by the way

"I'm increasing the debt ceiling"

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...ebt_limit.html

"... failure to raise the debt limit even if we continue making interest and principal payments on our debt could hurt confidence that investors have in the federal government. Investors might lose faith in the federal government’s ability to come together on other important issues, such as dealing with the deficit and charting a path to a balanced budget. This could lead to significantly higher interest rates, the cost of which would be borne by all taxpayers as well as businesses and consumers—all of whom would also face higher borrowing costs as confidence in the United States eroded."

[maxx]

FOr those of you who don't think there's any difference between the major parties.

The Republicans want to default on 2.5 trillion in Social Security's government bonds THAT YOU PAID FOR to pay for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. If you aren't in the top 1%, you have no reason to vote Republican.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxzy4iOAZA

[vetalalumni]

Immediately following his statement, after which he took no questions from the press, President Obama boarded Marine One on the White House lawn at 10:05 a.m., en route to Andrews AFB and Chicago, where he taped an episode of the Oprah Winfrey TV Show. Following that, he jetted off to New York City to make appearances at three separate DNC fund-raising events. All together last night, Obama raised

Perhaps I should have just titled this post

"Winning the Oprah vote with One Less Distraction"
or maybe
"Filling the Obama Victory Fund with One Less Distraction!"

After all, "Winning the Future" is just a gauzy euphemism posing as an "Obama 2012" campaign slogan. Come to think of it, "I've got better stuff to do!" would make a nifty re-election campaign slogan for Obama. I do believe a majority of the voters will decide that he can do his "better stuff" in the private sector.

Neat observation. Trump arguably does his "better stuff" in the private sector, better..

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future by Leading from Behind"

Ryan Lizza writes in "The New Yorker" about President Obama's "evolving" Middle East foreign policy,

Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding.

You can be sure that
a) "Leading from Behind" will be the GOP challenger's all-purpose label for Obama during the 2012 campaign
b) it's negative connotations will resonate with the all-important "independent" voters who have been steadily deserting Obama ever since the 2008 election.

What remains to be seen is whether there is a GOP challenger who can convince the "independents" that he/she has the foreign policy "chops" to effectively lead the USA.

[vetalalumni]

"Winning the Future by Leading from Behind"

Ryan Lizza writes in "The New Yorker" about President Obama's "evolving" Middle East foreign policy,You can be sure that
a) "Leading from Behind" will be the GOP challenger's all-purpose label for Obama during the 2012 campaign
b) it's negative connotations will resonate with the all-important "independent" voters who have been steadily deserting Obama ever since the 2008 election.

What remains to be seen is whether there is a GOP challenger who can convince the "independents" that he/she has the foreign policy "chops" to effectively lead the USA.

Enter Jon Huntsman?

[Mikeg]

Enter Jon Huntsman?

That's one possibility - however, he's going to have to work even harder to convince the GOP base of his conservative "chops".

[maxx]

That's one possibility - however, he's going to have to work even harder to convince the GOP base of his conservative "chops".

Conservative nothing. He's got to out-crazy a whole lot of crazy would-be candidates.

[vetalalumni]

Why would someone in the White House think that a political slogan like "Winning the Future" is a good idea, particularly when it's the title of a 2006 book written by someone who has a teeny-tiny chance of challenging your boss in 2012 - not to mention the acronym it forms?

...

Gingrich, who will announce this week, does not own the phrase. Moreover, who best uses the phrase to communicate is key.

[vetalalumni]

"Winning the Future by Re-Writing the Past"

Obama: Gadhafi 'Has Lost The Legitimacy To Lead'

Washington [[CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Thursday that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi "has lost the legitimacy to lead and ... must leave." [read the rest]

I seem to remember that Col. Gadhafi staged a coup d’état and has exercised dictatorial power over Libya ever since 1969. How in the hell can anyone say with a straight face that Gadhafi "has lost the legitimacy to lead" when he was never a legitimate leader to begin with? Imagine how those translated words will sound to the ears of Libyans who are risking death to overthrow that bastard?

Here is a representative link to replace the broken one you provided. By Philip Terzian of the Weekly Standard.

Obama Says Qaddafi 'Has Lost the Legitimacy to Lead' suggesting the Libyan strongman was once 'legitimate.'

by Philip Terzian

March 3, 2011 4:15 PM

President Obama has, at long last, publicly called on Col. Moammar Qaddafi to end his 42-year tenure as dictator of Libya.

The fact that the president has waited so long to make any public gesture in this direction, and the forum in which he addressed Qaddafi—a joint press conference with the president of Mexico—surely detracts from any power his words might have carried. So, too, does his reasoning: Qaddafi, says Obama, "has lost the legitimacy to lead"—a phrase which combines turgid language with the implication that Qaddafi, who staged a coup d’état and has exercised dictatorial power since 1969, was ever Libya's "legitimate" leader. Informing Qaddafi that he has lost the "legitimacy to lead" lacks the unambiguous impact of Cromwell's famous rebuke to the Long Parliament—"Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"—but at this stage in the protracted Libyan struggle, it is better than nothing.

Observers of the Obama administration's tentative behavior—leasing a private ferry to transport American nationals from Tripoli, emphasizing the necessity of "coordinated" diplomatic gestures against Qaddafi, describing in detail the military obstacles to action—have wondered if the White House might be wary of the exercise of American power. This is no longer a rhetorical question: The Obama administration is not only reluctant to advance [[or, for that matter, defend) the national interest in Libya, but seems to regard the national interest as suspect in itself. President Obama has always been careful to personalize policy under these circumstances: The Muslim world, or the Arab states, have been addressed by Barack Obama, not by the president of the United States. Why the president should think as he does is another subject, but the crisis in Libya only emphasizes that it is so.

Accordingly, in Libya, the United States has not only turned its back on a heroic resistance movement, and missed an opportunity to advance democracy in the Middle East, but visibly weakened American power as well. President Obama has been manifestly more concerned about the welfare of U.S. citizens in Libya—or put another way, the political implications of a hostage crisis—than about the welfare of American national interests. When asked about the feasibility of a "no-fly" zone in Libya, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has described in detail the difficulties inherent in such a course of action, and the secretary of defense has implied that U.S. military power may not be equal to the challenge of the Libyan air force. Nobody, especially those within Libya pleading for Western help, can fail to comprehend the meaning of such talk.

Now that President Obama has chosen to question Colonel Qaddafi's "legitimacy to lead," and matched his rhetoric with peripheral gestures aimed at transporting humanitarian assistance to Libya's borders, the United States has not only missed an opportunity to make history in the region, but has signaled our unwillingness, and our apparent inability, to defend and advance American interests abroad.

Listen to the video again [[2 clips below), and then reread the transcript itself. Qaddafi has lost legitimacy with his people and those who consider him leader. These are those around him who have made the calculation to support him and carry out orders urging and perpetrating violence against Libyan citizens.

joint press availability with Mexico's President Calderon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXeM4lp9fg
and an additional corresponding statement from the same day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x1e30_wyLk