Holy Sh@t, what did you do America??

[helpmespock]

Oh can't we all just get along?????


.....I believe Rodney is worth millions today thanks to the American system btw

[linemanpaul]

How about this for a new twist on squatting, and as usual it is not the fault of the people involved in the creating their own problem by being ignorant of what they are doing, it is someone else fault. Maybe they can get Eric Holder to intervene on their behalf.

people.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Fwd: Take Back the Land Liberates Another Home- Feb. 23 at 12noon


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Max Rameau <afrimax@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Subject: Take Back the Land Liberates Another Home- Feb. 23 at 12noon
To: afrimax@gmail.com


Greetings:

At 12:00 noon today, February 23, Take Back the Land liberated a vacant house in order to move an extended family of 12, including six minors, back into the home they lost to foreclosure on Friday, February 20th. The foreclosure was a result of a fraudulent refinance scheme by a predatory lender.

The home is located at 849 NW 137th St. in unincorporated Miami-Dade County. As this message is sent, Take Back the Land is assisting the family in their move back into the home.

Take Back the Land identifies vacant government owned and foreclosed homes and moves homeless people into the people-less homes. The organization has been "liberating" foreclosed homes since October 2007, a year after liberating a vacant government owned piece of land and building the Umoja Village Shantytown, housing homeless individuals until a fire destroyed the community. Take Back the Land has liberated eight (8) homes to date.

After Mary's husband lost his job, the couple and their two teenage children were forced to move back in with her mother. Soon after, the contracting job market forced Mary's adult daughter and fiancee back to the house with their four children, all under 10. The crashing economy ultimately forced 12 relatives, spanning four generations, to cram into Grandma Carolyn's two bedroom one bath house.

Unbeknownst to the families, almost two years prior, Carolyn fell victim to a scam predatory lender. The salesman convinced her that with a new reverse mortgage she would only be compelled to pay the taxes on the house, significantly reducing her expenses as she entered retirement age. When they started receiving the foreclosure notices, it was too late, even with almost every adult in the house regaining employment.

The family was evicted from their home on February 20, upon which they called Take Back the Land requesting assistance. Since then, they have been sleeping together in a van and bread truck in the parking lot of a local supermarket. Local homeless shelters are full and not fitted for families and, therefore, can only split the family between Homestead and Miami and then divide the men and women.

The house itself is in need of repairs and there are at least three other vacant homes on that street and numerous others on adjacent streets. As such, the home is unlikely to be sold or occupied in the next year or even two years and will only contribute to blight and unsafe conditions in the neighborhood. Furthermore, homes vacant for even short periods of time are often vandalized and stripped for valuable parts and fixtures. The vacant house, therefore, does not help the family, the neighborhood or even the bank who owns a structure rapidly decreasing value.

It is inhumane and immoral to evict a family of 12 human beings, who are left to sleep in a truck, and not even fill the house with another family, but leave it vacant, potentially for years to come.

Housing is a human right which is threatened by corporate demands to maximize profits. Take Back the Land calls on people of good conscience to defend their communities and fight for the right of human beings to housing, particularly during this economic crisis.

To continue to receive these email updates, sign up for the Take Back the Land listserve at: Take Back the Land | Google Groups. You can also get more information about Take Back the Land at our website, TakeBacktheLand.org.

forward,


Max Rameau

takebacktheland.org

takebacktheland@gmail.com

takebacktheland

[linemanpaul]

Originally Posted by helpmespock

Oh can't we all just get along?????


.....I believe Rodney is worth millions today thanks to the American system btw

Tell that to the AG

[linemanpaul]

How the F do these Idiots get elected???

Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sen. Boxer Wants the UN To Tell You How to Raise Your Kids

For those of you who have children, you know the first thing that happens when you have kids is that everyone in your family tells you how to be a good parent. Now Its one thing to get that from your family, how would you like the United Nations tell you what to do with your children. Yes that UN, the America sucks, Zionism is Racism, give Sadaam Hussein money under they table United Nations.


If Senator Barbara Boxer gets her way, the UN will not only be able to get into our homes to tell us what to do with our kids but they will be able to enforce their decisions. The treaty, creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference. Scary? Read more:


Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights
By Joseph Abrams

Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.

Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.

That could change soon.

Boxer has made clear her intent to revive the ratification process under the Obama administration, which may be amenable to the move. During a Senate confirmation hearing last month, Boxer said she considers it "a humiliation" that the U.S. is "standing with Somalia" in refusing to become party to the agreement, while 193 other nations have led the way.

The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement, something which has rankled members of Congress, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said.

The convention has established a Committee on the Rights of the Child, an 18-member panel in Geneva composed of "persons of high moral character" who review the rights of children in nations that are party to the convention.

But legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.

Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.

"To the extent that an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined -- that is an erosion of American sovereignty," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Parental rights groups are similarly stirred; they see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit.

"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."

Groves said that erosion has already begun, as the Supreme Court has referred to the wide acceptance of the child-rights law in conferring legal protections on minors in the U.S.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in the 2005 decision banning the death penalty for minors, noted that "every country in the world has ratified [the convention] save for the United States and Somalia."

Proponents of the convention in the U.S. stress that it will help secure human rights abroad.

"Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face," Boxer said in January, implying that the U.S. refusal to come aboard has led to abuses elsewhere.

But when acceding to the convention, countries are able to sign so-called RUDs -- reservations, understandings and declarations -- that can hinder or negate responsibilities they would otherwise be bound to follow.

Most majority Muslim nations express reservations on all provisions of the convention that are incompatible with Islamic Sharia law, which takes much of the teeth out of the treaty. Acid attacks on girls continue in Afghanistan, which is already party to the convention.

The U.N. itself admits that there is no way for it to enforce its own laws and protect children.

"When it comes to signatories who violate the convention and/or its optional protocols -- there is no means to oblige states to fulfill their legal obligations," said Giorgia Passarelli, a spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, which oversees the child-rights body.

Passarelli said that the committee has kept a constant spotlight on rights violators and fed into decisions made by the Security Council, especially involving child soldiers. But even then, she added, such pressure does not always prevail.

Despite these obstacles, Boxer has made clear that she intends to ramp up pressure to get the treaty ratified, a passion that may be shared by the Obama administration.

During the Oct. 22, 2008, presidential youth debate, Obama promised to "review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

During U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's January confirmation hearing, Rice called the convention "a very important treaty and a noble cause," and said it was "a shame" for the U.S. to be in company with Somalia, which has no real government.

Rice told Boxer that "there can be no doubt that [President Obama] and Secretary Clinton and I share a commitment to the objectives of this treaty and will take it up as an early question," promising to review the treaty "to ensure that the United States is playing and resumes its global leadership role in human rights."

Boxer, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed for a 60-day timetable to review the convention and report back to the Senate -- which would have left the Obama administration a March 23 deadline to move toward ratification.

Rice politely sidestepped and refused to agree to the timeline.

"This is a complicated treaty, in many respects more than some others, given our system of federalism, and so we need to take a close look at how we manage the challenges of domestic implementation and what reservations and understandings might be appropriate in the context of ratification," she said.

Boxer's office, which ignored repeated calls and e-mails seeking comment, has not spelled out what if any reservations the senator would like to assert in ratifying the treaty. The State Department also refused to comment on timetables.

YID With LID: Sen. Boxer Wants the UN To Tell You How to Raise Your Kids

[wil]

"Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face," Boxer said in January, implying that the U.S. refusal to come aboard has led to abuses elsewhere.

This blame America first stuff pisses me off to no end.

[linemanpaul]

I think Dick Durbin wants the job of "Minister of Propaganda", because he thinks the Government should take control of the airwaves and the content of the programing on the airwaves. Seems strange that the media that bothers the Democrat's is radio, talk radio to be exact, the format that their ideology has failed in ie Air America. They never take Certainly Not News or MSNBC and the likes of Keith Olberman to task for their oral diarrhea, because they are talking their kind of shit. If you can't beat em legislate em!!

February 26, 2009
Categories: Talk Radio
Senate adopts 'Fairness Doctrine' amendment

Today, the Senate voted 87-11 to adopt the DeMint Amendment, which would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a defunct policy that regulated conflicting views on the airwaves.

Introduced by Sens. DeMint and Thune, the amendment was added to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.

Last week, the White House confirmed President Obama’s opposition to reimposing the Fairness Doctrine.

Alex Isenstadt has provided a list of the Democratic Senators who voted 'no': Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Tim Johnson (S.D.), John Kerry (Mass.), Jack Reed (R.I.), John D. Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.).

It should be noted that just because a Senator voted 'no' it doesn't mean they want to bring Fairness Doctrine back. Such a vote against the amendment could be because it was attached to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.

However, Harkin, for one, has been vocal lately about wanting to bring the Fairness Doctrine back.

UPDATE: Following the DeMint vote, the Senate approved Durbin's amendment which seeks to "encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest." It was a strict party line vote, 57-41.

[linemanpaul]

Can I get you a tissue for your tears, take note of the website

Reject UAW sellout at Ford! Mobilize autoworkers to defend jobs and living standards!
26 February 2009

Auto workers across the US are voting on proposed changes to 2007 UAW-Ford contract, which attacks the jobs, wages and benefits of 42,000 current workers and 186,000 retirees and dependents. The ratification process is scheduled to be completed by March 9.
The Socialist Equality Party is calling for a rejection of this betrayal by the UAW and the mobilization of auto workers industrially and politically. We encourage auto workers and supporters to download and distribute this statement as widely as possible.

Ford workers should reject the sellout agreement negotiated by the United Auto Workers union and fight to mobilize the strength of all autoworkers against the attack on jobs, living standards and working conditions.

The deal signed by the UAW, coming on the heels of the 2007 concessions, will destroy the achievements of decades of struggle.

The agreement will eliminate cost-of-living raises and the lump sum bonuses the union said would offset the wage freeze it accepted in the last contract.

The UAW also agreed to eliminate overtime payments after eight hours, reduce break time and cut two paid holidays. The Jobs Bank will end and supplemental unemployment benefits will be capped at one year, just as the auto companies embark on an unprecedented wave of plant closings and mass layoffs.

By allowing Ford to fund half of its retiree health care obligations with virtually worthless stock, the deal ensures that 186,000 retirees and their dependents will see their health benefits slashed and their premiums and co-pays raised by thousands of dollars.

Autoworkers are not responsible for the crisis in the auto industry. They had no power over the decisions of the corporate executives and Wall Street investors who sacrificed the long-term health of the industry in order to boost share values and amass staggering levels of personal wealth.

The working class is not responsible for the breakdown of the capitalist system, which has created the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s.

For the last three decades—starting with the 1980 Chrysler bailout—autoworkers have given up one concession after another, culminating in the 2007 contract which cut wages in half and eliminated employer-paid pensions for new-hires. Now, UAW members are to work for the same or even lower wages than non-union autoworkers at the US plants owned by Toyota and other international companies.

Once again the UAW bureaucracy is claiming that massive concessions are needed to "save jobs." UAW President Ron Gettelfinger says that without the concessions, "Ford cannot survive on a long-term basis." But none of the "job-saving" contracts signed by the UAW has stopped plant closings and mass layoffs. Since 1978 nearly three-quarters of a million autoworkers have lost their jobs. At Ford, the hourly workforce has shrunk from 174,000 to 42,000.

General Motors has already announced plans to wipe out another 47,000 jobs, including 21,000 hourly and salaried positions in the US, and close 14 plants in North America and Europe. Chrysler and Ford are preparing their own downsizing plans to meet the drastic decline in car sales.

The money robbed from workers in previous concessions contracts was not used to bolster the health of the industry, but to fund stock buy-backs and other measures to boost share value and funnel billions into the bank accounts of corporate executives and big investors.

All the talk about "shared sacrifices" by the auto executives is a fraud. Ford CEO Alan Mulally is to take a cut in his base salary that will leave him with the "modest" figure of $1.4 million—some 28 times the pay of Ford workers. In 2007, Mulally's total compensation package, mostly from bonuses, stock and stock options, came to $21.6 million.

He and the rest of the top executives will eventually recoup their "sacrifices" by reaping vast profits from a "restructured" auto industry, having dumped their pension and health care obligations, driven out higher paid veteran employees and hired new workers at half the wages.

The new concessions will be used to establish a lower benchmark for the next round of concessions demanded by GM, Ford, Chrysler and other global corporations. According to the Wall Street Journal, Ford will be "free to seek additional concessions from the UAW if GM and Chrysler—which must secure concessions to comply with terms of their government bailout loans—get better deals or file for bankruptcy."

The Obama administration is functioning on behalf of the most ruthless sections of finance capital, which see this crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally and permanently shift class relations in the US. They aim to put an end to the so-called "middle class worker" who attained a modicum of economic security—a home, a pension and a college education for their children. The attack on autoworkers will be widened to encompass the entire working class.

This is clear from the collection of Wall Street bankers and asset strippers Obama has selected for his auto task force. They include Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a key architect of the Wall Street bailout, and White House economic advisor Lawrence Summers, who was treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. Both have opposed all but token restrictions on banks that receive taxpayer bailout funds, and both lobbied against limits on bank executive pay that were included in the stimulus bill passed by Congress.

They will be advised by Steven Rattner, a mergers and acquisitions expert who runs a multi-billion-dollar private equity firm, and Ron Bloom, another Wall Street financier. Bloom helped protect the interests of the steelworkers' union bureaucracy as it worked with various financial sharks to "save" the steel industry, leaving tens of thousands of workers without jobs or pensions.

According to the Wall Street Journal, one scenario being considered is to drive the auto companies into Chapter 11 bankruptcy so they can sell off their profitable assets to big investors and dump their health care and pension obligations into the bankruptcy court.

At the same time, the White House is reserving the power to recall the government loans to GM and Chrysler and throw the companies into bankruptcy if workers carry out any strikes or walkouts.

The UAW is complicit in this attack. In exchange for its collaboration, the UAW will reportedly receive hundreds of millions of shares in common stock from Ford, making it the single largest shareholder in the company and qualifying the union bureaucracy for a seat on the board of directors. This will give the union a direct financial incentive to increase the exploitation of its own members.

The fact that the UAW is a union does not make it a workers' organization. It has long since ceased defending the interests of the workers from whom it collects dues. For many years it has striven to reposition itself as a business enterprise so that the income and privileges of the union bureaucracy could be separated as much as possible from the fate of the workers it nominally represents.

Together with union-management corporatism, the UAW has promoted "Buy American" nationalism and anti-foreigner chauvinism to block any unified struggle with autoworkers in other countries, while demanding ever greater concessions in the name of making Detroit "competitive" with European and Asian automakers. The outcome of this policy is a fratricidal struggle pitting workers from different countries, states and even factories against each other.

Autoworkers must reject the blackmail being carried out by the auto bosses, the Obama administration and the UAW and launch a struggle to halt the destruction of their jobs and living standards. Such a struggle must be organized independently of the UAW through the setting up of committees of rank-and-file workers in the factories and of working people, youth and the unemployed in the communities.

A decisive stand by autoworkers will generate massive support from working people in the US and around the world, who are looking for a way to fight mass layoffs, home foreclosures and the continued bailout of the financial aristocracy.

Ford workers should launch a national strike and urge all workers at GM and Chrysler to join the fight, along with the tens of thousands of workers in the auto parts industry and non-union transplants. A special appeal should be made to workers in Canada, Latin America, Asia and Europe to join US workers in a common fight in defense of jobs and living standards.

This industrial fight must be guided by an entirely new political strategy and perspective. The crisis in auto is part and parcel of the failure of the capitalist system in the US and around the world. The only alternative that represents the interests of the working class is the fight for socialism.

This means mobilizing against the Obama administration and breaking decisively with the Democrats and Republicans—two parties of big business that are united in their efforts to make the working class pay for the crisis.

Workers need to be organized as an independent political force to advance their own solution to the crisis. The auto industry must be taken out of the hands of the corporate executives and financial speculators who have driven it into the ground, and transformed into a public utility, democratically owned and controlled by the working people themselves.

The trillions of dollars squandered on the Wall Street bankers must be recovered and used to retool the auto industry to build safe, affordable transportation, in cooperation with autoworkers around the world.

This is the socialist and internationalist perspective fought for by the Socialist Equality Party. We urge autoworkers looking for a way to fight the assault on jobs and living standards to take up the struggle for a socialist future and join the SEP

Reject UAW sellout at Ford! Mobilize autoworkers to defend jobs and living standards!

[linemanpaul]

Some more good reading

Biden promotes 'green' jobs - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

Little Green Footballs - Obama Told SF Chronicle He Would 'Bankrupt' the Coal Industry

[linemanpaul]

The quote of the day for the hope and change believers

The bark of the hope tree is sour.

—Lao Stinky

[linemanpaul]

This is a Great policy from the Obama Administration, any buyers remorse from those that voted for "Hope and Change"???

Be Prepared To Learn Chinese

by: Robert McIntosh posted: 2009-02-27 16:14:00
Viewed 3021 times. 18 Comments.

Because it looks like our wonderful new administration is granting the Chinese eminent domain as collateral for US debts. Yea you read that right. That means when we can no longer pay for all this massive spending the Chinese can call in the loans and take our land.

The thought that American citizens and businesses could lose their land as a means of payment is downright scary. I highly doubt ANY American citizen would have voted for Obama if they knew this was coming down the pike.

LiveLeak.com has the story and appears to have confirmation from both governments.

The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.

This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take -- inside the USA -- land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities - to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.

Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to "take" all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.

What is amazing is that the administration would actually trust the chinese to not call in the debt. Seriously, if anybody in the chinese government get the bright idea that expansionism is a cool thing to do we are up shit creek.

Forget talking about socialism, we might end up half owned by communism before this is all over with. The irony is that China has discovered the beauty of capitalism in the last few years and yet our current government wants to get rid of it. What better way than to just hand it over?

How about that for some serious change you can count on? "Hope" you like losing your land to foreigners with the written authority of the U.S. government.

UPDATE: Seems the story originated here which also mentions this Bloomberg story citing the chinese wanting guarantees on the debt. It also suggests that the states knew this was coming with the recent activity of 11 or so states declaring their sovereignty.

Be Prepared To Learn Chinese on The Patriot Room

[linemanpaul]

The suspects

[linemanpaul]

Another in a long line of Obama's fine appointments

Trade nominee Ron Kirk agrees to pay back taxes


WASHINGTON – Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to make his payments, the Senate Finance Committee said Monday.

The committee said the taxes arise from Kirk's handling of speaking fees that he donated to his alma mater, and for his deduction of the full cost of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team.

The disclosure made the former Dallas mayor the latest in a string of top-level Obama administration appointees found to have underpaid their taxes, following Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle, who withdrew as candidate for Health and Human Services secretary. Nancy Killefer, Obama's pick for chief performance officer, also bowed out amid tax problems.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Kirk was working to clear up "a few minor issues" uncovered by the committee and expressed confidence he would be confirmed.

Despite the error, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued a statement calling Kirk "the right person for this job," and said he would attempt to have the nomination moved through the panel quickly.

Kirk routinely gave any speaking fees he earned to Austin College, the committee said, and did not list them on his tax returns.

Instead, the committee said he should have listed the fees as income, then claimed them as charitable donations. The estimated effect was to reduce Kirk's tax bill by an estimated $5,800, according to the report.

Kirk also deducted more than $17,000 as entertainment expenses for the cost of Mavericks' tickets. The committee said he substantiated about $9,900 of that amount, and will owe about $2,600 in taxes on the balance.

The committee said that last fall, Kirk amended his income tax return for 2006, paying an additional $2,188 in tax and $139 in interest after a notification from the Internal Revenue Service. The return was filed by a paid tax preparer, the panel added.

Trade nominee Ron Kirk agrees to pay back taxes

[linemanpaul]

NO EARMARKS MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8570 earmarks identified

Senate ignores McCain, keeps thousands in earmarks


WASHINGTON – The Senate voted overwhelmingly to preserve thousands of earmarks in a $410 billion spending bill on Tuesday, brushing aside Sen. John McCain's claim that President Barack Obama and Congress are merely conducting business as usual in a time of economic hardship.

McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32. The Arizona senator's proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and kept spending at last year's levels in several federal agencies.

Last year's Republican presidential candidate said both he and Obama pledged during the campaign to "stop business as usual in Washington," and he quoted the president as having said he would go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.

The White House has said that Obama intends to sign the legislation, casting it as leftover business from 2008. Spokesman Robert Gibbs pledged on Monday the White House will issue new guidelines covering earmarks for future bills.

McCain's proposal drew the support of 32 Republicans and two Democrats, and the outcome reflected the enduring value of earmarks to lawmakers. While polls routinely show these pet projects to be unpopular, local governments and constituents often covet them.

The maneuvering came on legislation to assure continued funding for several federal agencies past March 6. At $410 billion, the bill represents an 8 percent increase over last year's spending levels, more than double the rate of inflation.

Republicans made two other attempts during the day to reduce spending in the bill, but failed both times.

Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said McCain's call to hold spending level with a year ago "doesn't account for inflation." As an example, he said some programs would have to be cut if federal workers were to receive a pay raise.

The House passed the legislation last week, and Democratic leaders are working to clear it without changes so the president can sign it by Friday.

While Republican opposition in the House focused more on the bill's overall spending, McCain and allies turned the Senate spotlight squarely on earmarks.

"How does anyone justify some of these earmarks: $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million 'for the promotion of astronomy' in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York," he said.

He also noted the legislation includes 14 earmarks requested by lawmakers for projects sought by PMA Group, a lobbying company at the center of a federal corruption investigation.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said he would seek to have them removed.

Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the legislation contains 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion. House Democrats declined to provide an estimate of the number of pet projects in the bill, and put their cost at $3.8 billion.

Democrats also say the value of earmarks is 5 percent lower than the last time Congress approved spending bills for an entire year.

The earmark issue has been a thorny one for Obama, who successfully urged lawmakers to pass an economic stimulus bill without them. He deferred to lawmakers on the legislation now moving through Congress, but his aides have worked to make it appear that he is merely acquiescing in what lawmakers and the White House had been prepared to do at the end of the Bush administration.

McCain ridiculed that argument in an animated speech on the Senate floor on Monday, asking, "does that mean that last year's president will sign this pork-barrel bill?"

At the White House, Gibbs was deflecting questions on the same subject.

Asked why Obama would sign the bill when he was overturning numerous policies put in place by former President George W. Bush, he said, "I think that you'll see that the president is going to draw some very clear lines about what's going to happen going forward."

Senate ignores McCain, keeps thousands in earmarks

[linemanpaul]

Insult to IGNORANCE!!

Hoyer: Congress, not Obama, to decide on earmarks

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declared Tuesday that Congress, not President Obama, will decide whether to put more limits on earmarks in upcoming spending bills.
The U.S. Senate is voting this week on an emergency spending bill for FY09.

The U.S. Senate is voting this week on an emergency spending bill for FY09.

Asked about White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' statement Monday that the Obama administration was formulating guidelines for earmark reform, Hoyer said flatly, "I don't think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do."

He paused deliberately and quipped to reporters in the room, "I hope you all got that down."

Earmarks are unrelated pet projects that members of Congress insert in unrelated spending bills.

Hoyer pointed out that Democrats have cut down the number of earmarks and now require that all requests get posted on the Internet. But, he conceded, "I think there are additional things we can do and consider."

And the Maryland Democrat added, "It is certainly appropriate for the White House to suggest ways of going forward so that we can have agreement between the White House and ourselves."

He said congressional leaders have talked to the White House about "concerns it had," but refused to offer any specifics.

CNN reported Monday that, according to Democratic sources at a White House meeting last week, Obama urged Democratic leaders to "limit" future earmarks and, in what one official described as a "tense" exchange, the leaders told the president they'll do what they can to continue reform, but that earmarking projects for districts and states is a prerogative of Congress.

Hoyer, who attended the White House meeting, vigorously defended earmark requests Tuesday, calling them "the congressional initiative process."
Don't Miss



"I philosophically believe it would be an undermining of the Article One responsibilities given to the Congress of the United States if it were to abandon its right to add items that it believes are priorities for our country and for the communities we represent as members of Congress," Hoyer said.

The majority leader dismissed a reporter's question on whether the $410 billion spending bill for the rest of this year is becoming an "embarrassment" to Obama, and reiterated Obama's argument that the package is "last year's business."

Hoyer also said that even though Obama, then a senator, did not request any earmarks in last year's spending bill, he did request projects for Illinois in prior years he served in the Senate.

Longtime pork barrel spending critic Sen. John McCain, who opposes earmarks, offered an amendment to the spending bill Tuesday that would have frozen spending at 2008 levels through the 2009 fiscal year, which ends September 30. McCain's amendment failed to pass Tuesday, which means the spending bill made up of about 1 percent earmarks will now go to a vote.

Obama has said he will sign the bill by Friday or the government runs out of money.

Critics, including McCain, have said the excessive spending in the bill would be contrary to the president's recent pledge to cut unnecessary government spending and pork-laden earmarks.

Cutting "wasteful" government spending was a pledge Obama made on the campaign trail and has repeated as president.

Despite Obama's promise, the administration says it inherited the spending and he will sign it.

On the Senate floor Monday, McCain blasted the president -- along with fellow Democrats and Republicans -- for the bill's earmarks.

"If it sounds like I'm angry, Mr. President, it's because I am. The American people today want the Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner, and they don't want us to continue this corrupting practice [of unnecessary spending]," McCain said. "We're giving them [the American people] a slap in the face, Mr. President ... so much for the promise of change."

Several members of Obama's administration served in Congress and have earmarks listed on the bill.

Vice President Joe Biden requested $750,000 for a University of Delaware program during his time as a senator from that state. Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was a Democratic congressman from Illinois, requested $900,000 for a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois.

An Emanuel aide told CNN on Monday the request was submitted more than a year ago and is leftover business.

But Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, said Washington is in a "state of denial."

"It seems that every morning you pick up the newspaper, you're reading about another multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or, even worse, passed. ... We become numb to what the dollar figures really mean, or the obligation that accompanies them," he said in the weekly Republican address Saturday.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the $410 billion spending bill. House GOP leaders said the spending increases in the bill -- $31 billion more than the previous fiscal year -- are too large.

The bill passed on a largely party-line 245-178 vote, with most Democrats voting in favor of it and most Republicans opposed.

Republicans also criticized $7.7 billion in earmarks designed to support pet projects in individual lawmakers' districts. Democrats defended the size of the bill, saying it was necessary to help counter the economic downturn.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group, listed some of the earmarks being proposed by members on both side of the aisle.Read more of the group's analysis

Democrats defended the size of the bill, saying it was necessary to help counter the economic downturn and restore budget cuts made under former President George W. Bush.

Hoyer: Congress, not Obama, to decide on earmarks - CNN.com

[linemanpaul]

I wonder what "Code Pink" thinks of their Democrat administration now

Murtha says Afghanistan plan lacks goal
AP
By KIMBERLY HEFLING,Associated Press Writer AP - Wednesday, March 4

WASHINGTON - Rep. John Murtha said Tuesday the situation in Afghanistan is so challenging that he estimated it would take 600,000 troops to fully squelch violence in the country.


The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful subcommittee that funds the military, said his figure was based on the country's history of rigorous fighting and its size.

"That's what I estimate it would take in a country that size to get it under control," Murtha said in an interview.

Also Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he cannot predict when the United States would be able to leave Afghanistan, but that it won't be soon.

"We would all like to have a situation in which our mission in Afghanistan has been completed and we can bring our troops home," Gates said during a Pentagon news conference. "I do not see that happening anytime in the near future, and I think it's impossible to put a date on when you might firmly say all the troops are coming" home.

Murtha also said he's uncomfortable with President Barack Obama's decision to increase the number of troops in the country by 17,000 before a goal was clearly defined. But he says he anticipates a plan will be developed to train Afghan security forces, and then the U.S. military will get out. He said he sees Afghanistan has more of a diplomatic mission, than a military one.

"I think you'll see a change," Murtha said. "I'm confident you're going to see them only adjusting for a short period of time with these additional troops."

Last month, Obama announced new troops would be sent to Afghanistan to augment the 38,000 there. The number of troops eventually to be sent to Afghanistan will depend on what strategy the Obama administration lays out, and that is under review.

There already, however, has been much debate about troops numbers. Some argue that too many forces would be counterproductive, partly because of Afghan distaste for having foreign forces on their soil.

Huge numbers have been mentioned before, including by the previous NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill. He told a Pentagon press conference last year that if commanders were to go by U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine, for example, and apply the factors of land mass and population, the number needed might be well over 400,000, including international forces and indigenous forces.

Commanders believe the best force to use against an insurgency is generally the local force and have been working with difficulty for years to train and equip Afghan security forces

Murtha says Afghanistan plan lacks goal - Yahoo! Philippines News

[linemanpaul]

Did some one check that Obama had made it pass the 5th grade??

President Obama and Economics 101

Politics | Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:33:22 pm PST

President Obama says he’s looking at the big picture, not sweating the small stuff.

The stock market is story of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day-to-day,“ Obama said. ”And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you’re probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong.“

Another way to get your long-term strategy wrong is by being clueless and confused about simple economic theory. For example, by garbling the definition of the P/E ratio.

“What you’re now seeing is a profit and earnings ratios get to the point that buying stocks is a good thing if you have a long-term perspective on it,” he said to reporters after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Shouldn’t a President of the US know that “P/E Ratio” means “price-to-earnings ratio,” not “profit and earnings ratio?” There is a difference.

Imagine, if you will, the media reaction if George Bush had made such a basic economic blunder in a time of crisis.

Obama: It's a Good Time to Buy Stocks - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

[ckn]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

Did some one check that Obama had made it pass the 5th grade??



Obama: It's a Good Time to Buy Stocks - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

On this one he's right. What better time to buy shares? Seriously, when in the last 30-40 years has there been a better time to invest broadly in shares? They're at historical lows and no-one, anywhere, will say that the vast majority of companies won't get back to at least their former share price in 3-4 years. Yes, some companies will go bust but the vast majority will give you great returns in the mid-long term.

I have doubled the payment into my pension fund to take advantage of this and it will pay me huge dividends in the long run.

The only people I know who say now is a bad time to buy shares are the so-called "professional" investors who buy at the top of the market when the shares are their most expensive yet sell when the market is at its cheapest in a long time. Idiots, one and all.

[linemanpaul]

Originally Posted by ckn

On this one he's right. What better time to buy shares? Seriously, when in the last 30-40 years has there been a better time to invest broadly in shares? They're at historical lows and no-one, anywhere, will say that the vast majority of companies won't get back to at least their former share price in 3-4 years. Yes, some companies will go bust but the vast majority will give you great returns in the mid-long term.

I have doubled the payment into my pension fund to take advantage of this and it will pay me huge dividends in the long run.

The only people I know who say now is a bad time to buy shares are the so-called "professional" investors who buy at the top of the market when the shares are their most expensive yet sell when the market is at its cheapest in a long time. Idiots, one and all.

This is the part that shows his lack of study of the issue

Shouldn’t a President of the US know that “P/E Ratio” means “price-to-earnings ratio,” not “profit and earnings ratio?” There is a difference.

Imagine, if you will, the media reaction if George Bush had made such a basic economic blunder in a time of crisis.

We are in agreement completely on "buy low sell high"

[ckn]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

This is the part that shows his lack of study of the issue

Nah, all politicians are thick... that's why they're politicians, they can't get a proper job elsewhere. You'd probably find that none of the Presidents over the last few decades (bar maybe Bush Sr) would know that either.

[linemanpaul]

To all the "Obamatons", you will get what you want, or maybe something that you did not expect. To all the Freemen, those with a brain and those that hold true the Constitution of The United States, read this and get ANGRY, PISSED OFF and call your Congressman and speak of your disdain of this attempted violation of your rights as a law abiding citizen of America!!!. I am sure that there will be much more to come.

GovTrack: H.R. 45: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House

For those that are too lazy to read the above link, this is a total RAPE of the Second Amendment by Obama and his "COWARD" Attorney Gereral Eric Holder