Most Transparent President EVAH!

Interesting timing. Trying to deflect coverage from last night's Caucus.

Doesn't our President usually pull this kind of thing late on a Friday afternoon?

I find this statement interesting:

"even though the Senate contends the move is inappropriate, senior administration officials told The Associated Press."

I thought the Democrats and Harry Reid controlled the Senate?

And they think this is inappropriate?

Who, exactly, is on the side of our President and his agenda up in Washington anymore?

Most Transparent President EVAH!

Is President Obama making this appointment behind closed doors?

Interesting timing.

On this I agree, it's the one - two punch after last night's train wreck in IA!

Here's a bucket, your hair is on fire!

Still stakling me... eh?

Ya freak!

PS: Nice to see you gave up over on FT's after getting your ass handed to you! lol

Feisty, YES!!

Totally the right move. Cordray is super-qualified for the job. And we are literally sick & tired of the "Do as we say, not as we do" Republican Senate that is constantly dumbing down the middle-class.

We need Consumer Protections, we don't want financial reform repealed. Unlike McConnell, we WANT our economy to recover. Anything else is just a big DUHHHH and an insult to anyone's intelligence.

The number of nominations that GOP is holding up is chronic - and a first in US history. I guess they are waiting for a *magic* dirty moment when they can just PLOP the extreme right wing into all of those positions.

Cheers, Mr. President! Appoint more while Congress is vacationing. The GOP has blocked nominee after nominee for no good reason other than to obstruct democracy and deny our President the right to choose those he thinks best for any position. These same republicans who obstruct, delay and deny President Obama's nominees an up or down vote are the same ones who threatened the nuclear option when democrats opposed some, not every one, of President Bush's nominees.

WCA, you need some coffee or something to wake you. With Santorum almost winning Iowa last night, and Romney's stuck at 25% of the vote--there are great big smiles on every WH staffer and Obama's re-election team's faces this morning. BTW, the Senate minority GOP controls the Senate because they demand 60 votes to even bring something to the floor; one GOPers can block any nominee indefinitely.

I have no issue with the appointment.

The CFPB was created, so let him appoint who he wants.

It can be fixed next year, after Obama is gone. Plus the dems really can't bitch about recess appointments after this, right?

Sure they won't.

"As president, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments.....and Bill Clinton 139.

Many of those recess appointments were also contentious."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0707/Obama-and-recess-appointments-He-s-not-the-only-one-to-make-them-often

Congrats to Mr. Barack Obama, President of the United States on his decision to do what is right for the American people! We all need Consumer Protection.

Fiesty, I couldn't agree more. Even though these appointments will only be able to serve until the end of the President's term, it is what is needed. As many have pointed out, the GOP has stalled confirmation of a lot of appointments and other legislation for no justifiable reason since the President took office. If any of us didn't do their job, we would be fired. Perhaps that's exactly what needs to happen and in November, the people of this nation can do this. All it showed was a continued attitude that the GOP will do nothing to support the President and that they could care less about the people or problems that our nation is facing. If ever there was a need for a position that needed to be filled at this point in time, this is it. I just hope that everyone will put aside partisan politics, when it comes time to vote in November, and the voters will go beyond what party the politician represents and choose the best person for the job; and right now, it sure doesn't look like any incumbents are the right choice. To many of these members of Congress have been in office so long that they are not only out of touch with the people they represent but, they have shown time and again that they just don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves. You would think that the people of this nation would say, enough is enough already and boot their carcases out of Washington so that our nation can begin to recover from a very dismal period, in our nation's history.

WWW FREEDOMISNTFREE2012 COM

@Jody - "With Santorum almost winning Iowa last night..."

===========

IMO, Santorum really did win last night. If not for the presence of Bachman and Perry splintering the conservative vote, Romney gets lapped. Bachman's now out and Perry can't be far behind.

With SC being more like IA than NH is, with a fair showing in NH for Santorum and an aggressive Newt on the prowl, SC may well be the highest stakes for the Religious right to reassert themselves as the dominant wing of party by pushing Santorum to a victory and putting Romney down 2 to 1 going into in FL.

I thought the Democrats and Harry Reid controlled the Senate?

I think the guy in charge of the Senate is named "Phil A. Buster".

You have no idea of Senate rules. The Leader has no control over bringing this to the floor for an up or down vote. The minority in the Senate can cause havoc w/o having to do basically anything. 60 is a dirty number in the Senate and really must be reformed if 'governing' is to ever happen again.

Alan, I don't disagree with your Santorum theory because of the split vote. That said, my comment was based on the actual results because we have no information that would tell us where Perry or Bachmann's votes would have gone. It is possible they, particularly Perry's, could have gone to Ron Paul.

This is clearly an abuse of power by Barry. The Constitution clearly requires appointments like these to be subject to the "advice and CONSENT" of the Senate (Article 2, Section 2). The recess appointment is an anachronistic vestige of the horse and buggy days when the Senate might be out of session for months. I really do hope someone takes him to the Supreme Court on this one.

BTW, It's Hillaryous to think about how the FR lefty liberals would be howling at the moon if GWB ever did this.

Joe,

Here is a list of more than 50 recess appointments made by President George W. Bush:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Recess_appointments_made_by_President_George_W._Bush

Alan, I don't disagree with your Santorum theory because of the split vote. That said, my comment was based on the actual results because we have no information that would tell us where Perry or Bachmann's votes would have gone. It is possible they, particularly Perry's, could have gone to Ron Paul.

Apparently Perry has decided to compete in South Carolina. Can only be considered good news for Romney.

Actually, Joe in Albany - georgie did do this - quite a lot in case you don't remember, oh yes he did. You guys thought it was ok for him, so what is good for the goose is most certainly good for the gandar. Payback - it is not just a witch, it is a witch with a capital B!

Joe, Albany -

"if GWB ever did this"???

"Overall, Obama has been significantly less aggressive in recess appointments than his predecessors — to date, he’s made just 29 such appointments, compared with 171 for George W. Bush and 139 for Bill Clinton."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/with-cordray-appointment-obama-to-set-precedent/2012/01/04/gIQAJvMYaP_blog.html

@WCA: Harry Reid, as the Senate Majority Leader, is obligated to protect the powers granted to the Senate in the Constitution. That's why he has not gone and went to a full recess. President Obama, by making this appointment, is basically calling the pro-forma sessions what they are, pure political bs.

IMO, if the GO Nope want to maintain filibusters, they should be required to stand up for hours and hours and talk. Unfortunately, the good Senators are well aware that what goes around, comes around. If the Democrats in the Senate sidelined the GOP, they could very well be sidelined if they ever lose control.

It's Hillaryous to think about how the FR lefty liberals would be howling at the moon if GWB ever did this

How's that crow tasting for you this morning, Joey

Swallow harder, little buddy, you still have a foot stuck between your lips...

LMAO@U Joey!

Here is a list of more than 50 recess appointments made by President George W. Bush:

___________________________________

Dennis, Union Baby and Joanne, maybe you didn't read the whole article or didn't understand it:

"However, his opponents will likely criticize him for making a move that George W. Bush never made -- making a recess appointment while Congress is still in session, albeit in a pro-forma session."

Barry is trying to slip this through on a technicality his lawyers say exists. Let the SC decide if the Senate is really in session, in which case the appointment is invalid. Or they can decide that a pro-forma session is not legit, in which case the appointment is valid. That's why we have courts to settle disputes.

Nasty Redhead: Nasty as ever. You never disappoint.

I don't think the issue here is going to be the recess appointment itself. As many people have pointed out, all Presidents make these kinds of appointments. The issue is really going to come down to a practice begun by the Democratic controlled Senate in 2007 to keep former President Bush from making recess appointments. The issue is going to be whether these "pro-forma" sessions of Congress are legitimate. The courts will need to decide this. If the courts find that the "pro-forma" sessions mean that Congress is truly in session, then it will throw out this recess appointment. If the court finds that the "pro-forma" session doesn't count, then the recess appointment will stand. Former President Bush never challenged the "pro-forma" session. This is the first time that the "pro-forma" session has been challenged. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

As usual, Frank, great point.

I believe the court will see the “pro-forma" sessions of Congress as a trick, that they are truly not in session, that no legislation is being considered, debated or voted on.

On the other hand they may take the wider view as to the reason recess appointments were allowed – because of the lengthy travel time for many members and rule recess appointments to no longer necessary and declare them to be illegal.

Then the question would be, is this good for the citizens?

"However, his opponents will likely criticize him for making a move that George W. Bush never made -- making a recess appointment while Congress is still in session, albeit in a pro-forma session."

Barry is trying to slip this through on a technicality his lawyers say exists. Let the SC decide if the Senate is really in session, in which case the appointment is invalid. Or they can decide that a pro-forma session is not legit, in which case the appointment is valid. That's why we have courts to settle disputes.

--------------------------------------------

@Joe: The Republicans are saying that they are: "gavel down for 60 seconds pro forma." Now seriously, if you were on a job, and you came in for exactly 1 minute, and then said, "Let's do lunch" and not come back from it...you wouldn't have a job.

Pro Forma: a term applied to practices or documents that are done as a pure formality, perfunctory, or seek to satisfy the minimum requirements or to conform to a convention or doctrine.

That's what the Republican members of the Senate are doing...that's not "being in session." I'm not even sure they are showing up to the floor. In ANY other situation, if someone was doing this they wouldn't be considered as present for their job.

Grimey, Dennis, and Goose289 -

Thanks for the info - I'm the first to admit I'm not a legal scholar, but I do like to learn.

From the Senate's own official website:

"pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no
business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. "

So in other words.....President Obama is using one legal technicality to get around another legal technicality? So maybe the courts will eventually have to decide this one, but that's still a long way from Joe's original assertion that it's "clearly an abuse of power".

By the way......is there any nominee to this post that Republicans would ever be likely to approve? Or is it the whole idea of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau they object to?

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

On the other hand they may take the wider view as to the reason recess appointments were allowed – because of the lengthy travel time for many members and rule recess appointments to no longer necessary and declare them to be illegal.

The court cannot declare recess appointments to be illegal, even if the reason for having them is obsolete, because recess appointments are a power granted to the president by the US Constitution. As for the whether or not the courts will take up the question of the legality of appointments during pro-forma recesses, they won't do it unless the Republicans challenge the Cordray's appointment in court. After their payroll tax cut debacle, they may be reluctant to demonstrate to the public once again that they're soldiers of the wealthy and enemies of the middle class in the class warfare they're waging.

If I understand it correctly, they want to repeal Dodd-Frank which includes the CFPB, due to it being "Overly burdensome to job creators by making onerous restrictions." I know they want to get rid of it in general, but I'm not sure if it was a part of Dodd-Frank or not.

As per the Pro Forma rule, I still think if your going to do it...you have to do it from the actual Senate floor...not from an armchair. Also, is there a minimum number of members needed to be present to do this? Not 100% sure on that...and by present I mean...physically there.

JoAnne

By the way......is there any nominee to this post that Republicans would ever be likely to approve? Or is it the whole idea of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau they object to?

It's the whole thing they object to. They blocked Cordray's appointment to prevent the agency from doing the public service it is intended to perform: protecting consumers against corporate predators.

That's what the Republican members of the Senate are doing...that's not "being in session." I'm not even sure they are showing up to the floor. In ANY other situation, if someone was doing this they wouldn't be considered as present for their job.

_________________________________________________________

You are entitled to your own opinion. However, in this case, the ONLY opinion that matters is the majority opinion of the SC. I just hope someone has the balls to take it there.

Never mind, I think I just found the answer to my own question on another MSN site:

"The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, accused Obama of an unprecedented power grab that "arrogantly circumvented the American people."

Following Cordray's nomination in July, Senate opponents vowed to block the appointment of any director until they won substantial changes in the make-up and funding of the new bureau. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, strongly opposed allowing the agency to begin operating in its current form, arguing that it was too independent and should be subject to increased oversight.

On Wednesday, Shelby called Cordray “an unaccountable bureaucrat who will have immense power over the economy.

“President Obama's philosophy is clear: government knows best, and the bigger, the better,” Shelby said in a statement. “ In light of his record, it's not surprising that he end ran the elected representatives of the American people to avoid accountability to them.”

So let me see if I've got it this time - McConnell thinks that appointing a director for an agency designed to protect American consumers is something that "arrogantly circumvented the American people". And Senator Shelby, who thinks government is already too big, wants more government oversight of an agency that's designed to provide oversight.

Does that about cover it, or am I missing something?

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9947364-obama-defies-gop-by-naming-new-consumer-watchdog

Houston,

Thanks. I believe that the Republicans will challenge the appointment because without a director the bureau has no power or authority. I didn't know that recess appointments were granted by the constitution – thanks again.

On another note …

President Obama is planning to announce later today that he will also use his recess appointment powers to place Department of Labor Attorney Sharon Block, labor lawyer Richard Griffin, and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board.

From the Senate's own official website:

"pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no
business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. "

____________________________________________

Since the Constitution gives each House the absolute right to set their own rules, it looks like the pro forma session is legit. And that means Barry's scam is not legit.

You are entitled to your own opinion.

Now that you managed to choke down the crow - you can have a heaping helping of Humble Pie little Joey!

That's the conclusion I'm getting from it Joanne.

The main issues that the Republican party has, is that the director shouldn't be able to make decisions independently of anything else...they want a committee. They are also saying that this "goes against the American people" because it doesn't protect corporations, since its designed to watch over said corporations.

As for the oversight, I think that there is some slight confusion to the strength and power of the agency and who it answers to, and I will not comment on that because I honestly don't know.

The Republicans want it to be a committee...not just one person. I don't know all of what is involved in the decision-making and execution policy is so once again...not commenting.

@Joe:

The bottom line: they show up every few days to do a pro forma session. If you didn't go to work for a day it would be taken off your sick or vacation time. If you show up for 60 seconds and then leave for the day, you wouldn't be considered to have worked. If you don't even show up to your job, and just phone it in, you aren't working.

You have to be there, dress the part and work your shift...although the thought of some of the senators in fuzzy pink bunny slippers, sweat pants, and a Hello Kitty! t-shirt is amusing. They are on vacation by every sense of the word.

My daughter plays these games...and she is six years old and she loves Hello Kitty! too.

Goose, Houston, Dennis...

Good comments all around. What I have read is that if a court challenge is filed, it will be by an outside group that would be affected by this new bureau. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in the courts.

My understanding of what the GOP wants here is changes, as opposed to flat out repeal. I'm doing this on memory, so I may be off, but I seem to recall they want a board as opposed to a single person in charge, they want more congressional oversite of the bureau, and maybe having their funding up for debate each year.

Frank,

I believe you are right on target.

Goose289 -

You have no idea how refreshing it is to hear someone around here refraining from commenting on an issue because they're willing to admit they don't know everything about it.

Though if this your "no comment", I'd look forward to reading more of your comments. If that makes any sense? :)

Joe...I definitely understand what you are saying here. The "pro forma" idea was originally used starting in 2007 and it was thought then that it would make a recess appointment legally impossible because the Senate would technically be in session.. As usual, different lawyers have different opinions on it and it will likely wind its way through the court system.

Well thank you Joanne! :)

I try to know what I'm talking about before I talk about it and also try to make sure if I'm not sure on a subject that I mention that fact. I don't like the whole "foot in mouth" thing...my shoes taste absolutely horrid.

@Frank: I know they want to reform the agency, but I also know they want to get rid of Dodd-Frank which either established the CFPB or gives it its power. It's getting very hard to follow the thought trail as this whole anti-Obama policies tendency carries out.

Frank:

My understanding of what the GOP wants here is changes, as opposed to flat out repeal. I'm doing this on memory, so I may be off, but I seem to recall they want a board as opposed to a single person in charge, they want more congressional oversite of the bureau, and maybe having their funding up for debate each year.

My understanding is they want Congressional oversight to water down its authority. Blocking the appointment of a director in accordance with the law that created the agency is even better.

The Republicans' intention on blocking Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board are even more blatantly malicious. Without the recess appointments Obama is going to make to the NLRB, it will not have a quorum and will be unable to perform its function.

Sure, the Democrats have used the same tactic in the past on some occasions when they objected to the person being appointed, but they never did it to prevent a federal agency from performing its lawful functions just because they happened to disagree with the agency's existence. And that is precisely what the Republicans are doing. If Obama wants to continue conducting his governmental responsibilities the way he promised when he ran for office, the Republicans have left him little choice but to ignore their ploy.

Let the Republicans scream about Obama making recess appointments while they're hold their phony pro-forma session. Let them sue. It will be interesting to watch the public's reaction to their back-door attempt to shut down major government agencies.

Aaahh yes, the true instincts of the dictator come through again !

And what do U.S. citizens get for this RAW ABUSE OF POWER ? We get another CZAR ... with no accountability to anyone ! OMG. Obama must go.

Maybe the 1856 law requiring that Congresspeople be docked a day of pay for each day they are not there when the House and/or Senate are in session would solve this 'pro forma' issue. You want to keep the Senate in session? Fine, then you have to actually be there, or you do not get paid.

P.S. Mr. McConnell, 63% of the people want a strong consumer protection agency in place. Now, who is it that is going against the will of the people? You, Mr. McConnell. You are.

Sometimes the majority of the people could be wrong. 99% of people in America do not have all of the information that is available to the legislature. All that is available is what each receives from their favorite sources (T.V., internet sites) that they are in agreement with anyway.

BTW: pro forma is nothing new. BOTH SIDES use it.

OPINION and ASSUMPTIONS...........

Nope, It's not an opinion or an assumption. It is a fact.

@ ITM

And your opinion is???

It is an OPINION....YOU think the nations best interest is somehow held hostage.......

What liberals and conservatives think the best interest of the nation is two totally different OPINIONS.

YOU ASSUME that Republicans are suggesting something that will cripple the nation.

@fuzzy:

My OPINION is they are going to do whatever they want irregardless of what you or I think. I ASSUME that is what's going to happen, and I will continue on living my life.

x

ITM, the GOP Congress holds America hostage every day they are in session. That's fact, not opinion; one only needs to check the record to see.

Amen to that Jody. Republicans= American hostage takers.

Jody, Iowa

ITM, the GOP Congress holds America hostage every day they are in session. That's fact, not opinion; one only needs to check the record to see.

During the wrangle over raising the debt ceiling, Repub Senate leader Mitch McConnell crowed about how they were holding it hostage for ideological reasons. He had previously crowed about how his number one goal was defeating Obama instead of providing the public the service he's being paid for. At least you've got to admit that McConnell is honest about his intentions for an otherwise thoroughly detestable excuse for a human being.

Jody - last I knew, the senate is controlled by the left and the house is controlled by the right and both make up congress.

If I am not mistaken, the senate is the body politic that must approve any presidentialappointments per art. II, section 2 of the constitution.

Don't you find it interesting that all past presidents have been ables to work with congress, but obama can't? How does it make you feel that obama virtually wants to distance (isolate) himself from the constitutional requirements of being POTUS.

Don't you find it interesting that all past presidents have been ables to work with congress, but obama can't?

And THAT STATEMENT, my friend, truly says volumes about Congress and demonstrates the reason the tea people are going to be sent back home Nov. 2012.

So glad you recognize the situation for what it is american.

Actually, it says a great deal more about Obama's failed leadership. Is one elected, power-hungry the person or are we to believe that hundreds of people are the problem ?

God forbid that the Republicans should want our country to live within a budget. God forbid that the Democrats would actually allow one to be passed. They still think they can "charge it" and not worry about paying it off in the future.

Advocate against big money????.....lol.....

Obviously you do not understand politics in America. Let's see how many elections Obama can win WITHOUT big money. Let's see if he can survive on your $5.00 donation.

Inthemiddle, TX

I'll see your $5 and raise you $20! Yes he will survive. He gets big donations but he is an advocate for me. The Republican party gets big donations and advocates for those big donors only. Which do I prefer? The current President who advocates for me. You keep pushing for the big donors IntheMiddle,TX. Before long you will be cleaning toilets for the wealthy in gratitude.

IntheMiddle, TX

Advocate against big money????.....lol.....

Obviously you do not understand politics in America. Let's see how many elections Obama can win WITHOUT big money. Let's see if he can survive on your $5.00 donation.

Cuz, agghhh, you don't know you are talking about. Willard needs to be very careful with the growing Occupy Wall Street protests Willard must avoid being seen as a friend of an industry that many Americans blame for onerous bank fees and underwater mortgages.

FYI: President Obama is still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations

October 19, 2011

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html

Ana:

ZONK...wrong again. I have a plan in life and it is set in motion with a fail safe. I don't think I'll be cleaning anyone's toilets besides my own.

I guess this is the president's idea of Job creation.

Inthemiddle, TX

The fact that you clean your own toilet gives me an all new respect for your opinion. Hope you succeed with all your plans and a large corporation doesn't derail you as they have many small businesses with our very lax antitrust laws. Good Luck!

LOL...okay Lisa, that one made me laugh. :-)

This is the type of pettiness that will sink Obama's chance for a re-election.

Stupid is as stupid does....

Frank "Grimey" Grimes. Anytime I can make someone smile it makes me happy. Have e great day.

Obama's other cause for worry will be wifey Michelle "I kind of like being called your Excellency" Obama Going head to head with Ann Romney will be a big liability to team Obama. Ann, very success in her own right, is a class act. Michelle (or moochelle as many americans rightly call her) is simply repugnant.

Cuz, agghhh, you don't know you are talking about. Willard needs to be very careful with the growing Occupy Wall Street protests Willard must avoid being seen as a friend of an industry that many Americans blame for onerous bank fees and underwater mortgages.

FYI: President Obama is still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations

Yet another zinger from Bev as she argues against herself in two short sentences. So Bev your argument is Romney is tainted by Wall St because he is friendlier but get less money than Obama who has raised more from Wall St but acts like they're the enemy? Pretzel logic indeed.

Don't worry though Bev we can see through the utter hypocracy of this President's position.

The only thing that will sink the chances of the President being reelected is if the GOP comes up with a viable candidate between now and November; as of right now, I just can't find one. For anyone who doesn't believe that the GOP is hurting our nation, I invite you to research what was accomplished by Congress in 2011. You will see that our elected leaders didn't accomplish squat when compared to previous years. All we are seeing is a mindset that the GOP refuses to let anything positive happen for our nation while President Obama is in office, no matter how much it hurts the people of this nation. Keep in mind, the vast majority of Congress is part of the 3% and they will go on and have their $1,000 dinners, chauffeured vehicles, multiple homes, and lavish lifestyle, while a great part of this nation is/has lost almost everything over these past 3 years. So, before you decide to go on defending these politicians, you might really want to take a good look at them. Take a look at their voting record and what they have talked about in public as opposed to what they have done while in office. Then and only then should you consider saying something.

Sorry Rob, Ann is the repugnant (it is after all her bread and butter party, correct?), most think Michelle is a breath of fresh air after Laura - stand by my man georgie. I guess I am not at all familiar with anything Ann Romney has done except have lots of kids for Mitt, and that is not a pre-requesit for any first lady that I am aware of. I have nothing against her and nothing bad to say, but if you don't live in the state where her husband was governor - well we just don't know much, so please don't think we do. One thing for sure, Michelle is a very intelligent lady and a class act by herself - tackeling childhood obesity is a necessary evil and if you have ever worked with children or a diabetes program you would know how vital this is to the future generations of our nation.

Alan, NJ

Yet another zinger from Bev as she argues against herself in two short sentences. So Bev your argument is Romney is tainted by Wall St because he is friendlier but get less money than Obama who has raised more from Wall St but acts like they're the enemy? Pretzel logic indeed.

Don't worry though Bev we can see through the utter hypocracy of this President's position.

Okay, look at where the President gets his money.

A look at Open Secrets reveals that this is a lie. The top "industry" contributors to the Obama campaign this.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.cycle are:

1. Retired people at over $7.5 million
2. Miscellaneous business at $4.5 million
3. Lawyers/Law firms at $4 million
4. Education at $2 million

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

So now lets look at what company/institution's employees had the honor of being the number one contributor to Obama's campaign in 2008. Once again, Open Secrets tells us the prize went to the University of California. I wonder if we should be scouring the Obama administration for graduates from that fine institution in order to develop a theory about how they are really a secret cabal set out to control the country.

Everyone who makes a contribution has to identify their employer. And each individual is limited to $2,300 for the primary and another $2,300 in the general election. So if a receptionist at Goldman Sachs contributed $25 to the Obama campaign, his/her gift would be part of that total.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Goldman Sachs - as a company - cannot make contributions[ that's what Rove's American Crossroads Super Pac is for because, in case you didn't know it] President Obama doesn't take money from PACs!!!!!

Alan, look at the fact that in the 2012 cycle, Mitt Romney has raised over 7 times what Obama has from Goldman Sachs employees ($367,200 to $50,124)

President Obama doesn't take money from PACs!!!!!

Neither does Romney

Beverly, Barack Obama's largest contributors University of California 1,648,685, Goldman Sachs 1,013,091, Harvard University, 878,164, Microsoft, 852167, Google, 814,540, JP Morgan 808,799,Citigroup, 736771.

lisa s-1749992

Beverly, Barack Obama's largest contributors University of California 1,648,685, Goldman Sachs 1,013,091, Harvard University, 878,164, Microsoft, 852167, Google, 814,540, JP Morgan 808,799,Citigroup, 736771

lisa; read it again.

Those are the employees

Also, as a side note.

I remember someone saying that President Obama's fund was counting the money the DNC had raised, whereas the RNC hasn't gotten behind a candidate so that amount wasn't used. If you took out both national conventions then Romney has received more from Wall Street then the president has. If you combined the RNC money with Romney then they have a larger difference between them. This person argued that it was not fair that they would count the DNC money as well, because its not just President Obama receiving this money, it was also other representatives.

Michael Steele said that it had to be counted against him, because he is a Democrat. I can't remember the other person's name arguing against him, but it was on Morning Joe when this story first came out.

Goose - last count from bloombergTV (within the last 30 days) reported that 42 billionaires were throwing support behind republicans vs 30 billionaires for obama. Obama had far greater support from the wealthy in 2008 than he has today, I wonder why?

Regardless, obama's reported campaign war chess 2012 goal is for $1 billion and very well may not include what the DNC may contribute. The 2012 campaign spending is likely to break records.

I'm not sure if you just agreed with me or disagreed, but regardless:

Yes 2012 will break records. Citizens United case.

@ Beverly you do realize that corporations counsel their employees and make recommendations on which candidates to support based on their voting records, etc... I won't say they go as far as telling you who to bundle your contribution to but they do make strong suggestions.

Bev - good catch on Lisa-s. That UC California drivel has been posted and debunked here so many times, I can't believe it continues climb out of the grave. First, conservatives give us voodoo economics, and now voodoo talking points.

Red Dev PS, Try googling Pres Obama's largest contributors.

Red Dev PS, I actually favor public funding with spending caps.

not voting on a budget in over 900 days, OBOMBOcare, Soylandra,

Fast n Furious [officer killed], Regulations, High energy and food prices,

unemployment, welfare, big union and wall street payoffs, Fannie and Freddie,

cutting defense, raising taxes, anti-capitalism etc.... this is right? liberal!

Ervin Cohen

not voting on a budget in over 900 days, OBOMBOcare, Soylandra,

Fast n Furious [officer killed], Regulations, High energy and food prices,

unemployment, welfare, big union and wall street payoffs, Fannie and Freddie,

You fools love witch hunts and LIES!!!

cutting defense, raising taxes, anti-capitalism etc.... this is right? libera

I see the GOP's picks last night in Iowa has the right-wing FR posters in an angry mood this morning. You have to laugh because when things don't go well for republicans, they post rants and nothing but rants along with a good dose of petty nonsense. They're so predictable.

Why that's it Bev - Reid is too busy hunting witches to put together a budget.

But seriously Bev, Solyndra was a real company that really blew through $535 million. Just as the ATF really gave the cartels at least 2,000 guns, which have directly resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Oh and food and energy prices are on the upswing. Inflation is happening.

Now if only these were lies. Sadly they are not.

But good to see what you are for - cutting defense, raising taxes, and anti-capitalism.

Just peachy.

Spanky-

Why that's it Bev - Reid is too busy hunting witches to put together a budget.

But seriously Bev, Solyndra was a real company that really blew through $535 million. Just as the ATF really gave the cartels at least 2,000 guns, which have directly resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Oh and food and energy prices are on the upswing. Inflation is happening.

Now if only these were lies. Sadly they are not.

But good to see what you are for - cutting defense, raising taxes, and anti-capitalism.

Sure Spanky, that must be it.

And you are too busy drinking witches brew and chasing rumors.

On Jan. 4th , Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor will join Representative Silvestre Reyes for a tour of the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant, the world’s largest inland desalination plant which produces 27.5 million gallons of fresh water on a daily basis. Following the tour, Salazar and attendees will meet with irrigation stakeholders to hear how the Federal government can better support successful water conservation, supply, and delivery efforts across the state.

http://www.doi.gov/news/mediaadvisories/Salazar-to-Visit-Texas-Tour-Worlds-Largest-Inland-Desalination-Plant-and-Showcase-Successful-Water-Projects-in-El-Paso.cfm

====================================================

Taking the salt out of water to make fresh water! Doesn't make sense?
==========================================================

Santorum Says EPA’s Mercury Rule Hurts ‘Blue-Collar Americans,’ But Doesn’t Mention Health Benefits

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/01/04/397055/santorum-slams-epas-mercury-rule-with-no-mention-of-health-benefits/
==============================================

that doesn't make sense spanky

It does NOT require any funding to establish new rules

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

It does NOT require any funding to establish new rules

That's right;

You tell him Dennis. Again, Our President has outsmarted the dumb ones. The appointment goes until 2013. That'd be after the election.

Our President has outsmarted the dumb ones.

One thing for sure - ITM Rambo is NOT the brightest crayon in the box! ;o)

Dennis,

How are you today, fine I hope. You are right it doesn't take any money to establish new rules, however, it does take money to enforce the rules. Congress can cut off the money for the new agency. Remember it was Senator Reid when the democrats were in the minority that came up with the pro forma sessions as a way to stop recession appointments by President Bush, which the liberals all agreed with and praised Reid for taking that way of blocking appointments when congress was out of town.

IMO, this will only aggravate more hostilities between congress and the WH, especially since it is highly possible that the Republicans will take control of the Senate in Jan 2013.

Hi Sarge,

The rules will be set up with fines that fund the Department. They will be self-sufficient as was intended.

“IMO, this will only aggravate more hostilities between congress and the WH” How much worse can it get … nothing is getting done now.

IMHO every President should be allowed the one half-session appointment (1 year max) when the Senate puts holds on any nominee or refuses to bring an up or down vote to the floor.

Dennis---I agree with you. The opposition party should not be allowed to hold up the appointments of qualified people for partisan reasons.

Dennis:

On paper it may say it will be self-funded but in reality a budget will be requested.

Where do you think the salaries for the staff and director will come from? Will it come from the majic FINE fairy?

Rules cost nothing to write on paper; ENFORCEMENT will cost.

What goverment agency runs and self funds itself by virtue of fines? You can't name one.

Next time when you attempt to ZING someone to get an applause from the peanut gallery; have your facts together.

I DO agree with you about these recess appointments. I believe it gives a POTUS too much power without a check.

ITM,

If Congress can only pick 1 of these 3 which do you think they will pick to defund

ACA, Planned Parenthood or the CFPB?

You deflect as you point out minor factors. The funding is in place. They can and might defund staffing in the future but in reality they won’t.

Their main goal will be to cut off the head of the CFPB because without a director they have no power so the funding is secondary.

A little more reading and a little less Fox News would help your analytical skills a great deal. However, only counseling will help with your bigoted rants!

Who is OBOMBO? I ran a Google search and can't find this OBOMBO.

Ervin Cohen, this is not a big Wall Street win ... they're the LAST ones that want to see consumer protections put in place to counter their monumental greed! So you can tick off all the talking points you want, but you should know what you're talking about.

Socialist America? Those are just scare words used to convince low information voters to vote against themselves and instead vote for the rich. The republicans are only for the 1% and the rest of America can rot for as much as the republicans care.

Buy a clue, what party has signed a pledge with Norquist to assist him in his goal of killing America?

What party wants to cut taxes for the rich and get rid of any regulations that protect the people?

What party wants to demand that every pregnancy ends up being a child and then wants to deny the child food, health care and education after it is born?

Socialism is not our problem, rampant greed and the willingness to kill our environment for the rich is our problem. Just like Ron Paul who is willing along with the rest of the republicans watch you die if you don't have health care that the republicans want to kill.

Even though it was the republicans that voted to create the deficit with tax cuts during war time. They now all think that 10 dollars in cuts for every dollar in increase revenue is too much revenue increase per the republicans. After the republicans voted for the deficit they now think the poor deserve to suffer to pay back the deficit while they want to continue the tax cuts for the rich.

If you are rich, well you need to vote republican because they are only for the rich. If you are the middle class, only dumb describes the person who votes for a republican for anything.

Job1,

Who is Slick Rick? I ran a Google search and can't find this Slick Rick.

Just run, "Slick Rick Perry", and you will get many links.

and hello to a socialist america!

Hey, look everyone another FUX Noose watcher.

Welcome aboard, EC! Stick around and you might just be set free.

Fair and Balanced? More like Fairly Imbalanced!

@ American

Like these scare tactics?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

Both sides are guilty of playing to the emotions of everyday Americans. We all need to be better fact checkers instead of being sheep.

Actually, ksw62118, there is a lot of debate as to how Politifact rated that as a lie. While the Republican/TP Inc. party's proposal did not 'directly end Medicare', the results of the voucher system would have effectively killed it by starvation. It would also have left people with vouchers too small to purchase a policy, or healthcare, and no one who would take them as Medicare patients because of the declining fees Medicare would pay, as the law took effect.

While Politifact is somewhat even handed in their selection of who they call out, their evaluations tend to lean right. factcheck.org is a much more balanced evaluator of these things.

So, no, saying that the Republican/TP Inc. party voted to end Medicare is not a scare tactic, it is the truth. Deal with it.

Mark in SoCal, you are either lying, or you . . . well, you have to be lying about running that search and getting no results. You do not even have to use 'Slick Rick Perry', the first result for 'Slick Rick' is the Wikipedia page for Richard Walters, also known as Slick Rick. However, use 'Slick Rick Perry', as Job1 suggested.

Job1, on the other hand, and as usual, is not lying.

Wow. Mitty can't even get Murdoch's support? I imagine Fox "news" will be given their marching orders to go after Romney. Going to be entertaining.

I would love for President Obama to be running against Rick Santorum.

Gotta go find Bachmann on TV at 11. She's making an announcement.

Do you think Michelle finally figured out that she does not have the money to compete? And that God is saying "Michelle, you moron, I didn't say run for President, I said run to become a resident at your nearest mental health facility!"

Job1, he would not be running against him, he would be running over him.:)

Job1, he would not be running against him, he would be running over him.:)

You are 100% correct .

newday,

God is saying "Michelle, you moron, I didn't say run for President, I said run to become a resident at your nearest mental health facility!"

I am determined not to post because I simply have too much work, but I couldn't let that one go by. You said exactly what I would have said. Love it!

@phine ... so Rupert has discovered that Ricky is FOXY ... let the dating game begin.

Thanks, Jack!

Job1

I would love for President Obama to be running against Rick Santorum.

But, but, but, but, but, Santorum doesn't talk to Black people. He's a racist.

Would make the debates interesting, Beverly.

Gosh, listening to Bachmann's statement just now. She is delusional, rambling and incoherent. When in the name of the God she claims to worship is someone going to get her the mental health treatment that she so clearly needs?

Gosh, listening to Bachmann's statement just now.

What the hell happened to Marcus's lip?

The corn dog bite back?

Just when I started to cry, as Michele suspended her campaign,.............News flash! Perry will continue on to South Carolina! I can now rest assured we will have some more comic relief for the next week or so! :)

@Feisty, He was "converting" really hard last night!

All I can say is if God told you to run for president he was kidding.

Rick Perry, Hernman Cain, Michelle Bachmann were all told by God to run. They told us so. Perhaps they don't have the direct line to God that they all claim. The voices in their head could just be just that voices in their heads.

Little Richey Romney wants to be president so bad he tell any lie and change every position to even just run. The man who once vowed to protect a woman's right to choose now has declared that he wants to overturn Roe v Wade. Now that they have made corporations into people they now want to grant person-hood to every fertilized egg and make a miscarriage a murder investigation.

That would mean any woman just pregnant would have a US citizen in her belly and could not be deported.

This quote I feel needs to be dedicated to Newt "He who sh!ts in the road will meet flies on his return" No one can deny the piles Newt left behind.

Don't believe - google it.

Na. I almost got sick the last time I googled something regarding Rick...

You know, these GOP candidates telling folks that "God told" them to run is so silly. Honestly, if God really was into politics, he would have picked just one not a whole gaggle of geese.

he would have picked just one not a whole gaggle of geese.

Maybe, just maybe they are lying? Sure sounds like it to me. This group seems to be forsaken.

bobby...are you this irritable about EVERYTHING in life? And so very wrong?

Must be dismal.

ah BOB ... the right to sell crap packaged as manure is the American economic dream for you.

Nanny State

Nice one Bob! Now where have I heard that one before?

the blatant liberal slant of this MSNBC journalist

Really? So why don't you head back to Fux and refill on more talking points.

Nanny state? You hear it all the time from people burdened with government rules and regulations. Take for example California...we now have nearly 700 NEW laws on the books as of 2012. One of those is a shark fin soup ban...another is keeping children in car booster/seats until they are either 4'9" or 8 years old...Do we really need that much government oversight in our lives? Do we need to further bloat our government with extra workers to enforce these goofy new laws?? That is exactly why people are against "nanny states". And anyone who has read any article on this website knows...it is definitely slanted to the liberal minded.

So JK, What do we pay our elected officials to do? That's right to pass and enforce legislation. Seems pretty straight forward. Sounds like CA's legistalors are doing their jobs.

Devie,

You obviously must be a government worker. No one needs that much legislation in their lives. And let me ask you this...who do you think pays for all this extra legislation? Oh that's right...it's the taxpayers... And if you knew ANYTHING about California you would know that we have one of THE highest tax burdens in the nation...we pay for illegals to have free education (primary, secondary, and now college), free housing, free medical and we also have bloated overcompensated public unions. We have the most restrictive business policies that have made companies leave California in droves. And with all those companies leaving, who do think pays? California has been dominated in the legislator by Democrats for the past 30+ years and look where California is now. We are the laughing stock of the nation. What we need is a nation with LESS legislation...less intrution in our lives, and less overhead that everyone has to pay for...

JK, lived most of my life in CA (I no long live there) and no I am not a government worker.

What we need is a nation with LESS legislation...less intrution in our lives, and less overhead that everyone has to pay for...

Right... I hope you don't think the GOP is going to fullfiil your fantasy. Nap time is over time to wake up.

JK, lived most of my life in CA (I no long live there) and no I am not a government worker.

Oh, JK, poor baby. You were sooooo wrong, as usual. . . .

Devie,

Well..The Democrats that have had the majority in the legislator for the past 30 years have proven themselves to be ungovernable. Some of us still would like to see California prospoer but that is highly not possible under the Democratic regime that we have here. And it won't change, why? Because the people that are benefitting the most (the tax takers) will continue to vote for their gravy train.

And Jack...you have proven yourself over and over again how wrong you are in every post...

you have proven yourself over and over again how wrong you are in every post

At least I can spell and write English correctly. . . .

Well...give yourself a grammar gold star! If I want someone to correct my grammar, I know who to contact. So are you from that one lane road of a town in Ohio?

Frank,

I've seen that mixed message in several places today, no idea what the story is!

Amy - typical GNOP - they don't know what they are for or against until they know what they are for or against....in other words...they just don't know what to do....Maybe God didn't answer her call?? and now she can't even make up her own mind?

After today’s appointment, President Obama will have made a total of 29 recess appointments. By comparison, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments; Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments; George H.W. Bush made 77 recess appointments; and Ronald Reagan made 243.

Average per year in office:

Reagan = 30.4, Bush II = 21.4, Bush I = 19.3, Clinton = 17.4 & Obama = 9.7

At this time in his Presidency, George Bust had taken 350 days of vacation (almost 1 full year off).

At this time in his Presidency, Dwight Eisenhower had played 200 rounds of golf.

Well good lord ted, you expect him to appoint a far right zealot?

What is the filth allowance in your hot dog? Are children eating lead paint when they chew their toys?

This is about protecting every single American from swindles such as those from Wall Street. Republicans are hot to repeal new regulations to protect you from being ripped off, so vote Republican. They also deregulated Wall Street and opposed regulation of derivatives. Just because Americans lost billions of dollars due to Wall Street's unethical activities does not mean that Wall Street miscreants broke the law. There may have been no law in place. Robbery is oinly a moral concept if the process is not illegal.

You complain about those that cheated AND about making cheating illegal too. Make up your mind.