Bloomberg View columnist William Cohan and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein discuss why Mitt Romney is still fumbling for answers over his 2011 tax return – despite their Friday release – and whether he’ll ever be able to explain how he pays for his proposed, across-the-board tax cuts.
DENVER -- Mitt Romney today attempted to shift focus to what he called President Barack Obama's lack of leadership in the Middle East, as world leaders began to gather in New York City for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly.
The Romney campaign this afternoon offered a series of interviews with major U.S. TV networks, in which Romney hammered Obama for referring to a series of flare-ups in the Middle East as "bumps in the road."
In Colorado, Mitt Romney insisted to NBC News that he'll win. The Obama campaign, meanwhile, has unveiled a new TV ad tying Romney's tax returns with his comments about the 47 percent. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
"When the president was speaking about 'bumps in the road' he was talking about the developments in the Middle East, and that includes an assassination. It includes a Muslim Brotherhood individual becoming president of Egypt. It includes Syria being in tumult," Romney told NBC's Peter Alexander. "It includes Iran being on the cusp of nuclear capability. It includes Pakistan being in commotion."
Mitt Romney will stump in Colorado on Monday and then travel to Ohio via bus tour all ahead of next week's first debate. The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports.
Romney continued, "There are extraordinary events going on in the Middle East, and considering those events, either one of them or all of them collectively, as bumps in the road shows a person who has a very different perspective about world affairs than the perspective I have. I think this is a time for America to exert leadership and this is not something that we are doing in the Middle East ... ."
Romney was referring to an answer Obama gave in an interview which aired last night on CBS News' "60 Minutes," in which the president defended his support for emerging governments in the Middle East as a result of the Arab spring.

Charles Dharapak / AP
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney boards his plane in Denver, Monday, Sept. 24, 2012.
Kroft: Have the events that took place in the Middle East, the recent events in the Middle East given you any pause about your support for the governments that have come to power following the Arab Spring?
Obama: Well, I'd said even at the time that this is going to be a rocky path. The question presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change. I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal rights, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance. But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn't been controlled completely by the government. There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiment. And, you know, can be tapped into by demagogues. There will probably be some times where we bump up against some of these countries and have strong disagreements, but I do think that over the long term we are more likely to get a Middle East and North Africa that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more aligned with our interests.
The Romney campaign seized on those comments -- in an attempt to chip away at the president's approval rating on foreign affairs, which slid in the last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll to 49 percent.
(However, a series of NBC/WSJ/Marist polls in the battleground states of Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin show Obama enjoying a double-digit lead over Romney when it comes to who would better handle foreign policy.)
NBC's Peter Alexander spoke with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Denver about the upcoming debates, world affairs, and if it is possible to change the tone in Washington.
The Obama White House fired back on Romney, arguing that it was "offensive" to suggest that the president was minimizing the deaths of four Americans in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador there.
"That assertion is both desperate and offensive," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said. "The president was referring to the transformations in the region, to this process that has -- only began less than two years ago, as we saw in Tunisia, and continues to this day, with remarkable transformations occurring in countries around the region."
Also in the interview, NBC's Alexander pressed Romney on the current polling that shows him trailing Obama.
Romney remained defiant.
"I'm very pleased with the fact that we have a campaign that is taking our message to the people across America, and look --- we're gonna win," Romney said. "There is no question in my mind. We're gonna win."
NBC's Jordan Frasier contributed to this article.


Not bad, for less than a year in office. People need to stop complaining that he hasn’t done enough. Obama was elected President. He wasn’t elected Jesus. Like Al Sharpton said on Meet The Press, “we now realize that Obama doesn’t walk on water, but he’s still the fastest swimmer in America.”
The Giant Cut-and-paste. Right back at 'em, give them what they give.
Bucket - Wrong! Your is cut, lie and smear! Plus - the majority of my truths were written by "ME"
Some blame the following for the collapse of the housing bubble which resulted in the credit crisis and that caused the recession.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed after Sandy Weill of the Travelers and John S. Reed of Citicorp went to the Clinton administration and asked if there would be a problem with the merger of those two entities. Robert Rubin Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury assured them that there would be no problem. He later received 126 million in compensation from the newly formed Citigroup for approximately 14 months work.
There had to be more than one vote on the Bill because it passed the House the first time by a vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats oppose - this was not enough in the Senate to override a veto threatened by Bill Clinton.
The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13][note 4] and by the House 362-57.[14][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
Please note that only 5 of those 8 votes against were democrat.
Please explain who it was that did not know about the act.
http://tr.adinterax.com/re/cox%2C1108_056_Jim_leader_Brand%2CC%3Dajc_jim_ellis%2CP%3Dnews_atlanta_ajc%2CA%3Djim_ellis_dealerships%2CL%3Datlanta%2CK%3D10829196/0.8660541842251791/0/tc%2Cac%2Cc%3Aalt_image/http://www.jimellis.com/index.htm?utm_source=AJC&utm_medium=Digital&utm_campaign=AJC_Digital" target="_blank">
Kyle Wingfield
Obama abides by Bush’s timeline for leaving Iraq, although you wouldn’t know that to hear him tell it (video)
Amid Chaos, Extremists Spur Violence
Obama - "These legitimately upset honest Muslims did not
destroy the embassy in Libya on their own or murder the Ambassador and three
others! they had help from Me." Mr President - You supported the overthrow
of our friend Mubarak in Egypt, and murdered and bombed Libya so they submitted
to your Muslim Brotherhood. Qaddafi was neutralized and you still killed him.
Why have embassy guards! They can't even fire warning shots, shoot bean bags or
even make faces at the marauding terrorist
Naz. don't you have some pit bulls you need to go feed, or check the fire under your still.
ex is desperate and had to get out his georgie soros end of amercia talking points!
If Romney wants a war, he should man up and just say it, like you do. He isn't worthy of YOUR vote.
Comment #666, The Comment Of The Beast. I'm outta here.
Thou are well deserving of the "Mark of the Beast!"
Even though our economy has improved under President Obama, with over 36 straight months of private sector job growth, they want to blame him for not doing more and doing it quickly. We have forgotten that when FDR inherited the Great Depression, it took over 13 years and a world war to get to a robust economic recovery. The American people then realized how bad things were and that FDR was making things better, although slowly. He was re-elected in 1936 even though the nation was still in the depths of that depression. Unfortunately today, we Americans want instant satisfaction, and expect our leaders to solve great problems quickly, even when the opposition does everything in their power to block any progress.
While the Romney/Ryan Convention has worked hard to have us forget the failures of Bush/Cheney, their policies and their platform represent a return to the Bush/Cheney policies, but on steroids. If they are elected, we will see a repeat of the failed tax policies and neo-con foreign policy that brought America to its knees in 2008. I hope that Americans can see through this slight of hand and learn from history, both recent and past
ex - Oh Yeah, things are so much better!
1. record sustained unemployment
2. added $6,000,000,000,000 to the national credit card, The bill is overdue!
3. Doubled gas price
4. Skyrocketing food, electricity and everything else price
5. Losing my job on December 31, 2012
6. My house is worth $40,000 less than 4 years ago.
Some blame the following for the collapse of the housing bubble which resulted in the credit crisis and that caused the recession.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed after Sandy Weill of the Travelers and John S. Reed of Citicorp went to the Clinton administration and asked if there would be a problem with the merger of those two entities. Robert Rubin Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury assured them that there would be no problem. He later received 126 million in compensation from the newly formed Citigroup for approximately 14 months work.
There had to be more than one vote on the Bill because it passed the House the first time by a vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats oppose - this was not enough in the Senate to override a veto threatened by Bill Clinton.
The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13][note 4] and by the House 362-57.[14][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
Please note that only 5 of those 8 votes against were democrat.
Please explain who it was that did not know about the act.
OBAMA'S MIDDLE CLASS
REDUCTION ACT OF 2012!
----------------The Poor--------------- Middle Class (Me)
--------------------- Government Provides
Healthcare ------ Yes-----------------------No
Food-------------- Yes-----------------------No
Transportation-- Yes --------------------- No
Cell Phone ------ Yes---------------------- No
Marriage Penalty- No--------------------- Yes
Headstart ----------Yes ------------------- No
Unearned----------Yes-------------------- No
Tax Credit
Mental disability -Yes---------------------No
Payments
Housing-----------Yes-----------------------No
Rubbers-----------Yes----------------------NO
Jungle Gyms------Yes----------------------No
Colt 45 -------------Yes----------------------No
Free College-------Yes---------------------No
Pre Birth ----------Yes---------------------No
Head start
I would be better off not working and being part of the Obamanation!
But, Obama wants to make the middle class the lower class. He will take all the Makers down one notch on
the economic ladder.
I have no idea whart you have there nazarite. I like the way you edited. You lieying scumbag.
Bush-Cheney Making Things Worse Day by Day
by Ralph Nader
Thursday, July 12, 2007's Washington Post was another day of well-supported headlines chronicling the lawless, incompetent, wasteful, negligent, bumbling and multiple perils to our nation's security and safety caused by the Bush-Cheney regime.
One headline reads: "U.S. Warns of Stronger Al-Qaeda." The report by the Bush Administration's National Counterterrorism Center was titled "Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West." Safe havens are being established in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan.
In recent days, George W. Bush has told audiences of the growing menace of Al-Qaeda inside Iraq.
There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before Bush's invasion.
Five hundred billion dollars (and vast bloodshed) later and we are left with the Bush government's own assessment of Al-Qaeda's resurgence and spread!
Officials inside and retired generals, diplomats and intelligence specialists outside the Bush government have warned before and after the Iraq invasion of the disastrous consequences of this maneuver. Inside the Pentagon, the U.S. Army personnel, up to four-star Generals, have warned against the invasion but have been muzzled.
Bush's own CIA director-Porter J. Goss-, General William Casey and others declared that the U.S. military presence was fueling the insurgency in Iraq and Goss added that our presence in Iraq is a magnet attracting more people from other countries to learn the skills of sabotage and terror.
Bush's own counter-terrorism advisor in the White House, Richard Clarke, wrote in his book, Against All Enemies, that Osama bin Laden must be beseeching Bush to invade Iraq to inflame the Muslim world and generate new recruits.
Nothing-facts, judgment, the destruction of Iraq, the U.S. casualties, the massive drain on the taxpayers, the distraction from the needs of the American people affect this obsessively-compulsed duo in the White House.
Another headline in the Post that day was an assessment by Bush's CIA chief, Michael V. Hayden that the U.S. installed Iraqi government was unable to govern and that the situation seems irreversible. He added that he could not "point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around." Those words were conveyed to the Iraq study group on the same day (November 13, 2006) that the Group heard Mr. Bush give an upbeat assessment of that same government.
Bush has been chronically detached from the reality of his own advisors.
Also on page one was this stunner of a sting: "Undercover congressional investigators posing as West Virginia businessmen obtained a license with almost no scrutiny from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that enabled them to buy enough radioactive material from U.S. suppliers to build a "dirty bomb," a new government [GAO] report says."
How about that for the Bush's agency that is supposed to keep the atom in safe hands!
Inside on the Business Page is "Armored Vehicles Chronically Late." This latest chapter in the Bush's management by criminal negligence leaving soldiers without adequate body armor for many, many months of preventable fatalities.
The reporter, Renae Merle, writes: "The Pentagon inspector general's office has found that a program to deliver special armored vehicles to protect military personnel in Iraq from roadside bombs has been marred by delays and questionable contracting practices that may have endangered troops." "May have"? When such vehicles are not shipped out, soldiers lose their lives and limbs.
If George W. Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara were on those Iraqi roads, wanna bet how fast Laura Bush would get George to focus?
Day after day in the papers and on the television news, the endemic mismanagement of corrupt corporate contracts, flouting of civil liberties, due process of law and inability to get anything done, even in widespread post-Katrina emergencies, produces no accountability, no compelling changes from the Congress, no impeachment proceedings.
Poll after poll shows Bush-Cheney approval ratings below thirty percent. About 70 percent of the people want out of Iraq. And many polls show the public wants the Bush regime to end, believes that Bush does not care for the people like themselves, and that corporations have too much control over their lives.
And not only conservatives are appalled by the gigantic deficits Bush is piling up for future generations of Americans.
This government leaves Americans defenseless when it comes to occupational diseases, medical malpractice, air and water pollution. Bush can't even police defective or contaminated products pouring into this country from communist China.
Because it has no quorum, his Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is just about powerless to impose civil penalties or otherwise regulate or recall defective products, domestic or imported.
As reported in the useful Loyola Consumer Law Review, Bush has not filled the third Commissioner's position for over a year which prevents the CPSC from exercising its authority over dangerous products. The agency is in limbo, while injuries mount.
Dang, I thought Oduam was President!
Obama will set me "Free" Free at last, of a job. The upside is I can post 24/7. Praise be to God!
nazarite - IGNORANCE IS BLISS!
concernedusa5031
Then this particular group of so called liberals posting now must be a group of extraordinarily blissful posters
This video made by the U.S.Navy Seals may cost Obama his second term in office. It’s just incredible how effective this video is in convincing Americans that Obama is a very serious national traitor. History will judge him negatively for 1,000 years. Incredibly powerful video! Senior CIA, FBI, Military and many other U.S.government intelligence officials describe for the viewer how Obama has compromised U.S.national secrets and the very serious consequence of those actions.And what’s worse, he did it all for political gain so he could win a second disastrous term in office.
Who was the one who killed Binladin. Bush and I quote said that he doesn't thing about Osama Binladin all that much. Who was the one who destroyed Osama Binladin's network of terrorist. It was President Obama. He was the one who made the decision to go ahead when everybody was saying not to do it. The seals said that he made a courageous decision. The traitors are the gutless seal team that would destroy the way the Armed Forces run protocol. First of all CIA, FBI and Miltary and U.S government agency said that these seal team had a republican agenda. They said that it was a discrace on how the seal did the video and should be heald accountable for their traitor actions.
A list of the worst people of all time in a middle school yearbook has sparked a furious debate in the state of Arkansas.
Printed on a page in the yearbook of Russellville Middle School is a list, a list ranking the 5 worst people of all time. Topping the list was Adolf Hitler, followed by Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
School faculty members, reacting to the outcry by parents and local residents, have attempted to cover the page with tape in hopes students would not try and remove it – but of course they did, easily.
“My problem is the tape can be removed easily,” parent and school board member Chris Cloud told local news Newsnet5. “I'm furious as a parent and as a board member and as a taxpayer and as a resident of Russellville. It's wrong.”
The school has insisted the list does not reflect the views of the school or the students. In fact, the list was pulled from a poll posted on a website.
Schools Superintendent Randall Williams called the publishing of the list was an “oversight” and expressed shock when he learned the tape could easily be removed by students.
“Well that's disappointing because the yearbook supplier told us this was a definite fix,” he said. “I think it's just hard to explain, and I've talked to the [yearbook] sponsor and she is very very very upset about it.”
Williams said the school staffer in charge of the yearbook did not see the list when she sent the yearbook to the printers. As such, the school is reviewing the editing process to make improvements for the future.
For Crimes againt Humanity and the Planet.
In the first verdict of its kind since former President George W. Bush left office, he and several members of his administration have been successfully convicted in absentia of war crimes in Malaysia.
Yes, this is a BFD.
This past Friday, a five panel tribunal delivered a unanimous guilty verdict after a week long trial that, unsurprisingly, was not covered by American media. The witnesses included several ex-Guantanamo detainees that gave testimony on the conditions and human rights violations that were systematically carried out under orders of the Bush administration.
Former President Bush, Former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo that crafted the legal ‘justification’ for torture that basically said, ‘we can if we want to even if it’s illegal’ were the defendants. None were present, of course, but international war crime trials do not require the presence of the accused. The trial was run according to the standards set by the Nuremberg Trials to convict war criminals after World War II.
The United States is subject to international law which makes this trial significant beyond the borders of Malaysia. Foreign Policy Journal reports:
Obama give Nissan $1,650,000,000 to build a few electric car batteries
Nissan then advertises on the evil leftist enabler "NBC"
NBC lies and destorts for the Obamanation
The circle of corruption, continues!
Government Motors loses $40,000 on every Volt, the taxpayers lose $40,000 on every Volt. Obamanomics sure does work!
nazarite - pull your head out of your, well you know what!
It appears that Romney, like Cheney thinks that we can walk in any country and they will welcome us with open arms and embrace us, That SURE WORKED OUT WELL IN IRAQ!
Mr Romney we can not dictate or invade other countries, they DO NOT WANT US ON THEIR SOIL, proven fact, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria!
We can, as the Obama Administration has done, maintain a dialogue with these other countries, make suggestions, assist them as they may request and hopefully guide them to govern in a format that is best to serve all of their people, is peacefull and respectfull of other countries. Most importantly that they have a good repoir with us and seek with us to establish peace throughout the world respecting human rights.
Mr Romney your thought that we can trample on anyone that does not agree with our dictates is frankly ascinine.
When President Obama took office, the U.S. was engaged in two wars and and al-Qaeda’s leader Osama bin Laden was still at large. As commander-in-chief, President Obama refocused our priorities on the most significant security threats to the country and on fulfilling our promises to our servicemembers. Under the President, we have eliminated more than two-thirds of al-Qaeda’s core leadership—including bin Laden.
But a new cadre of conservative groups are trying to “Swift Boat” the President by manufacturing false attacks about his national security record. A collection of super PACs and organizations are deploying the same “discredited” and “hardball smear tactics” against President Obama that were used to attack Sen. John Kerry’s military service in 2004. Each group follows the same pattern, identifying themselves as separate, nonpartisan former U.S. military and intelligence operatives who have a “civic duty” to attack the President. But who exactly is behind these attacks?
A closer look at each group reveals an interconnected web of Republican operatives who are launching “Swift Boat”-style smear tactics against President Obama’s national security record.
Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund
The partisan agenda:
Launch false attacks on the President over the operation that killed Osama bin Laden
Falsely claim President Obama is deliberately leaking national security information
The operatives:
OPSEC president Scott Taylor is a failed Republican candidate who lost his campaigns for public office in 2008 and 2010.
Spokesman Chad Kolton worked as a spokesman for the Bush administration, the Republican National Committee, and House Speaker John Boehner. Another spokesman Fred Rustmann appeared on Fox News during the Bush administration to—ironically—downplay the significance of leaks about CIA operative Valerie Plame’s undercover status, claiming it wasn’t “a big deal.” This serious breach of national security later led to four felony convictions for Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.
OPSEC member Bill Cowan actually praised President Obama for making “the tough decision” to “go after bin Laden instead of taking the easy way out” before he joined a group attacking the President for that operation.
Special Operations Speaks
The partisan agenda:
Falsely claim President Obama is deliberately leaking national security information
The operatives:
Founder Larry Bailey created the Vietnam Veterans for Truth in 2004, an organization that helped generate the Swift Boat attacks on Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In 2006, he launched the Vets for the Truth PAC using the same tactics to target Democratic Rep. John Murtha.
Veterans for a Strong America
The partisan agenda:
Launch false attacks on the President over the operation that killed Osama bin Laden
The operatives:
Executive Director Joe Arends worked on both the Bush and McCain presidential campaigns and ran an unsuccessful campaign as a Republican candidate for office in Iowa. He had previously served as Executive Director of Vets for Freedom, an attack group bankrolled by former Bush Administration officials that was closely tied to members of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Special Operations for America
The partisan agenda:
Launch false attacks on the President over the operation that killed Osama bin Laden
The operatives:
Montana’s conservative state senator Ryan Zinke founded the Super PAC, which has stated it is dedicated to “advocating for the election of Mitt Romney and like-minded candidates,” and has partnered with Veterans for a Strong America and its leader Joel Arends. Advisory board member Paul Vallely is also a member of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund.
It is not surprising that the attacks these groups are launching lack any credibility. The President is committed to protecting our troops and our country’s security. The only way to mislead Americans about his record on national security is to resort to dishonest and overtly political smear campaigns that do a disservice to Americans who deserve to know the facts about the President’s record. As Arends said himself, “Yes, it’s the swift boating of the president.”
EX forgot to attribute his above cut and paste. Here is a link to the website he used:
Swift Boat 2.0: Conservative groups behind false attacks on the President’s national security record
http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/swift-boat-2.0-conservative-groups-behind-false-attacks-on-the-presidents-n/
There is the truth. Just a bunch of traitors, they need to be court martialed and shot like the dogs that they are. Republican propaganda against the greatest President this country has had or will ever have.
Who believes anything Mitt has to say....he always takes the opposite side of whatever President does...however....wait a day or two and then he will change what he said and flip flop that comment also...
The truth is that you retarded repukes can't outsmart anybody. We always catch you repukes in lies. The Romney/Ryan plan is nothing short of a discrace to this country and the Amirican people and women. They just want to make people poorer and the rich richer. They want to destroy just about every program there is. Prove me wrong you repukes.
Excalibur- you blame Bush for the economy. The following shows different. Who's the liar now?
Some blame the following for the collapse of the housing bubble which resulted in the credit crisis and that caused the recession.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed after Sandy Weill of the Travelers and John S. Reed of Citicorp went to the Clinton administration and asked if there would be a problem with the merger of those two entities. Robert Rubin Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury assured them that there would be no problem. He later received 126 million in compensation from the newly formed Citigroup for approximately 14 months work.
There had to be more than one vote on the Bill because it passed the House the first time by a vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats oppose - this was not enough in the Senate to override a veto threatened by Bill Clinton.
The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13][note 4] and by the House 362-57.[14][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
Please note that only 5 of those 8 votes against were democrat.
Please explain who it was that did not know about the act.
Rick & Excalibar...
Hate to break this to you guys, but here's the scary thing. The corporations and their lobbyists are in control of the economy. Not the politicians. You can finger point and name call all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that each President who takes office must sit down with various Industry spokesmen who tell the newly elected President "What's What" and what they can and can't do.
Aren't either of you curious why a newly elected President quickly reverses themselves on many things they promise during their election?
For instance, Richard Nixon in his 1968 campaign promised that his new leadership will end the war in Vietnam, yet it continued for another 7 years. Lyndon Johnson promised to never send "American boys to fight foreign wars". Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Education Department. George H.W. Bush promised "no new taxes". Clinton didn't come through on his proposed middle-class tax cut. George W. Bush criticized the Clinton administration for being "too interventionist" and promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building.
Promises. They all make them. Then they get into office and then things change. What changes?
Here's my theory... Our current legacy form of this 3-branch arm of government is sputtering and idling rough, but we have a newer 4-branch of government, the Special Interest/Lobbying branch is firing like a perfectly synchronized machine.
Will it matter if Obama is reelected or if Romney is elected? Not really. either man will have their own style of leadership, but both will remained constrained by what the Lobbyists tell them they can and can't do.
Frankly I have no doubt that "the fix is already in". Let's look at a very specific example: (...and please pardon the excessive "Liberal-ness" of this example, but it's really quite revealing):
While Obama was campaigning in 2008, he was asked about individual state's right to decide whether or not they would allow the use of Medical Marijuana. At the time, Obama's campaign stated the following:
We all know that Obama got elected in 2008; however, since he took office the following has happened:
The Treasury Department has issued a directive to all Medical Marijuana dispensaries to no longer accept credit cards or debit cards (thus making them primarily a "cash only" business primed for robberies which can be used later to make the case that Medical Marijuana dispensaries invite crime into communities where they operate).
The ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearm agency) has issued directives prohibiting people, who have been issued Medical Marijuana cards, from their 2nd amendment rights to purchase firearms. Their reasoning? Medical Marijuana remains a federally controlled substance that constitutes the medical users of this drug as habitual drug users who should not own firearms.
The DEA has raided Medical Marijuana dispensaries 4 times more often in Obama's one term compared to the entire presidency of George Bush.
The US Attorney General's office has also been mailing letters to all building owners who lease space to these Medical Marijuana dispensaries that they should prepare themselves for Asset Forfeiture if these business' continue to operate on their property.
So what happened with Obama's pledge?
The Pharmaceutical Company Lobbyists happened. Marijuana, as it exists, can not be patented, trademarked, copyrighted, or privatized in any way to ensure Corporate profits. Marijuana endangers the industry's hold on patients use of pain relievers, anti-anxiety drugs, and other psychotropic substances.
Please note when these various agencies are asked about the efficiency of Marijuana in helping people, they are very quick to say, "Well, there is synthetic marijuana (patented, trademarked, and copyrighted) that these patients should use. (Why is synthetic Marijuana okay, but the natural stuff is Baaaaaaad? Oh, that's right... It's patented and there's a corporate profit behind it).
...so, this is my clear cut example of how an Industry's concerns over their profits trumps a President's word, and the will of the American People who voted for this legislation in their particular state.
...Now back to our government's lack of control over the financial sector of our economy. Does it really matter if it were Clinton, Bush, or Obama at the wheel? Not really. Not in the long run. Corporate tax rates have been falling due to excessive lobbying since the 1950's. Corporate regulations have been dwindling and deregulation has been escalating since the 1970's due to similar lobbying efforts. Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents come and go, but the overall goals of Lobbying organizations are eternal. If they don't get their way with one administration, there's always another one in 2 or 4 years.
Ask yourself this: Why hasn't a single person from AIG, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Countrywide Home Loan, or any of these other corrupt organizations ever been tried for the essential pilfering of trillions of dollars of mismanaged funds. Clearly there must have been some insider trading going on, some deliberate mismanagement, maybe even perhaps a little fraudulent behavior? Nope. Nothing. Millions of people's retirement nestegg is gone, and that is that. Politically speaking, in the most simplest of terms, "You don't jail the guy writing your checks". Those checks are "Too Big" to "Not Cash".
Having read "Atlas Shrugged" half a dozen times, I could only drop my jaw in utter surprise when another poster had this to say about our current economic system in comparison to the world of "Atlas Shrugged":
For every Republican on this board who says we have to stop the lazy individuals who are sitting on their butts waiting for the next welfare check all I can say is: You're WRONG!!! The problem absolutely is with the Corporations, their lobbying groups, and the rules they make for their own enrichment as they pilfer from the rest of American Society.
I've clearly demonstrated that Obama is partially owned by the Lobbyists. However, how "Owned" would Mitt Romney be? I'd suspect if he wasn't cutting back room deals with lobbyists fast enough, he'd be sending people out to get the appointments arranged. He'd be the first President to sell ad space in the White House Press Room. He'd put billboards up on the White House lawn...
...What I'm saying... Is our government has been bought and sold. Some Presidents resisted (Yay Eisenhower), all probably give in eventually, but Romney would be installing revolving doors in the White House to give the Lobbyists better access... C'mon... He's a corrupt, hostile-takeover kind of businessman... That's just how he rolls...
Pity we don't have strong third party candidates we can choose over these two choices we have.
need to go to store but will be back.
naz....you said you are unemployed. Do you collect unemployment?
...But let's bring this back to the original article...
In the reference article...
...Oh, I think we've exerted enough leadership in the Middle East, thank you very much.
Like how we propped up the Shah of Iran and sold him weapons to use in oppressing his Iranian subjects. How'd that turn out for us?
Oh yeah, we were also selling weapons to Iraq, because after we got kicked out of Iran, we starting funding the Iraqi's in their 1980's war against Iran. How that turn out? Well I can tell you one person who isn't too happy with his American ties... That'd be Saddam himself as he dangled at the end of the rope. Wonder if Donald Rumsfeld still has the picture of him shaking hands with Saddam hanging from a wall in his home office?
Saudi Arabia loves us. We sell them all their really good weapons. Of course, I'd suspect the Saudi women aren't too fond of us since we haven't lifted a finger to raise their equality in that society. (You know a Saudi woman can do some serious prison time if she's caught driving?).
Khaddafi wasn't too fond of us, and then he apologized to us, started selling us oil, and everything seemed okay... Until his people got pissed off, and we started shipping his opponents weapon. He was later shot in the ass and bludgeoned to death in a water spillway beneath a road. Well, he shouldn't have been such a douche...
Yeah... Our leadership in the Middle East has been stellar. So Glad Mitt, who thinks Russia is our primary adversary, is here to remind us.
Also glad to know that Mitt "Going to get tough" with those Iranians, and teach the Palestinians to respect the Israelis. Sounds like an Awesome Plan!
How about this Junior...? How about we stay the F#$@ home this time around, eh? I'm tired of us propping up evil despotic regimes because they serve our purposes (for the time being) and then turning and betraying the regime because they currently are pissing us off.
It's a crappy game. The best way to play is to not play at all.
A "Hail Mary" on Romney's part to score political points - In describing the recent events in the Middle East, president Obama's attempt to frame it, was more rooted in the notion that, peace will come eventually..."Just a bump in the road" before that happens, is nothing that significant to harp on!
Romney is pathetic trying to put a negative-spin on what the president is implying!!
Seeing as how most of the middle east (including Iraq) is now in turmoil I think I would agree with Romney and suggest that what is happening now is more than a bump in the road.
Or we could go with Obama who believes we shouldn't do something but we should just stand there.
I am not going to list all the facts about the bad economy because the dems are too stupid and too busy defending their beloved Obama that they can't see the horrible direction he is and will be taking our country.
What I will do or say to the people who rely on entitlements is this, the money for entitlement programs come from working people paying taxes, without jobs there is no income to tax and without income to tax there is no money being put into the entitlement programs. So ask yourself, is it better for our country to sit on our azz and bankrupt our entitlements or is it better to have the country working to provide those entitlements?
In case you haven't noticed, we have record unemployment/underemployment.
I said it once... Personal entitlement programs appear on our Federal Budgets, and they make a nice little targets; however, our current tax code, tax havens, tax loopholes, corporate subsidies, etc... make the 1% and their corporations THE BIGGEST recipients entitlements.
Look at this chart (I hope it comes through)
Notice the two columns. Median or average American taxes were sitting at about a 5% tax rate in 1948 while the highest earning folks (the 1%) paid close to 80% of their income in taxes. (WHY? That's unfair. Not really. The economy back then clearly didn't suffer from this tax rate. A person earning 10,000 dollars and paying (80%) $8,000 taxes was unfair. However a person making 100Million dollars and keeping 20Million for himself at the end of the year will probably manage to survive and thrive).
Scroll down to the bottom of the chart (1989), notice how the richest people are now paying just about what the Median American is paying? Is that fair.
What did Mitt Romney effectively pay for 2011? Oh, that's right 14%. Is that fair?
It is if every American is going to reach that level. But every American isn't going to reach that level. Matter of fact, so much money is now being funneled into the hands of the few that there just isn't much room on the ladder anymore for anyone else to climb to those heights.
Here's another indicator of the inequality between us poor huddled masses (and yes, I'm including us diminishing middle-classers), and the Corporations who are also amassing fortunes at our expense:
I will tell you what you go ahead and list yours then we will list ours. How about the biggest entitlements of them all. Tax breaks for the rich, entitlements for the rich oil companys, rich farmers entiltlements, intitlements for two wars, entitlements of deregulation for wallstreat and the banking system. There is much much more as usual you reps don't know what your talking about. We undersstand perfectly that is was your beloved President Buch/Cheney that destroyed this country and economy.
Thr rich pay 57% of our taxes already, make the investments and risk their money that help our economy grow and pay more % of taxable income than the middle class. It was said this morning by Varney and company that the rich pay 14 % tax on income with all the deductions while the middle pays 7.8% with the same available deductions.
Why do you dems hate rich people? Are there not rich Democrats? Obama is rich, do you hate him? Quit being a hateful person just because someone was more successful than you.
The blame on Bush is rediculous now. Check this out.
DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007? This can be a real eye opener.
This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term ...
Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
At that time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day... January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.
So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized.
You're wrong JT...
...and that's the beauty of the Corporate Lobbyists... Goldman Sachs, for instance, is providing equal contribution to both Romney and Obama. They know it doesn't matter, and they know that all they have to do is bet on both Red and Blue to win, and they win. Look at my earlier posting. According to you, the Rich are paying the most...
Wrong...
They were paying the most back in the 1940's and 1950's when we were the dominant economic power in the world. Where everything, everywhere was manufactured by Americans. Since that time, they have paid less and less, and left the middle class and the poor to pick up more and more of the tab.
...And you want THEIR poster child, Mitt Romney, in the White House to further look after their interests?
C'mon man... Here's the individual tax rates for the Median American household and the richest 1% from the 1940's to 1989 (and it's only gotten worse since 1989):
...And here is the Corporate tax rates vs individual payroll rates.
No where do these percentages confirm your statements that the Rich are carrying the rest of us.
The truth is, we're carrying the rich, and they're becoming more and more a burden every day. Since 1978, the average American worker has seen only a shift of about 5.75% in their overall wages. CEO pay since that time? 725% increase from what CEO's were being paid in 1978.
Don't drink the Mitt Romney People's Temple Kool-aid... I suspect it's tainted.