Tell us how you think President Barack Obama has handled the economic crisis so far. What's he done right? And what's he gotten wrong?
Mandel Ngan, AFP / Getty Images
WASHINGTON (AP) — Public university presidents facing ever-increasing state budget cuts are raising concerns about President Barack Obama's plan to force colleges and universities to contain tuition prices or face losing federal dollars.
Illinois State University President Al Bowman says the reality is that deficits in many public schools can't be easily overcome with simple modifications. Bowman says he's happy to hear Obama call for state-level support of public universities but adds that, given the decreases in state aid, tying federal support to tuition is a product of "fuzzy math."
Obama spelled out his proposal Friday at the University of Michigan.
By Scott Peterson | Christian Science Monitor
Tehran has stepped up its bellicose warnings of conflict in the Persian Gulf as potentially crippling new European Union and American sanctions have been approved on Iran's oil exports and central bank.
The US defied the warning of a top Iranian general this week and sent the USS Abraham Lincoln – flanked by British and French warships – through the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf. A senior Iranian lawmaker scoffed that the US "did not dare" to send its ship alone, because of the danger posed by the Islamic Republic. If Iran were to close the strategic waterway, as it has threatened to do, the American aircraft carriers "will become the war booty of Iran," he declared.
RELATED: FAQ on the Strait of Hormuz
Such bluster is not all talk. The US may outspend the Islamic Republic nearly 90-to-1 on defense. But Iran, heir to ancient Persia's naval innovation, has a well-honed asymmetric strategy designed to reverse that advantage.
A 2002 US military exercise simulating such a conflict proved devastating to American warships.
Indeed, Iran can cause immense harm, analysts say, without ever directly facing off against far superior conventional US forces. Even a few incidents – like mines laid in the Gulf, or Iran's small-boat swarming tactics against oil tankers or a US Navy ship – could raise fears of insecurity to unacceptably high levels.
WOW SAYS IT ALL ABOUT FROGSCUMS THEORY!
Kevin Jackson is someone whom the president and fellow Democrats wished didn’t exist. Jackson is black and a member of the Tea Party where he serves as a spokesman for TheTeaParty.net
After the president’s State of the Union message, Jackson took offense to what Obama said to the nation. He claims the president is rife with liberal hypocrisy.
Jackson points out that Obama wants the wealthy to pay more in taxes because of the financial problems facing the nation. Yet at the same time the president takes half a dozen or so vacations a year, taking not only his wife and daughters, but other family members and friends all at taxpayer expense. The president also wastes taxpayer money by hosting lavish parties at the White House, some of which have nothing to do with politics.
He also points out that Obama criticizes Romney, who only paid about 15% in taxes. What Obama failed to note is that Romney reported $20 million in income and then gave $3 million (15% away to charity – mostly to the Mormon Church) where Obama, prior to his election only gave 1% to charity.
One hypocrisy that Jackson did not point out was Obama’s use of Warren Buffet’s secretary, in the State of the Union address. She sat in the First Lady’s box and Obama used her to point out that wealthy individuals like Buffet, should be paying the same tax rates as working people, like his secretary. After the SOTU was over, it was learned that in fact Buffet had paid the same tax rate as his secretary had, and it wasn’t the 30% figure Obama was advocating.
I find it interesting that a number of wealthy individuals have supported the President’s proposal to have the wealthy pay more in taxes. If they are in favor of it, then why aren’t they doing it? Why don’t they instruct their accountants to forget about all of the loopholes and deductions that allow them to pay lower rates of taxes? There’s no law that says you have to use them or that you can’t pay the IRS more than you owe.
Jackson also forgot to mention Obama’s hypocrisy when he called for more jobs while at the same time refusing to approve the Keystone XL pipeline which would have created a minimum of 10,000 jobs or the Pentagon contract that was awarded to a Brazilian company, sending about 1,400 jobs south of the border.
Mr. Jackson, I whole heartedly agree with what you said but believe that you fell way short of exposing more of Obama’s hypocrisies than what you mentioned. Of course if one was to compile a full list of them, it would probably fill volumes.
Read more: Black Tea Party Member Attacks Obama’s Hypocrisy http://godfatherpolitics.com/3430/black-tea-party-member-attacks-obamas-hypocrisy/#ixzz1l4MexPkb
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge denied a petition on Tuesday that would have allowed anti-Wall Street protesters to keep camping - at least temporarily - in two parks in the nation's capital where they have lived for months.
The National Park Service had banned protesters with the Occupy DC movement from camping in McPherson Square, a few blocks from the White House, starting at noon on Monday.
Scores of protesters have vowed to remain entrenched at the square and at a second site, Freedom Plaza. The demonstratorshave been camped at the parks since October.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg rejected a motion by Dane Primerano, of Riceboro, Georgia, for a temporary restraining order halting enforcement of the no-camping rule based on constitutional guarantees of free speech.
The judge, in declining to halt enforcement of the no-camping rule, cited a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that barred demonstrators from camping in Lafayette Park next to the White House to draw attention to the plight of the homeless.
"I see no distinction in this case," Boasberg said.
The judge agreed, however, to a request by a lawyer for the protesters to order the Park Service to give demonstrators notice if authorities decide to clear McPherson Square.
While they have not started to clear the sites, police on Monday told demonstrators that they had to remove a tarpaulin decorated with stars and moons they had draped over the square's statue of Civil War General James McPherson.
Demonstrators stayed under the tarpaulin, dubbed the "tent of dreams," overnight, playing Scrabble and talking. After hours of debate, protesters decided to leave it up to police to remove the tarp but not resist as a group.
A passerby, Paul Ferro, tried to tear down the tarp but was restrained by protesters.
"You've just got to keep out there pounding the pavement, there's money to be made," Ferro, a 40-year-old elevator mechanic from Maryland, told reporters.
A University of Delaware survey said on Monday that nearly one in five Americans had heard nothing about the "Occupy" movement four months since the protests began.
Among those aware of the movement, one-third could not identify the protesters' main message, that too few people control most U.S. wealth and power, according to the poll of 901 adults.
more copy and paste from the brilliant mind of a far right extremists. without the aliases who used to post there is no one on here. then again even when it posted under its aliases there was still no one on here. i guess it believes copy and paste to no one will change the election. ha ha ha ha correction there may be 2 anonymous's on here ap and hodag. i seen hodag switch his moniker from hodag to anonymous on a comment on kathys question.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Gvernment spending for Medicare,Medicaid and other healthcare programs will more than double over the next decade to $1.8 trillion, or 7.3 percent of the country's total economic output, congressional researchers said on Tuesday.
In its annual budget and economic outlook, the non-partisanCongressional Budget Office said that even under its most conservative projections, healthcare spending would rise by 8 percent a year from 2012 to 2022, mainly as a result of an aging U.S. population and rising treatment costs. It will continue to be a key driver of the U.S. budget deficit.
Medicare, the federal healthcare program for the elderly, accounts for about half the projected growth, with Medicaid at roughly one-third and the remainder attributed to new federal subsidies to help lower income Americans purchase insurance under President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul.
Spending is expected to dip this year to $847 billion, from $856 billion in 2011, because extra federal money to help cash-strapped states pay for Medicaid ended last July. The healthcare program for the poor, Medicaid is jointly funded by federal and state governments.
But researchers warned that the longer term prospects for rising healthcare spending could have dire consequences for the U.S. deficit when combined with the cost of Social Security, if current revenue levels remain unchanged.
"The resulting deficits will increase federal debt to unsupportable levels," the CBO report said.
"To prevent that outcome, policymakers will have to substantially restrain the growth of spending for those programs, raise revenues above their historical share of GDP, or pursue some combination of those two approaches."
The data present the latest sobering news for Obama and lawmakers in Congress, who have spent months wrangling over how best to reduce a federal deficit that is expected to hover above $1 trillion in 2012 for the fourth year in a row.
The report is likely to feature prominently in the 2012 presidential campaign, where Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are vying for the support of fiscal conservatives to win the party nomination and face Obama in the November general election.
CBO also cited the cost of granting physicians a long-term reprieve from a Medicare reimbursementmechanism that is scheduled to impose a 27 percent pay cut on doctors in March.
The report said keeping physician payments at current levels through 2022 would cost the federal government $316 billion, up from last year's CBO estimate of $290 billion.
Lawmakers in Congress are trying to reach a deal on a one- or two-year "doc fix" under Medicare.
Foregoing reduced payment rates would cost the government $9 billion in 2012 and $19 billion 2013. The charge would rise sharply in later years to $47 billion in 2022 and $15 billion in additional debt
You're nearly as good a detective as Inspector Clouseau of ze French Police, Froggy.
FOOL DEMOCRATS EAT THEIR OWN
Dear Sir or Madam.
I am Randall Terry, Democrat Candidate for President of the United States. My media rep, Kathy Offerman, has purchased airtime on your station to run a campaign ad during the Super Bowl, or in a pre-game show. As a legal candidate under the definition of FCC law [Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] we have no intention of allowing that ad purchase to be cancelled.
You are in receipt of a letter from Democrat National Committee (DNC) Executive Director Patrick Gaspard dated January 27, 2012. In that letter, Mr. Gaspard stated: "Mr. Terry is not a bona fide Democrat candidate or a representative of the Democrat National Committee." He concluded the letter, "Mr. Terry's claims to be a Democrat candidate for President are false. Accordingly, he should not be accorded the benefits of someone conducting a legitimate campaign for public office." As these two statements deal with the essence of his letter, and your stations subsequent contemplated cancellation of my ad, I will deal with them both in turn.
First, I make no claim to represent the DNC. Such representation or lack thereof, is meaningless in the issue at hand. No one has to be a representative of the DNC to be a legally qualified candidate for office.
Second, I am a registered Democrat in the State of West Virginia. The fact that I changed parties is again irrelevant. (Not to mention the fact that Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Winston Churchill changed parties; I follow in a long and proud tradition.)
Third, by every legal definition of the FEC and the FCC, I am a bona fide Candidate for the Office of the President of the United States.
Concerning the Federal Election Commission (FEC), we have filed – and continue to file – all required documents and financial records required by law from my campaign committee and me.
Concerning the FCC – and my right to run TV ads on an FCC licensed broadcast facility within the 45-day window of a primary – I am a legally qualified candidate. The law states [Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] in the germane sections:
(a) A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who: (1) Has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;(2) Is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and(3) Has met the qualifications set forth in either paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.
- I have publicly announced my intention to run for office;- I am qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which I am a candidate;- I have met the qualifications set forth in paragraph (b), which states:
(b) A person seeking election to any public office including that of President or Vice President of the United States, or nomination for any public office except that of President or Vice President, by means of a primary, general or special election, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person:(1) Has qualified for a place on the ballot;
I have qualified for a place on the ballot in both Missouri and Oklahoma.
In short, I am, by every definition, a legally qualified candidate for President, who has qualified for a place on the ballot.
And your station, therefore, is legally obligated by your FCC license to run my campaign ad without censorship, editing, etc.
I now turn to Mr. Gaspard's closing statement: "Mr. Terry's claims to be a Democrat candidate for President are false. Accordingly, he should not be accorded the benefits of someone conducting a legitimate campaign for public office."
This, of course, is the crux of the matter. Mr. Gaspard is unethically suggesting a path for you to defy FCC law; he knows it, and you know it.
Or put another way, his letter seeks to give you "legal cover" or "plausible confusion" in order that you break the law, and refuse to run my campaign ad.
But should you willingly embrace such deceit, you will find that his cover has holes in it, and that you alone will bear the responsibility for "willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy." (Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions.(a) (7) )
In case I am unclear on what I am saying, let me be more specific.
The administrative sanctions delineated in 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] define your "willful" and "repeated" refusal to run my campaign ads as follows:
(1) The term "willful", when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the United States. [Emphasis added](2) The term "repeated", when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.
Your station will not be able to hide behind the spurious and deceitful letter written by Mr. Gaspard, stating in effect: "We did not intend to violate the law! We did not intend to violate a provision of FCC regulations!'
If you deny me my rights as a federal candidate, you will be committing a willful violation of the law. And you know it.
Mr. Gaspard's letter is not the law; it has NO BEARING on the law and the facts at hand regarding my candidacy, and your legal duty to run the ad of a legally qualified candidate.
Nowhere in the FCC code are the wishes or desires of any political party given any role regarding federal candidates, or their right to run TV ads according to law. If you try and introduce or hide behind the specious argument that the DNC should decide what ads you air, or who is a candidate under the law, you alone will bear the consequences.
Be advised and forewarned: should you refuse to run my ad, in the light of all the facts outlined in this letter (and the attempted deceit and strong-arming of the DNC) we will that request the FCC revoke your broadcast license, and grant it to someone more worthy than yourself, who takes his civic duty regarding free elections with more honor, respect, and gravity than you do.
Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions of the FCC commission states "(a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit – (7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy." In CBS, Inc. v. FCC, the Supreme Court held that §312(a)(7) guarantees a "legally qualified candidate" "reasonable access" and that even one failure to abide by this law can result in revocation of the station's license. We will pursue that remedy.
We both know that the DNC and Obama team are terrified of the political and electoral impact of my campaign ad. They fear the loss of votes of Catholic Democrats (of which I am one) that are appalled by the President's policies. That is why they are calling on you to do their political bidding.
But is it really worth risking your license to hinder free elections and do the bidding of the DNC? Do you really think the DNC/Obama team will take the heat and the blame when your license is revoked because you choose to willfully violated FCC law? Do you think they will step up and say: "We advised them to violate federal law?" They will wash their hands of you faster than a nurse dealing with leprosy. Look again at Mr. Gaspard's letter. It was written in a way that they could deny any wrongdoing; you will be hung out to dry on your own.
Your station will be hearing from an Attorney this afternoon. If your station declares it will not run my ad, we will file for immediate relief from the FCC.
Therefore starting today, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, should your station delay in any way to run my campaign ad for "more than one day" as delineated in Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312], we will request that your broadcast license be revoked.
I hope this letter clarifies our position, and that we can proceed with our TV ad purchase(s) as ordered, in accordance with the law.
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them