DebateGate

Why Obama should withdraw

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-chapman-obama-reelection,0,622512.column

When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was "Morning in America." For Barack Obama, it's more like midnight in a coal mine.

The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette.

His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.

The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic."

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That might be the sensible thing to do. It's hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn't, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

It's not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, "Second-Term Blues," that "their second terms did not measure up to their first."

Presidential encores are generally a bog of frustration, exhaustion and embarrassment. They are famous for lowest moments rather than finest hours. Richard Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal, and Bill Clinton made the unfortunate acquaintance of Monica Lewinsky.

Administration officials get weary after four years and leave in droves. The junior varsity has to be put into service. New ideas are hard to come by.

Someone said that when a man is smitten with a beautiful woman, he should remember that somebody somewhere is tired of her. Likewise, the most inspiring presidents get stale after years of constant overexposure.

In the event he wins, Obama could find himself with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Then he will long for the good old days of 2011. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner will bound out of bed each day eager to make his life miserable.

Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.

Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president. Oh, and a new Bloomberg poll finds her to be merely "the most popular national political figure in America today."

If he runs for re-election, Obama may find that the only fate worse than losing is winning. But he might arrange things so it will be Clinton who has the unenviable job of reviving the economy, balancing the budget, getting out of Afghanistan and grappling with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Obama, meanwhile, will be on a Hawaiian beach, wrestling the cap off a Corona.

 http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2011/09/17/bystanders-wounded-sf-police-shooting/?tsp=1&plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=ThumbsDescending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:72653e30-239b-4e6f-ad2f-f16f6da2f37c

Do strait cops shoot strait?

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110915-37617.html


Tea Party Member Puts Up Obama Billboard in Germany, then laughs about it!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/181733-administration-not-backing-down-on-renewable-loans

Even I can figure this one out!

Clearly what Obama is doing is giving away taxpayer money to companies that in-turn give back a portion of the money in campaign donations.

There needs to be an investigation, and people go on trial, and if convicted be jailed.

http://www.infowars.com/3-year-olds-branded-racist-homophobic-put-in-government-database/

Over 30,000 British schoolchildren, some as young as three, have had their names registered on a government database and branded “racist” or “homophobic” for using playground insults, infractions that could impact their future careers.

The shocking figures were disclosed after civil liberties group the Manifesto Club made a Freedom of Information Act request which betrayed the fact that kids who used petty jibes are now being treated as thought criminals by education authorities.

34,000 incidents of “racism” in total were reported for the year 2009-2010, with nursery school toddlers as young as three being put on a state database for using the words “gay” and “lesbian”. One child who called another “broccoli head” was also reported to authorities. Other cases included a child who used the word “gaylord,” while another who told a teacher “this work is gay,” was also added to the thought crime database.

The majority of the reported cases involved primary school children.

“And if schools are asked for a pupil reference by a future employer or a university, the record could be used as the basis for it, meaning the pettiest of incidents has the potential to blight a child for life.”

Schools are being pressured to report such incidents to authorities and face punishments for not doing so under anti-bullying policies.

This is a clear example of how hate crime laws have brazenly been hijacked by the state to get children institutionalized on criminal databases at an early age. This is about the state dictating what your child can think and say – it’s the thought police on steroids.

Orwell talked about the state reducing language via Newspeak in his book 1984. By eliminating the very words that come out of children’s mouths and punishing them for thinking certain thoughts, all critical thinking is ultimately abolished, and Big Brother assumes the supreme power to dictate reality – a dictatorship over our very minds.

Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.

Some are unhappy about the specific types of companies, particularly the oil industry, that would lose tax benefits. “I have said for months that I am not supporting a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry unless there are other industries that contribute,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana.

A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

“I have serious questions about the level of spending that President Obama proposed,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, in a statement issued right after Mr. Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last week.

    Representative Heath Shuler, another North Carolina Democrat, said Congress should tame the deficit before approving new spending for job programs.  “The most important thing is to get our fiscal house in order,” said Mr. Shuler, a leader of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. “Then we can talk about other aspects of job creation.”

“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”

Senate Democrats would certainly relish the idea of bringing numerous bills to the floor to fail — like those that would benefit first responders — potentially embarrassing the opposing Republicans. However, if Democrats end up dumping some of the more controversial methods of paying for the infrastructure and other big-ticket items in the bill — and most of them annoy Republicans or Democrats or both — either the administration or the House and Senate will still be stuck finding another way to pay for them.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e16db70adb3c742a3386ea10319a7112.1f1&show_article=1

US President Barack Obama's ratings have plunged at home but he remains highly popular in Europe, with 75 percent in 12 EU nations approving his handling of global affairs, a poll said Wednesday.

He is also much better liked than his predecessor George W. Bush, whose rating in Europe was just 20 percent in 2008, said the Transatlantic Trends poll by the German Marshall Fund.

Since 2009, when Obama had a 80-90 percent approval rating in Europe, his popularity has declined 17 points in Spain, 13 points in Slovakia and 12 points in France and Italy.

But he still received an 82 percent approval rating for international affairs in Portugal and 81 percent in Germany and the Netherlands, with an average of 75 percent across the 12 EU states surveyed.

Obama's success in eliminating Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared to be a factor in his popularity in the EU, with 73 percent backing his efforts to fight international terrorism.

In contrast, just 51 percent approved of his handling of conflicts in Libya and Afghanistan.

Philip Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, said the Obama administration was "overall encouraged" by the numbers.

"It confirms over the three years of the Obama administration consistent and strong support by Europeans for the president's handling of international affairs," Gordon said at an event hosted by the Fund.

However, at home, a Washington Post/ABC News poll earlier this month put Obama's disapproval rating at 53 percent, and 77 percent said the country was on the wrong track. Thirty-four percent said Obama's economic policies had done more harm than good.

Separately, the German Marshall Fund poll found a plurality of Turks still said they want their country to join the European Union although support is well below 2004 levels, when 73 percent wanted membership.

The poll also found a strong majority of Turks -- 62 percent -- had a negative view of the United States, with just 30 percent seen as favorable. The feeling was apparently mutual, with only 42 percent of Americans holding a positive view of Turkey.

The poll surveyed around 1,000 people in each of the countries -- the United States, 12 EU members and Turkey -- between May 25 and June 20.

http://majorityleader.gov/blog/2011/09/president-obamas-tax-on-soup-kitchens.html

President Obama's Tax On Soup Kitchens

Yesterday, it was announced that an astounding 1 in 6 Americans are living in poverty. President Obama's response? To demand a tax on donations to soup kitchens and other charities that help people desperately in need. The President's proposal will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most. It’s no wonder this tax hike has been rejected on both sides of the aisle.


Background:

US Poverty Rate Swells To Nearly 1 In 6. The ranks of America's poor swelled to almost 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in more than two decades. The Census Bureau's annual report released Tuesday offers a snapshot of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2010, when joblessness hovered above 9 percent for a second year. It comes at a politically sensitive time for President Barack Obama, who has acknowledged in the midst of a re-election fight that the unemployment rate could persist at high levels through next year. The overall poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, or 46.2 million, up from 14.3 percent in 2009. (The Associated Press, 9/13/11)

Ways & Means Ranking Member Sander Levin Has Opposed The President’s Effort To Raise Taxes. Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), who is the ranking member on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, delivered a speech in June in defense of many of the same tax deductions Obama is now targeting. "In the case of the charitable deduction, one has to keep in mind that the recipients of the contributions include universities, hospitals, churches and soup kitchens that provide critical services to working families," Levin said. (Roll Call, 9/14/11)

Majority Leader Cantor: It Doesn’t Make Sense To Impose Taxes On Charitable Contributions When The Charities Are The Ones Out There Helping People. We have also found out through looking at his tax proposals, or at least the reports, that his tax proposals are going to impose taxes on charitable contributions and in fact impact at least 40 percent of tax deductible charitable contributions. I don’t think there are many Americans right now who think that’s a good idea. The question is why would we want to put an impediment in the way of the charities accessing funding when the charities are the ones out there helping the people in need right now? It doesn’t make sense. (Remarks At The American Action Forum, 9/13/11)
 

Flashback:

 

House Ways And Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY): "I Would Never Want To Adversely Affect Anything That Is Charitable Or Good." "President Barack Obama's call to raise taxes on high earners and greenhouse gas polluters met fierce opposition Tuesday from congressional Republicans and also a few Democrats. 'I would never want to adversely affect anything that is charitable or good,' Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said of Obama's call to limit high-income taxpayers' itemized deductions for charitable donations and mortgage interest." (The Associated Press, 3/3/09)

Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV): It's "A Nonstarter." "Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) called the proposal 'a nonstarter,' telling Geithner: 'I'd like to think that people give out of the goodness of their hearts, but that tax deduction helps to loosen up their heartstrings.' Outside the hearing, Berkley said the proposed tax increase was 'the number one issue' on the minds of her constituents over the weekend. Reminded that the provision is intended to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to finance an expansion of health insurance coverage, Obama's top domestic priority, she said: 'We can find another way.'" (The Washington Post, 3/4/09)

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT): "I'm Wondering About The Viability Of That Provision." "Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the Senate's top tax writer as chairman of the Finance Committee, told Mr. Geithner he was especially concerned about paying for expanded health coverage with a deductions curb that 'has nothing to do with health care.' He added: 'I'm wondering about the viability of that provision.'" (The Wall Street Journal, 3/5/09)

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ): "I Don't Want To Prejudge Anything, But It Is Certainly One That I Am Having Difficulties With." (The Associated Press, 3/5/09)

Whip Cantor: The President’s Plan Could Cost Charities Billions. “It just defies logic as to why we would want to put up a disincentive for people to give to charities, especially when so many people are in a desperate state in our economy,” Cantor told CNSNews.com after a press conference on Wednesday. “We need charities now—we need them operating at full throttle so I am full-force opposed to what he is trying to do ... Cantor said the plan could cost charities billions of dollars. “That doesn’t make sense,” he said (CNS News, 3/26/09)