January 16, 2015

In A SECRET Meeting With Democrats, Obama VOWS TO GO ON OFFENSE Against Republicans

"...The president’s remarks confirm that Obama and congressional Democrats are on the same page and that they are not going to sit back and let Republicans do whatever they want..."

Really?......well lets keep a running list of the usual suspects (dems) who continue voting along with reTHUGS.......





President Obama told congressional Democrats in a closed door meeting that he planned to continue going on offense. The president vowed to defend the Democratic agenda and called on the members of his party to help sustain his vetoes. Politico spoke to Democratic attendees at the closed door session:

According to several sources at the Thursday summit in Baltimore, Obama vowed to defend his agenda against Republicans in Congress, promised to stand firm against GOP efforts to dismantle his agenda and called on his Democratic colleagues to help sustain his expected vetoes. The president also was explicit about his opposition to an Iran sanctions bill, promising to veto legislation as his administration is in the midst of multilateral nuclear negotiations with the Middle Eastern regime.

Even though Obama’s position on Iran sanctions differs from that of a number of powerful Democrats, the session, several sources said, was more pep rally than confrontation. Despite his lame-duck status, the president promised that he would not sit on the sidelines in the next two years. He vowed more executive actions to implement his agenda, something bound to provoke anger from Republicans who have called the president’s unilateral moves, particularly on immigration, unconstitutional power grabs.

“I’m not going to spend the next two years on defense; I’m going to play offense,” Obama said, according to two attendees.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-to-senate-dems-im-going-to-play-offense-114307.html#ixzz3P0KTLOPK

Democrats have already seen President Obama put action behind these words. The president quickly seized momentum away from Boehner and McConnell with executive actions on climate change, immigration, and Cuba. The president has also taken executive action to expand sick leave for federal employees, and has taken a strong position on net neutrality.


Those who feel that the president has reached the limit of what he can do on his own are engaging in some wishful thinking. Because Republicans have chosen to provoke confrontations with President Obama via their legislative choices, the president has become the central figure in the legislative process. McConnell and Boehner could have decided to pass legislation that there was a chance that the president would sign. Instead, they chose to attack Obamacare and push the Keystone XL pipeline. These are two issues that Obama was certain to veto, and Democrats were likely to stand with him to sustain his vetoes.


The president’s remarks confirm that Obama and congressional Democrats are on the same page and that they are not going to sit back and let Republicans do whatever they want.





cont'


http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/16/secret-meeting-democrats-obama-vows-offense-republicans.html

January 15, 2015

Jeb Bush Is A JOKE In ROMNEYLAND

When Jeb Bush jumped out early in announcing that he was putting together a presidential campaign, he was quickly anointed as the automatic front-runner. Donors were said to dash to their checkbooks to be the first to shower him with super PAC loot. Political operatives were polishing up their résumés in the hopes of being gifted with campaign jobs. The overstuffed GOP field was going to winnow in a hurry as would-be contenders decided the next two years would be better spent angling for Cabinet positions in an eventual Bush administration. But if the rest of the GOP saw an 800-pound gorilla, one man who did not was Mitt Romney. According to a number of close Romney associates and people who have spoken to him over the last several months, Romney does not see a towering figure in the field but a deeply flawed candidate who would struggle in a race against Hillary Clinton.



In the summer and fall of last year, back when Bush or Romney candidacies seemed like far-fetched ideas, and the former Massachusetts governor was basking in his role as a major get on the GOP fundraising circuit, he would muse aloud about the makeup of the 2016 field. In private conversations, Romney would repeat what he had said publicly—that he wasn’t going to run for president. But privately, according to several Republican donors who had the conversation with him, Romney said he would only get in if at the end of the primary process, the party somehow did not settle on a nominee. But he knew that this was unlikely. “Someone is going to catch fire,” he told one donor. And even though Jeb was not a candidate, Romney made clear that it would be foolish for the Republicans to run another Bush. “A Bush can’t beat a Clinton,” another donor quotes the 2012 nominee as saying. As the primary season heats up, this analysis has been echoed by others, who say that a Clinton-Bush matchup would boil down to a race between the peaceful, prosperous 1990s and the 2000s with its War on Terror and Great Recession—a comparison that the GOP wants to avoid.



But people inside Romney world see other flaws as well. They point out that Bush has not run a competitive race since 1998, when he was elected Florida governor, a lifetime ago in politics. They see someone who has problematic positions on education and immigration, probably the two most crucial issues to the Republican base. They see someone who does not seem to have the stomach for a nasty nationwide battle for the nomination, and a 2016 rollout that has been shaky at best, with its awkward cellphone videos and avoidance of the public and the press. “They have not done a lot to flush out the details of his candidacy,” said Tom Rath, a senior adviser to Romney in both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns, speaking of Bush. “His time as governor was quite a while ago. A substantial number of Republicans have never heard him deliver a speech. Mitt is a proven commodity.” This commodity, Rath pointed out, proved its value in the 2014 midterms, when Romney became one of the Republican Party’s most sought-after surrogates, stumping for winning candidates from Alaska to Florida. “He worked hard for lots of people, from Senate candidates to sheriff candidates. Rank and file Republicans remember that kind of thing.”


Romney associates point to polls that show him running close to Clinton in a general election, and easily besting Bush in a primary. “And it’s not name-recognition,” said one Romney ally. “Jeb’s name ID among Republicans is 100 percent. Republicans just prefer Romney.” Romney allies say that the former governor does not have animosity toward Bush, but that as a former businessman, Methodical Mitt wouldn’t attempt a campaign if he did not think he had a good shot at the nomination, let alone the presidency. “I don’t blame him. He came very close. He should have won last time. And he probably figures that whoever the Republican nominee is is going to be the next president,” said Ken Abramowitz, a GOP donor. “After eight years of President Obama, I don’t think the public is going to want another Democrat.” Center-right Republicans now say that they are bracing for what should be an unprecedented campaign season. While in years past the business-backed GOP establishment has often coalesced around a single candidate while a battle royale ensues among the crop of grassroots conservatives battling over their share of the vote, this year it is the moderates who are bracing for internecine war. A Republican could conceivably win the nomination in 2016 by eking out a small percentage of the vote in a multi-candidate field.





cont'


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/in-romney-world-jeb-is-a-joke.html


.

January 14, 2015

'STEALTH ATTACK' On Government Rules

WASHINGTON -- The House passed a measure Tuesday to dramatically restrict the government's ability to enact any significant new regulations or safety standards, potentially hamstringing the efforts of every federal agency, from financial regulators to safety watchdogs. The measure, called the Regulatory Accountability Act, has been passed by the House before, but stood no chance in the Senate when it was controlled by Democrats. With the GOP in the majority, it is at least likely to get a vote in the upper chamber. The White House has threatened to veto it. Opponents dub the measure a "stealth attack" because it targets obscure parts of the regulatory process that very few people understand, but has such broad scope that it would affect all agencies, from independent regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to executive branch agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.


"This is using that arcane process to basically undermine the entire regulatory system of the United States," said Ronald White, director of regulatory policy at the Center for Effective Government, which opposes the bill. "It really covers the entire spectrum of public health and safety, worker health and safety, financial protections, consumer product protections -- just about everything that you can think about for which the government has a responsibility to ensure the public is being protected," White said. The primary way the bill would work is by making just about every step an agency takes on a major new rule subject to numerous legal challenges. It does that by defining major rules as ones that have direct costs of more than $100 million or indirect costs above $1 billion, or would have significant costs for just about anyone, including government. Then it requires that for any such rule, agencies must make public their cost-benefit analyses of the new regulation and choose the cheapest option.


Agencies already do cost analyses, but their primary legal responsibility is to choose the rule that offers the best safety for consumers, workers or investors. Also currently, not all of those decisions can be reviewed by courts. The Regulatory Accountability Act would open up all the elements of a new rule to judicial challenges, including the science and various expert analyses. The bill also does not define how to measure costs or benefits, leaving even that interpretation up to someone who might want to challenge a regulation. "It’s basically modifying the Administrative Procedures Act, which has been in existence for 60 years, and saying we’re going to change that whole process in a way that would require agencies to do years more analyses, to expand analyses in ways that we don’t define but which would allow industry to challenge any regulation as being inadequate or inappropriate," White said, adding that some 74 new procedures and requirements would be slapped on agencies. "This is a paperwork creation bill. This is a government inefficiency bill," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said during House floor debate Tuesday.


cont'





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/regulation-stealth-attack_n_6465900.html

January 14, 2015

A Quick Guide To The POTENTIAL Democratic Candidates For SENATE in California

attribution: dreaminonempty


Jane Harman??...." The best Republican in the Democratic Party."..........

January 13, 2015

SECOND SHOT: GOP Readies Dodd-Frank ASSAULT

It's official: House Republicans will again try to hamstring the Volcker Rule, after Democrats knocked down a previous effort last week. The vote will come within days, if not hours. Under conditions laid down by the House Rules Committee late Monday, the GOP will be able to easily pass the legislation as part of an 11-point deregulation plan without Democratic support, while ignoring any Democratic amendments. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill. The Volcker Rule bans banks from speculating in financial markets with government-backed funds. When federal regulators approved the rule in late 2013, they banned banks from owning complex securities known as collateralized debt obligations -- risky pools of corporate debt that are sliced into smaller packages for sale to banks. The GOP bill slated for a vote on Tuesday would let banks hold onto CLOs until July 2019 -- a provision that many banking experts view as part of a piecemeal effort to repeal the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law in its entirety.


At the Rules Committee hearing on Monday, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, blasted Republicans for pushing through a provision that would "directly benefit some of the wealthiest banks and corporations in America," without holding hearings or allowing amendments. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) characterized the package as a set of "basically minor changes" approved by broad bipartisan majorities in the past. He warned there may be a damaging "fire sale" on CLOs if banks aren't allowed to delay offloading their holdings until July 2019 -- 4 1/2 years from now. Fires do not usually last 4 1/2 years. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) accused Garrett of misleading the committee, noting that the House had never actually voted on the Volcker Rule provision. Indeed, while the House had voted in April 2014 to delay the CLO measure until July 2017, it had not voted to prolong the deadline until 2019. "We voted on a bill to extend the line to 2017," Sherman said. "Now we're being told that's the same as extending it to 2019."



Sherman also noted that banks would be given the new right to buy and sell these CLOs under the Republican plan. Prior delays had only allowed banks to hold onto their existing portfolios -- they had not allowed them to actively trade them. Garrett was wrong on the letter of the legislation, but he had a point in spirit. Dozens of Democrats have lined up to support a host of bills chipping away at Dodd-Frank over the past two years. After the 2014 elections, however, the Democratic leadership appears to have significantly strengthened its support for bank reform, and has not only attacked efforts to repeal Dodd-Frank, but has pushed for more aggressive tactics to rein in Wall Street. Republicans, meanwhile, have charged ahead with efforts to defang the 2010 financial reform law. The CLO market is valued between $84 billion and $105 billion, according to federal regulators. Big banks dominate the sector, with JPMorgan Chase alone holding about $30 billion in CLOs, according to the company's latest quarterly Securities and Exchange Commission filing. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a major bank regulator, has warned that the corporate debt market is overheating -- an important alert for companies holding complex securities tied to corporate debt. Similar securities tied to mortgages sparked major bank losses when the housing market faltered in 2008.




cont'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/republicans-dodd-frank-attack_n_6459722.html

January 13, 2015

BA-BOOM!! Elizabeth Warren, Progressives SINK Obama Treasury Nominee ANTONIO WEISS

Buh-bye......................................................





Wall Street banker Antonio Weiss has asked President Barack Obama not to renominate him to a top Treasury Department post because of the fight being waged against him by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Democrats. First reported by Politico, Weiss wrote to Obama over the weekend saying that he didn't think the Treasury Department "would be well served" by the lengthy confirmation process his nomination would likely entail, given the level of Democratic opposition he has faced. Weiss, who had initially been nominated as undersecretary for domestic finance, has instead accepted a job as a counselor to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, a post that doesn't require congressional approval. "I am grateful for the trust you have placed in me, and I look forward to being a strong advocate for your economic policy agenda as a member of your Administration," Weiss says in his letter. White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman confirmed in a statement to The Huffington Post that Weiss asked not to be renominated to the third-highest Treasury post because he didn't want to be "a distraction" for the administration. Her full statement reads:




Lew was clearly not happy with the turn of events. "I am disappointed that Antonio will not have the opportunity to serve as Under Secretary, but I understand his request not to be re-nominated," he said in a statement. "I continue to believe that the opposition to his nomination was not justified." In Weiss' new role, he will provide Treasury officials with advice on domestic and international issues, including financial markets, regulatory reform, job creation and fostering broad-based economic growth, according to Lew's statement. The news is a major victory for Warren and progressive groups who have been criticizing Weiss's nomination since November, when Warren first wrote an op-ed railing against the revolving door between Wall Street and government regulators. She argued that Weiss, a senior banker at financial giant Lazard whose work centered on international mergers, isn't even qualified for a job that involves overseeing consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at Treasury. Weiss also stood to gain $20 million from Lazard if he got confirmed for the Treasury post, a payout for not going to a competing financial group. That left some uncomfortable that Weiss would be inclined to give favorable treatment to his former firm. Warren said Monday that it is imperative for Treasury to focus its energy on strengthening the enforcement of consumer protections on Wall Street.


"We’ve already seen that the new Republican Congress is going to aggressively attack the Dodd-Frank Act. It is critical that the Treasury Department defend the Act from those attacks and push for strong implementation and enforcement of the law," she said in a statement. "The risk of another financial crisis remains too high, and we should be strengthening financial reforms, not rolling them back to benefit Wall Street.” In recent weeks, more than half a dozen Democratic senators announced they couldn't support Weiss for the post because of his overly close ties to Wall Street. The progressive activist group CREDO, meanwhile, collected more than 160,000 signatures on a petition to senators urging them to oppose Weiss.





cont'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/antonio-weiss-treasury_n_6458874.html

January 12, 2015

British Prime Minister: Fox News Analyst Is 'CLEARLY AN IDIOT'

You Hear That Captain Kangaroo? Your FOX News puppet is 'CLEARLY AN IDIOT'...now thats news worth reporting!...

You made David choke on his porridge......

January 12, 2015

These Democrats VOTED To WEAKEN Wall Street Reform and BUILD The Keystone Pipeline

attribution: Dreaminonempty




This chart says it all.................

January 12, 2015

ANGRY RIGHT'S Secret Playbook

I'm a former right-winger and I know the playbook. Here's why liberals have to learn to talk big — and play dirty

This recent midterm election was my first real setback since I became a committed liberal (after years on the other side), and what I don’t understand is why so many well-meaning liberals refuse to fight dirty. Sure, some Democratic politicians “sling mud,” but the “professional left” (as they are often derisively called) spend too much time debating the exactitude of certain issues and not enough time shutting down the bad ideas of the opposition. It might speak well to one’s character, but it’s an ineffective way to do battle. There is a place for self-examination, but it’s not on the battlefield. Sometimes the proper reaction to cruelty or stupid ideas is disgust or even a well-timed insult. For many on the left this art is sadly as dead as the late hero of mine quoted above. I got married, dropped out of college, joined the military and became a father all before I was 21 years old, and I spent the next 20 years dealing with my early missteps. It was a painful climb, but one benefit of the circuitous route I took is that I understand the angry, white and rural right wing of America better than most. It’s a group that grows ever more desperate and irrational no matter which way the electoral winds blow.



As a member of the frothing right wing, I always spouted nonsense, even when I wasn’t sure I believed it. Sometimes I would throw out really crazy stuff just to see how it fit the big picture and sometimes to get a rise from the opposition. Rhetorical bomb throwing is well respected on the right, and it’s not always a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with trying out ideas, letting them roll off the tongue to see how they sound. I’m always playing with ideas, most of which get discarded before I let myself believe them or write them down. There is one caveat to this and that’s the racist, hateful and homophobic rants that have become too common among the worst of the Tea Party. This ugly side of conservative rage is one of the major factors that drove me (and many others) away from right-wing politics. When I lived conservative values, I attended many events with like-minded people. Conservative movements foster a herd mentality. Even when someone stood up to “lead,” he or she often regurgitated well-accepted talking points while crowds nodded in unison. Listen to talk radio or watch Fox News, and you can barely tally the number of times you hear, “yes, I think that’s true.” A perfect example of thoughtless regurgitation is when callers on talk radio mention “Saul Alinsky Democrats.” Still others like to sling the insult of “Obama’s Chicago political machine,” with no context whatsoever. I’m going to make the obvious point that few if any of these callers have read one word of Alinsky, and fewer still have any direct, pointed or even third-hand knowledge of “Chicago politics.” These goofy phrases have become totems of the insider, and like children, these listeners mindlessly repeat what someone else has said as if they had insight.



Now that I’ve been in the liberal camp for a few years, I’ve noticed the complete opposite with the politically engaged left. They often identify as “contrarian.” They question everything and have a hard time taking a firm stand, even when 70% of the public is with them (on minimum wage, for instance). In an ideological battle, the tendency toward inclusion and reflection can become a handicap. As a side effect of all this soul-searching, the left becomes ineffectual at fighting even the worst excesses on the right. I’m boiling this down to a false dichotomy to illustrate a point. Of course there is every gradation of political belief on the right and left; yet our system itself is incapable of nuance, because only one side has even heard of the word. Most people know that individuals will suffer because of the results of the latest midterm election. People won’t get health care and some will lose food stamps. Discrimination will find a better foothold and the advance of science will lose ground. People I love, personally, will be vilified for being gay, because conservative voices of discrimination will feel empowered to act like jerks. Much of the latest loss stems from an inability to talk to regular people — especially working-class men — about liberal ideas. If Homer Simpson is America (he is), then liberals should learn to talk to him.



Rich people have won over the white working class even though those same wealthy people don’t do shit for the working class, ever. The wealthy have bought elections and government, wholesale. Working-class Americans are scared, battered and desperate. They are ready to listen to liberal messages, but not if we act like “wimps.” The thing conservatives can’t stand the most is what they charmingly call “pussy liberals.” A white, conservative man would walk through hot coals or swallow shards of glass to prove to a stranger on the barstool next to him that he’s not one. (My wife, a nuanced liberal, vehemently objects when I use the term. As a feminist I totally understand. It’s offensive. But I didn’t create this usage. I’m only pointing it out.) One of the reasons I became a liberal is not only because they have better ideas but also because they are willing to reconsider them, sometimes ad infinitum. The debates and discussion and endless self-examination appeal to me, because of who I am. Liberals do a lot less yelling and a whole lot more making everyone feel welcome. Yet the same strength in debating, self-awareness and the Socratic Method are the enemies of a good story. The retired guy in a modest home on a fixed income defends the rights of billionaires to exploit him, because he’s been sold a narrative. The story matters, and Republicans spin a hell of yarn about America and “freedom,” even though most of it is bullshit or a straight-out rewriting of history. They talk about Jefferson, Madison and Washington, men who would despise the science-hating, ignorant and reactive group the right has become. But it doesn’t matter what or who you really stand for, it’s just a matter of what you can sell. People with a billion dollars in the bank who benefit from low taxes and who exploit American labor could give two shits about patriotism, but they sing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” as loud as possible while owning sprawling mansions in five countries.





cont'


http://www.salon.com/2015/01/12/angry_rights_secret_playbook_how_it_uses_a_good_story_to_peddle_an_agenda_america_hates/

January 12, 2015

A SMALL BAND OF MODERATES Could Be Key To The Republican Senate’s Success

With the help of some Dems, reTHUGS are now preaching an air of 'working together' in order to push forward a reTHUG agenda.......



Some of the most influential senators in the new Congress are neither in the majority nor among the longest-serving. They don’t show up on the Sunday-morning talk shows, and they aren’t talking about running for president in 2016. Instead, they’re a pack of Democrats from mostly smaller, rural states who are inclined to work with Republicans on legislation President Obama doesn’t support. They may even be willing to help the GOP override his vetoes. Some of them support building the Keystone XL oil pipeline and are expected to be active as the Senate begins to debate the issue this week. Others want Congress to pass tougher sanctions against Iran, and all are open to making changes to Obama’s health-care law. All three issues have drawn veto threats from the White House in recent days. One of the biggest unanswered questions about the week-old Congress is whether the new Republican majority will be able to overcome Capitol Hill’s culture of stifling partisanship and cultivate enough Democratic support to challenge Obama.



These moderate Democrats say they will cooperate if Republicans don’t use the Senate floor to score political points — as Democrats have done over the past several years. They have big expectations for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who will need to keep his larger conference unified while sustaining his promise to allow a more open and nonpartisan debate process. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), who is firmly planted in the middle of both parties, said he’ll support bills “that both Republicans and Democrats who sit down and talk to each other think will make things better for us. I think you’ll see that extreme legislation — whether right or left — is going to go nowhere.” Their influence could get an early test this week as the Senate begins debating the Keystone pipeline again. Despite an Obama veto threat, the House voted Friday to authorize the long-delayed project, with the support of 28 moderate Democrats. McConnell has promised a Keystone debate of several days, with time set aside to debate proposed amendments from both parties. Passage of those amendments likely will rest with moderate Democrats.


Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and his leadership team plan to give the moderates time and space to work with Republicans on some issues, especially since many of them ran on a promise to do so. But that doesn’t mean Reid won’t play hardball. He warned last week that “any attempt to erode protections for working American families .?.?. will be met with a swift and unified Democratic opposition.” Conversations with more than a dozen senators and senior aides in both parties revealed that several moderate Democrats are likely targets as Republicans begin work on their early legislative priorities. Three names came up in every conversation: Donnelly, Heitkamp and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), a former governor who got his first taste of high-stakes dealmaking during the 2013 gun-control debate. The next mentioned most are a trio of former governors, Sens. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), who are from states that expect their lawmakers to negotiate with the other side.



~snip~


- “There will be a group of about 15 Democrats who are willing to work with [Republicans] on any given issue,” Kaine predicted in an interview. He is eager to work with the GOP on authorizing military action against the Islamic State and to revamp presidential war powers. Fifteen is an encouraging number to Republicans, who now have 54 seats. If every Republican agrees on a piece of legislation, they will need to find at least six Democrats to help a bill clear the chamber’s arcane procedural hurdles and pass. If a few Republicans peel away — which is likely given the inflexibly conservative views of some GOP senators — McConnell might need to rely on even more Democrats. Sixty-seven senators will be needed if Republicans want to override an Obama veto.




cont'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-small-band-of-moderate-democrats-could-be-key-to-the-gop-senates-success/2015/01/11/5172dfdc-9748-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html?hpid=z3