CNN Breaking News: Obama to Agree to short-term extension of debt ceiling because the "Gang of Six"

President Obama would agree to a short-term extension of the federal debt ceiling if there is agreement on a significant deficit reduction plan by Democrats and Republicans that needs more time to be passed by Congress, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.

Obama has steadfastly opposed a short-term deal, going as far as to threaten to veto any legislation that contained such provisions. But Obama declared a long-term deficit-reduction plan unveiled Tuesday by the bipartisan "Gang of Six" senators consistent with his approach to solving the problem. Senate Democratic leaders say that further negotiations on that plan are needed to work out the deal and it would not get through Congress before the country reaches its debt ceiling on August 2.

Just received this email from CNN and it makes sense since progress has been made by the "Gang of Six" -- their proposal is not perfect but when has any budget proposal been perfect.  No one gets everything they want when a bill is actually read before voting.  The key is the fact that it provides a path to future budgets as well as the current one.  Finally the Senate will be able to say they have a budget.  Then a Conference Committee from the House and Senate can iron out the differences so for the first time in two years, the United States will have a real budget with cuts in spending which the companies like Moody's will be happy and our rating will stay at the top. 

Too many people want it all now, but it is not going to happen.  Republicans control the House but do not control the Senate and the White House so anything the House passes will probably not pass the Senate even when it makes sense if it has to do with the budget.  Elections have consequences, and we are still seeing those consequences.  Too many members of Congress are so quick to say "NO" because they didn't get what they wanted.  Some comments out of some Senators are frankly naive and short sighted.  Disappointed that the immediate reaction of some was "NO" like someone was going to magically give them all they wanted.  

Must admit that Michelle Bachmann following Ron Paul's lead last night to vote against the House bill on the deficit showed that she will follow Ron Paul and do what he says instead of the smart thing.  We don't need Ron Paul or his protege anywhere near the White House with his attitude on our military which he would decimate and not think twice. 

We are still having a hard time figuring out how closing loopholes is raising taxes when the tax rate goes down.  There are loopholes in the Tax Code which should have been shut a long time ago but am getting emails telling everyone to call their Senator to stop the Tax increase.  Frankly we think the Dr. Coburn proposal on the Tax Code to simplify and shutdown loopholes is a great idea.  Loopholes should not be in the Tax Code and if closing them is considered a tax increase, then tough -- they need closed.

This process has been an eye opener.  We have members of Congress on one side working diligently hour after hour to try and get a compromise to protect the credit rating of the United States with the debt ceiling deadline approaching.  Then we have the other side from both parties who automatically said "NO" to any compromise putting politics ahead of the United States. 

We shouldn't be in this place to have to raise the debt ceiling but the last four years with all the new agenda items of the Democrats and Obama on top of the growth of the deficit under Bush have pushed this Country to the limit.  We didn't get there over night and this is not going to be solved over night but we have the beginning of the first steps to get the budget of the United States under control. 

Will put my faith in Dr. Coburn any day of the week over any Senator whose first reaction is NO to anything that is a compromise!  Dr. Coburn was sent to DC by Oklahomans to represent us to try and stop runaway spending.  He was opposed in 2004 by the establishment in DC led by President Bush, Karl Rove, and others because they knew when he said something he meant it and was not going to be a rubber stamp for new programs that cost the taxpayers money. 

Oklahoma grassroots of which I am proud to be a member went to work and with the help of Toomey's Club for Growth, we made him our nominee for the general election with no run-off election even though there were three people running.  The Bush person in our primary lost it at a function and made a jerk of himself right before the primary and Dr. Tom won going away.  Grassroots spent a lot of time working for Dr. Tom in the primary making phone calls hour after hour after hour and continued that in the general election.  It worked and he won the General Election. 

Of all the elections I have worked over the years, seeing Dr. Tom win was probably the highlight because so many Republicans in DC were against him at the beginning.  Now America can see why we sent Dr. Tom to DC as he is doing what we expected -- making the hard decisions and always having a plan to make things better.  If it means working across the aisle, he will do just that if it benefits Americans. 

Dr. Coburn is honest and puts America First by not only his words but by his actions.  This is one Oklahoman who is very proud of the work Dr. Coburn has done in the Senate and look forward to more of the same from the Doctor from Muskogee, Oklahoma.
  

Illinois Senate Race: Mark Kirk Releases New Ad "Kidding" against Mob Banker Giannoulias

At the same time that the NRSC has their new ad on the air in Illinois highlighting Giannoulias' Support for Higher Taxes, Mark Kirk has out his new ad, Kidding, which highlights how bad Giannoulias' would be in the Senate after the way he has been handling money as the State Treasurer in the Bright Start college savings program which has lost millions under his leadership. We would be remiss if we did not mention how Giannoulias also loaned money to mobsters as a loan officer in the family owned Broadway Bank (NOTE: Broadway bank went under).

Last week, the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board slammed Giannoulias “damning non-denial about loans to criminals” following his appearance on Meet the Press. The Tribune also published a front-page feature on the collapse of Illinois’ Bright Start college savings program, which reported for the first time that Giannoulias and his staff were aware of the fund’s increasing risk but “at each turn Giannoulias stuck with the firm’s strategy, even as the housing market soured and losses accelerated.” (Kirk for Senate)

October 18th, 2010

Giannoulias Loaned Millions to Mobsters, Wiped Out College Savings in Bright Start and Now Seeks Higher Taxes and More Spending in the Senate?
You Must Be Kidding.

The Kirk for Senate campaign today unveiled a new TV ad framing the obvious question facing voters in Illinois – after loaning millions to mobsters at Broadway Bank and then losing millions more in Bright Start college savings as State Treasurer, why would anyone send Alexi Giannoulias to the U.S. Senate to raise taxes and increase spending?

Click Here for complete script and fact check.  Watch the ad below:




NRSC Launches New Ad in Illinois Highlighting Giannoulias’ Support for Higher Taxes

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 @ 10:10 AM
In Illinois, the NRSC launched a new independent expenditure TV ad entitled “Tax Hike,” highlighting failed mob banker Alexi Giannoulias’ support for higher taxes during the nation’s worst economic crisis in a generation. National Journal’s Hotline On Call reports:

The committee is airing a new ad using Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias's (D) words against him. "Alexi Giannoulias has a message for Illinois," the narrator says before a clip of Giannoulias rolls. "We need an income tax increase," Giannoulias says. The ad, obtained by Hotline On Call is significant because Giannoulias will face off with Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in their second of three debates on Tuesday:

Meanwhile, the Associated Press notes that Giannoulias is hypocritically avoiding taking any responsibility for his long, reckless record:

Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias describes himself as someone with the judgment and guts to make his own decisions, even if it means standing up to people with more experience. But when pressed Monday on decisions that turned into political liabilities, Giannoulias often passed the buck. His family bank doing business with criminals? Someone else handled that, Giannoulias explained in an interview with The Associated Press, and the loans met all the technical requirements. And the loan to shady political insider Antoin "Tony" Rezko? Giannoulias said he wasn't handling loans by that point and no one at his bank asked his opinion. What about his state treasurer's office putting money into a troubled investment fund? That's what the financial experts assured him was the best move, Giannoulias said.

We cannot fathom Giannoulias in the Senate.  We would bet that he would be another short term Senator due to ethics problems.  Illionois has had enough of that with the Governor and Senate seats so now is the the time to send Mark Kirk to the Senate and Giannoulias to the Unemployment Line.  Maybe some of Giannoulias mob friends can help him out with a new job that would better suit him.  Handling the people's money is not something he should be doing.

President Obama Now Says He's 'Agnostic' On Possible Tax Hikes For Households Below $250K a Year

What does the word 'Agnostic' mean according to Merriam Webster dictionary?

1. 1a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowablebroadlyone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2. 2a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something - political

Obviously the first definition which most assume is the meaning of the word doesn't fit. The second one looks to be a definition someone would use for a politician if their favorite vote is to vote 'PRESENT' which describes this President. Anything controversial in the IL Senate, he voted 'PRESENT.' In the US Senate he wouldn't show up for the vote. Now that Obama is President he still cannot make up his mind.

What was that he declared during the campaign over and over? No new taxes on any one making under $250,000 a year? Guess that has flown out the window with the rest of the campaign promises rhetoric. It has become perfectly clear in the last year what he reads from his teleprompter in a lot of instances is breaking his campaign promises. After Obama reads, then Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, tries to weasel word that Obama really isn't breaking the promises. It would be Comedy Central if it wasn't so serious.

If Obama was a Republican, the mainstream press would have already be attacking him for not being able to make a decision and for considering going back on his 'no new tax pledge.' Remember how the media went after Bush 41 for breaking his 'Read My Lips' no new tax pledge. They were relentless in carrying the Democrats water against Bush 41.

How many of the commentators and writers that cover for Obama attend his weekly parties in the White House? BTW, the one this week was moved to Tuesday so not to interfer with the snow storm. Will someone in the media explain to us why the taxpayers are paying for these weekly parties? We are also still waiting for the explanation from Pelosi about all the money spent illegally for her to have her children/grandchildren flown around by the Air Force plus all the money spent on liquor and food.

Instead of tax hikes, this Administration should be talking about how they can cut back their lavish life style they are living on the taxpayer's nickle and clipping off Pelosi's wings. That would be a start in getting the White House budget under control. With so many people out of work and no where to turn, it would be a symbolic start in the right direction but not this group. They will party to the end taking trips at a moment's notice.

President Obama Now Says He's 'Agnostic' On Possible Tax Hikes For Households Below $250K a Year
New York Daily News
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Kenneth R. Bazinet

President Obama says he is now "agnostic" about raising taxes on households making under $250,000 a year to help cut budget deficits, signaling a possible retreat from a campaign pledge.

In an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek on newsstands Friday, Obama said a presidential budget commission needs to look at all options for deficit reduction - including tax increases and cuts in spending on such programs as Social Security and Medicare.

"The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table," Obama said. "So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions."
Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 campaign to spare households earning less than $250,000 a year from tax increases.

Excerpt: Read more at nydailynews.com

We admit that we never thought we would see Obama say anything close that he and his administration are 'fiece free market advocates.' Just like the 'no next taxes' his words mean ZERO! Nothing about this administration has led anyone to believe they support the 'free market' economy. Zero, zip, nada!

Have to admit the chutzpah of his comments on the 'free market' take the cake. Nationalizing car companies and choosing which dealers stay or close is not 'free market' no matter how much he spins.

Bloomberg -- Obama Says He’s ‘Fierce’ Free-Market Advocate, Rejects Critics

All politicians tailor their remarks to different audiences, but this is ridiculous.
In an interview with Bloomberg News President Obama said he and his administration were “fierce advocates” of the free market.

It should be a caution to the president that his statement now sounds like a bad punch line. While voters once gave credence to his claims of being an unwilling implementer of a centrally-planned economy, say when he was nationalizing two failed carmakers or forcing banks to take bailouts they tried to refuse, a year later no one is buying.

The president told writers Mike Dorning and Julianna Goldman that the complaints from the Left that he was “being in the pockets of big business” and complaints from the Right that he was “anti-business” as proof of his equanimity and balanced approach. But both things can actually be true.

Obama went to pains in the interview to defend the fat bonuses of his friend and adviser Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and political bankroller Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, comparing their compensation to that of champion athletes. Obama’s embrace of some big bonuses comes after weeks of Lonesome Rhodes-style rhetoric about the “fat cats” and after Wall Street donors sent their warning shot that they would be just as happy funding Republicans.

The complaint, and it’s hardly just on the Left, isn’t that Obama is in “the pockets of big business” but that he is helpful to some and hurtful to others – that he wants to pick winners and losers.

What makes this, and the full article that will follow in BusinessWeek absolute must reading is to see how disconnected Obama really has become. While you could once say that Obama was just bluffing about these assertions, it’s pretty clear now that his much-vaunted Socratic model of management has produced a new kind of groupthink bubble. It just takes longer to be affirming.

“‘We are pro-growth,’ Obama said. ‘We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.’”

Source: Washington Examiner Morning Must Reads

Obama for Tax Increases

Barack Obama appears to be proposing a tax increase for all Americans who make more than $75,000 per year. Key graphs:

Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.

"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.

He is also proposing to raise the capital gains tax, but refuses to say by how much: http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/news/nationalnews/barack__id_hike_capital_gains_tax_103875.htm

Barack Obama thinks higher taxes are a good thing
Andrew Malcolm and Mark Silva, Los Angeles Times, Top Of The Ticket Blog
March 28, 2008
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamathetaxrais.html


Illinois Sen. Barack Obama went after the "We're not paying enough taxes to the government" vote today during a television interview in New York.

First, he said the Bush tax cuts ought to die. He likes that top marginal rate of 39%. Although the non-partisan National Journal recently declared him the most liberal of the 100 senators, Obama denied being a "wild-eyed liberal," which wasn't what the Journal called him, but it sounds good on TV where everything moves by so quickly.

Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.

"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to.... provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.

"Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize."

"Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown?'' Bartiromo asked. "Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?"

"Well, look," said Obama, "there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office.''

Obama said, "I'm going to be sworn in in January -- we don't know what the economy's going to look like at that point."

He was asked about the liberal tag. "I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works,'' the senator replied. " But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America."

"Obama’s completely disingenuous dodge on whether he would raise taxes during a time of economic slowdown is belied by his vote earlier this month," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Obama’s claims to the contrary, his votes to raise taxes on people earning as little as $31,850 are straight from the Democrats’ tax-and-spend playbook."

******
If this man believes in Capitalism, there are pigs flying by my window. I would say he believes more in Robin Hood -- take from the rich and this time middle class and give to the poor which means handouts instead of working for what they have. He has a biased view of America IMHO that does not bode well for Americans who have worked hard to become successful.

My bold and highlight!