Follow Barack Obama prior and during his tenure as the 44th President of the United States. Read about my personal observations along with every day facts as they happen. This blog will only submit factual information about the first black President, now in his 2nd term of office.


Send E-mail to the Editor at:

Search This Blog

Christmas at the White House

Friday, December 31, 2010

Have you ever wondered what it was like to experience Christmas at the White House. The following URL will take you to a slide show that was found on The grandeur of a White House Christmas is out in full display. Living in the White House can be quite exciting, and with the pictures displayed in the following slide show, you will gather the sense of Christmas at the White House.

Immediately below is a video of President Obama thanking his guests who attended a Christmas Eve performance hosted by Ellen Degenerous and performers like Andrea Bocelli and other big name artists.


A Bi-Partisan Congress? Time will Tell

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Just one week away, and the bi-partisan Congress, or you would hope would, now becomes reality. But will they act bipartisan, or will one side or the other just always say 'no' to the issues on the table. I think it now would mean that both sides now have to agree on more issues or nothing will get done. That would not look good to either party, Republican or Democrat. If the Republicans now in power in the House seem to be stalling on legislation or the Democrats in the Senate does the same, it would shed a dim light on that prospective party in 2012.
So Obama, who has been said to have taken a 'shellacking' in the elections last November, now realizes that the blame not getting things done will fall directly on Congress, and the heat will be off of him. Since 2006, the Democrats held the power in Congress, and now for anything to get done, both Democrats and Republicans have to agree on the issues.
So what if nothing gets done in Congress, and the Republicans cast the shadow of Barack Obama as a true 'lame duck' president? First, it definitely would not be the best thing for the country to just 'not vote favorabally' on the issues. What makes them think that they could get more done by having a Republican president in 2012, then what they are getting done with a Democratic president? There will be the same divide in Washington, and the people of this country will continue to suffer when nothing gets done. In 2006, when the Democrats began holding the reins of power in Congress, they can be part of the blame for what was to happen in 2008, when the economy was crushed. But at the same time, the President of the United States at that time, George W. Bush did nothing to help save the country from such a disaster that nearly destroyed the country, and so ultimately, the blame falls on him.
So now it's President Obama's turn to show the people just how much better he is in comparison to George W. Bush. He does not have the luxury to just pass his legislation at will as he has done in the past. He no longer has the luxury to just ignore the Republican desires regarding the issues. Now, President obama can only hope that the issues he wants to talk about even make it to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, it's up to the Speaker of the House and members of the Senate that will bring up the issues they want to vote on, not the Democrats.
I think that both parties now realize, especially since the momentum will be shifting towards the elections in about 6 months or so, that they best show what they are made of, and prove to the country that they can govern better than the other side. In the mean time, President Obama will continue to work on different things in his agenda, and we will see who now outshines the other.
To the realization of both parties, including the President of the United States, it was proven within the last 30 days that allot can get done when both parties agree, but who would have guessed that it all would have started with the so called 'lame duck' congress in 2010.


What is President Obama's agenda for 2011..

Friday, December 24, 2010

So far, the President has done some bi-partisan work with Congress just before Christmas, but now the job gets a little tougher with Congress as the Republican led House will shift their thoughts on what was done about taxes just a few weeks ago, to spending.  He will now have to look at the spending cut agenda, but how about the President's education and agenda, as he most likely will not budge on what he wants. The Republicans will be sure to test the president to see how steadfast he will be. The Republicans lately have crossed the hard line and worked with the Democrats in a bi-partisan way, something the President did welcome since the very first day in office 2 years ago. But now the Republicans may just return to their corners and decide to be totally conservative in their decisions on the hill. Even though it has been kind of an early Christmas for Obama in his successes with the 'lame duck' congress, I believe that this kind of bi-partisan cooperation is all but over.
As far as the President's re-election, he has an uphill battle not just in Congress, but in his chances for re-election. No president since Delanor Rosevelt has been re-elected when unemployment has been above 8 percent. In 2011, the economy will be priority number one, and the deal that the President struck with the Republicans regarding the passage of the Bush-Tax cuts which he supported is actually very good news for him. The President must deal with the un-employment rate and figure ways to get it down if he expects to get re-elected, so I'm sure that it will also be a top priority. The economic recovery seems to be working at a snails pace and it is important that President Obama can figure out on how he can get progress allot quicker than it is going now. When the economy recovers, people will start spending more money, and for that to happen, people must be working, thus the unemployment rate will drop. If this were to happen in 2011, then President Obama will have successfully carried out his agenda for his presidency and most likely would be hard to beat in 2012.
With just 6 months or so away from the Democatic and Republican debates heading into the next Presidential election, there still is no clear cut leader with the Republicans who may run against President Obama in 2012. In my opinion, without anyone else stepping onto the plate, I would think that Mitt Romney would be a front runner, but again, it's just speculation.


President Obama in Hawaii for the Holidays

Everyone seems to be focusing on Christmas this year, as now President Obama is taking his holiday vacation in Hawaii with his family. As most know, there has been a growing concern as to where President Obama was born. If he was a citizen of another country that doesn't recognize 'dual citizenzhip', then how can he be a citizen of the United States?  Of course, citizenship in any other country has yet to be proven, although there are lots of theories. If in fact that it was proven that he was actually a citizen on another country, President Obama would have to step down as President of the United States. People who dislike the president are working hard at trying to prove such a theory, but so far, all they have are rumors. Solid, rock hard evidence has yet to be uncovered that would hold up in a Supreme Court.


'Start' Treaty Passes Congress in U.S. - Passing in Russian Parlament

Another win for the President during the lame duck session of Congress was a Senate vote of 71 to 26 in favor to ratify the Stategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is a nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia that was signed by President Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev in April. In a move that represented more bi-partisan representation, at least thirteen Republicans joined the 58 Democrats that passed easily by two-thirds majority, what is needed for the ratification.
In Russia after just a few hours of debate, a house in Russia's parliament overwhelmingly approved the New Start arm treaty with the United States. It will most likely get ratified in Russia right after the first of the year.
So President Obama is on a role. So far working with the Lame Duck Congress, he managed to repeal the 'no ask, don't tell' law, renewed the Bush-Era tax cuts, and now the 'Start' treaty looks to be a success. Regardless of what Republicans think, it has now been proven that President Obama is willing to work with everyone in Congress. To my suprise, I never would have thought that President Obama was going to get anything won over in Congress now, especially since the House now will be fueled by the Republican leadership. What happens after the first of the year of course is still yet to be seen, but President Obama presently is on a role. Let's see what happens in 2011.


The real threat to health care reform

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

By Julian E. Zelizer, Special to CNN
December 20, 2010 9:29 a.m. EST

Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter," published by Times Books, and editor of a book assessing former President George W. Bush's administration, published by Princeton University Press.

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- When U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the mandate to purchase health insurance in the new law was unconstitutional, many people began looking to the Supreme Court for a final determination.
Supporters and opponents of President Obama's health care bill are speculating as to whether the highest court in the land might rule the president's signature measure unconstitutional.
But the truth is that a Supreme Court ruling along these lines, which is against the odds, is probably not the greatest threat that health care faces. Nor is outright repeal. As Americans become more familiar with the benefits of the program, Republicans will find it more difficult to attack health care outright. With all the discussion about constitutional challenge or congressional repeal, the more likely threat is that Republicans will gradually weaken the program to the point that it is ineffective.
Although the administration has liked to point out that programs such as Social Security started small and gradually expanded over time, it is worth noting that there are other programs, such as environmental regulations, that became weaker over time even when they remained on the books.
Since Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, Republicans learned it was more politically effective to undermine programs through funding cuts and administrative appointments than it was to mount outright challenges that aimed to dismantle public policies. When Republicans directly targeted benefits, such as Reagan's effort to cut Social Security benefits 1981 or the effort by the Republican Congress to reduce Medicare spending in 1995, they were burned.
So Republicans mastered an alternative strategy that has proven to be damaging to government programs. Instead of directly attacking programs, they have relied on more subtle mechanisms to scale back government. For example, both parties in Congress have found they can use the power of the purse as a weapon.
In several cases, conservatives have been able to prevent Congress from updating programs for many years. As a result, programs such as the minimum wage diminished in value.
Republicans have also gutted agencies so that they don't fulfill their missions. Reagan, for instance appointed James Watt as Secretary of Interior despite his staunch opposition to the policies he was responsible for. Assistant Secretary Housing and Urban Development Emanuel Savas, while on the job, wrote "Privatizing the Public Sector: How to Shrink Government."
The most striking example of this strategy has been environmental policy. Republicans have not had much success taking environmental policies off the books. Many middle-class Americans are supportive of the policies that have been put into place since the 1960s. But some Republicans who are not supportive of these regulations have been able to short-circuit the programs that are in place.
A case in point is the now famous Minerals Management Service which was responsible for overseeing offshore drilling. The Gulf oil crisis revealed that MMS had become an empty and corrupt shell by 2010. Scientists had been squeezed out of the decision making process. MMS allowed industry officials to complete their own inspection forms and officials received favors from the people they were regulating. When Obama took office he didn't do much to correct these problems, and the nation paid the price with the Gulf oil spill.
If the health care law remains in place, Republican opponents will turn to indirect attacks, if they follow the pattern set by conservatives since the 1970s. Because most of the benefits of health reform won't start until 2014, Republicans have an unusual amount of time in the implementation phase to mobilize against the program.
The most obvious line of attack will be on funding. House Republicans will propose appropriations that don't sufficiently fund key components of the program, such as Medicaid expansion, so that it cannot be implemented efficiently.
Republicans will also have the power to conduct hearings if they want to try to expose shortcomings in the law or stir up public opinion. Hearings have been effective in the past for both parties. During the 1970s, liberal Democrats sought to highlight the ways in which airline regulation did not benefit consumers. Senate hearings were used to dramatize their point by highlighting problems such as the mistreatment of pets in the shipping process.
As Professors Theda Skocpol (Harvard University) and Larry Jacobs (University of Minnesota) have argued in a fascinating paper for the Russell Sage Foundation, the health care program also remains vulnerable because the administration settled on health care exchanges that were run by the states rather than the federal government.
As a result, states controlled by Republicans governors will be able to weaken the administrative strength of the program and avoid enforcing many of its consumer protections.
Passing legislation was only one part of the battle for supporters of the health care law. Now comes an equally contentious stage -- the struggle over implementing the law. In many respects, the looming court battles over health care are the least of Obama's problems. The fight over implementation is where real challenge will lie for the program.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian E. Zelizer.


North Korea Exercises Restraint - China supports "Maximum Restraint" by Both Sides

Monday, December 20, 2010

Mother luck was on our side this time, as North Korea decided not to act after a military drill by South Korea that lasted one hour and 34 minutes. In a surprise gesture, North Korea displayed restraint, but at the same time issued a stern warning to the South and to the United States. At the same time, you can't help but think that North Korea may be waiting for the South to drop its guard, and then strike. Within the last week or so, a former ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson urged North Korea not to respond with aggression during and after the exercises. If North Korea doesn't attack, this will be the fist time that they will be cast into a "positive light" according to CNN. In the same breathe, it boosts the confidence in South Korean leadership, as public support for the government due to the lack of stern responses to recent attacks by North Korea in the past have been poor.
Now, the question is not just about North Korea, but about South Korea. Will the south continue with these exercises in the future, and will the north allow it? North Korea has stated that drills like this in disputed waters must not continue.
Bill Richardson has also been able to get the North to agree to a series of actions, including the return of U.N. inspectors and to consider Richardson's proposal for a military commission bwtween the United states, North Korea and South Korea. Also, in a surprise gesture, China has urged North Korea and South Korea to exercise "maximum restraint" saying that they should return to the talks and try to negotiate, instead of provoking each other.


Office of Management and Budget in the White House vs. Home Management

In the Obama administration, there is an office called the 'Office of Management and Budget'. It's purpose is to establish principles, responsibilities, and requirements for managing records to ensure that the Agency is in compliance with Federal laws and regulations, policies, and best practices for managing records. At home or even at your office, I highly doubt if documents are scrutinized as they most likely are at the White House, and at least you have the ability to use scanning software to keep track and make copies of your records. Actually, different products are available depending on the size of your business or your needs. This type of software can definitely help your company become productive, and provide the least chance of loosing money.


North and South Korea on the Brink of War - U.S. Soldiers Ready to Respond

Sunday, December 19, 2010

by James, Editor "Obama in the White House Blog

South Korea says it is going ahead with a live fire military exercise. The North says the move will ignite war at any cost.

It looks as if the Koreans are heading for a serious conflict. But what you may not know is that the North Koreans may retaliate, but not right now. This may be so because the North will wait until the South Koreans are not on their guard. So you may not see something in the next few days. Missiles may be used and aimed at high populations, killing hundreds of thousands of people. But what the North may not know is that the South has been very patient lately, and their patience is about to run out. The South Koreans may be looking to save face here, but at what cost.
It looks like you may go to bed tonight and wake up to war, because the South Korean's will go ahead with their live fire exercises, and the North Koreans will retaliate. The North Korean's have been very clear. They claim that if there is a war, that it will be nuclear, and it will not be limited to the Korean peninsula. So it cannot be said that it is just a Korean matter, or an Asian matter for that fact, as these actions may involve allot more players.
The United States can become easily involved, as the U.S. has 28,500 troops in the Korean peninsula, and we have an obligation to defend our allies, namely South Korea and Japan in the region.
With the re-militarization of Chinese politics and the support that China is providing North Korea, it is all but certain that China will never condemn North Korea for any of the attacks that may happen when the shelling begins.
The scale of this war can be extremely large, much bigger than we have seen in recent years. Now, we are used to hearing of about maybe a dozen casualties a day, but if a war such as this goes full force, it will be common in seeing hundreds of thousands of people killed every day. Death tolls can reach a million or more. So this is a very serious matter. It is not probable, but we are talking a scale of a World War 3 here.
Most countries would not want to engage in such a war, but if North and South Korea did go full scale against each other, then countries like China may just wake up and realize that it would be not on their best interests, especially their locality in the region, to support North Korea. At the present time, it is North Korea that is the most destabilized in the region and it looks very likely that the troops in the Korean peninsula will be given orders to help protect South Korea soon, by attacking North Korea in a joint offensive with South Korea, and maybe Japan. 


U.S. Russia 'START' Treaty Up for Renewal

As if the problems in Korea are not enough, the U.S. Is faced with a nuclear arms treaty agreement between the United States and Russia. The 'START' treaty would further require both countries, both the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsonels and bombers even more. President Obama is trying to pull out yet another miracle, an attempt to get Congress to agree before the holiday recess. The U.S. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said he would not vote for the approval of the START treaty. The President believes that there is enough support in the Senate to ratify the Start nuclear arms treaty with Russia, hopefully before January. But now with the tensions in North and South Korea growing by the moment, it is uncertain what is going to happen.


OPINION of 'James' "Obama in the White House Blog"

Lately, I'm just too ignorant to understand or too dumbfounded on what is actually happening on this front, concerning Nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia. It seems to me that the Obama Administration is making a last minute push in attempt to get legislation passed before the Republican controlled Senate takes control in January. Why is President Obama wanting now to try and get another Nuclear Arms treaty passed, when the 'START' treaty expired at least a year ago? Isn't it just great that the United States has not been able to inspect the Russian arsenal for at least the last year or so. Is everyone just going to welcome in 'the end of the world' in 2012 as predicted by our earliest ancestors?  First 911, then Iraq and Afghanistan, then North/South Korea, and now the United States and Russia.

What a way to begin the new decade, if it ever begins at all.



Opinion of the Editor 'James' - Obama in the White House blog

What seems to be what is about to happen between North and South Korea has been boiling up to this point for some time. It always seems that N. Korea feels that it is being provoked. Why would South Korea who controls one of the many islands off of the North Korean mainland called Youngpyeong, hold drills near this island, being that the island is situated just 7 miles away from mainland North Korea? I can't help but try to understand what the United States would do if Cuba was 7 miles away from Florida instead of 90 miles. What would the Americans do if in that case, if Fidel Castro of  Cuba decided to hold military drills that close to the United States. Would the United States allow it?
Yet, the United States is supporting South Korea, but realizes that the boiling pot is about to run over. South Korea is determined to run these drills. North Korea is up front, telling the whole world that if South Korea carries out the drills, even to the South-West of their own island, they would retalliate. I am trying to understand here why the Obama government has allowed this issue to come to this stage. This situation is like the economy when it spiraled downhill. What the heck can anyone do to stop what is about to happen?!!
What is about to happen is uncalled for, and I highly doubt that any talks initiated between the three superpowers of the United States, China and Russia can stop what is about to happen. Thousands, maybe millions of innocent lives may be lost here in the end. The tension in this part of the world in a sense can be cut with a knife, and since the original attack, the super powers have done nothing but to hold exercises to try and show North Korea the might of the forces that would protect South Korea. But is the United States that ignorant to think that countries may not come to the aid of North Korea? I believe that negotiations can usually stall such a confrontation, but in this case, it is way too late. When I think of the consequences, I am so happy that my wife from the Philippines no longer lives in that part of the world. Maybe nowhere in the world is safe these days, but at least I feel confident that no country would try and provoke such an attack on the United States, especially since the event of 911. It is my opinion that the United States has done a poor job in preventing such a confrontation to happen. With this said, without question I support President Obama and this issue is proof that our prior Government run by George W. Bush has failed us in keeping the world a safe place to live. It is actually more safe to live on the moon these days. At the same time, I am not removing blame to President Obama. He can never claim that President Bush started this war. If in the end, nothing happens here between North and South Korea and United States somehow helps to prevent this war, then President Obama should win his second Nobel Peace Prize in two years time.
Now, regardless of the lives lost, the only result of such a war between the North Koreans and the South may be the destruction of two countries, with the one that uses the most force, would win. Christmas this year may prove to be a very disasterous time for the world. In my opinion, this threat is actually more serious than what was uncovered by Bush in Iraq. Bush created his own war. It is a matter of time before President Obama sends thousands of troops to Korea and become another costly effort in an attempt to keep peace on the other side of the world.


Stainless Steel Drums to Store Oil Based Products

Storing products like oil fuels, lube oils and other oil products have to be stored safely, not only to protect the people that use the products, but for the products themselves to prevent contamination. President Obama is supportive of companies that use organic and recyclable products such as products developed by a company that has been in the container industry for 75 years. Known as MSM, this company produces stainless steel barrels, which can be reused and cleaned an infinite number of times. But after no longer needed, can be recycled. This process is good for the industry and good for the economy. Recycled products have become very popular in saving money along with creating jobs for industries that create products from recycled products.


Obama To Sign Law to End Military Gay Ban

Saturday, December 18, 2010


In a historic vote for gay rights, the Senate agreed on Saturday to do away with the military's 17-year ban on openly gay troops and sent President Barack Obama legislation to overturn the Clinton-era policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Obama was expected to sign the bill into law next week, although changes to military policy probably wouldn"t take effect for at least several months. Under the bill, the prresident and his top military advisers must first certify that lifting the ban woun't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, the military would undergo a 60-day wait period.
Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the armed forces and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out. More than 13,5000 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.

"It is time to close this chapter in our history," Obama said in a statement. "It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed." 

The Senate voted 65-31 to pass the bill, with eight Republicans siding with 55 Democrats and two independents in favor of repeal. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-175, earlier this week.
Supporters hailed the Senate vote as a major step forward for gay rights. Many activists hope that integrating openly gay troops within the military will lead to greater acceptance in the civilian world, as it did for blacks after President Harry Turman's 1948 executive order on equal treatment  regardless of race in the military.
"The military remains the great equalizer," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "Just like we did after Prresident Truman desegregated the military, we'll someday look back and wonder what took Washington so long to fix it."
Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP rival in 2008, let the opposition, speaking on the Senate floor minutes before a crucial test vote, the Arizona Republican acknowledged he couldn't stop the bill. He blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.
"They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost."
How the military will implement a change in policy, and how long that will take remains unclear. Senior Pentigon officials have said the new policy could be rolled out incrementally, service by service or unit by unit.
In a statement issued immediately after the vote, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he will begin the certification process immediately. But any change in policy won't come until after careful consultation with military service chiefs and combatant commanders, he said.
"Successful implementation will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message and proactive education throughout the force," he said.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he welcomes the change.
"No longer will able men and women who want to serve and sacrifice for their country have to sacrifice their integrity to do so," he said. "we will be a better military as a result."
Sen. Carl Levin, a chief proponent of repeal, said he has received a commitment from the administration that it won't drag its heels.
"We hope it will be sooner, rather than later," he said.
The fate of "don't ask, don't tell" has been far from certain earlier this year when Obama called for its repeal in his State of the Untion address. Despite strong backing from liberals in Congress, Republicans and conservative Democrats remained skeptical that lifting the ban could be done quickly without hurting combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In February, Mullen provided the momentum Obama needed tby telling a packed Senate hearing room that he felt the law was unjust. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen became the first senior active-duty officer in the military to suggest that gays could serve openly without affecting military effectiveness.
"No matter how I look at the issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young  men tand women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens".
With Mullen's backing, Gates ordered a yearlong study on the impact, including a survey of troops and their families.
The study, released Nov. 30, found that two-thirds of service members didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, most were assigned to combat arms units. The statistic became ammunition for opponents of repeal, including the service chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps.
"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," Gen. James Amos, head of the Marine Corps, told reporters."I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda (Naval Medical Center) with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."
Mullen and Gates counter that the fear of disruption is overblown and could be addressed through training. They note the pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effeectiveness.
But even with backing from Gates and Mullen, the bill appeared all but dead this month when Senate Republicans united against it on procedural grounds. In last-minute wrangling. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was able to revive the bill during the rare Saturday session with just days to go before the lame-duck session was to end.
The Republicans who voted for repeal said the Pentagon study on gays and assurances from senior military leaders played a crucial role.
"The repeal of don't ask, don't tell' will be implemented in a common sense way," said Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich. "Our military leaders have assured Congress that our troops will engage in training and address re3levant issues before instituting this policy change."
Advocacy groups were jubilant following the Senate's initial test votte that passed 63-33 and set up final passage. The Servicecmembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the "defining civil rights initiative of this decade." Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.
"This has been a long-fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rihts Campaign.
At least 25 countries allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces, among them Britain, Canada and Israel, according to the Palm Center, a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara.


North Korea and South Korea will Battle if Exercises Take Place

Friday, December 17, 2010

It appears as if the inevitable is about to happen. North Korea has just warned South Korea to stop the planned drills on Yeonpyeong island sometime between Saturday and Tuesday. The island belongs to the South, but is situated very close to the North Korean border, just 7 miles away. North Korea believes that South Korea is provoking the issue. North Korea claims that if the drills take place on the island, that another stike will be forthcoming on the island by North Korea. Tension is high. North Korea claims that such a drill is an infringment on its territory. As the North claims, if the South Korean military continues with the plan, "unpredictable self-defenseive strikes will be made." But at the same time, the South claims that all threats by the North Korea will not stop the planned drills.
So where does this leave the United States. The U.S. supports the South, and China supports the North. Tensions are extemely high in the reason and it is believed that if the North attacks again, South Korea will not hesitate to respond with a large counterstrike. This is just what the world needed before Christmas.


Bush-Era Tax Cut Bill to be sent to the President's Desk

Opinion of the Editor 'James' - Obama in the White House blog

Sometimes I ask myself why I write a polically one sided blog, and some people ask what I'm going to write about now since the Republicans are now gaining power in the House. The answer now is 'allot more'. The people of the United states may have 'bitten off more than they can chew' by showing their discontent with President Obama in November by electing so many Republicans in the House to give them a majority. What they have just shown is their lack of patience with the President. What are people supposed to think, that the President could turn this country around over night?
What has happened last night with the approval of the Bush-Era tax cuts is just the tip of the iceburg. Many Republicans thought that President Obama would 'never' cave into the Republican ideas not to raise taxes for the rich, and a stall on estate taxes. But they were fooled. But by making the President consede in supporting the Bush-Era Tax cuts, they have seriously increased the President's chances to win re-election in 2012. The President's approval rating will go up. Why? Because this deal with the Republicans is just what the public wanted. Some of the already 'maxed out' unemployed of 99 weeks, known as 'the 99ers' will not receive any more benefits even with this deal, but the bill clearly benefits the rich. The congressional Democrats and Republicans are clearly split, this time in a bipartisan result, where just about the same number of Republicans and Democrats agree and disagree with the President. Nevertheless, the bill is heading for President Obamas desk today. This will mean that millions of unemployed will receive benefits in January, but again, the maxed out people of 99 weeks of already collected unemployement will not benefit from the bill at all.
In just about every bill that is passed, there seems to be a looser. This time the bill will make the rich, richer, and will supply a continuation of benefits for those who qualify, but at the same time leave millions of people without any benefits.
This is what the people wanted, and the President gave it to them.
What would have been the reprocussions if the President didn't support the bill. If in fact just one American let alone millions of Americans who lost benefits because of no funding became a reality, the liberal party would have condemned the President, and the citizens would be totally against the him. What will they talk about now?


Bush-era Tax Cuts Pass in Congress, Now Become Law for 2012

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Congress has just passed the Bush-Era tax cuts that will extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed, along with preventing President Obama from raising the taxes of the rich. Early in the week on Wednesday, the Senate cleared the bill with an 81-19 vote on Wednesday, and tonight the House passed the measure. 
The big holdup in the House were liberals that were strongly opposed to what they argue is a deficit-exploding giveaway to the rich in the form of a lower estate tax. 
As expected liberal Democrats are extremely disappointed with the President as he supported the measure and sided with the Republicans. 
In a tally, it is affirmed that November and December belong to the Republicans as far as getting their way. But it is very evident that the liberal Congressmen 'railroaded' the President in agreeing with them. For Obama, it wasn't about the Democrats verses the Republicans here, or liberal ideas opposed to conservative ideas, it was about the unemployed; it was about the only viable way to keep unemployment benefits in the hands of the unemployed in 2012. 
The Republicans have successfully showed their cards in a hand that they have displayed to everyone as to what to expect in 2012. But I would guess that President Obama will now be very critical in his support for future bills, and will exercise his 'veto vote' on a regular bases when the Republican House takes control in January. They will decide which bills they want to vote on, and will especially pick bills that the President will have to concede to, but they most likely will find out that he will not concede.


Why are Democrats and Republicans so 'polarized' Against Each Other?

Opinion of the Editor James 'Obama in the White House Blog'

For as long as I have been writing this blog, I still have yet to understand why the Democrats and the Republicans are so polarized against each other. It appeared that when the Democrats had total control of Congress, the Democrats lent a deaf ear to the Republicans and conservative ideas. Many will say that the politics of one of the greatest nations in the world is what makes it so great. It is a fact that most people for whatever reason never seem to agree with each other, yet the stonchest of all Conservatives just are not able to understand why the Democrats have been promoting such liberal ideas during the first 2 years of President Obama's presidency. The stonchest of all liberal Democrats are ignorant enough not being able to understands why real conservatives are so conservative, and not interested in promoting anything Democrats want.
Members of Congress are definitly in the top 5% of top salary earners, as the average salary of a senator in 2009 was approximately $174,000 per year. Every Senator in Congress then may be subseptable to higher taxes in 2011 if President Obama didn't side with the Democrats so that taxes would not go up for anyone starting in 2010. For now, the President's decision seems to be benefiting everyone. The poor and middle class folks will not see a rise in their taxes, and the rich can also be relieved to know that the President will not get his wish by raising their taxes at least in the next few years. But now this poses a dilimma for the Republicans in 2012. Another vote will have to take place in the election year to extend the Bush-Era tax cuts that now is pretty much assured to pass through Congress before January 1, 2011.
Again, it is predicted that the Bush tax-cuts will again pass during 2012. President Obama can regain popularity with the middle and upper class especially and definitely would help his chances in gaining re-election. I truly believe that even though President Obama does not really approve of the Bush-Era tax cuts in his mind, he knows that it would be great for his re-election in 2012. It will be interesting to note what mud the Republicans will come up with when the President's popularity rises, especially after the job market picks up by 2012. For sure, there will be more mud-slinging in Congress, so now the Conservatives will continue to tear down the character and ability of President Obama. Will it be enough to make sure that President Obama does not get elected? In my opinion, I believe they will not have enough to stop his re-election. To this date, there still is no real candidate that stands out above all other prospective candidates to run against President Obama. This, countered with the 'third party' or so called 'tea party' will most definitely steal votes in the upcoming Presidential election in 2012 from both parties, and the Republicans have more to loose from stolen votes by the 'tea party'. There again, the 'tea party' may come up with a better candidate than the Republicans.
With all this said, the Democrats will still think to the left or 'liberal' and the Republicans will still think to the right or 'conservative'.  The bickering will continue by Congress, but hopefully the people who are affected by their decisions can survive another day.


WH warns of deeper economic crisis - Possible Double-Dip Recession

Sunday, December 12, 2010


WASHINGTON (CNN) – In a dramatic escalation of the rhetoric over President Obama's controversial tax cut deal, senior White House economic adviser Larry Summers warned Congress on Wednesday that failing to pass the legislation could lead to a double-dip recession in 2011.
"If they don't pass this bill in the next couple weeks it will materially increase the risk that the economy would stall out and we would have a double dip," he told reporters at a White House briefing.
Pressed for clarification given the dire nature of his statement, Summers stressed that he was only saying it would "significantly increase the risk" of that outcome and was not predicting an actual double dip recession, which is defined as a recession followed by a short-lived recovery and then another recession.
While some economists feared the possibility of a double dip recession for parts of 2009, White House aides have said for months that the possibility of such an outcome was remote.
Summers' statement seemed to be a clear attempt by White House officials to raise the stakes in the tax cut fight, with senior White House adviser David Axelrod adding at the same briefing that "there are real consequences" for the American people if Congress fails to approve the package, which includes a two-year extension of all the Bush tax rates as well as 13 months of unemployment benefits and a two percentage point cut in the payroll tax.
Summers also warned that failure to pass the bill could reverse the positive predictions for the economy that various analysts like Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics have offered since Obama's announcement of the tax deal. Echoing the views of other analysts at Goldman Sachs and elsewhere, Zandi now says that real Gross Domestic Product growth in 2011 "will accelerate to four percent, job gains will pick up to 2.8 million, and the unemployment rate will decline to around 8.5 percent by year's end."
However, Summers said that a "set of downward revisions would commence" on Wall Street if the tax package doesn't pass by the end of the year.
Also raising the stakes in the tax fight, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for the first time held open the possibility of Obama heading to Capitol Hill at some point in the waning days of the lame duck session of Congress to personally lobby wavering lawmakers on the matter.
Gibbs noted that Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials will be on Capitol Hill Wednesday evening for the second straight day lobbying lawmakers and "that doesn't preclude at some point" the president heading to Congress as well for a dramatic personal appeal.
The comments came just hours after Obama himself downplayed tensions among Democrats and told reporters he expects the deal will pass in the end.
"I think it is inaccurate to characterize Democrats at large as feeling, quote unquote, 'betrayed,'" Obama said. "I think Democrats are looking at this bill and you've already had a whole bunch of 'em who've said, this makes sense and I think the more they look at it the more of them are going to say this makes sense."
Obama said he is confident that after lawmakers "examine it carefully" they will see this is the right course to ensure a healthy economic recovery.
"You've just had economists over the last 24, 48 hours examine this and say this is going to boost the economy, it is going to grow the economy, it is going to increase the likelihood that we can drive down the unemployment rate," said Obama. "And it's going to make sure that 2 million people who stand to lose unemployment insurance at the end of this month get it; that folks who count on college tax credits or child tax credits or the Earned Income Tax Credit, that they're getting relief; and that tens of millions of Americans are not going to see their paychecks shrink come January 1st."


Durbin Pushes for a Bush Era Tax cut Vote - Democrats are Upset

The Bush-Era tax law is scheduled to be renewed by Congress shortly, but not without a fight by key Democratic opponents who oppose the Presidents decision to support the tax cuts. One provision within the bill to get renewed is the estate tax provision that they belive is very benificial to the wealthy. This may be so, but the Presidents concern here is for the poor and middle class who despirately need the renewal of unemployment benefits that would be provided if the bush era tax cuts are renewed. Key Democrats appear to be greedy for their own cause, and the President is disollusioned about the lack of support from his own party. Nevertheless, the bill will reach a vote very soon in Congress and should pass without incident. The Senate majority Whip Dick Durbin claims that the bill to get passed "will need Republican support" that has been negotiated by President Obama with the Republicans. Most likely, it will pass with ease in the House, but may tumble in the Senate. Even Senate majority Leader Harry Reid, has been trying to convince his own side in the Senate to support the President with an issue that is very popular amongst Republicans.
In the end, the Republicans most likely will get their tax cuts for the wealthy, but the President is only doing so in a sense of duress, because if he did not support the bill, most likely the vote for the Bush-Era tax cuts would not come back again until January, after unemployment benefits expire. If the president waited on the decision, he would have been blamed for the expired unemployment benefits, and most likely, especially after the Republican House took control in January, the bill would pass anyway. It will be very unlikely if the President would get the Republicans to support his liberal ideas in the future, but at least it shows now that he is willing to compromise before he technically has to, so it will be interesting to see if the Republicans do what is best for the country after they gain the majority in the house.
If they consistantly support only conservative ideas, and not what is best for the citizens of the United States, then President Obama will surely veto future bills, and the Congress will have a very difficult time in creating legislation.


The President Veto'd Notary Legislation - Dems and Reps both Upset

Notary Publics are essential for document creation for the main reason to prevent forgeries. The duty of the Notary is to validify the signatures on a specific document that he/she is notorizing. Even in government, Congressional documents are notorized as valid before becoming law. The authorizers of such a document are stated to be the actual people who signed off on the document. So the notary stamp is actually required for every legislation that is created and passed by the U.S. Congress. In other recent news, the President did not sign off on a bill known as H.R. 3808, which would have allowed federal and state courts to recognize notary signatures from other states. The bill was passed by Congress, but the President has veto'd the bill, and most likely may be just one of many that will be veto'd when the new Republican led House starts business in January.


George W. the 'War Monger' still Does not Admit Guilt for Attacking Iraq

Last week, President bush met with Jim Axelrod at the Presidents home in Dallas. As expected, there were questions asked of the president that would be expected.
The following is an exerpt from the Axelrod report taken during the interview.

He is proud of his book "Decision Points." A chronicle of crucial decisions he made over the course of his adult life, Mr. Bush wants to set the record straight. He is not a man full of regret or doubt. Even though no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq, he doesn't second guess the decision to invade, saying it made the world safer and freed a country from the grip of a dictator.

Question: And so the liberation, in your view, justifies everything.

Mr. Bush: In my view, what justifies everything is the removal of a threat. I mean, Saddam Hussein, weapons or no weapons, would've been a threat had he remained in power. But he had the capacity to make weapons. And he certainly would've had the money to make weapons. And he'd have been emboldened, 'cause once again the world would've said, "Disarm." And we would've allowed him to stay in power.

Sometimes you should be judged by the decisions you don't make - in other words the decision to leave him in power. And my judgment would've been a decision that could've created enormous chaos in the world. Now, as one could envision a nuclear arms race between Saddam and Iran, and then they'd have been saying, "Wait a minute, the failure to act created enormous stress."

The following are comments of the editor of this blog in an attempt to state reasoning why President Bush should be held accountable for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with all of the unnecessary deaths associated to the United States invasions.

As stated, George W. sincerely believes that the world is now safer as he freed a country from the grips of a dictator. But regardless of what he thinks, he entered the country with his American troops with false pretenses. Congress voted to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction. He justified his actions at the time because he claimed that Suddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I believe that he had knowledge that he did not have the weapons, but used it as an excuse to get the Congress to sign off onto the invasion. In the end, so far to date, Iraq does not and never had weapons of mass destruction but the mere fact that George W. took his troops to war on these pretenses, and that thousands have died for 'his' cause, and over 100,000 Iraqi citizens died so far to date, makes him a 'mass murderer'. His attack on Iraq even though the world is a better place now because Suddam Hussain is now dead does not make his actions right. If he invaded Iraq to capture Osama bin Laden, then maybe I could agree with him. The citizens of New York City still have yet to try the accused perpetrator of the 911 disaster, as this dictator is still now living in Afghanistan. Did Saddam Hussein's so called weapons of mass destruction topple the twin towers and kill thousands of Americans on U.S. soil? Of course not.

He also states that he should have been judged for the decision he did not make. But now it is only speculation as far as how he would have been judged if he didn't attack Suddam Hussein. George W. claims that Sadaam did have the money and the ability to build, and so does North Korea. Do you think that President Obama would ever attack North Korea unless he was provoked by N Korea first? I highly doubt it, but at least if and when President Obama does, he will have accurate knowledge from his advisors to make a calculated and correct course of action.

President Bush can be called nothing short of a war monger, and to think that he is happy with his service to his country. He doesn't even bat an eye when he reads the reports that another soldier has died in a war that he started.


Life Insurance for Everyone

President obama has made it a priority to provide insurance to everyone because protection for your family these days are very important. But sometimes protection cannot prevent a tragedy, or even a fatality. To help protect against unforseen financial hardships during these trying times, it is vitally important that you buy life insurance that you can afford. The good news is that insurance companies now-a-days cannot discriminate against you, especially for pre-existing conditions. Since there are so many types of insurance, and for so many prices, it is good to search in a place where you can acquire the answers to questions that you may have before purchasing the insurance.


Elizabeth Edwards Looses Battle with Cancer

Saturday, December 11, 2010

John Edwards, the Senator who failed in his plite to become president, had uligies for his wife Elizabeth Edwards in Raleigh, North Carlina, as she died of cancer on Tuesday, December 7th. 2010. She was a very strong woman, had extremely good morals and was open and sincere when she disgussed with the media her marital problems with her husband John Edwards. John was caught in the middle of an infidelity scandal, where he finally admitted cheating on his wife and bearing a child to another woman while married to Elizabeth. She is missed by her whole family including thousands who loved and admired Elizabeht from a distance and mourned at her eulogy. As reported by CNN, she was 61 years of age and had a 6 - year battle with cancer. Just recently, it was learned that the hospital stopped all forms of cancer radiation treatment, as her battle with the disease was coming to an end. She only had days to live when all treatments were stopped.

Before her death, she practiced as an attorney and wrote a book called 'Saving Graces'. Before she died, she came completely in touch with her disease, that was detected just after John Edwards lost his bid ad Vice-President with the Democratic hopeful named John Kerry. Elizabeth Edwards was buried today in North Carolina.


Quality Shoes for Men and Woman

Finally, there is an outlet that you can purchase quality woman's and men's shoes known as MBT shoes (Bare Foot Technology). The shoes are so light, that it feels as if you are barefoot. They are also designed to be extended wear shoes. All types of shoes, sandals, dress shoes, sandals, clogs, and boots. They can be athletic, outdoor, walking casual, and muscle-toning shoes.Products can be ordered on-line to arrive for Christmas. These shoes have been in the market since 2003, and while sales seem to be skyrocketing each year, the shoes feel to be the most natural shoe ever to hit the market.


Name Brand clothing at Discounted Prices for the Holidays

Living in the White House can be kind of challenging at times, especially since you are known as the first family. The first family should be a family dressed in fashion, and for as long as I can remember, the presidential family always dresses well. Feeling good about your dress is important, especially during the Christmas time of the year. Shopping this holiday season can be kind of crazy. More and more people are traveling to the stores to buy christmas presents for their loved ones. When it comes to women's clothing accessories, there is no shortage on what you can choose for a purchase. Regardless of a persons lifestype, there are a variety of brand names in clothing and accessories. Apple Bottom is a brand name that you can trust. Womans products like accessories such as hand bags, clothing, footwear, otherwear, tops along with plus sizes are all available choices. In the past, the cost of merchandise for Christmas was not a major concern because people could actually afford to spend money. This year, with the downward trend with the economy, it is safe to say that people are a little more critical spending money for christmas gifts. It is usually safe when you select merchandise that happens to be a name brand product.


North Korea and South Korea on the Brink of War

Friday, December 10, 2010

Two weeks ago, North Korea shelled a South Korean island called Yeonpyeong. Innocent people were killed in the attack by North Korea, as the Norh Koreans did not want the present South Korean military exercises to take place. Some of the South Korean islands are located very conspiculasly close to North Korea.  Everyone seems to be waiting what will happen next.   The United States immediately sent warships to converge with South Korean ships to engage in military exercises to try and influence the North Koreans not to attack again. If another country attacked the United States, you could bet there would be a direct and immediate military response to anyone country that was responsible for the attack. But the United States seems to think now that diplomacy between North Korea and South Korea is the best answer for peace at the present time. This may be so, but if North Korea strikes its southern neighbor again, I do not think that South Korea would wait to strike back.
At the same time, China now seems to be in a diplomatic mode, as this country would like to conviene talks between 5 countries in an attempt to try and defuse the tension and possibilities for war between North Korea and South Korea. This in itself is interesting, because China outwardly supports North Korea, and the United States outwardly supports South Korea. A meeting that China wants to take place in January with the six nations of North Korea, South Korea, United States, Japan, Russia and China would be like a session in the U.S. Congress fighting amongst each other on policies. These meetings between the countries have never before seemed to result in anything good, but only seemed to be an action of goodwill between the countries.

At the present time, the countries within the Korean puninsula need more than just good will. The tension in the area is so think that you can expect any slight future confrontation to become a major war between the North and the South.
Meanwhile, the United States and China and other countries have elected to sit back and wait. No one country wants to provoke another war, especially the united States, with its hands full with two wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. President Obama will be very reluctant in committing to a third war at his choice.


A Thankless Job - being President of the United States

Well, talking about a political hot bed, trying to be an active President in these trying times for the country can be no less than challenging. In fact, it seems to be a thankless, no win situation at times. You read about peoples unemployment benefits expiring after 99 weeks of collecting unemployment. Then you read about a President more concerned about the people instead of his own party, as he now supports the Bush-era tax cuts and they do not. Then you hear leading Democrats condemning President Obama for supporting Conservative policies of the past. So what is President Obama supposed to do? Is he supposed to let the unemployed starve to death? Is he supposed to please both the Democratic party and the Republican party?
President Obama has been for what it takes to do good for the people, not necessarily for any particular any party. The prior mid term election proves that he can no longer do things just as he wants it too. When the Republican controlled House comes to order in 2011, he will have more fish to fry. Veto's will be coming. More disenchanted Democrats will show their heartless faces. Maybe they never heard the saying " When the going gets tuff, the tuff gets going". President Obama is just not going to put on the breaks to his idealology just because the Democrats do not like what he is doing. The Republicans are forcing his hand. It is the last thing on earth that President Obama wants is to extend tax cuts to the rich. But if he didn't, what would happen the the middle class and the poor if he was as greedy as some of the Democrats?  I'd hate to see what would happen to allot of people if their taxes jumped sky high in January. What the President did was to do his part in making sure regardless of what he feels, that this disaster would not happen. He is looking out for the people here, not for the selfishness in Washington, as you will now see more and more of the rediculas debates with Democrats against Republicans not agreeing on most anything.
THe next two years for President Obama will be difficult. Appearently the people of this country only have a short memory, and forgot why they elected Barack Obama for President in the first place. They forgot about a past President, George W. Bush who whas so taken up about the war on terrorism, that he seemed to forget what he needed to fight for on his own soil. President Obama signed up for that task, but the people of this country are short fused, not patient, and are more concerned about themselves more than ever. President Obama was out front in telling the American people that it would be a long hard battle for the country to rebound from this economic downturn the last Republican President could only be responsible for putting the country into. But also to blame are all the lawmakers in Washington that did not support policies good for the people when the conservative president was in office. The blame goes to both Democrats and Republicans alike. It seems no matter who is president, Democrat or Republican, Congress always has an uphill battle to get both sides of the isle to decide on policy.
It is a shame that President Obama may now slip into being a 'lame duck' president. No wonder why he pushed so hard for his agenda during a time when he had complete control over Congress. He appearently knew what was to come in two years when becoming President.
The Republicans may have bitten off more than they can chew, and the Tea Party that helped elect them in Congress may be the reason why things may backfire on them in 2012.
Let's just say that the economy starts rebounding, and people start going back to work, and things start to look up for this country. Do you think that President Obama may be elected in 2012? Who will he have to run against him, maybe the likes of Donald Trump, or Sarah Palin? This again would be a political nightmare for the Republican Party, and unless they come up with a very viable candidate to run against Obama, they will loose in 2012. The question now is whether now President Obama will run again in 2012 being that the political teapot in Washington is boiling over. The next President, especially if Republican will say that they took over a Presidency with a country deep in debt due to the Democratic president, but the reality is that it is because of basically one man, George W. Bush who took the country down to its knees while ignoring everything he should have been doing for the people living on American soil.


President Obama's message to Promote Bush-Era Tax Cuts

Last Monday, President announced a framework for a bipartisan compromise to extend a set of tax cuts that were set to expire, restore unemployment benefits for millions of Americans, and pass additional measures to help middle-class families and create jobs.
This compromise, while not perfect, is vital to millions of Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own, as well as middle-class families, students, parents, and small businesses.


Donald Trump vs. Barack Obama in 2012? Is that a joke!!!

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Today, there was a CNN report  called "TRENDING: Trump 'really thinking' about prez bid by CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney, stating that Donald Trump, the "business tycoon and perennial publicity hound" has stated that he is thinking about running against President Obama in 2012. In the same breathe, he states that he is not really interested in being President.
But, he believes that he can do things better, especially from a business prospective. Yes, Mr. Trump is a great business man, but if you ever watched his reality show you will understand that he is a ruthless man. On TV, he embarasses and belittles people, and at the same time, praises others. As you can tell by reading my articles here, I'm not a TV or radio reporter, as I just report them as I see them, from my prospective, and up front it should already be known that I support the President.
It is no secret that the country is in trouble regarding the economy, but it is rebounding back. The housing market is still in terrible shape, and it allows tycoons like Donald Trump to take advantage of the market and to take advantage of people. With the money he has, he can do just about anything within the law, and given his outreach, who knows what else he does. He is not the every day citizen. He is a man that President Obama would like to raise taxes on, as he is truly classified as the "filthy rich". As he states, "For the first time really would think about it. And I am thinking about it. It doesn't mean I want to do it. I'd prefer not doing it. I'm having a lot of fun doing what I'm doing. It's a great time to be buying things. I'm buying a lot of things and really having a good time," Trump told Joy Behar Wednesday on HLN. CNN's sister network as reported by CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney.
Mr Trump is quick to criticize the President for not securing a bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics for Chicago. Personally, I believe that the city of choice for the Summer Olympics were already chosen. President Obama represented America at the meetings in Copenhagen, and it just goes to show you that the President, quoted as being "the most powerful man in the world" could not get Chicago to secure the win for the Olympic City. Maybe Mr. Trump just doesn't understand the Olympics process in choosing a city. President Obama represented the United States, not just Chicago, at the meetings in  Copenhagen a year ago when it was reported that he "failed last-minute bid to secure the 2016 summer Olympics for Chicago" as reported by CNN.
I believe that the President of the United States knew his chances when going into the meetings, and it was a last minute bid. He was just elected President, and didn't have time devoting all of his time to the Olympics. After all, he had acquired a monumental task of cleaning up things after President George W. Bush left office.
Donald Trump believes that other countries are not respecting the United States as he states "That shouldn't be happening to this country. People are not respecting us. They are not respecting this country. And I hate to see it" as reported by CNN. Is he talking about the talaban, or the terrorists around the world. Why should they, or why would they support the President.
If President Obama did such a bad job in just his first year in office of the United States and people of the world do not respect President Obama, then why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize in less than one year in office?
Donald Trump will NEVER win the Nobel Peace Prize. It's not about the people when it comes to talking about Donald Trump. It is about him. It is about his money, his property, and his business skills, that frankly could only support the rich. I sincerely believe that Donald Trump doesn't have an ounce of blood in him to help middle class or poor class Americans.
If Donald Trump runs against President Obama, Americans will see right through him, his money and his outragous pesonality to realize that Donald Trump could never be the man to represent the United States to the world.
Truely, I beleive that Donald Trump is power hungary. He has everything tangable he wants, which happens to be what most Americans do not have. He can buy anything, sell anything and has proven himself in business deals time and time again. But now he is thinking about becoming President? Give me a break here. All I can see here is jealosy. The presidency is the one job in the world that his money cannot buy. Money buys allot of things, as you can ask Mr. Trump himself, but money alone will not buy the Presidency of the United States.


Obama bows to Republicans and supports the 'BUSH-Era" Tax Cuts

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Everyone knew it was coming, as President Obama as agreed with Republicans to extend every Bush-era tax cut today. This agreement effects the rich, the middle class and the poor. It is no secret that President Bush has resented tax relief for the rich, but in order to save the middle and lower income tax groups, he had to compromise with the Republicans. So in a sense, the Republicans have won. What actually happened is that the Republicans looked out for the rich, and the President looked out for the middle and poor class Americans. It is important to note that this fight to tax the rich will be an ongoing debate from now and into the future.
Is there one person on earth that actually thought that the President would not extend the tax cuts? There were rumors that the President would veto any extention of the tax cuts by Congress. Only if you are a mole living in a hole would you ever think that the President would ever abandon the middle class and the poor.
Instead, unemployment benefits will be available for the unemployed for at least the next year or so and the rich will enjoy paying less taxes than the President would like them too.
This time, the President shows his deep concern for the less than fortunate in this country, and has sided with the Republicans on the tax deal so that low income people would not have to suffer as much. The Democrats however are disheartened over the fact that the President "caved in" to Republican politics. Many would think this is true, but the "number one priority is to do what's right for the American people" and "Because of this agreement, middle class Americans won't see their taxes go up on January 1" as he stated in a scheduled news conference at the White House.
President Obama admitted that he has not been able to budge the Republicans in the Senate. The President scolded the Republicans as he stated that extending tax cuts for the wealthy is the "holy grail" for Republicans. He pointed out that extending tax cuts "seems to be their central economic doctrine," knowning full well now that they have control in the Senate, that they could use a filibuster card if the President doesn't agree.
Payroll taxes will go down for at least one year from 6.2% to 4.2%, and it is applied to the first $106,800 of wages. A $50,000 wage earner would see a decrease in payroll taxes of at least $1,000 and likewise, someone earning $100,000 would save at least $2,000. It means that the rich will be richer, and the poorer will no be poorer. So everyone stands to gain here, but really, is it truly the right thing to do. It means that the more you earn the less in actual taxes verses income you would have to pay. This theory definitely would encourage someone to make better for himself and try to earn more money. But there are allot of people out there that are unemployed and cannot earn allot of money. Some people make just enough to put food on their tables.
Likewise and Estate tax will return in January with a rate of 35% verses 55% as it was scheduled to be in the Bush-Era tax cuts would no longer be in effect. Included in the plan would be continued tax breaks for studens and families contain in the stimulas bill of 2009 and businesses can write off any investment that they would make in 2011.
As expected, the Republicans like the deal, but Democrats do not like it. One reason the Democrats are against the deal is because tax cuts are extended to the rich. That is the same reason why the Republicans like it.
What has happened here is the preface of the actings of the future Congress, now that the Republican majority Senate will take effect in two months. President Obama will now have an uphill fight to protect his beliefs and his desires for policy creation. But the Republicans should also realize that because they won this battle regarding the renewal of the BushEra tax cuts, they will have a harder time in the future to go against Obama's desires. I would expect that the Republicans will see the Presidential veto thrown at them a few times in the near future. It is a battle between the liberals and the conservatives. Hopefully, the fighting within Congress will subside long enough during policy debates to actually get some policies passed. If not, everyone has everything to loose here. The politicians in Washington are there so that they can promote new policies, but so far it looks as if there will be little chance that both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate will ever get along on anything.


Breaking News: House Passes Middle-Class Tax Cut

Friday, December 3, 2010

Posted by Josh Cohen on Thursday, December 02, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Today, House Democrats led the charge to pass tax cuts for 97 percent of families and small businesses – saving a ‘typical’ middle-class family roughly $1,000 a year. This legislation now is headed to the Senate, which must act before tax relief for middle-class families expires at the end of the year.
The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 cuts taxes for “all families making less than $250,000 a year,” and:
The bill permanently extends the 2001/2003 tax cuts, including current tax rates, marriage penalty relief (including EITC), capital gains and dividends rates, and $1,000 child tax credit (for earnings above $3,000). The bill also protects more than 25 million taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax by extending the AMT patch through 2011 and permanently extends small business expensing.
Today's vote passed by a count of 234-188. Congressional Republicans have refused to vote for middle-class tax cuts unless Democrats agree to a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.


  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP