Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

I saw on a CNN morning show this morning footage of Obama, on his current "energy" tour out west somewhere, boasting about how much more drilling is going on under his administration. With the Republicans and the lamestream media pushing the notion that the Prez can affect gas prices, Obama is out there pushing his I am for drilling and for solar energy and for everything energy policy. I saw on a conservative website someone claiming that drilling on private land is up but not public land. A Republican congressman was on that CNN morning show and was pushing for Keystone and complaining that Artic/Anwar drilling wasn't approved years ago, and suggesting that it could have pushed gas prices down.

guys can we not use 'lamestream media' non-ironically?

let's fast-track your ire.

lol

I recommend incentivizing throwing that term under the bus

make no mistake about it

let's move this conversation forward and innovate

I recommend incentivizing throwing that term under the bus

I would prefer that term be sunsetted.

we've done a good job synergizing here!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00055

The Senate passed the JOBS Act today 73 to 26, seeking to ease government red tape on small and start-up businesses.

Some economists have said the "red tape" here was necessary regulation, and the more liberal Senate Dems voted against this bill.

Most of the below issues were not remedied in the bill that passed the Seante.

Mary Schapiro, chairman of the SEC, listed a number of concerns, including that the bill would remove the firewall between research analysts who are supposed to provide objective information about investments and investment bankers in the same firm whose main function is to encourage people to invest. AARP said the elderly are disproportionately the victims of investment fraud and said it agreed with Schapiro that, absent safeguards, the House bill "may well open the floodgates to a repeat of the kind of penny stock and other frauds that ensnared financially unsophisticated and other vulnerable investors in the past."

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_20215510/senate-moves-toward-vote-small-business-bill

from Obama's inspiring speech on his 'energy policy' today in Oklahoma:

So today, I’ve come to Cushing, an oil town -- (applause) -- because producing more oil and gas here at home has been, and will continue to be, a critical part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. (Applause.)

Now, under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. (Applause.) That's important to know. Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some.

(applause)

Obama's continual "I don't actually give a fuck about climate change" is the single biggest betrayal I feel re: his administration.

but who cares rite

i think i have a maybe-shitty explanation for this

Most Democrats would probably agree that doctors charge Medicare and Medicaid way more than the procedures actually cost.

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:03 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and they charge private insurers way more for those same procedures! that's the big mystery.

― goole, Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:05 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you have to enroll in medica-re/id iirc. i haven't done the diligence on the stats, but i'd imagine that there are more ppl eligible for these programs than there are ppl served by them. which is to say: it may be that ppl get billed to govt programs when are ~eligible~ (as determined by their care providers) but not actually ~enrolled~. so each billing is practically guaranteed to produce a fractional return. whereas: private insurance is guaranteed (by contractual law i think?) to pay what is billed.

this, paradoxically, is why some ppl that want to provide inexpensive healthcare to underserved communities don't accept any insurance. it's also why universal insurance is a good idea

private insurers are price-takers, fed gov't has actual bargaining power so it get better prices. where's the mystery in that?

The good news on another subject: Obama did not nominate Larry Summers to head the World Bank, he went with Jim Yong Kim, the president of Dartmouth College and a global health expert instead

The bad civil liberties news:

The Obama administration has approved guidelines that allow counterterrorism officials to lengthen the period of time they retain information about U.S. residents, even if they have no known connection to terrorism.

The changes allow the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the intelligence community’s clearinghouse for terrorism data, to keep information for up to five years. Previously, the center was required to promptly destroy — generally within 180 days — any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism was evident.

The new guidelines, which were approved Thursday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have been in the works for more than a year, officials said.

The guidelines have prompted concern from civil liberties advocates.

Those advocates have repeatedly clashed with the administration over a host of national security issues, including its military detention without trial of individuals in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, its authorization of the killing of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, and its prosecution of an unprecedented number of suspects in the leaking of classified information.

...

“A number of different agencies looked at these to try to make sure that everyone was comfortable that we had the correct balance here between the information-sharing that was needed to protect the country and protections for people’s privacy and civil liberties,” said Robert S. Litt, the general counsel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the NCTC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-counterterrorism-guidelines-would-permit-data-on-us-citizens-to-be-held-longer/2012/03/21/gIQAFLm7TS_story.html?hpid=z4

The good news on another subject: Obama did not nominate Larry Summers to head the World Bank, he went with Jim Yong Kim, the president of Dartmouth College and a global health expert instead

say what

that's....weird. dude has been the pres of Dartmouth for like five minutes, and I guess for some reason I assumed that Kim and his crew at PIH were not exactly down with the world bank. Like, if the dude shares Farmers convictions on global health/aid/etc, then this is like appoint Rick perry to head the EPA

yeah idk I think it probably makes more sense for an economist to head to world bank

Other countries will also be nominating candidates for the job and they are reportedly tired of Americans getting the spot, so I think Obama was trying to think outside the box here

Other countries will also be nominating candidates for the job and they are reportedly tired of Americans getting the spot, so I think Obama was trying to think outside the box here

oops

not convinced you need to be an economist for this job btw. and I do think Kim would be a good candidate inasmuch as PIH has a p radical approach to aid, and Paul Farmer (who is not Kim obv) is basically a communist, and afaik not a fan of how aid is usually done

apparently buddies with geithner

ding ding ding....We have a winning answer

can't believe cheney got another heart

cheney don't you lose heart

1 google result

I believe they're planning to entomb the old one near Carlsbad for 10,000 years.

he had an artificial heart and now he has a real one

that has to be a bizarre feeling tbh

this heart will be nonpartisan and endorse his true protege on trashing civil liberties and citizen assassination, the Big O.

whoops, I thought this was the Dickheart thread! plz delete

:D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-cia-a-convert-to-islam-leads-the-terrorism-hunt/2012/03/23/gIQA2mSqYS_story.html

The man with the nicotine habit is in his late 50s, with stubble on his face and the dark-suited wardrobe of an undertaker. As chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center for the past six years, he has functioned in a funereal capacity for al-Qaeda.

Roger, which is the first name of his cover identity, may be the most consequential but least visible national security official in Washington — the principal architect of the CIA’s drone campaign and the leader of the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-health-reform-supreme-court-debut/2012/03/26/gIQAb7adbS_blog.html

The kind of odd accompanying photo and caption (that also ran on the newsprint front page): As joggers pass, David Lebam, center, and Lucas Feurst take a smoking break at the Supreme Court. They are from Sweden where there is universal heath care. Earlier in the day several religious groups rallied near the steps of the Supreme Court to express their opposition to President Obama’s health care plan.

Swedish smokers!

I wonder if the Swedish smokers know cigarette-smoking "Roger" from the CIA?

The W. Post has the background on why the Prez is gonna sign that JOBS bill that sheds investor protection at startups, and why Reid let it go through with only one amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/jobs-act-white-house-democrats-at-odds-over-pro-business-bill-set-to-pass/2012/03/26/gIQAfnq3cS_story_1.html

But the official acknowledged that some Democrats think the White House might have created too much momentum behind the approach advocated by House Republicans, making it difficult to pursue an alternative. The official added that the White House always favored stronger investor protections and worked with Senate Democrats trying to beef up the bill.
...

In the Senate, though, the legislation hit a roadblock. Regulators, labor unions, consumer groups and investor advocates said it did away with crucial investor protections. Even the Obama-appointed chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mary Schapiro, raised serious concerns.
...But the White House and Democratic leaders agreed that though the alternative was substantively better, trying to throw out the House bill and advance the Senate version would be a mistake, because then neither bill would pass and it would seem as if Democrats were blocking bipartisan jobs legislation.

Last week, the Senate passed the House legislation, with one amendment to require enhanced disclosure by companies seeking to “crowd-fund” — or raise money from investors online.

Hopefully this one won't get the White House's support and end up passing in both houses:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/simpson-bowles-could-get-house-floor-vote.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Matt Bai's NYT magazine story on Obama and Boehner's so-called Grand Bargain. The crux of the deal:

They had agreed to reduce discretionary spending — meaning both the defense budget and money used to finance the rest of the government — by about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; it would be up to Congress to figure out how. They also agreed to a list of programs from which they could cut at least $200 billion more in the coming decade. These included an estimated $44 billion from pensions for civilian and military employees of the government; $30 billion from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $33 billion from farm subsidies and conservation programs; and $16 billion from reforming the Postal Service.

On entitlements too they had moved closer to a final deal. The White House agreed to cut at least $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years and another $800 billion in the decade after that, in part by raising the eligibility age. The administration had endorsed another $110 billion or so in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, with $250 billion more in the second decade. And in a move certain to provoke rebellion in the Democratic ranks, Obama was willing to apply a new, less generous formula for calculating Social Security benefits, which would start in 2015. (The White House had rejected Boehner’s bid to raise the retirement age.) This wasn’t quite enough for Boehner, nor was it as extensive as what the Gang of Six had proposed. But the speaker’s team didn’t consider the differences to be insurmountable, assuming the two sides could also settle on a revenue number.

This wasn’t quite enough for Boehner,

loser

I omitted nuance from the quote: Bai charges that the Obama team tried to change the deal after Obama and Boehnertone had agreed on one. Also: the article validates your take on Boehner, Shakes.

Obama apparently did try to change the deal because his bargain included way less tax revenue than the Gang of 6 one, and he knew that he would therefore get even more grief from the Congressional Dems.

Yes Boehner couldn't get his caucus in line and was naive to think so, but Obama in being willing to agree to less tax revenue than even the blue-dog gang of 6 plan and to be willing to make cuts in Social Security scares me.

The Washington Post article suggested that Obama changed his tax revenue figure after he heard about the Gang of 6 deal (that was then rejected after it got publicized and the Republican in the Gang of 6 backed off from their deal with the Blue Dog Dems).

Republicans

Today, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget will come up for a vote in the House. It’s expected to pass on a party-line vote. Insofar as any trouble is foreseen, the difficulty is that many conservatives consider Ryan’s budget too compromised and incrementalist. I’ll repeat that: They consider Paul Ryan’s budget — which is an undeniably radical, transformational document as compared to the major budget proposals of, oh, the last 50 years — too compromised and incrementalist. When that’s the ideological temperature of one of the two parties, it’s not obvious that any amount of leadership from the top can lead to a reasonable deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-house-reaches-bipartisan-deal-to-reject-simpson-bowles/2012/03/29/gIQAfucdiS_blog.html#excerpt

More from Ezra Klein talking about that Obama/Boehner article and discussion and the current Ryan budget proposal and the vote the other day on Simpson/Bowles

I wonder if Democrats would have been so accomodating if Obama had actually released the full details on what he was negotiating with Boehner. Once they got an actual look at what they were giving away, and what they were getting in return, they might have balked. But the bottom line is the votes, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, just weren't there for a major compromise. And, as Wednesday’s vote on Simpson-Bowles showed, they're still not there. They're only there for a not-compromise. Preferably a hardcore not-compromise.

HARDCORE

harDCore (that's how we used to describe DC punk, now its House Republicans)