Fuck Obama

[Pele'sDaughter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html


White House on Friday to request $1.2 trillion increase in nation’s borrowing limit

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says the federal government has nearly reached its borrowing limit — again.

Treasury officials said Tuesday that the White House plans to request another $1.2 trillion in borrowing authority Friday. The increase is necessary, they say, because the government will be within $100 billion of its current limit by then.

In the past, such a request would be routine. But this one follows a summer of intense partisan debate over the nation’s record debt, which has yet to end despite a last-minute deal reached in August that averted a potential default.

The increase would boost the debt limit to $16.4 trillion. Congress and the Obama administration agreed to raise it to that level in three steps as part of the August deal. Officials say that should be enough to allow the government to keep borrowing until the end of 2012, or just after the presidential election.

Congress can reject the request, although Obama can veto their objection. If Congress doesn’t act by Jan. 14, the increase will take place automatically.

The debt limit is the amount the government can borrow to finance its operations. It has soared because the government has run record deficits over the past decade. The borrowed money has helped pay for two wars, stimulate the nation’s economy after the worst recession since the Great Depression and finance broad tax cuts initiated during the Bush administration.

The enormity of the debt has also stoked a debate in Congress over spending and taxes. Polls show growing voter anger with the inability of both parties to reach solutions to the country’s budget problems.

In August, Congress and the administration agreed to raise the borrowing limit by $2.1 trillion in three steps. The deal was reached hours before a potential default on the nation’s debt and only after the parties also agreed to cut more than $2 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years.

Three days after the agreement was signed into law, credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded long-term U.S. debt. The difficulty Congress and the White House had in reaching agreement was a key reason for the downgrade, S&P said.

The parties remain at odds over how to reduce the deficit. In November, a bipartisan panel failed to meet a deadline to agree on $1.2 trillion of the cuts. That means automatic cuts of that amount will begin in January 2013 — a condition included in last summer’s deal.

Republicans want to modify the timetable for the automatic cuts, largely because it includes steep cuts to the nation’s defense budget.

Congress agreed to raise the debt limit by $400 billion in August and by another $500 billion in September.

House Republicans voted against the second increase. But they failed to block it because the Senate approved it. The increases are scheduled to take effect unless both chambers vote against them.

[2012 Countdown]

Cenk Uygur Host of The Young Turks
Vote Against Obama in Iowa
Posted: 12/29/11 10:20 AM ET

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a crime against our constitution. It allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US -- without a trial. It's one of the worst laws ever passed in the US and it passed with nary a peep of opposition. I'm positive that a huge percentage of the population is not even aware of it, partly because the establishment media didn't even bother covering it.

But it appeared for a while that the one guy fighting against it was President Obama. I was incredibly encouraged by that. I shouldn't have been. It turned out at the end that he was threatening to veto the bill because he wanted it to have even more executive power, not less. This president has been a disaster for civil liberties. Every time I think about the fact that he used to be a constitutional law professor, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Indefinite detentions, summary executions of US citizens abroad without a trial, warrantless wiretapping and much, much more. All of the things we were outraged Bush did -- and then some. Honestly, it makes me feel a little sick that I voted for him. At least, I could say that I fought tooth and nail against Bush.

And civil liberties abuses are the tip of the iceberg in disappointment with this president. Then there is the comedy of financial reform which doesn't reform a damn thing. There are the zero prosecutions of the top bankers who destroyed our economy through their fraud, took our money and now spit in our face with it. There is the extension of the Bush tax cuts. There is the cave in on nearly every negotiation (the payroll tax cut being the exception that proves the rule (by the way, he "won" on more tax cuts, a profoundly Republican idea). His crowning achievement of healthcare reform was a proposal originally written by the Heritage Foundation. There isn't a Republican idea that President Obama didn't want to cuddle with and adopt as his own.

Now, the argument goes that he might be bad, but the Republicans are worse. Of course. Right now, Newt Gingrich is on the campaign trail arguing that Mitt Romney isn't kind enough to the rich. I'm not kidding. He is trying to make hay out of the fact that Romney takes capital taxes down to zero percent for only people making below $200,000. Newt thinks that's discrimination against the rich and he would take it down to zero for everybody. Then he would make your kids clean the rich kids' toilets in school.

I follow politics for a living; I'm not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn't mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we're scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest.

And to be honest, I'm really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side -- Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment.

The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley (and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all. Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side.

I would have loved a progressive alternative, but apparently we are not going to get one (except for Rocky Anderson running on the Justice Party ticket). Primaries are the perfect place to send a message without taking away votes in the general election. But it didn't happen because the Democratic establishment says we must fall in line because we wouldn't want to hurt the agenda of the president. The agenda of the president sucks and is deeply Republican. I'd love to at least get him to reconsider that agenda for a second.

But there is one thing we can do right now that doesn't really hurt the chances of the president getting re-elected and doesn't help Republicans one bit. It is an idea that Occupy Iowa came up with. In the Iowa caucuses you can vote for "uncommitted." In fact, since the 1970's "uncommitted" has won twice on the Democratic side and it beat Bob Dole in 1980. Of course, the Republican Party has shut down this option on their side. They say you can vote that way in the GOP field but they will not register those votes or send those delegates. Of course, they're the GOP; they have no interest in your dissent.

But if all of those people were to go and participate on the Democratic side, they might have an effect. If "uncommitted" beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa, that would make some news. That might even get the attention of The Establishment. So far, he has only responded to right-wing pressure. He is the consummate politician, so if there was actually a little bit of pressure on his left he might have to respond to it, especially during an election season. Wouldn't it be amazing if President Obama acted like a progressive on some issue because he was worried about the voters?

By the way, this strategy also has the benefit of being accurate. I am "uncommitted" toward Obama. I'm uncommitted from supporting a guy that has walked all over our civil liberties, that thinks tax cuts are the only answer, that gave all of the money to the bankers and asked for nothing in return, that thinks the right-wing establishment has all of the answers. Uncommitted is the kindest word I have.

If you live in Iowa, please send a message to the president for the rest of us. We voted for change last time, apparently you didn't hear us. If you don't hear us soon, you might be the one that gets changed.

The Young Turks on Current
----
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygu ... 74314.html

[Plutonia]

[Peachtree Pam]

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Obama_la ... 0/Y/M.html

Obama launches Bureau of Counterterrorism

President Obama's State Department announced, during a press briefing today, the creation of the Bureau of Counterterrorism, which will coordinate with United States entities such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and foreign governments to develop civilian counterterrorism strategies and operations.

"The mission of the new bureau will be to lead the [State] Department in the U.S. Government’s effort to counter terrorism abroad and to secure the United States against foreign terrorist threats," Ambassador Dan Benjamin told reporters. "The bureau will lead in supporting U.S. counterterrorism diplomacy and seek to strengthen homeland security, countering violent extremism, and build the capacity of partner nations to deal effectively with terrorism."

The bureau has previously operated on a smaller scale as an office under Benjamin. The upgrade comes as Obama has enjoyed foreign policy success due to the killing of Osama bin Laden, but also faced criticism over a quick withdrawal from Iraq, increasing aggression from Iran, and for negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I want to underscore we all know that there is no way to shoot our way out of this problem conclusively and forever," Benjamin said today, "and that’s why strengthening our engagement with others to support their civilian institutions so that they can actually hold that territory, police that territory, try people who want to carry out violent attacks either against people who live there or abroad, is an absolutely vital undertaking."

The bureau will focus on foreign terrorists, but their activities have some bearing on domestic security. It collaborates with "the Department of Homeland Security to work jointly to stop terrorist travel, to improve aviation security," for instance, but will focus more on "the bilateral kind of diplomacy that we do with others on a number of different issues, whether it has to do with how we reduce the space that terrorist groups have to fundraise, [or] to operate," Benjamin explained.

[ninakat]

The new WH Chief of Staff and Citigroup
By Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday, Jan 10, 2012

. . . So the first White House Chief of Staff, Emanuel, not only built a Democratic majority in the House by supporting corporatist Blue Dogs over progressive challengers, but himself got rich when he left the Clinton White House to join a Chicago investment bank and made “more than $18 million in just two-and-a-half years, turning many of his contacts in his substantial political Rolodex into paying clients”; thereafter, Emanuel worked hard in the House on behalf of the hedge fund industry and — unsurprisingly — “was the top recipient in the House of Representatives of campaign contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the wider securities and investment industry during the 2008 election cycle.” The second Chief of Staff was JP Morgan’s Daley. And now the third is Lew.

All of this reflects what Matt Taibbi meant when he wrote last week that “once the primaries are finished, we’re going to be left with one 1%-approved stooge taking on another” and that the election will present “a choice between two different versions of the status quo.” Moreover, the 2008 financial crisis is the new Iraq War: it does not matter how prominent a role someone played in enabling it, or how much they profited from it, or how centrally they were part of the corrupted machinery that brought it about. If they have the right ideology and good standing in Washington circles, all is forgiven and they do not suffer any consequences at all, even reputationally. Indeed, not only is it no impediment to their advancement, but it’s actually an asset.

[Saurian Tail]

^^^^ Between this Greenwald piece and the diagram posted by Plutonia above, I think it is pretty clear that the coup has been completed. What was implicitly understood has become an explicit fact.

[Gouda]

White House hosted extravagant “Alice in Wonderland” party (in early depression year 2009)
designed by director Tim Burton and featuring actor Johnny Depp,
followed by a magic show for white house and military kids...

White House hosted “Alice in Wonderland” party

By Eric Pfeiffer | The Sideshow – Mon, Jan 9, 2012

A new book reports that the Obama White House hosted an extravagant "Alice in Wonderland" party in the fall of 2009, designed by director Tim Burton and featuring actor Johnny Depp.

In "The Obamas," New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor writes that the White House decided to downplay the expensive Halloween party over fears of a public backlash, since it was taking place during the height of the recession.

"White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton's and Depp's contributions went unacknowledged," Kantor writes.

The party itself was designed by director Tim Burton, who helped transform the East Room and State Dining Room into a "White House Wonderland." More from the book:

"[Burton's] film version was about to be released, and he had turned the room into the Mad Hatter's tea party, with a long table set with antique-looking linens, enormous stuffed animals in chairs, and tiered serving plates with treats like bone-shaped meringue cookies."

"Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar. Burton's own Mad Hatter, the actor Johnny Depp, presided over the scene in full costume, standing up on a table to welcome everyone in character."

And though he had nothing to do with "Alice in Wonderland," Star Wars creator George Lucas reportedly sent along an actor playing Chewbacca to attend the party.

That was followed by a magic show for children of White House staff and military families.

White House spokesman Eric Shultz disputed Kantor's take, saying the event was not covered up for fear of public backlash. "This was an event for local school children from the Washington DC area and for hundreds of military families," Shultz said in a statement released to Politico. "If we wanted this event to be a secret, we probably wouldn't have invited the press corps to cover it, release photos of it to Flickr, or post a video from it on the White House website," he said.

[sunny]

Holy shit.

[Nordic]

It's good to be King.

[barracuda]

Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar.

This is a White House tradition, 'cept with real blood.

[compared2what?]

http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[compared2what?]

Plus:



(Apologies if either of those was already posted.)

[ninakat]

Stephen Colbert TEARS INTO Obama Over The NDAA Bill

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... umor-obama

[ninakat]

http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[barracuda]

Bump.