I've never been good in math but according to what I heard today, over 600,000 people lost their jobs last month -- even after hearing that news, Congress still refuses to WAKE UP.

While these Senators stand around bickering about what should be in or out of the stimulus bill, and while they take their breaks -- a total of 20,000 human beings lost their jobs today.

If you take that 600,000 people that lost their jobs last month, divide that by 30 days (one month), that equals 20,000 people per day lost their jobs. 

The Senators have been bickering for at least 7 days since the House passed their bill.  7 days times 20,000 = 140,000 more human beings have lost their jobs.

Do they 'really' think they are doing THEIR jobs for the American people by continuing their partisan attacks against each other?

This is the speech he needs to give to the American people on Monday night.  It answers everybody's questions about what this Recovery and Reinvestment bill will do for Americans and it points out where he stands on this issue.  It's not about him.  It's what experts are telling them all.  The economy is hurting and hurting badly and unless we rush and get this bill passed, it will hurt many millions more.

Obama not only tells the facts he shows his emotions and feelings.  This is what we all need to see.

I hope to see the speech repeated on Monday night.  Be sure to go read it when it is posted.

I want every Senator and every House of Representative to sign this statement.  Then I want that statement copied and mailed out to each and every one of their constituents.


February 16, 2009

Let it be known that as of this day, I __________ having voted no on the Recovery and Reinvestment Bill will refuse any and all funds from that this bill could have provided to the State that I represent.

Signed: _____________

President Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, just 16 days ago.  Since that cold wintry historical day the President has done the following:

President Obama signs Executive Orders on Detention and Interrogation Policy

President Barack Obama Announces Key DOJ Appointees

President's calls to foreign leaders

President Barack Obama Discusses New White House Report on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

Obama Announces Key Additions to the Office of the White House Counsel

Obama Announces Deputy Directors for the National Economic Council

President Obama Announces Deputy Directors for Intergovernmental Affairs

President Obama Speaks with Governors Beebe and Beshear; Signs Emergency Declarations for Arkansas and Kentucky

Presidents Call to Prime Minister Aso of Japan

Obama Signs Emergency Disaster Declaration for Missouri

Obama Announces Middle Class Task Force

Meeting with Democratic Congressional Leaders

President Obama's Calls to Iraqi President Talabani, Prime Minister Maliki and President Lee of the Republic of Korea

Ron Sims To Be Nominated As HUD's Deputy Secretary

Duckworth Tapped for VA Assistant Secretary

State-By-State Employment Data on Impact of American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

Treasury Announces New Restrictions On Executive Compensation

White House Releases Additional State-Specific Impacts of American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

Obama Announces White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

resident Obama Signs Major Disaster Declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky

If you want to know what executive orders he's signed in 16 days (a total of 9) visit the White House's website.

If you want to know what presidential memoranda he's signed (a total of 10) and what proclamations he's made (a total of 1) visit the White House's website.

To top all that off, he's been having Republicans over to the White House not only to greet them but to discuss his Recovery and Reinvestment Plan several times.  He's visited the House and talked to both parties.

During this time he's had to listen to complaints about two of his nominee's tax problems.  He's won the confirmation of his treasurer but lost his choice for Health and Human services.

Meanwhile he's trying to get passed a bill that is in itself historical.  At no other time has Congress been asked to provide so much in so little time because of the massive economic crisis. 

Americans voted for Barack Obama to be their president.  They chose 'change' over the 'same old way'.  Yet even after losing big time in November many of the senators and representatives, the republican party continues down the road of obstruction and demanding tax cuts claiming they will create jobs.  If recent history tells us anything, tax cuts alone cannot create jobs.

What are we hearing on political talk shows? 

"President Obama was 'too' nice, he needs to get a team together to go to Congress and get them working together."  "President Obama is finally today is getting tough.  He's learning that Washington isn't like running a campaign."  "He'll be lucky to get 60 votes instead of the 80 they talked about before the inaugaration."

I'd like to remind some of you, it wasn't President Obama claiming he'd get 80 votes, it was you, the media.

Give them a break people.  If President Obama and Congress are able to get this Recovery and Reinvestment Plan passed, it should be considered a historical event.  Something around 800 billions dollars to give tax cuts, and reinvest in our bridges, roads, schools, federal buildings, energy and power grids.  This has never been done.

Let alone within 16 days in office.

Some Wall Street bloggers are complaining about President Obama's cap on wages of executives, claiming that his position also gets the big bucks.  They are reporting that:

The president makes $400,000 a year. He also gets a $50,000 annual entertainment expense account.  Then there is the use of two private jets, the constant security details, drivers, a private chef, a country vacation estate and the rent-free use of a well-known, 132-room mansion called the White House.

This is all true, however, this president wasn't in office during the time the economic mess occurred, so until he's proven to have failed us - I disagree that his perks be taken away.

Perhaps however, any Senator or House Representative that was currently in office during the past 4 years should also take a cut in pay for their LACK of action to prevent this economic disaster?

Yes that includes Barack Obama while being Senator.  Anybody that was in office for the past 4 years, when this economy started showing signs of distress, should lose something for doing nothing about it.

However, the President that was in charge during those past four years should indeed be the one to pay dearly.  President George W Bush and his administration should all lose part of their pensions or perks for a complete failure in their domestic and foreign policy job performance.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney warned that there is a "high probability" that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration's policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed. 

 

Why did this comment make so much news?  It's nothing we didn't already know could happen.

 

I'd like to remind those of you that were 'shocked' to hear that we might be attacked again during the Obama administration, that if history tells us anything, it's that 'time' again.  We tend to have a major incident or attack made against U.S. interests or on U.S. soil about every 6-9 years.  And because technology is so readily available these days, that time span is sure to shorten.

 

Panel: U.S. Will Be Attacked By 2013

 

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan commission is asserting the country should expect a terrorist attack using nuclear or biological weapons sometime in the next five years...

 

The report was written by the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. Among other things, it concluded: "Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing."...

Lieberman: U.S. May Be Attacked in 2009

(CBS) In describing the reasons he believes the Republicans' presumptive nominee for president would be better prepared than the Democrats' to lead the nation next January, Sen. Joe Lieberman said that history shows the United States would likely face a terrorist attack in 2009.

"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."

 

As Senator Lieberman pointed out, ANY new president would be tested early, whether that was to be Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama.

Yes, it's true; there have been no foreign terrorist incidents on U.S. soil in the last 7 years. But I would be remiss if I didn't also remind you, that there were no foreign attacks on U.S. soil in the seven years before the 9/11 attacks either, at a time when the United States was doing even less (according to the Republican Party) to protect itself.

 

Giving the Bush administration credit for having no 'more' catastrophic attacks during their time in office is like the late Timothy McVeigh asking us to ignore that he bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma in 1995, some 14 years previously.   Former President Bush and VP Cheney want us to forget that it was during 'their' administration that we experience our worse ever attacks.

 

So, my fellow Americans, if God forbid, we are once again attacked during the next 4 years, odds are, it would have happened with or without Obama in the White House. 

Try remembering that fact when the Republican Party comes out swinging and blaming President Obama for allowing such a thing to happen.

I'd like to point out the following:

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - Illinois state government faces an even bigger budget crisis than anyone realized.

The combined budget deficit for this year and next could approach $9 billion, according to state Comptroller Dan Hynes.

Hynes says Illinois will carry a deficit of more than $4 billion into the budget year that begins July 1. Then the new budget year will see its own, even larger gap.

To Be Fair:

When Blagojevich took office in January 2003, Illinois government faced a combined deficit of about $5 billion for the budget year that was ending and the one that lay ahead. The current budget has a hole of about $3.5 billion, only part of which has been filled with spending cuts, while bills are piling up and revenue is falling.

Blagojevich, with some help from lawmakers, contributed to the budget mess by expanding programs. But it's not entirely his fault.

"Quite frankly, a lot of that is outside of his control. We have a global meltdown,"

Republicans can try to put the entire blame for the 9 billion deficit on Democrats - all they want - but they cannot deny that it was THEIR governor that started the mess we're in now. 

The biggest problem Democrats and President Obama are having right now is allowing the media and Republicans to call this economy bill a "stimulus" bill.  The name of the bill is called a "Recovery and Reinvestment Plan".  There is a huge difference between that name and just the word "stimulus".

Stimulus implies to stimulate the economy - period.
Recovery and Reinvestment implies to recover the economy (get it back to where it is was) and Reinvestment implies to invest in things that will help to not only recover the economy but to fix very important things while doing so, such as our power grids, roads, bridges and schools.

I read where President Obama is going to go on a media storm to sell his plan.  I sincerely hope he and his colleagues will remind folks about this terminology when asked about the Republican's latest list of what they consider pork or non-stimulus.

CNN reports that former Judd Gregg chief of staff Bonnie Newman will be the appointee to Judd Gregg's Senate seat. Gregg made the appointment of a Republican to his seat a condition for accepting the cabinet appointment, rather than having the Democratic governor pick another Dem who would give the party a filibuster-proof margin.

Will somebody please explain why this action by the Gov Lynch naming Bonnie Newman, former chief of staff to Gregg, to fill out his term in the Senate is DIFFERENT than what Gov Blagojevich was doing by asking for something in return for something?

WASHINGTON - During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a "new era of responsibility." What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.

The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists...

Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.

 

Those of you complaining that President Barack Obama isn't being as 'ethical' or 'transparent' as he claimed he would be are ignoring the very fact that his administration has already been the most ethical and transparent administration of all times.

 

His administration was the first to have a transition website, telling folks what they were doing or planning on doing on a daily (sometimes even hourly) basis.

 

What administration do you recall reported their daily activities, daily requests, daily thoughts, daily executive orders and proclamations?  What administration do you know of that actually created websites for information to be located about the stimulus package and plans for the economoc crisis? 

Did the last administration admit to hiring 'any' lobbyists?  Did they admit to having hired someone that didn't pay their taxes?  Did they give us daily information on how the wars were being handled or the economy?  No they did not.  They just ignored your questions.  Obama's team doesn't ignore anything.

 

At least President Obama's administration admits to having a conflict with their own ethic's rules, I know a very recent former president that wouldn't have admitted to anything or even cared whether you liked it or not.

 

You folks doing this complaining about Obama not being transparent or ethical 'enough' are straining to find something (anything) to attack his administration on.  Sorry, but when it comes to the Obama administration, ethics and transparency are the least things to worry about.

Keeping his promise to remove troops from Iraq, get health care for most and getting us off the road from depending on oil - are the things you SHOULD be watching for.

It appears the Senate Republicans are trying to make it appear that President Obama doesn't have control of his own Party in Congress and that it is the Republican's that are getting the stimulus bill in line with what the American people really want and need.

 

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday the massive stimulus bill backed by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could go down to defeat if it's not stripped of unnecessary spending and focused more on housing issues and tax cut

 

"I think it may be time ... for the president to kind of get a hold of these Democrats in the Senate and the House, who have rather significant majorities, and shake them a little bit and say, 'Look, let's do this the right way,'" McConnell said. "I can't believe that the president isn't embarrassed about the products that have been produced so far.".

 

I've heard for the past couple of weeks how the Democrats have caved (2-3 times already) by removing something they wanted from the stimulus bill.  I've heard absolutely nothing about something the Republicans have given up to get the bill passed.  Perhaps President Obama and the Democrats should start asking that question.  "What are you willing to go without or allow?"

 

It appears that unless the Republicans can get Obama to back down or give into their demands, on something big, they will not vote for the stimulus plan.

 

I think the big thing that President Obama should remember is, the American people voted for 'him' and the Democrats to be in charge.  They knew before Obama was elected what he wanted to do and why.  Still, they voted for him.

 

While I agree that President Obama should be looking deeper into the bill and removing anything that even 'appears' suspiciously like pork, I also agree that more infrastructure money should be provided, more housing market changes and perhaps more capital gains tax cuts given.

 

But it's not the Democrats that Obama needs to reign in; it's the Republican Party that needs to be put in their place. 

While it's commendable they have finally decided their spending habits went overboard in the last 8 years, its also evident the American people chose the Democrats to 'lead' us out of this mess. 

If the Republicans want to 'help' get the stimulus package the best it can be, that's fine; but they shouldn't be allowed to assume they have a leadership role here.  They had their chance and blew it.  It's time to follow the leader now.

TAMPA, Fla. -- NBC said on the eve of Sunday's Super Bowl that it has sold the last two of the 69 advertising spots for the game, pushing total ad revenue for the event to a record $206 million.

The network said its total of $261 million in ad revenue for all of Super Bowl day also is a record, calling it an especially impressive feat in the middle of the economy's steep downturn.

Isn't it odd our priorities?  We can always find money to give away for our SPORTS; but when it comes to helping others or building up America -- we will fight to the death to keep our dollars.

The Smith's neighbors bought a new swimming pool for their friends and family.  Soon after the Smith's decide 'they too' need a swimming pool.

Sadly, the Smiths have to follow the LEADERS of the neighborhood instead of coming up their own ways to make CHANGE.

The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

My first thought when I read this story was, "Oh no, the Republican Party will once again say Democrats are weak on defense of our nation"; but then I realized, it is the Secretary of Defense (who was also President George W. Bush's SOD) that has been recommending all along cuts in our defense budget.  I don't know about you but this made me sigh with relief.   This will make it more difficult for the GOP to claim it was the "Democrats that cut the defense budget".

We must also realize that the United States spends triple the money on defense than any other nation on earth.  The world is hurting economically and all nations will be cutting back on their defenses now.  It's not about a specific Party cutting defense however, it's about the economy.

Perhaps if the Bush administration had paid more attention to our economy (then its neo-con pushed' war in Iraq and its wealthy CEO's and Banks) we wouldn't be in this predicament and could have improved things across the board instead?