Edwin Hawkins (born 18 August 1943, Oakland, California) is a Grammy Award-winning American gospel and R&B musician, pianist, choir master, composer and arranger. He is one of the originators of the urban contemporary gospel sound. He (and the Edwin Hawkins Singers) are best known for his arrangement of “Oh Happy Day” (1968–69), which was included on the Songs of the Century list. The Edwin Hawkins Singers made a second foray into the charts a year later, backing folk singer Melanie on “Lay Down (Candles in the Rain)“.
At the age of seven Hawkins was already the keyboardist to accompany the family’s gospel choir. Together with Betty Watson, he was the co-founder of the Northern California State Youth Choir of the Church of God in Christ, which included almost fifty members.[1] This ensemble recorded its first album Let Us Go Into the House of the Lord at the Ephesian Church of God in Christ in Berkeley, California, hoping to sell 500 copies. “Oh Happy Day” was just one of the eight songs on the album.
If the economy is so terrible, why is Obama winning?
President is beating the GOP on an issue that should be his undoing
By Peter Morici
8:00 a.m. EST, November 20, 2011
It’s the economy, stupid — or maybe not. President Barack Obama, with the help of congressional allies, has taken key issues that should be dooming him and turned them to his advantage.
Economists agree that growth is slow and jobs scarce because demand for what Americans make is weak. Consumers are spending and businesses are investing again; however, too many dollars go to imports but do not return to buy exports — a huge deficit with China and on oil are to blame.
President Obama effectively articulates those problems and seeks to move China off mercantilism with diplomacy and wean Americans from fossil fuels with alternative technologies. However, neither reasoning with the Middle Kingdom nor windmills and electric cars addresses those problems effectively. Moreover, the president flat-out rejects that an out-of-control federal regulatory system and rocketing health care costs are driving businesses and jobs abroad.
Instead of “fixing what’s broke,” he campaigns across America for quick fixes that would make voters feel better until after the election and paints the GOP as callous defenders of the rich.
Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate serve up one proposal after another — aid to states, public works and job aid for veterans — each financed with a new tax on millionaires. Recognizing the economy needs structural solutions, Republicans block those ploys, but then the president exclaims that Republicans would rather protect the richest 1 percent than keep teachers and firefighters on the job, invest in America’s future and help unemployed veterans.
The president has turned liabilities — high unemployment and failed policies — into assets: the fairness and responsibility issues.
It’s working. According to the most recent Quinnipiac Poll, President Obama leads Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, and his advantage is growing.
For Republicans, it doesn’t help that the field has not thinned; the messages of those top-tier candidates are partially drowned by the cacophony of second-tier hopefuls whose viability is extended by the endless cavalcade of entertaining network debates.
Also, it doesn’t help that Messrs. Perry, Cain and Gingrich offer vague, thin and doctrinaire economic prescriptions. Moreover, Mr. Perry comes off a bumbler, Mr. Cain is handicapped by sexual misconduct allegations, and Mr. Gingrich, an amusing senior statesman, is just too professorial to win the brass ring.
The likely Republican nominee, Mitt Romney has a comprehensive program to right the economy — on trade, energy, regulation and health care — but has failed to effectively articulate for voters what’s broken and demonstrate how what he offers will fix it. It doesn’t help that he is not exciting or charismatic; Lyndon Johnson proved a president doesn’t need those to be highly effective, but John F. Kennedy set the tone for TV-era campaigns by demonstrating how those qualities can trump other considerations.
Mr. Romney has been in politics long enough to recognize his communications strategy is failing, and those close to him can attest to his persuasive personal qualities. It remains a puzzle that he has not improved his messaging and found a way to compel more attention to the strength of his ideas and character. He must do those things to demonstrate he has the intelligence and vigor for high office.
On the road (the campaign trail) and at home (Washington), Mr. Obama keeps winning because he effectively defines the terms of the debate to suit his advantages, and the GOP has not offered voters a credible and exciting alternative.
The president is simply outplaying his opponents on all venues. If Mitt Romney indeed emerges as the Republican nominee, he must expose the president’s tactics and convince voters he offers something that is better and will solve the nation’s problems — and that he is strong enough and smart enough to get it done.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-obama-politics-20111120,0,1785632.story
Mark Knoller:
Tomorow evening, Pres & Mrs Obama host another “In Performance at the White House” for a celebration of country music.
Yee Haw! Get out your boots, and get to steppin, SG2!
Amazing…I’m doing country music series this week. 3 Chics is ready to rock & roll with some good country music.
Two Step 2008 Texas Classic
Huguette Clark, Reclusive Copper Heiress, Left $34 Million To Nurse
The controversy surrounding what will happen to the vast fortune left in the wake of the death of copper heiress Huguette Clark seems to be just getting warmed up.
Clark, who died in May at the age of 104, left a somewhat surprising will behind, cutting out friends and family and leaving $34 million to her nurse. According to MSNBC, she also left about $17 million to her accountant and attorney through fees and other bequests.
The accountant and attorney are both under investigation, and have had to account for all the transactions they’ve made since they took over legal power of attorney for the heiress in 1996. According to MSNBC, the investigation is the result of an incredible $1 million-a-month spending pattern for a woman who never left the hospital. Remarkably, in the course of one day, the pair apparently wrote $380,000 in checks from Clark’s personal account.
The astounding sum left to her nurse, Hadassah Peri, has also raised eyebrows. The New York Post detailed just how she took care of Clark until her death, and the tremendous affection she showed the heiress.
Clark was generous to her nurse even prior to her death.
From the Daily Mail:
Mrs Peri earned $131,000 per annum working for the reclusive Ms Clark, who died at the age of 104 with a $400 million fortune.
The 61-year-old nurse’s 2001 Bentley Arnage sedan cost $204,000, and her Lincoln Navigator SUV was around $42,000.
But that’s not all. the New York Post also reports that Peri, a mother of three, lives in a swanky Manhattan Beach home with a swan-filled canal, and even has a $500,000 beach house on the Jersey Shore. Those are just two of the five homes she owns.
In the wake of Clark’s death, many have been questioning the gifts bestowed upon Peri, though investigations have largely focused on the accountant and lawyer. If the will is upheld (and it is being challenged by Clark family members), Peri will receive the full $34 million.
http://www.aol.com/2011/11/20/huguette-clark-heiress-nurse_n_1103931.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%7C114335
KURT BUSCH FLIPPING BIRD NSCS HOMESTEAD 2011
Is this what Chris Matthews was aiming for with his bashing of the Potus & Flotus to have NASCAR creeps disrespect her? Bitch ass move, Chris Matthews!
reelectobama012:
WTF? First Lady, & Jill Biden booed at NASCAR finale..they were there to honor troops. Wow how disrespectful #SMDH http://www.mediaite.com/tv/first-lady-michelle-obama-booed-at-nascar-race/
OWA JEFFERSON JACKSON DINNER 11-19-11
Rahm Emanuel spoke about the accomplishments of the Obama administration to date, the 2012 presidential campaign, and weaknesses of the Republican field, and the future of the U.S. economy under both Republican and Democratic
Video ; http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Emman
Senator Brown (the good one)
by Kay
I’ve agreed to take an active volunteer role in Sherrod Brown’s re-election campaign, so I’ll be writing about that here. It was an exhaustive and merit-based selection process: my friend Ann asked me to do it. Ann was the local contact in 2005-6 for Sherrod Brown’s first Senate race, and she was at my house all the time during that period. That means she knows where I live, which may have been the determining factor.
Before I begin what will be a series of increasingly obsessive posts I should back up, give you some context and make it clear what I actually do in these things. I got some emails after the Issue Two campaign that make me think I maybe wasn’t clear enough on my extremely limited, local role.
There are 88 counties in Ohio. I live, work and volunteer in one rural, conservative county. I’m not David Brooks, Chris Matthews or any of the cast/book merchants on Morning Joe so I’m not an expert on, respectively, the heartland, lunch bucket voters, or tough choices/sacrifice/centrism.
I choose what I do, and I don’t do anything I don‘t want to do. What I’ll do for Brown in 2012 is this: I’ll hold an event or some events, either at my house or at a rented public space. At those events I’ll develop a list. The list will consist of the local regulars and any new people who are interested in re-electing Sherrod Brown. I won’t do any of this until well after January. I may start a little earlier than I ordinarily would, because we have our Issue Two list, and I’m curious if some of the Issue Two-exclusive activists are one and done or are going to stick with it. Brown is a good candidate for them because he’s a liberal populist. I won’t use that label here because I don’t think anyone will care where I slot him in, Big Picture.
I’ll keep in touch with that list until the campaign organizer arrives in this county, and then I’ll turn it over to her or him. When I turn it over I usually meet with the organizer at the law office and tell her or him about the people on the list and the county. We know the county better than the new organizer, who is, after all, maybe 22 years old, so the organizer will be very interested in this information. After that, I’ll act as a contact point for the organizer, and I also sometimes relay information between locals and the organizer. “Information” means “complaints” about the organizer or the campaign. If we’re losing I’ll get a lot of complaints and if we’re winning I’ll get no complaints. We also have infighting, so in that scenario, perhaps, someone would be complaining to the organizer about me. I wouldn’t find that out until, say, hypothetically, I received an email that was supposed to go to someone else while I was on vacation. Not that that’s ever happened.
There are two parts to a Senate race, the candidate’s campaign and the Party role. On the campaign side, I have already had contact from Brown’s campaign, which I wrote about here. I’ll have more of that as it goes on.
There are three levels to the Democratic Party role in Ohio; local Party, state Party and national Party. I will have lots and lots of contact with the county people (because I am one of them), a lot of contact with the state level, because Ohio has a strong state Party, and lots of contact with our OFA organizer, who is representative of the national Party for my purposes, anyway. We have an OFA organizer here already, because OFA was central to the (so far successful) effort to keep Ohio’s latest voter suppression law from implementation, and, also, she lives here. That’s the context, that’s the (limited) role, so keep that in mind if you happen to read my posts on the race.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/11/20/senator-brown-the-good-one/
found this comment about Willard over at The Obama Diary:
lisalovesobama
November 20, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Guys, I think one of the best things about the repugs’ hands off approach to Mittens in these debates is that all the fighting skills he was supposed to have developed and refined in the last few months, are non-existent. There is a a fighting skill all candidates refine during debates that will be missing from Romney’s repertoire when he faces PBO in the General. Right now, as can be seen in any vid where the Mittens is remotely challenged ie: the “Corporations are people” vid, the 2008 vid where he got pissed at the reporter for challenging what he said in terms of hiring a lobbyist, etc. It’s the fighting style of a spoiled brat, unused to defending what’s his and what’s right. It’s reactionary, unsophisticated, school yard bully-ish and just plain sad to see. As we all know, presidential debates require a certain skill: you’ve got to be sharp, on-point, relentless in your attack, but- HUGE BUT!!!!- you’ve got to do it in such a way that you don’t come off looking like an asshole or a nasty prick. PBO is a master of challenging with substance, relentless persistence and keen wit.
I honestly believe that come debate time, Mittens is going come off looking like a little boy, trying on Daddy’s coat and tie with toilet paper stuck to his face, after having attempting to shave well before puberty. That image of the little boy playing dress up wont stop me from laughing my ass off when PBO starts talking about how the Mittster is a flip/flopper. It will be so sweet when PBO starts talking about ACA and how he used the same people as Mittens and how the Mittster believes that some Americans are better than other Americans because obviously Mitt is proud that Mass. constituents have healthcare, but other Americans don’t deserve what Mass. got. There are so many, many ways to sock it to that Dried-up Old Prune. Can’t fricking wait for PBO to CRUSH HIM :D :D
http://theobamadiary.com/2011/11/20/home-run-4/#comment-174501
LOL I love this comment, lisalovesobama.
Political Animal
Blog
November 20, 2011 11:25 AM
Competing, incompatible conversations
By Steve Benen
The deadline for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — better known as the super-committee — is still a few days away, but even the most naive optimists are willing to concede the panel will fail, as it was destined to do from the start. The Washington Post reports that members, probably tomorrow, will simply concede defeat.
There’s no mystery whatsoever as to why this process has failed so spectacularly. While the media will cling to the frame it feels obligated to push — “both sides” are always to blame for everything — any fair examination at what’s transpired shows otherwise.
Consider what the Democratic chair of the super-committee said this morning.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) was not optimistic Sunday, saying the Bush tax cuts remained the “sticking divide” preventing the supercommittee from reaching a deal to reduce the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.
“There is one sticking divide, and that is the issue of what I call shared sacrifice. Where everybody contributes at a very challenging time for our country,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” referring to the Bush tax cuts. “The wealthiest of Americans, those who earn over $1 million a year, have to share too. There’s that line in the sand, and there aren’t any Republicans willing to cross it.”
Democrats have been willing to do just about anything to succeed. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) admitted this morning that super-committee Dems “put every single sacred cow on the table” in order to help reach an agreement, suggesting major entitlement reforms were very much a part of the mix.
But a deal would have required Republicans accept some tax increases. Indeed, the basics of a debt-reduction deal have always been painfully obvious: Dems would accept spending cuts, Republicans would accept new revenue, and the two sides would haggle over the ratio.
Except that proved impossible, not only because Republicans refused to consider any tax increases on any one, but because those same Republicans actually decided to use the super-committee process as a vehicle to push for more tax cuts — which necessarily would have created more debt, not less, and make the goal harder, not easier, to reach.
At a certain level, the very idea of including Bush-era tax breaks in the discussion probably seems bizarre to anyone outside the GOP caucus. The panel’s members were given one task: reach a deal on debt reduction that totaled at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. With this assignment in mind, Republicans on the committee, from the outset, decided that their principal goal was locking in tax cuts that (a) are largely responsible for the massive debt; and (b) would make the debt much worse going forward.
This underscores why failure was inevitable: the parties can’t reach an agreement if they’re not even having the same conversation.
What was the purpose of the super-committee? Ostensibly, it was supposed to reach a bipartisan agreement to reduce the debt. That was the description on the page, and that’s the mandate that drove Democratic efforts.
Republicans saw it differently. The point, they said, is to reduce the size of government.
It’s hard overstate how easy this would have been if two mainstream political parties simply wanted to find $1.2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. A straightforward blueprint requiring some modest concessions from both sides could have been worked out in an afternoon. Indeed, before the radicalization of the Republican Party, policymakers have done this many times.
In the five fiscal grand bargains of the 1980s and early 1990s, tax increases accounted for an average of 61 cents of every dollar saved. In fact, in President Reagan’s 1982 and 1984 budget-trimming deals, more than 80 percent of deficit reductions came from tax increases. What’s more, the deals passed with majority support from both parties. Mr. Reagan may be remembered as an antitax hero, but he actually raised taxes 11 times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Any suggestion that Republicans have always been as irresponsible as they are now is simply not true. The GOP used to be quite sincere about fiscal responsibility.
It’s difficult to imagine today, but taxing the rich wasn’t always a major flash point of American political life. From the end of World War II to the eve of the Reagan administration, the parties fought over social spending — Democrats pushing for more, Republicans demanding less. But once the budget was fixed, both parties saw taxes as an otherwise uninteresting mechanism to raise the money required to pay the bills. Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford each fought for higher taxes, while the biggest tax cut was secured by John F. Kennedy, whose across-the-board tax reductions were actually opposed by the majority of Republicans in the House. The distribution of the tax burden wasn’t really up for debate: Even after the Kennedy cuts, the top tax rate stood at 70 percent — double its current level. Steeply progressive taxation paid for the postwar investments in infrastructure, science and education that enabled the average American family to get ahead.
That party is long gone.
The conventional wisdom tells us Republicans are desperate to reduce the deficit and address the debt. This obviously isn’t true — if it were, they would stop demanding more tax breaks and start accepting more increases.
Rather, Republicans are desperate to reduce the size of government, and are using a massive deficit — which the GOP is largely responsible for creating — as an excuse to do what they want to do anyway.
The conditions offer a compelling pretense, but that’s really all it is. The changes Republican officials are pushing are the same changes the party wants regardless of fiscal circumstances.
It’s why GOP members of the super-committee demanded $3.7 trillion in tax breaks, moving in the opposition direction of the committee’s goals. It’s also why the House Republicans’ budget, as crafted by Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), claimed to be focused on deficit reduction, but actually added $6 trillion to the debt over the next decade, due entirely to the GOP’s demands for more tax cuts.
Why would anyone cut taxes while trying to reduce the deficit? They wouldn’t, unless deficit reduction wasn’t really the point.
Given all of this, of course the super-committee failed. It had to. Democrats were trying to reduce the debt; Republicans were trying to shrink the government. The parties even agreed on the goal, making agreement on the solution literally impossible.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/competing_incompatible_convers033614.php
November 20, 2011 10:00 AM
Gingrich’s ‘nightmare’
By Steve Benen
Following up on the last item, on the religious right’s “Thanksgiving Family Forum” in Iowa for Republican presidential candidates, Igor Volsky flagged the line from the event that struck me as the most important.
The quote came from Newt Gingrich, who condemned the very idea of a secular state. “A country that has been now since 1963 relentlessly in the courts driving God out of public life shouldn’t be surprised at all the problems we have,” the thrice-married, serial adulterer said. “Because we’ve in fact attempted to create a secular country, which I think is frankly a nightmare.”
The disgraced former House Speaker’s reference to 1963 was apparently a reference to the Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp Supreme Court case. It was an interesting dispute: the justices considered whether public officials could promote Bible passages and the Lord’s Prayer over public school intercoms. Eight of the nine justices backed the separation of church and state — it wasn’t the job of the state or state schools to push religion onto children.
The underlying legal principle was simple: religious instruction should be left to families, religious leaders, houses of worship, and the conscience of the individual — not the government. In Newt Gingrich’s mind, the court was not only wrong to rule this way, but the very idea of taking children’s religious lessons out of the government’s hands represents an example of “driving God out of public life.”
That’s pretty twisted.
Also note, Gingrich doesn’t have to like it, but we haven’t “attempted to create a secular country”; the secular country was created more than two centuries ago. Our entire system of government is based on a secular Constitution that guarantees a separation of church and state.
I’m curious, though, what Gingrich would prefer we replace our “secular country” with, exactly. There are some countries that endorse Gingrich’s worldview and intermix God and government — Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind — but they’re generally not countries the United States tries to emulate.
Indeed, when it comes to American values, one might even say a move towards a theocratic system is a “nightmare.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/gingrichs_nightmare033613.php
Super Committee Co-Chair Murray: Bush Tax Cuts Are The ‘Sticking Divide’
By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Nov 20, 2011 at 11:23 am
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the Democratic co-chair of the congressional super committee, said this morning on CNN’s State of the Union that the super committee charged with crafting a deficit reduction plan remains stuck on the Bush tax cuts:
“There is one sticking divide, and that is the issue of what I call shared sacrifice, where everybody contributes in a very challenging time for our country,” Murray told CNN’s Candy Crowley on “State of the Union.”
“That’s the Bush tax cuts, and making sure that any kind of package includes everybody coming to the table and the wealthiest of Americans, those who earn over a million dollars every year, have to share, too. And that line in the sand, we haven’t seen any Republicans willing to cross yet,” Murray said.
The super committee has to approve a plan by Nov. 23. Despite the fact that most expect the super committee to fail, Murray said she is willing to talk to any Republican interested in making a deal. “I’ll be waiting all day…willing to talk to any Republican who says, ‘Look, my country is more important,’” said Murray. “I’m ready.” Watch Murray’s comments:
This is, of course, more of the same from Republican lawmakers, who have repeatedly taken the country to the brink to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. One wonders about Republicans’ actual commitment to cutting the deficit when they’re preventing a committee tasked with doing just that from succeeding by demanding more tax cuts, which only grow the deficit.
Previously on Fox News, Murray’s Republican counterpart Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) attacked Democrats on the committee for failing to negotiate about the privatization of Medicare. But Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), who is also on the super committee, said today that’s not true. Democrats are open to cutting entitlement social safety net program, Becerra said.
As Murray told Crowley, referring to Grover Norquist’s pledge against tax increases, “As long as we have some Republican lawmakers who feel more enthralled with a pledge they took to a Republican lobbyist than they do to a pledge to the country to solve the problems, this is going to be hard to do.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/11/20/372906/super-committee-co-chair-murray-bush-tax-cuts-are-the-sticking-divide/
November 20, 2011 9:30 AM
A frightening forum in Iowa
By Steve Benen
Just looking at the co-hosts of the event in Iowa yesterday for the Republican presidential field offered a hint of what was to come.
The “Thanksgiving Family Forum” was organized and sponsored by three groups: the James Dobson-founded Focus on the Family, a religious right powerhouse known for its bizarre cultural agenda; the National Organization for Marriage, perhaps best known for its unintentionally hilarious anti-gay commercials; and The FAMiLY Leader, an Iowa-based group of extremists that put together “The Marriage Vow” for GOP candidates, which argued, among other things, that slavery wasn’t that bad for African-American families.
Despite — or more likely, because of — the radicals behind the forum, six GOP presidential hopefuls showed up to pander to the religious right voters, each vowing to be more pious than their rivals. The only two candidates who weren’t there were Mitt Romney, who declined an invitation, and Jon Huntsman, who wasn’t invited at all.
The result was an event that was tough to watch.
Looking to court this state’s critical voting bloc of evangelical Christians, Republican presidential candidates sharply attacked secularism and the Supreme Court while calling for greater restrictions on abortion and gay rights at an event here on Saturday.
At a forum on moral values, which was held at First Federated, an evangelical church in Des Moines, the six candidates in attendance largely stuck to Republican orthodoxy and avoided criticizing one another. Instead, they called for dramatic changes in current law to achieve conservative aims.
To limit abortion, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, one of the leading candidates in polls here, proposed a federal law defining “personhood” as starting at conception, similar to a provision backed by abortion opponents that was rejected earlier this month by voters in Mississippi. Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he supported provisions that would limit the ability of gay couples to adopt children, while businessman Herman Cain called for changing provisions in the tax code that restrict churches’ involvement in politics if they want to keep their tax-exempt status.
Several committed to supporting state same-sex marriage bans and eventually a constitutional amendment to prohibit it, although libertarian candidate Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) said the issue should be dealt with by churches and families instead of the government.
Paul may have been the only candidate on the stage to oppose an anti-gay constitutional amendment, but he was quick to express his unyielding support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which President Obama and congressional Democrats are eager to repeal.
So, what did we learn from the event? That for all the focus on economic and fiscal issues at the national level, much of the Republican base is still preoccupied with a culture war — and most of the Republican presidential candidates are only too pleased to tell these voters what they want to hear.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/a_frightening_forum_in_iowa033612.php
Dear Mr. President: Will You Please Speak Up About Police Assaulting Protesters On College Campuses?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-kornbluth/obama-police-brutality_b_1102970.html
Dear Mr. President,
I know you’re halfway around the world, doing very important things, but we’ve having some trouble here at home that your staff may not have told you about.
It’s the police — especially the police at the University of California, Davis.
In this video — it’s long, but you only need to watch the first minute or two — a policeman walks up to seated protesters and, at close range, covers them in a cloud of pepper spray. (Read a more complete account here.)
Hell to the No! When President Obama spoke out about police brutality during the Skip Gates incident he was blasted for it. Why is it ok for the President to speak out about police brutality when it comes to white people but NOT for black people?
Lest you forget…sowing & reaping is a law! Karma is a vengeful bee.itch.!
Folks want the President to speak out when it’s convenient for them. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt!
Where are the governors, mayors of these states, cities????
GTFOH These folks need to grow the fuck up.
‘Super Congress’ Will Likely Fail, Co-Chairs Admit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/20/supercommittee-fail_n_1103722.html#comments
The leaders of a special deficit reduction panel signaled Sunday that they will fail to strike a deal to reduce the deficit before their Wednesday deadline.
Republican opposition to taxing the rich is the main obstacle, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“There is one sticking divide, and that is the issue of what I call shared sacrifice, where everybody contributes in a very challenging time for our country,” Murray said. “That’s the Bush tax cuts. In making sure that any kind of package includes everybody coming to the table and the wealthiest of Americans, those who earn over a million dollars every year, have to share, too. And that line in the sand, we haven’t seen any Republicans willing to cross yet.”
US President Barack Obama walks off Air Force One upon arrival at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, November 20, 2011. Obama returned from a 9-day trip through Asia, including stops in Hawaii, Australia and Indonesia.
Yay! Our President is back home. Thank you, Lord!
theonlyadult:
Unfucking believable”@washingtonpost: Mercedes-Benz manager from Germany arrested under Alabama’s new immigration law. http://wapo.st/tGY6fQ”
.
no way!
LOL
Good Morning, Ametia, Rikyrah, 3 Chics, Friends & Visitors!
Inspiration for today
One person gives freely, yet gains even more;
another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty.
A generous person will prosper;
whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.
Proverbs 11:24-25
Good Morning, Everyone :)
Howdy ladies; the sun’s shinning, and the snow is glistening. It’s a beautiful day!