US Politics Mega-thread - Page 127

On February 27 2013 03:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
the tax and spending issues were already separated into their own negotiations.

A closely divided Supreme Court threw out a challenge to the government’s terrorist surveillance programs, arguing journalists, human rights groups and lawyers could not prove they had been harmed by a government program monitoring foreign communications.

In the 5-4 ruling, the court’s conservatives sided with President Barack Obama’s administration in arguing that the groups could not prove the program had harmed them, Reuters reports. The court’s liberals disagreed.

The 2008 law challenged in the case authorized mass spying, without specific targets, on foreigners living outside the country. The plaintiffs had argued the law had created a burden by forcing them to meet with sources and clients living outside the country in person rather than emailing or calling them.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, dismissed their concerns as a “highly speculative fear.”

The American Civil Liberties Union blasted the decision in a statement.

“It’s a disturbing decision,” said the group’s deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case. “The FISA Amendments Act is a sweeping surveillance statute with far-reaching implications for Americans’ privacy. This ruling insulates the statute from meaningful judicial review and leaves Americans’ privacy rights to the mercy of the political branches. Justice Alito’s opinion for the court seems to be based on the theory that the FISA Court may one day, in some as-yet unimagined case, subject the law to constitutional review, but that day may never come. And if it does, the proceeding will take place in a court that meets in secret, doesn’t ordinarily publish its decisions, and has limited authority to consider constitutional arguments. This theory is foreign to the Constitution and inconsistent with fundamental democratic values.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisses-surveillance-case-88097.html?hp=r2

Newly minted Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday showed why big banks are not her biggest fans, grilling Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the risks and fairness of having banks that are "too big to fail."

Warren (D-Mass.) questioned Bernanke during his latest semiannual appearance before the Senate Banking Committee to discuss the economy and monetary policy. Warren pressed the Fed chairman about whether the government would bail out the largest banks again, as it did during the financial crisis.

"We've now understood this problem for nearly five years," she said. "So when are we gonna get rid of 'too big to fail?'"

Warren also asked whether big banks should repay taxpayers for the billions of dollars they save in borrowing costs because of the credit market's belief that they won't be allowed to fail, repeatedly citing a recent Bloomberg View study estimating that the biggest banks essentially get a government subsidy of $83 billion a year, nearly matching their annual profits.

Though Bernanke questioned the accuracy of the $83 billion figure, he admitted that big banks get some subsidy. But he said the market was wrong to give banks any subsidy at all (in the form of lower borrowing costs), insisting that the government will in fact let banks fail. The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law has given policymakers the tools to safely shut down big, failing banks, he claimed.

But when repeatedly pressed by Warren, Bernanke's confidence seemed to waver.

"The subsidy is coming because of market expectations that the government would bail out these firms if they failed," Bernanke said. "Those expectations are incorrect. We have an orderly liquidation authority. Even in the crisis, we -- uh, uh -- in the cases of AIG, for example, we wiped out the shareholders..."

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would lose his speakership if he agrees to new tax revenues to avert the across-the-board spending cuts that are set to kick in on March 1.

"I don't quite honestly think that Speaker Boehner would be speaker if that happens," Johnson told Fox News of Boehner caving on taxes as part of a sequester replacement package. "I think he would lose his speakership."

Johnson's comments raise questions about Boehner's leadership post for the second time in as many months. Similar claims were made during fiscal cliff talks in December, when some accused Boehner of being more concerned with protecting his job as speaker than with brokering a deal. The pressure on Boehner intensified after his proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff was rejected by members of his own party.

It's unlikely his speakership is in jeopardy. Boehner retained his position, despite reports of friction, with just 10 House Republicans voting against him in his Jan 3. reelection.

In the battle over the sequester, Boehner has maintained his pledge not to entertain any new tax revenues. President Barack Obama and Democrats have called for a resolution that consists of both spending cuts and increased revenue, such as closing corporate tax loopholes and implementing the Buffet rule to raise taxes on billionaires.

On February 27 2013 09:16 Rassy wrote:
83 billion lol.
And how manny billions did the banks pay out in bonusses past year? i would not be suprised if it was near the same amount.Thoose bonusses are well deserved off course, since the banks make a huge profit.
But then again, if they make such a huge profit why do they need to be subsidised? Something is verry wrong here, everyone with halve a brain should be able to see this.
And then to see people ranting about 2b spend on food stamps or like 10b on social security.><
Wonder how much longer the working class is going to accept this. It cant be forever i hope, though it can take ages for people to open their eyes.

Chris Christie of New Jersey on Tuesday become the latest Republican governor to support the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

“It’s simple. We are putting people first,” Christie said in a speech before the legislature unveiling his budget. “Which is why, after considerable discussion and research, I have decided to participate in the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.”

“Let me be clear, refusing these federal dollars does not mean that they won’t be spent,” he said. “It just means that they will be used to expand health care access in New York, Connecticut, Ohio or somewhere else. … In fact, [New Jersey] taxpayers will save approximately $227 million in fiscal year 2014 alone.”

Christie’s pending decision on whether to accept the new Medicaid funding had been closely watched nationally for several months, both as a bellwether for other GOP governors facing similar decisions and as a particularly dicey choice for a Republican governor of a blue state facing reelection who has bucked his own party’s orthodoxy from time to time.

“Expanding Medicaid,” he said, “is the smart thing to do for our fiscal and public health” and will “ensure New Jersey taxpayers will see their dollars maximized.” Although he’s “no fan of the Affordable Care Act,” it is “now the law of the land,” Christie said. He vowed to “make all my judgments as governor based on what is best for New Jersey.”

“If that ever changes because of adverse actions by the Obama Administration or broken promises,” Christie said, “I will end it as quickly as it started.”

The Affordable Care Act originally mandated that states expand Medicaid, a provision Christie called “extortion.” He praised the Supreme Court for its decision holding that the federal government could not mandate the expansion but must leave it up to each state whether to accept it. In the end, he accepted it.

On February 27 2013 09:16 Rassy wrote:
83 billion lol.
And how manny billions did the banks pay out in bonusses past year? i would not be suprised if it was near the same amount.Thoose bonusses are well deserved off course, since the banks make a huge profit.
But then again, if they make such a huge profit why do they need to be subsidised? Something is verry wrong here, everyone with halve a brain should be able to see this.
And then to see people ranting about 2b spend on food stamps or like 10b on social security.><
Wonder how much longer the working class is going to accept this. It cant be forever i hope, though it can take ages for people to open their eyes.

Immigrants freed, Obama cites Navy threat as cuts loom

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday warned of threats to Navy readiness and a storm broke over the government releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants due to budget pressure as automatic government spending cuts crept closer.

On February 27 2013 12:43 Sermokala wrote:
I don't think anyone is fooling themselves into thinking that the bailout and TARP was an actual idea that Bush had. It was Obamas bill and plan that he didn't want to wait until he took office so bush signed it into law on behalf of obama.

On February 27 2013 13:13 Danglars wrote:

I wouldn't say so. It may not have been Bush's idea, but Bush himself was convinced it was a good idea. George W. Bush was a big government type and said as much in his speeches during the period. Whether this was playing along to get along both with advisers and the Democrat-controlled House and Democrat leaning Senate, I couldn't say. It was his vote that passed it into law, and his opportunity to veto should he have decided to do so.

On February 27 2013 13:21 Sermokala wrote:

He was a sitting duck president and the president elect wanted a bill passed though. Could you imagine if he just dawdeled his thumbs while Rome burned to the ground?

No one actually thinks that TARP or the bank bailout was good policy at all. The fact is that the world was on fire and only the Us government was capable of putting out that fire. During the Korean war when there was a strike threatened in the steel industry the president just nationalized the steel industry. Good presidents know when to throw out the playbook and do what must be done.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is upset with the Barack Obama administration’s plans to release some illegal immigrants from federal jails because of sequestration budget cuts coming March 1.

Fox News reported today that Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said the releases started this weekend and as many as 10,000 undocumented immigrants could be released if sequestration occurs.

Sequestration would cause automatic budget cuts that will occur based on a 2011 deal brokered between President Barack Obama and congressional leaders. Unless a new deal gets done this week, automatic cuts will hit everything from the $711 billion Pentagon budget to federal spending on social welfare programs, air traffic control and law enforcement. Get details on how that will impact Arizona here.

That includes immigration prisons housing unauthorized migrants, drug traffickers and other smugglers.

Some of those detention centers are located in Arizona.

Brewer — a frequent foe of Obama on the immigration front — issued a statement Tuesday faulting the release.

Here it is:

I’m appalled to learn the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has begun to release hundreds of illegal aliens from custody, the first of potentially thousands to soon be freed under the guise of federal budget cuts. This is pure political posturing and the height of absurdity given that the releases are being granted before the federal ‘sequestration’ cuts have even gone into effect.

“This represents a return to exactly the kind of catch-and-release procedures that have long made a mockery of our country’s immigration system. The news is especially concerning when coupled with DHS’ acknowledgment today that it may not be able to maintain operation of 34,000 immigration jail beds, as mandated by Congress.