BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label Sen bob corker r TN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen bob corker r TN. Show all posts
10 October 2017
09 October 2017
Republican Sen. Bob Corker Warns Trump Taking U.S. Toward “World War III” & Trump Threatens War on North Korea, Saying, “Only One Thing Will Work!” 8&7OKT17
NOT MY president drumpf/trump is as serious a threat to the security and existence of the Korean peninsula and much of Northeast China, Japan and Southeast Russia as kim jong-un. Neither show the mental stability, the maturity or the intelligence to be in control of nuclear weapons, and the rest of the world has real reason to fear what Sen bob corker r TN had the courage to say out loud "Republican Sen. Bob Corker Warns Trump Taking U.S. Toward “World War III”.What Sen corker will not mention and apologize for is his endorsement of drumpf/trump for president. Sen corker helped create this very dangerous situation and his solution is to not run for re-election. NOW is the time for sane republicans in congress to start working with Democrats to constitutionally remove drumpf/trump from office, the question is will they start soon enough? From DemocracyNow!.....
The powerful head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, warned Sunday that President Trump is treating the presidency like “a reality show” and setting the U.S. “on the path to World War III.” Sen. Corker made the comments to The New York Times after Trump spent much of the weekend threatening war with North Korea, and after Trump attacked Corker on Twitter Sunday morning, saying the senator “didn’t have the guts” to run for re-election and claiming Corker dropped out after begging unsuccessfully for Trump’s endorsement. That prompted Corker to respond on Twitter, “It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.”
Trump Threatens War on North Korea, Saying, “Only One Thing Will Work!”
The president’s spat with Sen. Corker came as Trump repeated threats of war against North Korea throughout the weekend, tweeting, “Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid hasn’t worked, agreements violated before the ink was dry, makings fools of U.S. negotiators. Sorry, but only one thing will work!” In brief comments to reporters Saturday, Trump was asked to clarify that remark—as well as a cryptic comment he made last week during a meeting with top generals in which he warned about about the “calm before the storm.”
Reporter: “Can you clarify your 'calm before the storm' comment?”
President Donald Trump: “Nothing—nothing to clarify.”
Reporter: “What is the 'one thing' that will work regarding North Korea?”
President Donald Trump: “Well, you’ll figure that out pretty soon.”
Again, in that clip, a reporter asks, “What is the 'one thing' that will work regarding North Korea?” Trump responds, “Well, you’ll figure that out pretty soon.” Trump’s threats came as North Korea’s central news agency accused the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency of plotting unsuccessfully to assassinate leader Kim Jong-un last May.
07 March 2014
Harry Reid to Politico: 'Get a brain, OK?' 6MAR14
MORE and more my respect grows for Majority Leader Sen Harry Reid D NV. Check this out....
Joan McCarter
This might be the most refreshing interview Politico has ever conducted with a politician.
Politico's Manu Raju and Burgess Everett sat down with Harry Reid, but
don't take his admonition seriously, judging by the results in this
story.
Joan McCarter
Republicans think Harry Reid is running the Senate like a dictator: His no-compromise style is almost like Vladimir Putin’s, and his inflammatory rhetoric is reminiscent of the Joe McCarthy era. But Reid doesn’t seem to care.Please read below the fold for more on this story.
"Get a brain, OK?" the Senate majority leader snapped at a reporter, when asked why he doesn't permit far more votes on GOP amendments. "You're a smart guy."
In an interview this week in his Senate office, a feisty Reid pushed back aggressively against Republican complaints over his leadership, pinning the blame entirely on the GOP for the gridlock and polarization that define the historically unproductive 113th Congress.
That's a simple place to start: all those GOP amendments that are little more than poison pills.
For example, Republicans have offered up Obamacare repeal amendments to
nearly every bill that that the Senate has considered this session.
They've offered up amendments about every cooked-up "scandal," from the
IRS targeting the tea party to "Obamaphones."
The unapologetic majority leader offered no regrets for his jaw-dropping rhetoric on the Senate floor where he’s repeatedly lambasted his political enemies and incited GOP charges of McCarthyism for calling the billionaire Koch brothers “un-American.”Jaw-dropping rhetoric? Like this? "'It's reprehensible the way the United States Senate operates today,' said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), before comparing Reid to Putin." No, that's just mild Republican complaint. One of eight Republicans given the opportunity to complain about Reid in the article. (One Democrat besides Reid was included, Joe Manchin (D-WV).) But this might be the worst Politico has to offer:
In Reid's mind, it's Republicans who have shifted and tossed out their moderate wing, particularly during the Obama era. He says the likes of Karl Rove and McConnell made it their top priority to make Obama a one-term president to "make him look bad" by denying him legislative achievements. GOP senators, he said, tie up Senate votes by making far-fetched demands that are not policed by Republican leaders, such as Louisiana Sen. David Vitter’s demand for votes to slash Capitol Hill health care subsidies, leading to the obstruction of even the most routine business.In Reid's mind? He's just imagining the tea party took over? He just imagined it when Mitch McConnell said his top priority was denying President Obama a second term? (Which Politico reported on, btw.) He's just imagined all those bullshit amendments, every cloture vote required on every nominee—even those that end up garnering 100 affirmative votes? He's imagined the most filibusters ever forced? Politico reporters obviously don't spend enough time with C-SPAN2. The last thing Reid should be apologetic for is speaking the truth about Republican obstruction. And he really doesn't need to apologize for telling Politico reporters to get a brain.
Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:11 AM PST.
Also republished by Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/06/1282599/-Harry-Reid-to-Politico-Get-a-brain-OK?detail=email
16 June 2012
Jon Stewart Mocks Senate’s Kid-Glove Treatment Of JP Morgan Head Jamie Dimon 14JUN12
SENATE repiglicans kow-towing to jamie dimon, at least Jon Stewart isn't afraid of him!!!! Check this out, it is funny and SAD!!!!
JP Morgan head Jamie Dimon has been testifying before Congress this week as to what sorts of bets with investments his corporation has made, and Jon Stewart
recapped the best (and worst) moments of the hearings today, with
Republican Senators saying nice enough things to Dimon that Stewart
declared, “the person hardest on Jamie Dimon was Jamie Dimon.”
RELATED: Protestors Shout Down JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon During Capitol Hearing
Stewart began by reminding the audience of the “catastrof*ck” the economy went through earlier in the year, and noting that, throughout the disaster, JP Morgan’s leader Jamie Dimon was held up as one of the most trustworthy. “You were Neo, you were The One,” Stewart joked, turning then to the hearings that come from the news that Dimon may have lost something like $7 million in risky bets. With that sort of record, Congress should be hard on him, Stewart noted, but, alas, they told Dimon that he was “huge” and had “lots of firepower” and, in the process, insulted the Senate for all the money they spent.
Sen. Jim DeMint in particular became the brunt of Stewart’s jokes for equating Dimon losing money completely to Congress spending it, and Sen. Bob Corker, as well, for complaining about lack of Congressional regulations and then voting against them. While being a Republican Senator, Stewart concluded, “you get the fun of breaking shit and the joy of complaining the shit you just broke doesn’t work.”
The segment via Comedy Central below:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-mocks-senates-kiddie-glove-treatment-of-jp-morgan-head-jamie-dimon/
JP Morgan head Jamie Dimon has been testifying before Congress this week as to what sorts of bets with investments his corporation has made, and Jon Stewart
recapped the best (and worst) moments of the hearings today, with
Republican Senators saying nice enough things to Dimon that Stewart
declared, “the person hardest on Jamie Dimon was Jamie Dimon.” RELATED: Protestors Shout Down JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon During Capitol Hearing
Stewart began by reminding the audience of the “catastrof*ck” the economy went through earlier in the year, and noting that, throughout the disaster, JP Morgan’s leader Jamie Dimon was held up as one of the most trustworthy. “You were Neo, you were The One,” Stewart joked, turning then to the hearings that come from the news that Dimon may have lost something like $7 million in risky bets. With that sort of record, Congress should be hard on him, Stewart noted, but, alas, they told Dimon that he was “huge” and had “lots of firepower” and, in the process, insulted the Senate for all the money they spent.
Sen. Jim DeMint in particular became the brunt of Stewart’s jokes for equating Dimon losing money completely to Congress spending it, and Sen. Bob Corker, as well, for complaining about lack of Congressional regulations and then voting against them. While being a Republican Senator, Stewart concluded, “you get the fun of breaking shit and the joy of complaining the shit you just broke doesn’t work.”
The segment via Comedy Central below:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-mocks-senates-kiddie-glove-treatment-of-jp-morgan-head-jamie-dimon/
07 May 2011
The Republican Plan with Lipstick 29APR11 & Why Does Senator McCaskill Want to Bankrupt Our Children? 2MAI11
EXPOSING the continuing attempts and the real agenda of the gop, tea-baggers and some turn-coats in the Democratic Party, the spending cap proposal for the federal budget does nothing to address the out of control spending of tax dollars by the military-industrial complex or the unfair tax breaks and subsidies for the rich and corporate America. It does slash funding for all government programs the poor, the working class, the middle class and small businesses depend on; Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, as well as the EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Transportation, FDA, CDC, FEMA, Dept of Labor, Dept of Agriculture, SBA just to name a few. The plan destroys all the government agencies that we depend on to keep our air and water clean, provide health care for the elderly and disabled, educate our children, keep our food safe, keep our work places safe, provide assistance after disasters, keep our medications safe, maintain and develop national transportation systems, provide for the unemployed. Check this out from Robert Reich, former Sec of labor (Clinton Administration) and HuffPost....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/why-does-senator-mccaskil_b_856519.html
That is what people should be asking Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill along with her fellow senators who are advocated strict caps on government spending. The idea being pushed by Senator McCaskill, together with Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and several other prominent senators, would limit federal spending to 20.6 percent of GDP. It would require difficult-to-obtain super-majorities to exceed this cap. Spending would be cut across a variety of programs if the cap is not reached.
This proposal is hugely deserving of ridicule for a variety of reasons. First, it operates from a blatantly wrong premise -- that government spending has grown out of control.
Those familiar with arithmetic know that government spending had increased by little as a share of GDP prior to the downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. In 2007, the last year before the onset of the recession, spending as a share of GDP was 19.6 percent. That is 1.1 percentage points less than the 20.7 percent share 30 years earlier in 1977. So the idea that there is a long-term trend of out-of-control spending is simply not true, or what they call outside of Washington, a "lie."
Spending has risen in the wake of the downturn, but this was not due to a flood of new and expensive government programs. It was overwhelmingly attributable to the expansion of safety-net programs like unemployment compensation and food stamps and a decline in GDP, which raises the spending-to-GDP ratio even when spending remains constant.
If McCaskill and the other senators are upset about this recent rise in spending then they should be going after the incompetents at the Fed and Treasury who somehow could not recognize the $8 trillion housing bubble whose collapse wrecked the economy. This was indeed a horrendous mistake that has been devastating to the country, but it has nothing to do with government spending.
Over the long term government spending is projected to rise, but this also has nothing to do with the profligacy of Congress. There are two reasons for the projected increases in spending. The first is an aging population. As a result, federal programs that provide for elderly like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will cost more money.
The second reason is that health care costs are still rising out control. The United States already pays more than twice as much per person for health care as other wealthy countries. This disparity is projected to grow even larger in coming decades. If this proves true then it will both impose enormous costs on the private sector and lead to growing strains on the budget.
By contrast, if health care costs were brought under control we would be looking at huge budget surpluses in the decades ahead. Of course controlling costs would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and other powerful lobbies. Unfortunately Senator McCaskill and her colleagues lack the courage to confront such powerful elites.
In fact, McCaskill and her colleagues do not even have the courage to propose cuts for specific programs. Does McCaskill wants to cut Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, unemployment insurance? She won't tell her constituents or the country. She just wants to cut generic spending.
This one might sell well with the Wall Street crew, but it is incredibly bad policy. First off, any budget expert can quickly devise 100 ways to game spending caps, the most obvious being tax expenditures, where the government gives a tax break for items it wants to subsidize. This does not count as spending.
More importantly, a strict limit on government spending that is binding would prove enormously costly because there are some things that the government does more efficiently than the private sector.
Providing Medicare to retirees is one of the items in this category, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). CBO's analysis of Representative Ryan's plan for privatizing Medicare showed that having private insurers take over the Medicare program would add more than $34 trillion to its costs over its 75-year planning period, an amount that is almost seven times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall.
CBO's analysis implies that the Ryan plan, which was approved by the Republican House last month, would increase the cost of paying for retirement health care for someone turning 65 in 2022 (the first year the plan takes effect) by almost $170,000. This doesn't count the cost transferred from the government to beneficiaries. This is pure waste associated with using a more inefficient private system rather than the public system.
There is a similar story with Social Security. The administrative costs of privatized systems like those in the United Kingdom or Chile are 20-30 times as high as the administrative costs of the Social Security system in the United States. This would cost a typical retiree close to $40,000 in higher fees (which is income to the financial industry) that would come directly out of their retirement income.
If Senator McCaskill and her colleagues really expect their caps to be binding then they must want to privatize either Social Security or Medicare or both. Arithmetic leaves few other options. By 2030, CBO projects that spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would take up 14.5 percent of GDP. If we assume, conservatively, interest payments of 3.0 percent of GDP, this brings us to 17.5 percent of GDP against a proposed cap of 20.6 percent.
Any reasonable level of spending on the military, education, infrastructure, the environment and research and development would push the country far over the cap. This would leave little choice except to privatize Social Security and/or Medicare imposing an enormous and unnecessary burden on our children and grandchildren. The higher costs associated with privatized programs will leave all but the wealthiest workers struggling in retirement.
Of course, the senators who want to impose this enormous burden on our children and grandchildren will mostly be enjoying a comfortable retirement themselves by the time the effects of their policy are being felt. In the meantime, they will have enjoyed the praise of the Wall Street crew and the elite media for having the courage to destroy the programs that the middle class depends upon. Welcome to Washington.
That is what people should be asking Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill along with her fellow senators who are advocated strict caps on government spending. The idea being pushed by Senator McCaskill, together with Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and several other prominent senators, would limit federal spending to 20.6 percent of GDP. It would require difficult-to-obtain super-majorities to exceed this cap. Spending would be cut across a variety of programs if the cap is not reached.
This proposal is hugely deserving of ridicule for a variety of reasons. First, it operates from a blatantly wrong premise -- that government spending has grown out of control.
Those familiar with arithmetic know that government spending had increased by little as a share of GDP prior to the downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. In 2007, the last year before the onset of the recession, spending as a share of GDP was 19.6 percent. That is 1.1 percentage points less than the 20.7 percent share 30 years earlier in 1977. So the idea that there is a long-term trend of out-of-control spending is simply not true, or what they call outside of Washington, a "lie."
Spending has risen in the wake of the downturn, but this was not due to a flood of new and expensive government programs. It was overwhelmingly attributable to the expansion of safety-net programs like unemployment compensation and food stamps and a decline in GDP, which raises the spending-to-GDP ratio even when spending remains constant.
If McCaskill and the other senators are upset about this recent rise in spending then they should be going after the incompetents at the Fed and Treasury who somehow could not recognize the $8 trillion housing bubble whose collapse wrecked the economy. This was indeed a horrendous mistake that has been devastating to the country, but it has nothing to do with government spending.
Over the long term government spending is projected to rise, but this also has nothing to do with the profligacy of Congress. There are two reasons for the projected increases in spending. The first is an aging population. As a result, federal programs that provide for elderly like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will cost more money.
The second reason is that health care costs are still rising out control. The United States already pays more than twice as much per person for health care as other wealthy countries. This disparity is projected to grow even larger in coming decades. If this proves true then it will both impose enormous costs on the private sector and lead to growing strains on the budget.
By contrast, if health care costs were brought under control we would be looking at huge budget surpluses in the decades ahead. Of course controlling costs would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and other powerful lobbies. Unfortunately Senator McCaskill and her colleagues lack the courage to confront such powerful elites.
In fact, McCaskill and her colleagues do not even have the courage to propose cuts for specific programs. Does McCaskill wants to cut Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, unemployment insurance? She won't tell her constituents or the country. She just wants to cut generic spending.
This one might sell well with the Wall Street crew, but it is incredibly bad policy. First off, any budget expert can quickly devise 100 ways to game spending caps, the most obvious being tax expenditures, where the government gives a tax break for items it wants to subsidize. This does not count as spending.
More importantly, a strict limit on government spending that is binding would prove enormously costly because there are some things that the government does more efficiently than the private sector.
Providing Medicare to retirees is one of the items in this category, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). CBO's analysis of Representative Ryan's plan for privatizing Medicare showed that having private insurers take over the Medicare program would add more than $34 trillion to its costs over its 75-year planning period, an amount that is almost seven times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall.
CBO's analysis implies that the Ryan plan, which was approved by the Republican House last month, would increase the cost of paying for retirement health care for someone turning 65 in 2022 (the first year the plan takes effect) by almost $170,000. This doesn't count the cost transferred from the government to beneficiaries. This is pure waste associated with using a more inefficient private system rather than the public system.
There is a similar story with Social Security. The administrative costs of privatized systems like those in the United Kingdom or Chile are 20-30 times as high as the administrative costs of the Social Security system in the United States. This would cost a typical retiree close to $40,000 in higher fees (which is income to the financial industry) that would come directly out of their retirement income.
If Senator McCaskill and her colleagues really expect their caps to be binding then they must want to privatize either Social Security or Medicare or both. Arithmetic leaves few other options. By 2030, CBO projects that spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would take up 14.5 percent of GDP. If we assume, conservatively, interest payments of 3.0 percent of GDP, this brings us to 17.5 percent of GDP against a proposed cap of 20.6 percent.
Any reasonable level of spending on the military, education, infrastructure, the environment and research and development would push the country far over the cap. This would leave little choice except to privatize Social Security and/or Medicare imposing an enormous and unnecessary burden on our children and grandchildren. The higher costs associated with privatized programs will leave all but the wealthiest workers struggling in retirement.
Of course, the senators who want to impose this enormous burden on our children and grandchildren will mostly be enjoying a comfortable retirement themselves by the time the effects of their policy are being felt. In the meantime, they will have enjoyed the praise of the Wall Street crew and the elite media for having the courage to destroy the programs that the middle class depends upon. Welcome to Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)