.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
| | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+10Shansaa jam Ungern Laogorus EddieCochran OmbreBlanche Le chanoine quantat Zed Biloulou 14 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 8/11/2008, 13:47 | |
| Browse Newspapers by country
http://newsdirectory.com/
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Canada
United States
Oceania
South America
Resources
Breaking News
Business Newspapers
College Newspapers
Media Industry Associations
Metropolitan Daily Press
Searchable Archives
Coffee Break
Television
Broadcast TV Stations
Network News
TV Networks
Additional Research
City Governments
County Governments
Travel Planner
College Locator Browse Magazines by subject
Arts and Entertainment
Automotive
Business
Computer
Culture and Society
Current Issues
Health
Home
Industry Trade Publications
Pets and Animals
Religion
Science
Sports
Travel
. . . more subjects
Magazines by Region
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America
More |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 20/11/2008, 22:47 | |
| Last rumours in the market.....
The financial situation has gotten so bad that women are now marrying for
love. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Happy Thanksgiving 27/11/2008, 18:33 | |
|  What Every Child Should Know About Thanksgiving by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)Posted 11/25/2008 ET Updated 11/25/2008 ET Second only to Independence Day, Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday. And as an American holiday, it is rooted deeply -- like our nation -- in faith in God. The earliest Thanksgivings were celebrated by Americans who were keenly aware that their blessings -- like their rights -- came from God. In times of hardship unimaginable to us today, they took time to give thanks to their Creator. Throughout early American history, when they suffered from drought, famine or war, Americans paused, not to seek vengeance or to question their faith, but to give thanks to God for the blessings they still had. At a time when the economic news seems to get worse every day, it’s important to remember the humble faith of these early Americans. They didn’t just give thanks when times were good, they gave thanks when times were bad -- especially when times were bad. Radical Secularists Deny the Central Role of Religion in American History Today is a decidedly different time in America. Not only have many Americans forgotten or never learned the historic origins of our Thanksgiving -- to pause and give thanks to God for our abundance -- but radical secularists are intent on removing God and faith from our national life altogether. Many of the entertainment and political elite seem to be threatened by religious faith. Others seem intent on denying or whitewashing the central role that religious faith has played in American history, such as the attempt to whitewash God out of the Capitol Visitor’s Center (view the video and petition my wife, Callista, and I have created to ask Congress to ensure the Capitol Visitor’s Center is historically accurate about America’s Godly heritage.) These radical secularists seek to portray those who acknowledge this historical fact as theocrats intent on imposing their religion on others. In fact, to acknowledge the centrality of God in American history is to acknowledge America’s great freedom of religion -- the freedom to worship and the freedom not to worship. Many Americans have taken advantage of this freedom by drawing closer to their Creator. They understand, even if so many of our media and political elites don’t, that religious freedom is the cornerstone of all of our freedoms. Voices From Thanksgivings Past The centrality of God in Thanksgiving in America comes through in the words of some of our greatest national leaders: Virginia Governor Thomas Jefferson, in 1779: <BLOCKQUOTE>[I] appoint … a day of public Thanksgiving to Almighty God … to [ask] Him that He would … pour out His Holy Spirit on all ministers of the Gospel; that He would … spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth … and that He would establish these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue. </BLOCKQUOTE> President George Washington’s first federal Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789: <BLOCKQUOTE>Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.… Now, therefore, I do appoint Thursday, the 26th day of November 1789 … that we may all unite to render unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection. </BLOCKQUOTE> President Abraham Lincoln, making Thanksgiving an annual national holiday in 1863, in the midst of the Civil War: <BLOCKQUOTE>No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. </BLOCKQUOTE>“Let Us Be Thankful For a Land That Will For Such Religion Stand” Our leaders have not been alone in celebrating God’s gifts at Thanksgiving, of course. I conclude today with a poem by Lizelia Augusta Jenkins Moorer, an African-American poet writing at the turn of the 20th century. Her generous, hopeful view of Thanksgiving is made even more remarkable by the suffering and discrimination she endured as an African-American in the late 19th and early 20th century. <BLOCKQUOTE> ThanksgivingLet us give thanks to God above, Thanks for expressions of His love, Seen in the book of nature, grand Taught by His love on every hand. Let us be thankful in our hearts, Thankful for all the truth imparts, For the religion of our Lord, All that is taught us in His word. Let us be thankful for a land, That will for such religion stand; One that protects it by the law, One that before it stands in awe. Thankful for all things let us be, Though there be woes and misery; Lessons they bring us for our good- Later 'twill all be understood. Thankful for peace o'er land and sea, Thankful for signs of liberty, Thankful for homes, for life and health, Pleasure and plenty, fame and wealth. Thankful for friends and loved ones, too, Thankful for all things, good and true, Thankful for harvest in the fall, Thankful to Him who gave it all. </BLOCKQUOTE> May you and your family have a happy, healthy, and blessed Thanksgiving. Your friend,  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: HAPPY THANKSGIVING SYLVETTE...... 27/11/2008, 18:39 | |
| http://www.holidays.net/thanksgiving/  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/11/2008, 15:46 | |
| Merci, Lawrence  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Terror in Mumbai 28/11/2008, 15:47 | |
| Five hostages killed in Jewish center,chaos at hotel
The bodies of five hostages have been found at a Jewish center in Mumbai, according to reports, but fighting still rages at a hotel in the city two days after terrorists launched a series of deadly attacks that have so far claimed the lives of 155. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Biloulou
 Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Mais non, mais non... 28/11/2008, 16:02 | |
| Bonjour Sylvette !  Mais non, Sylvette, pas que l'américaine, voyons... Une fixette, là ?  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/11/2008, 16:10 | |
| |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/11/2008, 16:22 | |
| |
| | | | Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 58
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: NEWS IN ENGLISH 3/3/2010, 16:45 | |
| Bris Performed on French President's First Grandchild. Paris, France -French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s first grandson, Solal, was circumcised according to Jewish tradition.
Solal, the son of Jean Sarkozy and Jessica Sebaoun, was born January 13 in the western Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine.
"It happened like all circumcisions, with a rabbi and a mohel," Jean Balkany, the president’s friend, who was present at the brit for Solal, told Jewish radio Radio J.
President Sarkozy did not attend the brit, apparently because of work-related obligations, but Balkany said the president’s entire family was present, including his parents and brother.
Jessica Sebaoun is "a very observant Sephardic" Jew and the French president "sees no problem with that," said Balkany, a member of the French parliament and mayor of Levallois-Perret , a town northwest of Paris .
Balkany, who is a Jew (his father was deported to Auschwitz ), said that when he met Sarkozy more than 20 years ago, one of their first conversations was about their shared “Jewish origins.”
Sarkozy’s first grandchild was named Solal, after the hero of a novel by Swiss writer Albert Cohen. The first name Solal comes from the Hebrew ‘Solel’ which means “to carve a path,” showing the way for others and leading by example.
Jean Sarkozy is a law student and regional councilor west of Paris . He married former high-school classmate Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, an heiress of a Jewish family that founded the electronics retailer group Darty. The Darty family founded what became an eponymous nationwide chain of big-box home appliance stores, now owned by Britain ’s KESA Electricals group.
The French president, who turned 55 last month, has two sons from his first marriage – Jean and Pierre – and a third, 12-year-old Louis, from his second.
Nicolas Sarkozy has Jewish roots as his mother Andrée was born to the Mallah family, one of the oldest Jewish families of Salonika in northern Greece .
 |
| | | | quantat
Nombre de messages : 5399
Date d'inscription : 17/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/3/2010, 17:54 | |
| Grand Dieu Hitler doit se retourner dans sa tombe !  Dis moi Lawrence: j'ai demandé à un libanais ce que signifie "oufti" : il n'a pas été capable de me répondre (il a 70 ans environ) J'ai trouvé nulle part: j'ai droit à ta traduction ? | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/3/2010, 22:07 | |
| - quantat a écrit:
- Grand Dieu Hitler doit se retourner dans sa tombe !
Dis moi Lawrence: j'ai demandé à un libanais ce que signifie "oufti" : il n'a pas été capable de me répondre (il a 70 ans environ)
J'ai trouvé nulle part: j'ai droit à ta traduction ? Bonjour Quantat ! Selon certaines sources ce serait la contraction de l'interjection "Ouf, dit !" Mais bon, va savoir...  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1995 - 7/3/2010, 08:19 | |
| Onward with Obamacare, regardlessBy Charles KrauthammerFriday, March 5, 2010 So the yearlong production, set to close after Massachusetts's devastatingly negative Jan. 19 review, saw the curtain raised one last time. Obamacare lives. - Spoiler:
After 34 speeches, three sharp electoral rebukes (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and a seven-hour seminar, the president announced Wednesday his determination to make one last push to pass his health-care reform.
The final act was carefully choreographed. The rollout began a week earlier with a couple of shows of bipartisanship: a Feb. 25Blair House "summit" with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans' way.
Show is the operative noun. Among the few Republican suggestions President Obama pretended to incorporate was tort reform. What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of his health-care bill.
As for the Blair House seminar, its theatrical quality was obvious even before it began. The Democrats had already decided to go for a purely partisan bill. Obama signaled precisely that intent at the end of the summit show -- then dramatically spelled it out just six days later in his 35th health-care speech: He is going for the party-line vote.
Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections -- contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.
Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health-care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments), they are in favor.
Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?
Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: a dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.
However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed -- say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak is to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?
Perhaps something like 3 to 1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry's feeling about the current Democratic health-care bills.
Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health-care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.
Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.
Which is what drove even strong Obama supporter Warren Buffett to go public with his judgment that the current Senate bill, while better than nothing, is a failure because the country desperately needs to bend the cost curve down, and the bill doesn't do it. Buffett's advice would be to start over and get it right with a bill that says"we're just going to focus on costs and we're not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things." (Disclosure: Buffett is a director of The Washington Post Co.)
Obama has chosen differently, however. The time for debate is over, declared the nation's seminar leader in chief. The man who vowed to undo Washington's devious and wicked ways has directed the Congress to ram Obamacare through, by one vote if necessary, under the parliamentary device of "budget reconciliation." The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.
Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 7/3/2010, 08:35, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1996 - 7/3/2010, 08:29 | |
| Not the American WayBy Quin Hillyer on 3.5.10 @ 6:09AMThere is something way off balance in the character of Barack Obama. Something in the realm of zealotry, with a touch of megalomania, and perhaps an authoritarian impulse too. He combines Alinskyite tacticsandoutlook with an air of self-assumed moral superiority in a way that fails to respect the usual, small 'r' republican limits on American presidents. All presidents, of course, think at some level that they know best about policy choices. But almost none of them (Woodrow Wilson perhaps excepted) were so willing to disdain, in pursuit of such radical policy upheavals, such intense and overwhelming public opinion as has been evident in the current health takeover attempt. - Spoiler:
Grandiose plans are one thing. Most presidents fall prey to them. It's another thing entirely, though, to refuse to accept the ordinary republican restraints on implementing grandiosities without public support, and furthermore to do so by A) bendingexistingrules; B) directly violating multiple personal pledges; C)ignoring constitutional limits; D) directlylying; and E) demanding that other politicians sacrifice their own political careers.
A little humility would be nice. So would a sense that he answers to the public rather than to some self-proclaimed (and self-determined) imperative of history and/or call of destiny. What Obama seems to fail to understand is that his own, overblown self-assurance and self-mythologizing is actually hampering his own goals. One need not stretch too far to observe that one of the factors adding to public opposition to Obamacare is a growing public disquietude about the lack of responsiveness, the authoritarian certitude, and the zealous near-fanaticism of the government that would run the new health-rationing system -- all character traits as embodied by the president himself.
As Obama ignores public opinion while pushing for full-fledged Obamacare in one fell swoop, and as he insists that he knows best and that the public is too ill-informed to know what is good for it, he directly -- as the very symbol of the state -- reminds the public of what they distrust about government in the first place and of why they don't want government interfering in a realm as personal as health care. These feelings are especially fierce because Obama is trying not to change something with which most Americans are dissatisfied, but instead to change (and arguably take away) a system in which some four-fifths of the public remains generally satisfied with their own personal level of care.
For most Americans, Obama doesn't seem to be giving them something they don't have, but instead to be taking away something they already value.
Worse, he and the increasingly unpopular Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing it while hectoring the public, insulting (at least by implication) the public by belittling the public's understanding of the issue, and treating opposition as if it is guided by evil motives rather than sincere concerns.
Passage of this health overhaul/takeover under these circumstances would be frightening. The harm it would do the political system would be almost as great as the harm it would cause the health system. The American republic was designed to give a minority a way to slow down major changes buoyed by popular passions. It was not designed to give a minority the power to implement major changes against popular passions.
The Obamites are doing the latter. They are turning American checks and balances on their heads. They are using temporary parliamentary advantages for a permanent power grab. The Obamites are dictating to Americans rather than representing them. Revolutionizing, not just evolving. Ruling, not serving.
And it's not just on health care. They work against public opinion on matters of criminal justice, terrorist treatment, race preferences, bank bailouts and corporate takeovers, overall spending, domestic welfare requirements, fossil fuel development, missile defenses, advocacy of American interests (and pride!) abroad, and on the whole panoply of oft-unstated attitudes that cohere as American exceptionalism.
This is not the way the system is supposed to work. This is not the American government we grew up with. This is not the national ethos that we love.
Yet Obama pushes on, perfectly cognizant of what he's doing, intentionally upending the American Way. This is a form of mania -- megalo- or otherwise. And, by any and all legitimate means, it must be stopped.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1997 - 7/3/2010, 08:55 | |
| Calling Bob WoodwardBy Quin Hillyer on 2.11.10 @ 6:08AMBill Keller of the New York Times, you are on the border of journalistic malpractice that brings your integrity into question. Ditto for Marcus Brauchli of the Washington Post. Katie Couric and Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne, and every other "establishment media" bigwig in the country. If you Google-search your names and see this column, good. Your sin of omission in one particular story is becoming so flagrant, so blatant, so inexcusable, that you have no more excuses for not covering it. - Spoiler:
Let's stick to indisputable, objective criteria for what sorts of things constitute news, and what things don't. Take away the particulars of party affiliations, of ideology, of political advantage, and just consider the basic facts. By any standards of journalistic judgment, the following occurrences -- each one individually -- constitute major news, and in combination with each other should make headlines for weeks: 1) One agency of the federal government is in a pitched battle with another entire federal department, with the first agency possessing subpoena power that federal law mandates all other departments honor; yet the department in question is refusing the subpoena and ordering its employees not to comply with it. A major constitutional showdown could loom.2) Key members of one separate branch of government are being stiffed by the department in question, setting up a battle in which key precepts of the separation of powers, and the prerogatives of each branch, are directly at issue. Again, a major constitutional showdown could loom.3) The department in question is claiming all sorts of privileges from disclosure of information -- to the press, to the public, to other agencies and branches of government -- that are stretched, or obviously inapplicable, or that have never before been claimed, or that either flat-out don't exist or else seem invented out of whole cloth. Remember when any assertion of "executive privilege" was automatically treated as inherently suspicious? Now we see all sorts of subsets of executive privilege claimed even when they not only do not directly involve the president, but also on behalf not just of presidential staff or presidential appointees but "career" employees as well.4) The department in question is ignoring, or refusing to comply with, or claiming exemption from, official Freedom of Information requests by accredited media outlets. Administration vs. media, on matters of fundamental media rights: How is that not a big story on which every single major media outlet rallies to the side of the media organization that is getting stiffed?5) Directly at issue are serious accusations of political interference, possibly including from the White House itself, with specific court cases. Just as occurred with the accusations that Karl Rove and other Bushies improperly fired several U.S. attorneys, the allegation is that political appointees for political reasons interfered directly with the work of "career" employees of the Justice Department. Politicization of the Justice Department is always a front-page story -- right?6) Outside observers, analysts, and federal agencies are suggesting that the Justice Department is deliberately protecting the civil rights of one race but not of other races. Read that again. We're talking civil rights, the media's favorite hobby-horse for lo these 50 years. We're talking allegations that the U.S. Department of Justice is deliberately favoring one race over another. If that isn't explosive news, nothing ever is or will be.7) At issue are voting rights. Race-based voting rights. Specifically, voter intimidation. Wow, that's big. Think Bush/Gore in Florida in 2000. Remember all the media fulminations about a cop car parked about a mile from an individual polling place, supposedly constituting such an intimidating presence that black voters were too scared to continue on to the polls? Now move the intimidation a mile closer, to right outside the polls. Now put a weapon in the hands of one of the alleged intimidators, and paramilitary garb on both of them, while they use racial epithets and strongly implied race-based threats. Holy Toledo, anybody who gets to the bottom of this race-based conspiracy should win a Pulitzer Prize at least, and possible a Nobel. Now, put all these strands together. Add some less major but clearly interesting and important color, such as the fact that two of the main government attorneys involved have records of being sanctioned for misconduct, and that details of the case were discussed with outside third parties while the case was pending, and that one of the lawyers with a spotty record worked on a case on behalf of the controversial group ACORN for which one of the attorneys directly representing ACORN's interests is now the president of the United States. Oh, and try this on for size (and a rather big size at that): One of the vote intimidators was an official poll-watcher for one of the nation's two major political parties, and four days after his case was dropped he again served as an official poll watcher. Oh, and that he is directly affiliated with an organization officially identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And that one of the group in question is on a National Geographic video saying: "You want freedom, you're gonna have to kill some crackers. You're gonna have to kill some of they [sic] babies." And, finally, that the very investigator assigned to the case is being vetted for a federal judgeship by the same people she is supposedly investigating! This is, of course, the story of the voting intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party, inexplicably dropped after the case already was won, by political appointees or temporary political appointees of the Obama administration.There is no way, none at all, that it does not qualify as major news. Unless, of course, you are a journalist with biases so deeply ingrained that you can explain away the world's biggest double standard (your own) by pretending the story doesn't exist at all. If you don't think the same standards of what constitutes news apply when the suspicious activity is by liberals rather than conservatives, then you're free and clear of all normal strictures of journalistic ethics. Free, clear… and deeply dishonest and intellectually corrupt.
Breath in - Breath out |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1998 - 7/3/2010, 09:20 | |
| Panique a gauche. The Huffington Post Does the Obama Administration Even Want to Win in November?Simon Johnson
MIT Professor and co-author of 13 BankersPosted: March 5, 2010 11:25 AM
Increasingly, senior administration officials shrug when you mention the November mid-term elections. "We did all we could," and "it's not our fault" is the line; their point being that if jobs (miraculously at this point) come back quickly, the Democrats have a fighting chance -- but not otherwise.- Spoiler:
It may be true, at this point, that there is little fiscal policy can do that would have effects fast enough; and monetary policy is out of the administration's hands.
But ever so quietly, you get the impression the Obama team itself is not so very unhappy -- they know the jobs will come back by 2012, they feel that Republican control of the House will just energize the Democratic base, and no one will be able to blame the White House for getting nothing done from 2010 on.
When you push them on this issue, they snap back, "Well, what do you want us to do? What's the policy proposal that we are not pursuing?" But this is exactly the wrong way to think about the issue.
The point is that the administration has lost control over the narrative. Why have we lost 8 million jobs since December 2007? Why will debt-GDP rise by 40 percentage points relative to what the CBO baseline would have been? Who is responsible for this deep global disaster?
The president has only addressed this head-on once -- when he launched the Volcker Rule in January. That was a good moment, grabbing attention and focusing it in a productive direction. But it proved fleeting -- Secretary Geithner was spinning it away within 7 hours -- and there has been no follow-up in terms of clear political messages.
There's no story in the culture about what the big banks did and why. There is no attempt from the top to push through the key message for the day -- financial reform -- and to explain what this can do and how. The administration, in effect, is not even trying.
The inner team apparently thinks that 2012 will go just fine -- as long as unemployment is down around 6 percent. And, they reason, the people who lose their seats this November won't be around to complain.
Really?
If the administration fights hard and loses in November, that is one thing. If it fights on clear issues -- forcing the other side to support Too Big To Fail structures -- they may still lose, but such a loss will clearly communicate that the political strength of the big banks is now out of control. That is an issue to run on -- and win big - -in 2012.
And if the administration doesn't even care and hardly tries now, who will come out for them (or send a check) in two years?
The Obama team -- both political and economic wings -- seems to feel that their base has nowhere else to go, and all they need to do is drift towards the right in a moderately confused fashion to assure re-election for the president.
Jimmy Carter had the same sort of idea.
Cross-posted from The Baseline Scenario.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1999 - 7/3/2010, 09:33 | |
| New York's troubled politiciansThe fall of the Harlem ClubhouseThe scandals surrounding New York’s governor and its leading representative in Washington mark the demise of a powerful political machineMar 4th 2010 | NEW YORK | From The Economist print edition- Spoiler:
IN LESS than a week the legendary “Harlem Clubhouse” has suffered two mortal blows. On March 3rd Charles Rangel (above), the last of the political machine’s original “Gang of Four” still in elected office, stepped down as chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives amid charges of ethics violations. Officially this is a temporary leave of absence, but he may not return. Five days earlier David Paterson, New York’s governor, ended his election campaign amid allegations that he had abused his position, and intense pressure for his resignation. Mr Paterson is the son of Basil, another member of the Gang of Four, which mentored both Malcolm X and Al Sharpton and, since the 1960s, has been a launch-pad for New York’s black political leaders. The fall of the Clubhouse—not a physical place but an elitist fraternity—comes not long after its two greatest triumphs. Mr Rangel had become the first black chairman of the powerful spending committee, after a long wait, in 2007, at the age of 76. Mr Paterson became New York’s first black governor—as well as its first legally blind one—in the wake of another scandal, as Eliot Spitzer, his predecessor and running-mate, was forced to resign after being caught consorting with prostitutes. At first, the unexpected promotion of Mr Paterson was widely welcomed; he was a likeable, pragmatic alternative to the arrogant Mr Spitzer, and seemingly scandal-free. (Asked if he had ever gone with prostitutes, he quipped: “Only the lobbyists.”) However, it was not a good omen that the day after taking office he was forced to admit to a string of adulterous affairs.According to a recent exposé in the New York Times, David Johnson, one of the governor’s closest advisers, was involved in domestic violence. Mr Paterson is said to have meddled in the matter by telephoning Mr Johnson’s accuser in a bid to dissuade her from taking legal action. He also supposedly asked state workers to ring the woman. The state police intervened as well, prompting the governor’s chief law-enforcement officer to resign in disgust and the state police superintendent to retire unexpectedly. Pushed in part by other leading Clubhouse members and Democratic Party leaders, Mr Paterson announced on February 26th that he was abandoning his campaign for the governorship, only six days after launching it. (Ironically, the Gang of Four—Mr Rangel, Mr Paterson senior, David Dinkins, a former mayor of New York, and Percy Sutton, a former Manhattan borough president—had criticised the original selection of the younger Mr Paterson as a candidate for the post of lieutenant-governor.)Governor Paterson claims he quit the race because he is “realistic about politics” and can now concentrate on running the state, with its crippling $8.2 billion deficit. But even before this controversy, his popularity had plummeted and political gaffes had almost destroyed his credibility. He mucked up the process of filling Hillary Clinton’s vacant Senate seat by drawing out the selection process needlessly, alienating his former supporters in the Kennedy clan by toying with, and then not appointing, Caroline Kennedy. Last year he insinuated that he was the victim of racially clouded media attacks and predicted that Barack Obama would be the next target, a charge from which the president quickly distanced himself. Last September the White House was said to have urged Mr Paterson to step aside to allow a clear run for Andrew Cuomo, the state attorney-general and son of a former governor. Mr Cuomo, once married to a Kennedy, alienated the Gang of Four when he ran against their anointed choice in a failed 2002 campaign for governor. His office is investigating “Aide-Gate”, so the attorney-general is unlikely to announce a run until the case is over. Mr Paterson, with arm raised, swore during a recent press conference, “I have never abused my office, not now, not ever.” He is determined to serve the 300 or so days left of his term. But this looks less and less likely. Everyone—editorial boards, party and legislative leaders, and Kirsten Gillibrand, whom he appointed senator last year instead of Ms Kennedy—is calling for him to resign.  Paterson tries to explain
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2000 - 7/3/2010, 14:10 | |
|  Extra! Quand on pense a ce qui a ete dit et ecrit au sujet de Blackwater par la gauche americaine. Blackwater likely to receive contractBy LAURA ROZEN | 2/26/10 5:07 AM EST 
The police training contract is supposed to be decided next month, and the company has not been officially notified that it’s getting it. | Department of Defense photo. Photo:- Spoiler:
Former officials familiar with the deal say that Blackwater is likely to get a Defense Department-issued contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to train and mentor Afghan police.
The police training contract is supposed to be decided next month, and the company has not been officially notified that it’s getting it. But the only competing bid for the contract, submitted by Northrop with MPRI, has been disqualified, a former official knowledgeable about the contract said.
“We have no knowledge that the contract will be awarded to us,” Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Blackwater, now known as Xe, told POLITICO Thursday.
Lockheed, meanwhile, is quite likely to be awarded an associated logistics contract to support the Afghanistan police training effort (a contract known as TORP 166), for which Blackwater also bid, the former officials said.
While a Blackwater subsidiary’s activities in Afghanistan were the subject of a scathing hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, the U.S. Central Command and the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, are said to be very happy with the company’s work in Afghanistan, the former official familiar with the contracting deal told POLITICO. Blackwater has contracts to do intelligence support, counternarcotics support (with the Drug Enforcement Administration) and work on the Afghan-Pakistani border, the former official said.
The DoD has five “primes” — companies eligible to bid on contracts in Afghanistan: Raytheon, Lockheed, Northrop, Arinc (owned by Carlyle) and Blackwater. Of those, only Blackwater bid for both parts of the Afghan police training contract — involving training/mentoring and logistics. Its only competitor for the logistics contract was Lockheed. The former official said the Army had Lockheed resubmit its proposal to make it more suitable for the logistics contract.
|
| | | | Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 58
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2002- 7/3/2010, 14:23 | |
| CBO: $10 trillion jump in debt under Obama budgetBy Jeanne Sahadi, senior writerMarch 5, 2010: 6:13 PM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If President Obama's 2011 budget were put into effect as proposed, the U.S. federal government would add an estimated $9.8 trillion to the country's accrued debt over the next decade, according to a preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.Of that amount, an estimated $5.6 trillion will be in interest alone.- Spoiler:
By 2020, the agency estimates debt held by the public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90% of GDP. That's up from 53% of GDP in 2009.Research done by economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart has shown that such high levels of debt can cause a drag on economic growth.The CBO cited two big contributors to the jump in debt. One is the president's proposal to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the majority of Americans. The other is the proposal to protect middle- and upper-middle-income families from having to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Together those proposals would cost $3 trillion between 2011 and 2020."It points out the unwillingness of the administration to raise the revenues to pay for the size of government being proposed," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.If Congress doesn't act, all of the Bush tax cuts are slated to expire at the end of this year and there will be no protection from the AMT.But current law is not politically realistic, many say. That's why the administration prefers to compare the cost of its proposals to what lawmakers are likely to do -- namely, extend tax cuts and fix the AMT. Hence, the White House Budget Office estimates that under the president's proposals, $8.5 trillion would be added to the country's accrued debt over the next decade, or $1.3 trillion less than the CBO estimate.Either scenario is unsustainable, Bixby said.The administration has also called the budget trajectory unsustainable and the president has created a fiscal advisory commission to recommend ways lawmakers can get annual deficits down to 3% of GDP by 2015. That's well below where it would be under the president's budget, according to estimates from both the CBO and the White House. And while his proposals would chip away at deficits in the next few years, they start to climb again thereafter. By 2020, the annual deficit as a percentage of GDP will be 5.6%, according to the CBO. The White House estimates it will be 4.2%.0:00 /5:34Debt chairmen: 'Everything's on the table'
vidConfig.push({videoArray: ["/video/news/2010/02/19/n_interview_simpson_bowles.cnnmoney.json"], collapsed:false});
But there is no guarantee the fiscal commission's recommendations will be adopted by lawmakers.The CBO notes that its estimates incorporate the Administration's revenue and spending assumptions for policies such as health reform and climate change, because the agency didn't have sufficient details from the White House about those policies to do its own analysis.A full analysis of the president's budget will be published later in the month, the CBO said.  C'est al qaida qui doit etre content! 
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 7/3/2010, 14:30, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
)
