.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 | |
| Rappel du premier message :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 |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2886 - Rasmussen 9/9/2010, 18:04 | |
| ouffff, apres une timide remontee, le bouchon s'enfonce de plus belle! Mais c'est tout la fote a Bush!  Enfin bon, pendant ce temps-la, les Etats Unis boivent la tasse. | Date | Presidential Approval Index | Strongly Approve | Strongly Disapprove | Total Approve | Total Disapprove | | 9/09/2010 | -24 | 23% | 47% | 41% | 58% | | 9/08/2010.......... | -18 | 26% | 44% | 45% | 54% | | 9/07/2010 | -18 | 27% | 45% | 45% | 55% | | 9/06/2010 | -20 | 26% | 46% | 45% | 54% | | 9/05/2010 | -23 | 24% | 47% | 42% | 57% | | 9/04/2010 | -21 | 24% | 45% | 42% | 56% |
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2887 - 68% Favor Smaller Government, Lower Taxes 9/9/2010, 18:11 | |
| ... et la gauche continue a nous dire, que plus de gouvernement c'est mieux pour nous. Quelle partie de ces resultats ne comprennent-ils pas?
America's Best Days
68% Favor Smaller Government, Lower Taxes
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes to a more active one that offers more services and higher taxes. That's the second highest finding in Rasmussen Reports surveying on the question since November 2006, exceeded only by a 70% finding in August of last year.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 24% of voters prefer a more active government with more services and higher taxes. Only 19% felt that way in August 2009 as voters stormed congressional town hall meetings across the country to complain about pending health care legislation, the bailouts of the auto and financial industry and the $787-billion economic stimulus plan.
Just two months ago, 63% favored a smaller government, while 26% opted for a more active one.
In nearly four years of surveying on the question, support for a smaller government has ranged from 55% to 70%, while backing for a more active government has run from 19% to 32%.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 74% of voters not affiliated with either major party prefer a smaller government. Democrats are evenly divided.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of the Political Class like a more active government with more services and higher taxes. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Mainstream voters favor a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes instead.
President Obama is expected to announce on Wednesday plans for at least $50 billion in new spending on transportation infrastructure and billions more in tax credits in hopes of jumpstarting the troubled economy. But 55% of voters continue to oppose a second economic stimulus package.
Heading into the final two months of the mid-term election campaign, most voters believe Democrats in Congress want to raise taxes and spending, while Republicans in Congress want to cut taxes and spending. The latest Generic Congressional Ballot finds that 48% of Likely Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. This matches the largest advantage ever measured for the Republicans three weeks ago. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/9/2010, 18:23 | |
| Pffft...
Le peuple a déjà ce qu'il veut: les taxes et impôts les plus bas depuis 50 ans et un gouvernement central à genoux devant les grosses corporations depuis Reagan, le disciple de l'astrologie...
À part jongler avec des sophismes et la démagogie, y aurait-il un autre discours que l'absurde chez les tenants du NON? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/9/2010, 23:28 | |
| Ca c'est sur que question impots, meme au Canada, ca ne doit pas vous prendre trop de temps a reunir la somme. |
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
 Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/9/2010, 23:34 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- Ca c'est sur que question impots, meme au Canada, ca ne doit pas vous prendre trop de temps a reunir la somme.
Ça démontre logiquement que sur cette question d'argent-ci il jouit d'une aisance avérée. Plein de contribuables envient une telle facilité. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/9/2010, 23:48 | |
| certes, et leur embarras lui permet ce privilege. |
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 9/9/2010, 23:56 | |
| 892 - - Sylvette a écrit:
- certes, et leur embarras lui permet ce privilege.
C'est la loi de l'offre et de la demande. Il faut que le pognon circule. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2892 - Trump Offers to Buy Out Islamic Center Investor 10/9/2010, 00:08 | |
| Merci "le" Donald! (rien a voir avec le c... canard) Trump Offers to Buy Out Islamic Center Investor Associated Press Donald Trump is offering to buy out one of the major investors in the real estate partnership that controls the site near Ground Zero where a Muslim group wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center. Getty Images The proposed site of the Islamic community center near Ground Zero where a Muslim group wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center. In a letter released Thursday by Mr. Trump's publicist, the real estate investor informed Hisham Elzanaty, a major investor in the Islamic center, known as Park51, that he would buy his stake in the Lower Manhattan building for 25% more than whatever he paid. Mr. Trump wrote that he's making the offer not because he thinks the location is spectacular but because it would end "a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation."It's unclear whether Mr. Elzanaty, an Egyptian-born Long Island resident, has total control over the property, which is owned by an eight-member investment group managed by Soho Properties. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2893 - Ground Zero Mosque Investor Declines Trump's Buyout Offer 10/9/2010, 00:14 | |
| Ground Zero Mosque Investor Declines Trump's Buyout OfferPublished September 09, 2010| Associated Press APMay 26, 2010: US billionaire Donald Trump arrives at Aberdeen Airport, Scotland to give a press conference about his plans for the "world's greatest" luxury golf and housing project on the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire. NEW YORK -- Donald Trump's offer to buy an investor's stake where a mosque is planned near ground zero is falling flat.- Spoiler:
Wolodymyr Starosolsky is a lawyer for the investor in the real estate partnership that controls the site. He says Trump's offer is "just a cheap attempt to get publicity and get in the limelight."
In a letter released Thursday by Trump's publicist, the real estate investor told Hisham Elzanaty that he would buy his stake in the lower Manhattan building for 25 percent more than whatever he paid.
"I am making this offer as a resident of New York and citizen of the United States, not because I think the location is a spectacular one (because it is not), but because it will end a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation that is destined, in my opinion, to only get worse," the letter said.
Trump also attached a condition to his offer: He said that as part of the deal, the backers of the mosque project would need to promise that any new mosque they constructed would be at least five blocks farther away from the World Trade Center site.The current planned location is just two blocks north of the site. Opponents argue it's insensitive to families and memories of Sept. 11 victims to build a mosque so close to where Islamic extremists flew planes into the World Trade Center and killed nearly 2,800 people, while proponents support the project as a reflection of religious freedom and diversity.
It's unclear how much control Elzanaty has over the property, which is owned by an eight-member investment group led by Soho Properties.
A spokesman for Soho Properties general manager Sharif El-Gamal and his nonprofit group, Park51, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. Earlier in the day, the organization sent a statement to The Associated Press affirming that Soho Properties controlled the real estate and that Elzanaty was one of several investors.
El-Gamal and other people associated with the Islamic center have refused to detail the ownership structure of the real estate partnership that holds the site.
Elzanaty's lawyer did not immediately return a phone message Thursday. But in a pair of interviews with the AP this week, Elzanaty said he had invested in the site with an intention of making a profit and was willing to sell some of it for private development. He also said he supported building a mosque on at least part of the property.
|
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 10/9/2010, 00:26 | |
| 895 - - Citation :
- Donald Trump is offering to buy out one of the major investors in the real estate partnership that controls the site near Ground Zero where a Muslim group wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center.
Ça a peu de chances d'aboutir, Donald envisage la construction de bains turcs ! | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 10/9/2010, 03:36 | |
| - Citation :
- Ca c'est sur que question impots, meme au Canada, ca ne doit pas vous prendre trop de temps a reunir la somme.
Dans le contexte, voilà ce que d'aucun qualifierait d'incapacité totale de contre-argumentation mais très certainement d'usage facile, immature et médiocre de sophisme hors-propos et de démagogie. Le miroir, le miroir... Que vous répondra-t-il? UMP: pendant qu'on parle démagogie, le clavier français est encore en panne ou son absence d'usage est une indication d'une certaine paresse intellectuelle et de mépris volontaire du lecteur francophone? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 10/9/2010, 05:32 | |
| |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2898 - The Nanny State Has Blown the Bank 10/9/2010, 08:29 | |
| Ottawa Citizen The Nanny State Has Blown the Bank By David WarrenIn France, the legal retirement age is 60. President Sarkozy, who like every other European leader is desperate to balance the books, proposes to raise this to 62. Hence the scene, as strikers work at bringing the country to a halt, and fill the streets in the time-honoured, Parisian fashion.Over the Channel, the flashpoint was an attempt by management to lay off 800 employees of the London Underground. Sympathetic unions began an industrial action designed to cripple the city in Monday's rush hour.- Spoiler:
From what I can see, nothing like the scenes in Athens, recently, but getting there.
The foreground problem is essentially the same everywhere, and in the stimulating spirit of "yes we can," Obama's America is quickly catching up with the European bankruptcy. Here in Canada, we may be feeling rather smug, thanks chiefly to the "no we can't" attitudes of successive federal governments. But our actual fiscal condition is concealed in the federal-provincial cups and marbles: A country that may be technically solvent, consisting of provinces that are all going bankrupt.
The background problem is simplicity itself. The Nanny State has blown the bank. She, or it, has done so everywhere. Even after appropriating half of every national income with taxes both direct and indirect, and after offloading the costs of cumbersome do-good schemes onto businesses through convoluted regulations, Nanny is reduced to printing money.
From the liquidators' point of view, however, the problem is rather more complicated: the debtors are more hostile than the creditors. Thanks to democracy, and the power of "the people," under the inspiration of demagogues, to appropriate each other's wealth, there seems no chance of a smooth disposition.
Our debts have been rephrased as "entitlements." They are the fiscal dimension of "human rights." Everyone has a "right" to a pension, and to much else besides, regardless of whether he put his share into the piggy; or whether Nanny absconded with what he did put in.
Those who prudently saved against the contingencies of this world, have subtly numbered themselves among "the rich." And, "tax the rich" is the received solution. For generations now, "progressive" politicians, imposing "progressive" tax systems, have been making an example of the prudent. The cultivation and manipulation of envy is at the heart of all political schemes for income redistribution, and parties of the Left have been building their client base upon it.
Hence the gradual division of every electorate between the Party of Entitlement, and the Party of Tax Cuts: the one to increase spending, the other to limit revenue, until the gap between income and expenditure has grown to oceanic proportions. In a pinch, the government pulls both ways at once, as poor hapless Obama is now doing because his Party of Entitlement is about to be mooshed in the U.S. midterm elections. In addition to more ruinous "stimulus" spending, he is now promising tax cuts (for everyone but "the rich").
There, as here, the chariot of state is driving over the cliff. In every Western polity of which I am aware, the entitlements are backed with the force of law, and cannot be withdrawn with anything like the ease with which a government can cut the police, the military, and essential public services -- even on paper. Thus, at the moment when fiscal catastrophe strikes, we find the government has already "downsized" the instruments of public order.
I'm still trying to imagine the scenario in which this ends well. (Give me more time!)
The closest thing I can see to hope is currently invested in the tea party movement of the U.S. Notwithstanding the slanders heaped upon it, this movement is good-willed, riot-free, indeed situationally non-urban, and under the leadership of basically sane people. Of course, there is no guarantee that any movement devoted to genuine political change can remain so, under the inevitable provocations.
But something must be done, and here is the closest thing, anywhere in the West, to a political movement committed to the only measure that can possibly save us from riding over that cliff. Merely slowing down won't do it.
That measure is, quite frankly, the complete dismantlement of the Nanny State, and the restoration of the status quo ante -- governments focused on the provision of national defence, and domestically on the machinery of law and order. Full stop.
While that happens to be the only available formula for mitigating our impending economic and social catastrophe -- leave people free not only to earn, but to help each other flexibly and directly -- the issue of freedom itself lies deeper. For the Nanny State isn't, and never was, compatible with the organic development of a free society. We do need laws to be enforced against specific, definable evils. But insofar as we are adults, we have never required comprehensive daycare.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2899 - 53 Homes Torched in Blast Near San Francisco 10/9/2010, 09:20 | |
| 53 Homes Torched in Blast Near San FranciscoPublished September 10, 2010| Associated PressSAN BRUNO, Calif. -- A massive explosion sent flames roaring through a neighborhood in the hills south of San Francisco Thursday, destroying more than 50 homes and leaving at least one person dead.- Spoiler:
The utility company that serves the San Francisco Bay area said one of its gas lines ruptured in the vicinity of the blast, which left a giant crater and sent flames tearing across several suburban blocks in San Bruno just after 6 p.m."If it is ultimately determined that we were responsible for the cause of the incident, we will take accountability," Pacific Gas and Electric Co. said in an e-mailed statement.Flames hot enough to crack a fire engine windshield incinerated 53 homes and damaged 120 as crews continued battling the blaze into the night. At least one person was confirmed dead in the blast, San Bruno Fire Chief Dennis Haag said.The fire had spread to 10 acres and was 50 percent contained late Thursday, said Jay Allen, spokesman for the California Emergency Management Agency.  At least one person is dead and several injured after an explosion from a ruptured gas line rocked a neighborhood south of San Francisco, triggering a rush of flames that devoured at least 53 homes. Sept. 9: Several homes were destroyed as a massive fire roared through a mostly residential neighborhood in the south San Francisco suburb of San Bruno. Sept. 9: An air tanker drops fire retardant on a San Bruno, Calif., neighborhood as a massive fire destroys homes.Between 150 and 200 firefighters were at the scene, Haag said. More than 100 people were being sheltered at nearby evacuation centers, but no estimate of the number of residents missing was available, he said.Witnesses said the explosion shot a fireball more than 1,000 feet in the air and sent frightened residents fleeing for safety and rushing to get belongings out of burning homes.After the blast, flames reached as high as 100 feet as the fire fueled itself on burning homes. Planes and helicopters flew over the neighborhood dumping water.San Bruno Fire Capt. Charlie Barringer said the neighborhood was engulfed by the time firefighters arrived, even though the fire station was only a few blocks away. He said the blast took out the entire water system, forcing firefighters to pump water from more than two miles away.Haag said firefighters initially had trouble getting close enough to the ruptured gas line to shut it down because of the flames.Connie Bushman returned home to find her block was on fire. She said she ran into her house looking for her 80-year-old father but could not find him. A firefighter told her he had left, but she had not been able to track him down."I don't know where my father is, I don't know where my husband is, I don't know where to go," Bushman said.Victims suffering from serious burns began arriving at San Francisco Bay area hospitals shortly after the blast. An estimate of the number of injured wasn't immediately available. Hospitals reported receiving about 20 injured patients -- several of whom were in critical condition -- and they anticipated getting more.Jane Porcelli, 62, said she lives on a hill above where the fire was centered. She said she thought she heard a plane overhead with a struggling engine."And then you heard this bang. And everything shook except the floor, so we knew it wasn't an earthquake," Porcelli said. "I feel helpless that I can't do anything. I just gotta sit by and watch."Stephanie Mullen, Associated Press news editor for photos based in San Francisco, was attending children's soccer practice with her two children and husband at Crestmoor High School when she saw the blast at 6:14 p.m."First, it was a low deep roar and everybody looked up, and we all knew something big was happening," she said. "Then there was a huge explosion with a ball of fire that went up behind the high school several thousand feet into the sky."Everybody grabbed their children and ran and put their children in their cars," Mullen said. "It was very clear something awful had happened."Several minutes later, Mullen was near the fire scene, about a half-mile away in a middle-class neighborhood of 1960s-era homes in hills overlooking San Francisco, the bay and the airport. She said she could feel the heat of the fire on her face although she was three or four blocks away from the blaze. It appeared the fireball was big enough to have engulfed at least several homes."I could see families in the backyards of the homes next to where the fire was, bundling their children and trying to get them out of the backyards," she recounted.She said people in the neighborhood were yelling, "This is awful" and "My family is down there."Judy and Frank Serrsseque were walking down a hill away from the flames with a makeshift wagon carrying important documents, medication and three cats.Judy Serrsseque said she heard an explosion, saw that fire was headed toward their home and knew they had to leave. As they fled, they said they saw people burned and people struggling to get their things out of burning houses."We got everything together, and we just got out," Judy Serrsseque. "Mostly we're wondering if we have a house to go back to."
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2900 - Obama's tax-credit plan getting a cool reception 10/9/2010, 13:47 | |
| Obama's tax-credit plan getting a cool reception By Jia Lynn Yang and Lori MontgomeryWashington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 9, 2010 Facing a rising jobless rate and the possibility of a GOP blowout in the November midterm elections, President Obama sought Wednesday to convince voters that he is charting a new path to revive the American economy.- Spoiler:
But Obama's proposal for $180 billion in fresh infrastructure spending and business tax breaks is not satisfying many of the groups he needs on his side - not lawmakers on Capital Hill who are leery of raising the deficit by spending more, not economists who say the plan is too modest to create many jobs, and not business groups that say the tax benefits come with too many strings attached.
Even some vulnerable Democrats - who have been begging the White House for a jobs strategy to present to recession-battered voters - quickly condemned the president's latest proposal, suggesting that it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to last year's unpopular stimulus package.
"I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package," said Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a close White House ally in a tough race against Republican Ken Buck, who has campaigned against government spending.
Bennet suggested that Obama recycle "unused funds" from last year's stimulus if he wants to "improve our infrastructure."
"We must make hard choices to significantly reduce the deficit," he said.
In a speech in Cleveland, Obama suggested that congressional Republicans should find much to admire in his latest economic package.
His plan would make permanent a corporate tax credit for research and allow companies to deduct from their taxes this year and next the entire cost of whatever they spend in new investments - ideas pulled directly from GOP playbooks.
President George W. Bush proposed to increase the deduction for investments at least three times during his eight years in office.
Obama's proposals were unveiled after months of criticism from prominent chief executives who have said the president is out of touch with the needs of big business in a slow economy.
But his speech was also notable for what it didn't say: how all of this will be paid for.
The White House has said the proposals could be paid for in three ways: raising taxes on corporations with large international operations, eliminating tax benefits for oil and gas firms, and increasing enforcement of tax payments by firms. But senior administration officials declined to go into further detail, referring reporters to the president's February budget, in which more than $300 billion in options are laid out.
White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said the proposed revisions to the tax code "are broadly supported by economists and business leaders as ways to encourage investment and R&D in the United States."
Some companies such as Intel and General Electric said they would reserve judgment until they see details. Yet many business groups reacted coolly to Obama's ideas to pay for the tax cuts.
"The new taxes would negate the intended effects of these new policies," the Business Roundtable, an industry group that has often aligned itself with the White House, said in a statement.
Senate Republicans also quickly rejected the administration's plan.
"More taxes and more spending makes as much sense as throwing a drowning man an anvil," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said.
The president's budget from February offers some clues into how the administration wants to pay for its package of tax breaks and infrastructure spending.
Perhaps the most controversial is a plan to revamp the taxes multinational companies pay. The administration stated in the budget that it wants to make it harder for these companies to reduce their tax bills in the United States by claiming a credit on levies paid to foreign governments.
The president has frequently said that an overhaul of this part of the corporate tax code will make it more expensive for companies to operate overseas and discourage them from shipping jobs out of the country.
"For years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries," Obama said Wednesday. "I want to change that."
But the White House has run into vociferous opposition from politically influential firms.
In early 2009, after the administration proposed raising $200 billion in higher taxes for multinational companies in 2009, chief executives including John Chambers of Cisco, James Owens of Caterpillar and Paul Otellini of Intel trekked to Washington to personally protest.
The administration backed down this year when it presented the president's budget for 2011, scaling back the proposed tax hikes on multinationals by about half.
The president's budget also proposes raising about $40 billion in taxes from the oil and gas industry and improving enforcement of tax laws by making sure taxpayers actually pay what they owe.
The proposals could divide corporate America. IBM said this summer it is more concerned about paying higher taxes than losing research tax credits. Other companies have expressed strong support for more tax benefits for research and development.
In spite of the risk of seeing higher taxes, a group of corporations including American Express, GE and Bank of America sent a letter in August to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reinforcing their support for such tax credits.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2901 - 10/9/2010, 14:27 | |
|  President Obama's news conference will highlight his efforts to bolster the economy. | Reuters Photo CloseBy JOSH GERSTEIN | 9/10/10 4:30 AM EDT President Barack Obama heads to a formal news conference Friday morning to cap off a week of events highlighting his efforts to invigorate the economy. - Spoiler:
But the rare solo session in the East Room will hardly be the straight I-feel-your-pain moment aides surely intended.
Talk of research-and-development tax credits has proven no competition for the threat by a Christian minister in Florida to burn Qurans. Throw in a will-he-or-won’t-he mystery surrounding Rahm Emanuel’smayoral ambitions in Chicago, and the White House’s message has had trouble breaking through.
But Obama’s running out of time, with the midterm elections less than 8 weeks away. He’s got to convince voters to tune in but not turn out Democratic lawmakers running Congress in favor of the GOP. It’s a heavy lift and there’s little chance the press will play along and let Obama stick to his economic talking points. Here are some questions that Obama could face at 11 a.m.:
1. You’ve defended the constitutional right of Muslims to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero in New York, even though its deeply offensive to some 9/11 families. The Rev. Terry Jones in Florida has suggested he too has a constitutional right to burn the Quran to send a message, yet you’ve implored him not to – because it will anger and offend some Muslims. Do you worry some Americans might question why you don’t call for the same restraint on the part of the mosque developers?
Jones – the pastor of a tiny Gainesville, Fla., church – has caused some real headaches for the White House by threatening to burn Qurans, potentially putting U.S. soldiers’ lives in jeopardy due to the backlash overseas, say military brass.
Both House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin objected to the Quran burning, but also suggested a parallel with the mosque dispute.
“People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero,” Palin wrote on Facebook.
Playing up that parallel, Jones appeared to back down Thursday in exchange for a meeting about moving the mosque. But details about the meeting remained in dispute Thursday night and Jones suggested the Quran burning could take place if no deal was reached.
Obama’s take on the burning is clear, but his views about the proposed mosque remain a bit opaque. He endorsed the right to build it but hasn't made clear to what extent, if at all, the builders have a responsibility to defer to those upset by the plan. He’ll have a chance to clarify that on Friday.
2. When you won in 2008, many commentators and some of your advisers spoke about a sea-change in American politics and a new political era—maybe even a permanent majority for Democrats. Two years later, the political landscape looks quite different and some of your aides have reportedly said your election may have been due to an odd confluence of events rather than some huge change in the country. Where do you come down on this?
Expect some variation on this question: where’s the old Obama, and where’s his army? He looked like a transformational, even invincible, figure two years ago. But he sure isn’t looking that way now.
His approval ratings are in the 40s. Predictions for Democratic losses in the House in the midterms have risen from around 20 seats to around 45, which would mean a GOP takeover. First-time voters from 2008—largely young people, college students and minorities—aren’t showing much interest in turning out this time. And the Tea Party now seems to be at the cutting edge of the kind of Internet organizing Obama won praise for.
The question also gets to the heart of something a lot of Obama supporters themselves have been wondering lately – what happened to that soaring speaker and moving leader they voted for? Surely, governing is different than campaigning but maybe Obama himself is the only one who can truly explain that change to confused voters.
3. In a speech Wednesday, you painted House Republican leader John Boehner as a kind of bogeyman intent on returning America to the Bush era. “There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas,” Obama complained, calling Boehner out eight times in a 45–minute address. Now let’s say it’s Nov. 3, and it’s going to be House Speaker Boehner -- what’s your strategy for dealing with him then after roughing him up so much?
The White House seems to have traded the 2008 campaign theme, “hope” for a new, more traditional one in 2010: “fear.”
The strategy may help stem Democratic losses by firing up the party’s base. But it could also exacerbate the gridlock Obama aides have complained about since his election (and which he campaigned in 2008 on breaking for good.)
The White House has given little indication of how it plans to manage a Congress even more hostile to Obama’s proposals than the current one, or to work with a Republican like Boehner when Obama has at times struggled to corral lawmakers from his own party.
4. You recently announced a package of $180 billion in tax breaks and infrastructure spending to boost the economy – but strenuously avoided calling it “stimulus.” Yet in some ways, it plays right into the critics’ argument that your original stimulus plan was too small. In light of the new proposals, were they right? Should you have pressed Congress for an even larger stimulus back then?
This isn’t merely a historical “what if?” Some economists argue that a larger stimulus bill might have pulled the economy much farther, much faster – and perhaps spared Obama some of the economic heartache that’s driving down his poll numbers and could cost Democrats the House. A number of prominent economists—including Paul Krugman of the New York Times — said the original stimulus needed to be much, much larger than the $787 billion. White House officials insisted it was enough to hold unemployment at 8 percent. It wasn’t, and now they’re paying the price with angry voters.
But last month, Obama signed off on another $26 billion in money for state governments. And just this week, he proposed another $50 billion in infrastructure spending and more in business tax cuts, albeit with offsets. Republicans still say the earlier stimulus was too large and misdirected but the recent White House moves suggest Obama believes he may have aimed too low as the economy lost steam in early 2009.
5. You said recently you probably made a mistake a day during your time in office. Was one of those mistakes choosing to press forward with health care reform at a time when voters of all stripes were more worried about the country’s economic woes?
Reporters love to try to get presidents to admit mistakes, and Obama has been somewhat more confessional than George W. Bush. But this one’s a doozy – going to the heart of Obama’s legislative decision-making.
When Obama arrived in office he faced a worsening economic crisis of nearly unprecedented proportions. Aides felt he had no choice but to seek a major stimulus bill and carry through with the TARP bailout of big banks—even though they expected both measures would be unpopular. However, the next major item on Obama’s legislative agenda, health care reform, was a war of his own choosing.
He could have delayed or downsized the effort, citing the country’s economic straits, but he pressed forward, narrowly winning passage of a major health care overhaul that has proven to be highly unpopular and could contribute to Democrats losing control of the House.
The White House’s belated announcement of new economic measures just eight weeks before the midterm elections makes some analysts wonder if the Obama team is conceding that it took its eyes off the economic ball during the knock-down drag-out health care fight.
6. You recently announced with considerable fanfare, the reopening of direct peace talks between Israelis and the Palestinians. How do you plan to keep those talks from derailing when the Israeli moratorium on new Jewish settlements expires on Sept. 26?
With a lot of effort, Obama managed to get Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas together with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to launch a new round of Middle East peace talks.
But the good feeling from the high-profile handshakes could wear off quickly this month if the White House can’t figure out a way to stop the Israelis from authorizing new settlement construction—an action which could prompt the Palestinians to walk away from the table that has only just been set.
7. If Rahm Emanuel concludes that he needs to make the early steps towards a Chicago mayoral campaign in the coming weeks, before the November election, would it be acceptable to you for him to do that while he continues to serve as White House chief of staff?
Obama said in an interview aired Thursday that he expects Emanuel to decide by the midterms whether to make a run for the mayor’s job. But analysts say Emanuel will have to take some actions sooner if he wants to be successful.
That will immediately cause questions about Emanuel running for mayor from the West Wing while collecting a federal paycheck. Obama will have to decide whether he’d rather weather those questions, announce a new chief of staff earlier than he might wish to, or leave the slot open or with an interim staffer during a politically sensitive time.
Laura Rozen contributed to this report
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 10/9/2010, 14:37 | |
| Pis?
L'entrevue avec Meghan McCain, j'allais écrire McFrites mais bon, ça vous dit rien?
Moi je trouve tordant qu'elle parle de Repu$ modérés alors que d'autres, surtout les teailibans et les disciples de Faux News et de Breitbart.com, refusent de parler de musulmans modérés.
C'est-y que pour la fille de John McCain, il y a similitude entre extrémistes de la droite repu$ et extrémistes musulmans? Entre Palin et... Tariq Ramadan, mettons?
Seul le coiffeur des Madames le sait! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2903 - 11/9/2010, 14:17 | |
| Breath-in / Breath-out 41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes -- and they're not aloneSeptember 10, 2010 - 2:54 am
Over the years a lot of suspicion has built up across the country about Washington and its population of opportunistic transients coming to see themselves as a special kind of person, somehow above average working Americans who don't labor down in that monument-strewn former swamp.
- Spoiler:
Well, finally, an end to all those undocumented doubts. Thanks to some diligent digging by the Washington Post, those suspicions can at last be put to rest.
They're correct. Accurate. Dead-on. Laser-guided. On target. Bingo-bango. As clear as it's always seemed to those Americans who don't feel special entitlements and do meet their government obligations.
We now know that federal employees across the nation owe fully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.
As in, 1,000 times one million dollars. All this political jabber about giving middle-class ...... Americans a tax cut. Thousands of feds have been giving themselves one all along -- unofficially. And these tax scofflaws include more than three dozen folks who work for the president with that newly decorated Oval Office.
The Post's T.W. Farnum did some research and found that out of the total sum, just 638 workers on Capitol Hill owe the IRS $9.3 million in back taxes. As in, overdue. The IRS gets stiffed by the legislative body that controls its budget. How Washington works.
Now, back taxes have been a problem for the Obama-Biden administration. You may recall early on that Tom Daschle was the president's top pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. But it turned out the former Democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120,000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. You know how that is. $120G's here or there. So he dropped out.
And then we learned this guy Timothy Geithner owed something like $42,000 in back taxes and penalties to the IRS, which is one of the agencies that he'd be in charge of as secretary of the Treasury. The fine fellow who's supposed to know about handling everyone else's money. In the end this was excused by Washington's bipartisan CYA culture as one of those inadvertent accidental oversights that somehow never seem to happen on the side of paying too much taxes.
And under Geithner's expert guidance the U.S. economy has been, well, wow! Just look at it.
Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents' names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White House owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess.
In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS' parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733.
Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.
Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters." Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.
Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174.
And they're checking our pockets for metal and coins?
Andrew Malcolm
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/9/2010, 14:35 | |
| Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil!
De POTUS à POTUS, toujours les mêmes sangsues. Au moins Cheney est parti...
De toutes façons, le rêve du bon tealiban après casser du musulman, du nègre et de l'hispano c'est pas ça: frauder l'impôt?
Le tealiban, le backbone du pati Repu$?
|
| | | | Charly
Nombre de messages : 23689
Localisation : belgique
Date d'inscription : 30/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/9/2010, 14:49 | |
| On ne parle que de guerre,ici,c'est déprimant.
Que pétard aille se battre avec ses frères,çà fera un martyr de plus! | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/9/2010, 15:07 | |
| Bonjour Charly!!!  Ca me fait plaisir de vous voir ici!  |
| | | | Charly
Nombre de messages : 23689
Localisation : belgique
Date d'inscription : 30/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/9/2010, 15:16 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- Bonjour Charly!!!
Ca me fait plaisir de vous voir ici! rere Sylvette J'y viens souvent,je lis,je m'instruis sur certaines choses,mais comme je ne vis pas chez vous,je ne saurais pas avoir un avis averti,comme certaines personnes qui sont négatives sur tous les sujets. Tu connais mon sentiment vis-à-vis des E-U,qui est partagé par une majorité des Belges,surtout les Francophones.  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/9/2010, 15:29 | |
| |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/9/2010, 19:36 | |
| - Citation :
- Que pétard aille se battre avec ses frères,çà fera un martyr de plus!
Zut! Moi qui ai déchiré ma carte du PQ il y a trente ans! Tu veux que je me rengage? Ça f'ra péter quoi? Mon fonds de pension? T'as bu? |
| | | | Charly
Nombre de messages : 23689
Localisation : belgique
Date d'inscription : 30/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/9/2010, 19:40 | |
| - Pétard a écrit:
-
- Citation :
- Que pétard aille se battre avec ses frères,çà fera un martyr de plus!
Zut! Moi qui ai déchiré ma carte du PQ il y a trente ans!
Tu veux que je me rengage? Ça f'ra péter quoi? Mon fonds de pension?
T'as bu? Suppôt de satan,ton fonds de pension,on s'en tappe! Occupe toi de ton fond de pantalon. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/9/2010, 19:43 | |
| - Citation :
- Suppôt de satan,ton fonds de pension,on s'en tappe!
Occupe toi de ton fond de pantalon. C'est ça. T'as bu. Pauvre c(h)réti(e)n va... T'as vraiment l'esprit de Jésus en toi... |
| | | | 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
| |
| |
| |
|
