.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 |  |
|
+6Charly Shansaa Alice jam EddieCochran Biloulou 10 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/7/2009, 08:44 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Bonjour Biloulou  Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait! |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 15/1/2010, 07:21 | |
| ex: est-il juste que cet accord soit passe. Les syndicats ont obtenu des patrons une assurance de luxe en place et lieu d'augmentations de salaires. La premiere ne sera pas imposee l'autre l'aurait ete. Ou est l'equite pour les Americains non-syndicalises? Les coffres des syndicats regorgent de dollars et ont largement permis au POTUS son election. I'ts payback time! White House scores key labor dealBy CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/14/10 8:17 PM EST The White House on Thursday cut a deal with its closest labor allies to blunt the impact of a new tax on high-cost insurance policies — and blunt their protests against the health reform plan. - Spoiler:
Democrats couldn’t eliminate the tax on union members’ high-cost insurance policies altogether but did put off the effective date until 2018, but only for labor agreements and state and local government workers.
And that seems sure to open up Democrats to charges that it took yet another behind-closed-doors bargaining session with a powerful interest group to close the deal on health reform.
But for a day at least, the White House could claim a significant victory on the road toward passing a health care reform bill, with a deal that averts a standoff on one of the most contentious issues standing in the way of a final compromise.
Other major issues remain under discussion, but according to an official familiar with the talks, negotiators have been sending proposals to the Congressional Budget Office for cost estimates — a sign that lawmakers are close to a deal on other pieces of the tax package. Key lawmakers are set to return to the White House Thursday night for more talks.
President Barack Obama traveled to the Hill on Thursday to speak to House Democrats and sought to rally House members by invoking reform’s historical potential. But his remarks also had a I-know-this-is-tough quality that reflects reform’s unpopularity with voters.
“Now, believe me, I know how big a lift this has been,” Obama said. “But I also know what happens once we get this done, once we sign this bill into law. The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn’t do things that people have been trying to say it does.
Their worst fears will prove groundless, and the American people’s hope for a fair shake from their insurance companies for quality, affordable health care they need will finally be realized.”
The deal focused on a provision that would levy an excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Many labor union members have bargained over the years for such benefits in lieu of pay hikes and didn’t want to bear the brunt of the tax.
Major changes to the legislation include a modest increase in the threshold for taxation to $24,000 a year for family coverage, inserting adjustments for older workers and women and entirely exempting dental and vision plans for all Americans, starting in 2015.
A broad spectrum of union presidents announced their support for the reduced excise tax on a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon, bringing a major Democratic constituency into line and helping to quell potential problems on the left in the House.
“We will endorse it, and we’ll do that proudly,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka of the health care bill, assuming it stays true to negotiations. “We’ve been at this for 60 years, and we are extremely proud of the constructive role that labor’s played in advancing health care reform.”
The call, led by Trumka, included some of the labor leaders who fought hardest against the excise tax that remains in the legislation, such as Gerald McEntee of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Larry Cohen of the Communications Workers of America.
“I didn’t have any tremendous hopes for real success in this, but I was proven wrong,” said McEntee of the bill.
White House officials and labor leaders defended the agreement against a fresh round of Republican criticism that the bill was weighed down with special-interest deals and was a targeted attempt to mollify a key constituency. They sought to highlight aspects of the deal that would benefit more than just union members, including the higher threshold at which the tax would kick in and the exemption for dental and vision plans.
“It is fairly telling that opponents of reform are criticizing a transition period for workers and are silent about a similar transition period for their friends — the insurers,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. He was referring to the phase-in of the reforms and taxes affecting insurers and other industry groups between 2011 and 2018.
The changes slice $60 billion off the $150 billion the tax was expected to raise, Trumka said. He also defended the special exemption for union plans, saying that most of the changes labor had won would apply to all workers.
House Democrats peppered union leaders with questions about the deal at a closed-door session in the Capitol complex Thursday.
“My concern is that this [threshold] isn’t high enough to pass muster,” said one Democratic member who has been regularly briefed by House leaders on the White House negotiations. Asked whether the Democratic Caucus would reject the deal, the member said: “It’s possible.”
Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, who has led opposition to the excise tax, said after reviewing details of the deal: “It reflects a more intelligent direction, ... but I really am reserving judgment.”
The deal might also raise eyebrows in the Senate. Earlier Thursday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sent Reid a letter asking that all “sweetener” provisions be struck from final legislation — a reference to agreements with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and others to help secure their votes.
“These ‘sweeteners’ are unjustifiable and only detract from our collective goal of putting America’s health care system on a better and more sustainable path,” Feingold wrote. “Several provisions were included in the health reform bill that create, rather than diminish, inequity. ... Simply put, they are intended to provide an undeserved windfall to specific states.”
Feingold’s letter became easy fodder for Republicans seeking to use the right words to attack the union bargain.
“Sen. Feingold says it well — that they should strike the unwarranted measures that win the support of certain members and special interests,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “It’s emblematic of the whole debate, so it’s not a surprise. They’re not trying to get the support of the American people; they’re trying to get the support of the union lobbyists.”
To help make up for the lost revenue, Democrats are targeting at least two industries that already put up contributions to health reform’s bottom line. The hospital industry has been asked to offer an additional $15 billion in concessions on top of a $155 billion deal last summer with the White House, according to one source.
And the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to provide an extra $10 billion to its already negotiated $80 billion deal over 10 years.
Democrats are also negotiating further adjustments to the Medicare payroll tax rate, which was already increased under the Senate bill. Lawmakers and the White House are looking to apply the tax to investment income for high-income earners.
Maintaining the excise tax, which health care economists say can help control spiraling health care costs, was a top priority for Obama. But it has been fiercely opposed by top labor leaders and rank-and-file House Democrats.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the push to send a final bill to CBO by Friday wasn’t because of political pressure generated by the Massachusetts Senate race, where Republican Scott Brown has said he would be the 41st vote to scuttle health reform if elected.
“No. The fact that CBO takes so much time is really more the issue,” she said. “When we’re ready to send something, we will. We’d like to do it as soon as possible, as soon as it’s ready. Most of this legislation CBO has seen.
“There are no real surprises in here because the makings of the reconciliation have been in the public domain, in our case for months, in the Senate’s case for several weeks, so much of that has been crafted,” Pelosi said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said finishing by Friday was the goal. “That’s been the goal. But it’s a goal, it’s not a deadline,” he said.
Chris Frates, Patrick O’Connor, Meredith Shiner and Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1775 - 15/1/2010, 08:00 | |
| January 15, 2010 One Year Out: The FallBy Charles KrauthammerWASHINGTON -- What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent -- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year. - Spoiler:
A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform.
A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing -- even among erstwhile believers.
Liberals try to attribute Obama's political decline to matters of style. He's too cool, detached, uninvolved. He's not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He's contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.
These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.
It's not about style; it's about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society -- health care, education and energy.
Then began the descent -- when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.
Then, the keystone: a health care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker's James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally "private" insurers.
At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama's own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare's profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.
The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people -- disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized -- have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.
Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.
It's inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel -- of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.
Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something -- to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity.
Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success -- twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress -- was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.
Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 15/1/2010, 08:05 | |
| AP A 2-year-old greets his mother after being pulled from the rubble as worries mount about food and water for the survivors of devastating Haiti quake.  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1777 - 15/1/2010, 08:29 | |
| JANUARY 14, 2010, 7:02 P.M. ET Slug the Obama Story "Disconnect"Obama and the public are on different pages, if not different in books.The first thing I learned in journalism is that every story has a name. At WEEI News Radio in Boston, the editor would label each story with one word, called a "slug," and assign a writer to write it for air. This week's devastating earthquake would be slugged "Haiti." A story about a gruesome murder might be "Nightmare."- Spoiler:
We're at the first anniversary of the inauguration of President Barack Obama, and the slug, the word that captures its essence, is "Disconnect."This is, still, a surprising word to use about the canny operatives who so perfectly judged the public mood in 2008. But they haven't connected since. AFP/Getty Images There is a disconnect, a detachment, a distance between the president's preoccupations and the concerns of the people. There's a disconnect between his policy proposals and the people's sense, as expressed in polls, of what the immediate problems are. I'm not referring to what is being called the president's rhetorical disconnect. In this criticism, he is not emotional enough when he speaks, he doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve, he is aloof, like a lab technician observing the movements within a petri dish called America. It may be true that this doesn't help him, but so what? In a successful presidency, his cool demeanor would be called an interesting facet, not a problem. And we don't really need presidents to move us, when you think about it. We need them to lead, and in the right direction. Nor am I referring to an iconic disconnect. In this criticism, the president refuses to or is unable to act as a paternal figure. "A president is a father," say these critics. "He must comfort us." But, actually, your father is your father. Voters didn't hire Mr. Obama to play the old dad in the MGM movie. In any case he always seemed like the bright older brother, not the father. At the end of the day you, being a grown-up, don't need him to be your daddy, do you? You want a competent chief executive with a deep and shrewd sense of the people. Americans want him to be on the same page as they are. But he's on a different page, and he may in fact be reading a different book. Thus the latest Quinnipiac poll, which puts his approval/disapproval at a descending 45% to 45%. Pure hunch: The approval number is probably slightly high because people don't want to disapprove of their new president—the stakes are so high!—and don't like telling pollsters they disapprove of him.The real story is that his rhetorical and iconic detachment are harped on because they reflect a deeper disconnect, the truly problematic one, and that is over policy. It doesn't really matter how he sounds. It matters, in a time of crisis, what he does. That's where the lack of connection comes in.The people are here, and he is there. The popularity of his health care plan is very low, at 35% support. Someone on television the other day noted it is as low as George Bush's popularity ratings in 2008. Yet—and this is the key part—the president does not seem to see or hear. He does not respond. He is not supple, able to hear reservations and see opposition and change tack. He has a grim determination to bull this thing through. He negotiates each day with Congress, not with the people. But the people hate Congress! Has he not noticed?The people have come alive on the issue of spending—it's too high, it threatens us! He spends more. Everywhere I go, I hear talk of "hidden taxes" and a certainty that state and federal levies will go up, putting a squeeze on a middle and upper middle classes that have been squeezed like oranges and are beginning to see themselves as tired old rinds. Mr. Obama seems at best disconnected from this anxiety.The disconnect harms him politically, but more important it suggests a deepening gulf between the people and their government, which only adds to growling, chafing national discontent. It also put the president in the position, only one year in, only 12 months into a brand-new glistening presidency, of seeming like the same old same old. There's something tired in all this disconnect, something old-fashioned, something sclerotic and 1970's about it. And of course the public is reacting. All politicians are canaries in coal mines, they're always the first to feel the political atmosphere. It was significant when the Democrats lost the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey two months ago. It is significant that a handful of House and Senate Democrats have decided not to run this year. And it is deeply significant that a Republican state senator in Massachusetts, Scott Brown, may topple the Democratic nominee to fill Ted Kennedy's former seat, Martha Coakley. In a way, the Republicans have already won—it's a real race, it's close, and in "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts"!Mr. Brown's whole story right now is not about disconnect but connect. Massachusetts has an 8.8% unemployment rate, and graduates of the commonwealth's great universities can't find work. An old Boston Republican hand said of the race, "It's 100% percent about policies—health care, taxes, what's the plan on the economy?" Mr. Brown charges that Ms. Coakley's support for cap and trade and health care will amount to $2 trillion in taxes in the next five years.Ms. Coakley has the advantage—Massachusetts is the heart of blue-state America—but in a way her advantage is her curse. Because she is the candidate of a party that for 40 years has been used to winning, reigning and winning again, she looks like the same old same old, a standard old-line liberal, the frontwoman for a machine, a yes woman for the Obama-Pelosi era. It is interesting that Ms. Coakley, too, has been told by pundits the past week that her problem is that she's not emotional enough. She should show passion and fire! She should cry like Hillary! This comes not only from pundits but normal people, and if you contemplate the meaning it is, weirdly: You're not good enough at manipulating us! We want more theatrics! Both national parties are trying to pour in money and resources, but the most obnoxious intrusion must have been the fund-raising letter this week from New York's Sen. Charles Schumer, who tried to rouse the troops by calling Mr. Brown a "far-right teabagger." Does that kind of thing even work anymore? Doesn't name calling put off anyone not already predisposed to agree with it? In a time when the people of Massachusetts have real concerns about their ability to make a living, stuff like the Schumer letter is just more evidence of a party's disconnect.Politics is about policy. It's not about who's emotional and who cries or makes you cry. It's not about big political parties and the victories they need in order to rule. It's not about going on some ideological toot, which is what the health-care bill is, hoping the people will someday see and appreciate your higher wisdom.In a way, Mr. Obama's disconnection is a sign of the times. We are living in the age of breakup, with so many of the ties that held us together loosening and fraying. If the president wants to lead toward something better, he should try listening. If you can't connect through the words you speak, at least you can do it through your ability to hear.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 15/1/2010, 09:49, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1778 - 15/1/2010, 08:41 | |
| WOW! MA-Sen: Scott Brown Talks Health Care On Cavuto
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1779 - 15/1/2010, 09:59 | |
| ... Si je ne gagne pas 2010 sera l'enfer pour les Democrates et toutes les elections seront tres serrees pour les Democrates... aurait dit Mme Coakley selon le National Review (magazine conservateur) Mais la Candidate Democrate denie avoir dit ca hier soir a Washington lors d'une soiree de collecte pour les elections de mardi dans le Massachussetts. (Siege anciennement occupe par Kennedy decede en aout dernier) ---- au sujet du reporter du Weekly Standard (autre magazine conservateur) pousse a terre par un des "encadreurs de Mme Coakley? Elle dit n'avoir rien vu... comme le prouvent d'ailleurs bien les photos de cette video  Obamacare, du poison pour les Democrates si Brown est elu |
| | | | Zed
 Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 59
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 15/1/2010, 10:26 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- ex: est-il juste que cet accord soit passe. Les syndicats ont obtenu des patrons une assurance de luxe en place et lieu d'augmentations de salaires. La premiere ne sera pas imposee l'autre l'aurait ete. Ou est l'equite pour les Americains non-syndicalises?
Les coffres des syndicats regorgent de dollars et ont largement permis au POTUS son election. I'ts payback time!
White House scores key labor dealBy CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/14/10 8:17 PM EST
The White House on Thursday cut a deal with its closest labor allies to blunt the impact of a new tax on high-cost insurance policies — and blunt their protests against the health reform plan.
- Spoiler:
Democrats couldn’t eliminate the tax on union members’ high-cost insurance policies altogether but did put off the effective date until 2018, but only for labor agreements and state and local government workers.
And that seems sure to open up Democrats to charges that it took yet another behind-closed-doors bargaining session with a powerful interest group to close the deal on health reform.
But for a day at least, the White House could claim a significant victory on the road toward passing a health care reform bill, with a deal that averts a standoff on one of the most contentious issues standing in the way of a final compromise.
Other major issues remain under discussion, but according to an official familiar with the talks, negotiators have been sending proposals to the Congressional Budget Office for cost estimates — a sign that lawmakers are close to a deal on other pieces of the tax package. Key lawmakers are set to return to the White House Thursday night for more talks.
President Barack Obama traveled to the Hill on Thursday to speak to House Democrats and sought to rally House members by invoking reform’s historical potential. But his remarks also had a I-know-this-is-tough quality that reflects reform’s unpopularity with voters.
“Now, believe me, I know how big a lift this has been,” Obama said. “But I also know what happens once we get this done, once we sign this bill into law. The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn’t do things that people have been trying to say it does.
Their worst fears will prove groundless, and the American people’s hope for a fair shake from their insurance companies for quality, affordable health care they need will finally be realized.”
The deal focused on a provision that would levy an excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Many labor union members have bargained over the years for such benefits in lieu of pay hikes and didn’t want to bear the brunt of the tax.
Major changes to the legislation include a modest increase in the threshold for taxation to $24,000 a year for family coverage, inserting adjustments for older workers and women and entirely exempting dental and vision plans for all Americans, starting in 2015.
A broad spectrum of union presidents announced their support for the reduced excise tax on a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon, bringing a major Democratic constituency into line and helping to quell potential problems on the left in the House.
“We will endorse it, and we’ll do that proudly,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka of the health care bill, assuming it stays true to negotiations. “We’ve been at this for 60 years, and we are extremely proud of the constructive role that labor’s played in advancing health care reform.”
The call, led by Trumka, included some of the labor leaders who fought hardest against the excise tax that remains in the legislation, such as Gerald McEntee of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Larry Cohen of the Communications Workers of America.
“I didn’t have any tremendous hopes for real success in this, but I was proven wrong,” said McEntee of the bill.
White House officials and labor leaders defended the agreement against a fresh round of Republican criticism that the bill was weighed down with special-interest deals and was a targeted attempt to mollify a key constituency. They sought to highlight aspects of the deal that would benefit more than just union members, including the higher threshold at which the tax would kick in and the exemption for dental and vision plans.
“It is fairly telling that opponents of reform are criticizing a transition period for workers and are silent about a similar transition period for their friends — the insurers,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. He was referring to the phase-in of the reforms and taxes affecting insurers and other industry groups between 2011 and 2018.
The changes slice $60 billion off the $150 billion the tax was expected to raise, Trumka said. He also defended the special exemption for union plans, saying that most of the changes labor had won would apply to all workers.
House Democrats peppered union leaders with questions about the deal at a closed-door session in the Capitol complex Thursday.
“My concern is that this [threshold] isn’t high enough to pass muster,” said one Democratic member who has been regularly briefed by House leaders on the White House negotiations. Asked whether the Democratic Caucus would reject the deal, the member said: “It’s possible.”
Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, who has led opposition to the excise tax, said after reviewing details of the deal: “It reflects a more intelligent direction, ... but I really am reserving judgment.”
The deal might also raise eyebrows in the Senate. Earlier Thursday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sent Reid a letter asking that all “sweetener” provisions be struck from final legislation — a reference to agreements with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and others to help secure their votes.
“These ‘sweeteners’ are unjustifiable and only detract from our collective goal of putting America’s health care system on a better and more sustainable path,” Feingold wrote. “Several provisions were included in the health reform bill that create, rather than diminish, inequity. ... Simply put, they are intended to provide an undeserved windfall to specific states.”
Feingold’s letter became easy fodder for Republicans seeking to use the right words to attack the union bargain.
“Sen. Feingold says it well — that they should strike the unwarranted measures that win the support of certain members and special interests,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “It’s emblematic of the whole debate, so it’s not a surprise. They’re not trying to get the support of the American people; they’re trying to get the support of the union lobbyists.”
To help make up for the lost revenue, Democrats are targeting at least two industries that already put up contributions to health reform’s bottom line. The hospital industry has been asked to offer an additional $15 billion in concessions on top of a $155 billion deal last summer with the White House, according to one source.
And the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to provide an extra $10 billion to its already negotiated $80 billion deal over 10 years.
Democrats are also negotiating further adjustments to the Medicare payroll tax rate, which was already increased under the Senate bill. Lawmakers and the White House are looking to apply the tax to investment income for high-income earners.
Maintaining the excise tax, which health care economists say can help control spiraling health care costs, was a top priority for Obama. But it has been fiercely opposed by top labor leaders and rank-and-file House Democrats.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the push to send a final bill to CBO by Friday wasn’t because of political pressure generated by the Massachusetts Senate race, where Republican Scott Brown has said he would be the 41st vote to scuttle health reform if elected.
“No. The fact that CBO takes so much time is really more the issue,” she said. “When we’re ready to send something, we will. We’d like to do it as soon as possible, as soon as it’s ready. Most of this legislation CBO has seen.
“There are no real surprises in here because the makings of the reconciliation have been in the public domain, in our case for months, in the Senate’s case for several weeks, so much of that has been crafted,” Pelosi said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said finishing by Friday was the goal. “That’s been the goal. But it’s a goal, it’s not a deadline,” he said.
Chris Frates, Patrick O’Connor, Meredith Shiner and Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.
Bon ok, j'ai parlé trop tôt d'équité, esquivant ainsi le vrai problème.
La démocratie commence avec la dualité politique, mais débute son excellence dans la trinité politique.
Si c'est pas les démocrates, c'est les républicains. Si c'est pas les républicains, c'est les démocrates. Vous trouvez pas que ca sent le renfermé?
Hey Zed, un hot-dog ou un hamber? Un hot-dog, ok donc demain ca sera un hamber, et après demain un hot-dog. Mais ou est la pizza???
Il m'a toujours semblé que la diversité de choix est la véritable démocratie.
Au Québec c'est la même senteur de renfermé, si c'est pas les péquistes (PQ) c'est les libéraux (PLQ) et vis et versa.
Sans un minimum d'un troisième joueur égale, la politique démocratique devient un bal de snobisme.
Avoir le droit de vote sans diversité, ca revient a ne pas l'avoir. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 15/1/2010, 11:36 | |
| - ¥_zed_¥ a écrit:
- Sylvette a écrit:
- ex: est-il juste que cet accord soit passe. Les syndicats ont obtenu des patrons une assurance de luxe en place et lieu d'augmentations de salaires. La premiere ne sera pas imposee l'autre l'aurait ete. Ou est l'equite pour les Americains non-syndicalises?
Les coffres des syndicats regorgent de dollars et ont largement permis au POTUS son election. I'ts payback time!
White House scores key labor dealBy CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/14/10 8:17 PM EST
The White House on Thursday cut a deal with its closest labor allies to blunt the impact of a new tax on high-cost insurance policies — and blunt their protests against the health reform plan.
- Spoiler:
Democrats couldn’t eliminate the tax on union members’ high-cost insurance policies altogether but did put off the effective date until 2018, but only for labor agreements and state and local government workers.
And that seems sure to open up Democrats to charges that it took yet another behind-closed-doors bargaining session with a powerful interest group to close the deal on health reform.
But for a day at least, the White House could claim a significant victory on the road toward passing a health care reform bill, with a deal that averts a standoff on one of the most contentious issues standing in the way of a final compromise.
Other major issues remain under discussion, but according to an official familiar with the talks, negotiators have been sending proposals to the Congressional Budget Office for cost estimates — a sign that lawmakers are close to a deal on other pieces of the tax package. Key lawmakers are set to return to the White House Thursday night for more talks.
President Barack Obama traveled to the Hill on Thursday to speak to House Democrats and sought to rally House members by invoking reform’s historical potential. But his remarks also had a I-know-this-is-tough quality that reflects reform’s unpopularity with voters.
“Now, believe me, I know how big a lift this has been,” Obama said. “But I also know what happens once we get this done, once we sign this bill into law. The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn’t do things that people have been trying to say it does.
Their worst fears will prove groundless, and the American people’s hope for a fair shake from their insurance companies for quality, affordable health care they need will finally be realized.”
The deal focused on a provision that would levy an excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Many labor union members have bargained over the years for such benefits in lieu of pay hikes and didn’t want to bear the brunt of the tax.
Major changes to the legislation include a modest increase in the threshold for taxation to $24,000 a year for family coverage, inserting adjustments for older workers and women and entirely exempting dental and vision plans for all Americans, starting in 2015.
A broad spectrum of union presidents announced their support for the reduced excise tax on a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon, bringing a major Democratic constituency into line and helping to quell potential problems on the left in the House.
“We will endorse it, and we’ll do that proudly,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka of the health care bill, assuming it stays true to negotiations. “We’ve been at this for 60 years, and we are extremely proud of the constructive role that labor’s played in advancing health care reform.”
The call, led by Trumka, included some of the labor leaders who fought hardest against the excise tax that remains in the legislation, such as Gerald McEntee of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Larry Cohen of the Communications Workers of America.
“I didn’t have any tremendous hopes for real success in this, but I was proven wrong,” said McEntee of the bill.
White House officials and labor leaders defended the agreement against a fresh round of Republican criticism that the bill was weighed down with special-interest deals and was a targeted attempt to mollify a key constituency. They sought to highlight aspects of the deal that would benefit more than just union members, including the higher threshold at which the tax would kick in and the exemption for dental and vision plans.
“It is fairly telling that opponents of reform are criticizing a transition period for workers and are silent about a similar transition period for their friends — the insurers,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. He was referring to the phase-in of the reforms and taxes affecting insurers and other industry groups between 2011 and 2018.
The changes slice $60 billion off the $150 billion the tax was expected to raise, Trumka said. He also defended the special exemption for union plans, saying that most of the changes labor had won would apply to all workers.
House Democrats peppered union leaders with questions about the deal at a closed-door session in the Capitol complex Thursday.
“My concern is that this [threshold] isn’t high enough to pass muster,” said one Democratic member who has been regularly briefed by House leaders on the White House negotiations. Asked whether the Democratic Caucus would reject the deal, the member said: “It’s possible.”
Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, who has led opposition to the excise tax, said after reviewing details of the deal: “It reflects a more intelligent direction, ... but I really am reserving judgment.”
The deal might also raise eyebrows in the Senate. Earlier Thursday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sent Reid a letter asking that all “sweetener” provisions be struck from final legislation — a reference to agreements with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and others to help secure their votes.
“These ‘sweeteners’ are unjustifiable and only detract from our collective goal of putting America’s health care system on a better and more sustainable path,” Feingold wrote. “Several provisions were included in the health reform bill that create, rather than diminish, inequity. ... Simply put, they are intended to provide an undeserved windfall to specific states.”
Feingold’s letter became easy fodder for Republicans seeking to use the right words to attack the union bargain.
“Sen. Feingold says it well — that they should strike the unwarranted measures that win the support of certain members and special interests,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “It’s emblematic of the whole debate, so it’s not a surprise. They’re not trying to get the support of the American people; they’re trying to get the support of the union lobbyists.”
To help make up for the lost revenue, Democrats are targeting at least two industries that already put up contributions to health reform’s bottom line. The hospital industry has been asked to offer an additional $15 billion in concessions on top of a $155 billion deal last summer with the White House, according to one source.
And the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to provide an extra $10 billion to its already negotiated $80 billion deal over 10 years.
Democrats are also negotiating further adjustments to the Medicare payroll tax rate, which was already increased under the Senate bill. Lawmakers and the White House are looking to apply the tax to investment income for high-income earners.
Maintaining the excise tax, which health care economists say can help control spiraling health care costs, was a top priority for Obama. But it has been fiercely opposed by top labor leaders and rank-and-file House Democrats.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the push to send a final bill to CBO by Friday wasn’t because of political pressure generated by the Massachusetts Senate race, where Republican Scott Brown has said he would be the 41st vote to scuttle health reform if elected.
“No. The fact that CBO takes so much time is really more the issue,” she said. “When we’re ready to send something, we will. We’d like to do it as soon as possible, as soon as it’s ready. Most of this legislation CBO has seen.
“There are no real surprises in here because the makings of the reconciliation have been in the public domain, in our case for months, in the Senate’s case for several weeks, so much of that has been crafted,” Pelosi said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said finishing by Friday was the goal. “That’s been the goal. But it’s a goal, it’s not a deadline,” he said.
Chris Frates, Patrick O’Connor, Meredith Shiner and Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.
Bon ok, j'ai parlé trop tôt d'équité, esquivant ainsi le vrai problème.
La démocratie commence avec la dualité politique, mais débute son excellence dans la trinité politique.
Si c'est pas les démocrates, c'est les républicains. Si c'est pas les républicains, c'est les démocrates. Vous trouvez pas que ca sent le renfermé?
Hey Zed, un hot-dog ou un hamber? Un hot-dog, ok donc demain ca sera un hamber, et après demain un hot-dog. Mais ou est la pizza???
Il m'a toujours semblé que la diversité de choix est la véritable démocratie.
Au Québec c'est la même senteur de renfermé, si c'est pas les péquistes (PQ) c'est les libéraux (PLQ) et vis et versa.
Sans un minimum d'un troisième joueur égale, la politique démocratique devient un bal de snobisme.
Avoir le droit de vote sans diversité, ca revient a ne pas l'avoir. Mais de toutes facons, n'est-ce pas le cas meme la ou, comme en France on ne compte meme plus les partis? UMP/PS - PS/UMP! D'ailleurs dans la realite des choses, il existe un grand nombre de partis aux Etats Unis egalement allant de l'extreme gauche a l'extreme droite. Le systeme electoral francais propose 2 tours; au premier, comme une amie francaise m'expliquait l'autre jour, on se fait plaisir on vote meme si c'est extreme sachant que ca ne passera pas mais on fait passer un message. Il existe de rares cas ou un candidat que personne n'attendait au second tour passe mais ca arrive comme avec Lepen, les electeurs de gauche ont donc vote Chirac pour redresser le tir.. Courageux mais pas temeraires, l'electeur francais se dit que UMP/PS c'est bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet alors on critiquera mais on ne prend pas trop de risques. Aux Etats Unis, il n'y a qu'un tour apres les primaires, elections interieures aux partis et qui se chargent de faire sortir le candidat principal des partis, donc les electeurs votent tout de suite leur choix. Changer le systeme? je n'y crois guere, ca suposerait que les elus des deux partis prennent un risque supplementaire de ne pas etre reelu, et la place est trop bonne (aurait dit Maman) Maintenant la possibilite d'un 3eme candidat a existe au cours des certaines elections Ross Perot (penchant a droite) => Clinton a ete elu, Ralph Nader (penchant a gauche) => George Bush a ete elu; donc voter pour un independant revient a voter pour le candidat de l'opposition. Les prochaines elections vont etre interessantes avec le "Tea Party", le probleme pour la droite est que la encore, s'il y a separation entre ce mouvement et les Republicains, ca fasse les beaux jours des Democrates. Nous verrons donc. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1782 - 15/1/2010, 14:03 | |
| News Alert
06:25 AM EDT Friday, January 15, 2010
Report: U.S. said to eye D.C. for Guantanamo trial
The Obama administration is considering a criminal trial in Washington for the Guantanamo Bay detainee suspected of planning the bombing of a Bali nightclub that killed 202 people, a plan that would bring one of the world's most notorious terrorism suspects just steps from the U.S. Capitol, the Associated Press reports. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1783 - 15/1/2010, 14:14 | |
| Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race By Jessica Van Sack
Friday, January 15, 2010 - Updated 3h ago
+ Recent Articles + Recent Blog Entries + Email + Bio General Assignment ReporterJessica Van Sack is the Herald's Boston police bureau chief covering crime and justice. She works out of City Hall where you can send tips to jvansack@bostonherald.com. - Spoiler:
Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.
Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.
“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”
The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.
Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.
Given the 4.4-point margin of error, the poll shows Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said. But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy - and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.”
Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.
The poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday, surveyed 500 registered likely voters who knew the date of Tuesday’s election. It shows Brown leading all regions of the state except Suffolk County.
“Either Brown’s momentum accelerates and his lead widens, or this becomes a wake-up call for Coakley to become the ‘Comeback Kid’ this weekend,” Paleologos said.
And with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade.
The poll surveyed a carefully partitioned electorate meant to match voter turnout: 39 percent Democrat, 15 percent Republican and 45 percent unenrolled.
Brown wins among men and is remarkably competitive among women - trailing Coakley’s 50 percent with 45 percent.
While Brown has 91 percent of registered Republicans locked up, an astonishing 17 percent of Democrats report they’re jumping ship for Brown as well - likely a product of Coakley’s laser-focus on hard-core Dems, potentially at the exclusion of other Democrats whom she needed to win over, Paleologos said.
For Coakley, Brown’s surge may be as ominous as the fact that her campaign’s peril is not fully recognized, with 64 percent of voters still believing she’ll win - a perception that threatens to keep her supporters home.
Brown’s popularity is solid. He enjoys a 57 percent favorability rating compared to just 19 percent unfavorable. Coakley’s favorability is 49 percent; her unfavorability, 41 percent.
No longer does Brown suffer from a name-recognition problem, with 95 percent of voters having heard of him statewide.
7News Political Editor Andy Hiller said, “Voters obviously think Brown is running a better campaign than Coakley. For months, it has been Coakley’s race to lose, and now in the last days that’s exactly what she may be doing.”
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 15/1/2010, 14:53 | |
| Why Doctors Are Abandoning Medicare[/i]Why Doctors are Abandoning Medicare
By C.L. Gray
- FOXNews.com
Physicians will not be bullied into bankruptcy. Our system needs reform, but what's being hammered out in Washington is not the answer.
Why Doctors Are Abandoning Medicare[/i]Two weeks ago the Mayo Clinic shocked the nation when it closed the doors of one of its Arizona clinics to patients on Medicare. Just this past June President Obama himself praised Mayo as a model of medical efficiency noting that Mayo gives “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” If Mayo feels compelled to walk away from this government-run program, others will surely follow. The nation must understand why.
Doctors are leaving Medicare for two reasons: one obvious, the other more concealed.
Why Doctors Are Abandoning Medicare[/i]
Why Doctors Are Abandoning Medicare[/i]The first is simple—the math:
1) For the past decade Medicare consistently paid physicians 20% less than traditional insurance companies for identical service.
2) On January 1, 2010 Washington made hidden cuts to Medicare by altering its billing codes.
3) Medicare will cut physician reimbursement by another 21% on March 1. The CBO said this cut must take place if the Senate healthcare bill was to “reduced the deficit.”
Even more, Congress pledged to cut Medicare by yet another $500 billion. Again, the CBO said this additional cut must take place if the Senate healthcare bill was to “reduced the deficit.”
Many physicians were operating at a loss even before this series of massive cuts. In 2008, Mayo Clinic posted an $840 million loss in caring for Medicare patients. No businesses can survive when patient care expenses exceed revenue.
The second is more ominous—Washington’s increasingly abusive posture toward physicians.
President Obama reflected this attitude last summer. On national television, he stated as fact a surgeon is paid between $30,000 and $50,000 for amputating a patient’s foot.
In reality, a surgeon is paid between $740 and $1,140 to perform this unfortunate, but often life-saving procedure. This reimbursement must cover a pre-operative evaluation the day of surgery, the surgery, and follow-up for 90 days after surgery—not to mention malpractice insurance, salaries for clinic nurses, and clinic overhead. It is frightening to think our president is so wildly misinformed even as he stands on the cusp of overhauling American health care. But it gets worse.
Given massive federal deficits, Washington now faces increasing pressure to cut Medicare spending. One way to do this is to intimidate physicians into under-billing. To do this Washington intends to spend tax payer dollars to ramp up physician audits using Recovery Audit Contractors (RAC audits) to randomly investigate private physician’s Medicare billing.
A physician group at my hospital recently experienced an AdvanceMed audit, an earlier version of the RAC. For a year Medicare auditors made their practice a living hell, making them question if it was worth caring for Medicare patients at all.
An independent reviewer (who was paid a percentage of the audit) reviewed 86 patient records and “found” the physicians had “fraudulently billed” Medicare for $351,820. After spending a year fighting the allegations, eventually, eventually all charges were dropped. The physician group was vindicated but only after spending almost $100,000 defending themselves. The independent reviewers were clearly after money, not justice.
For example, one patient the auditor alleged the group had “fraudulently” billed for was a man undergoing a chemical stress test. The allegation was the patient should have undergone a cheaper traditional treadmill stress test. The difficulty with this accusation was this man was a double amputee—he had no legs. This made a traditional treadmill test impossible. The auditors clearly were not trained health care professionals—they were bounty hunters. (It is worth noting the investigators are given legal immunity from a countersuit for conducting a “fraudulent investigation.”)
This story is not unique. To reduce Medicare’s budget shortfall physicians are being subjected to these abusive investigations nationwide. If medicine increasingly falls under government control, why should the best and the brightest of our youth give up 15 years of their life to go into medicine?
Why Doctors Are Abandoning Medicare[/i]
The relationship between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the average working physician has become abusive. Mayo is but the first to make the leap to less government control by closing its doors to some patients on Medicare.
Washington, slow down and listen; reconsider what you are about to do. Physicians cannot be bullied into bankruptcy. Our system needs reform, but this is not it. If you continue on your present course, sadly, it will be our seniors that pay the price.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1785 - 15/1/2010, 15:42 | |
| Gros problemes de debit sur internet, tres difficile de formater (aucun icone)
'Very angry' Democrat sounds alarm
By JOHN BRESNAHAN & PATRICK O'CONNOR | 1/15/10 4:41 AM EST
Democrats moved closer to a final deal on health care reform Thursday — and for some vulnerable members, the end can’t come soon enough.
In an emotional talk with other Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee this week, North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy said the protracted debate is hurting him so badly back home that he might as well retire if it drags on much longer.
A Democrat who attended the Ways and Means session said Pomeroy was “very angry” as he spoke about the delay. “Other folks were upset, but he was the maddest by far.”
“I believe Congress needs to resolve fairly quickly this protracted health care debate,” Pomeroy told POLITICO on Thursday. “We have a number of other issues that haven’t been able to get enough attention, because health care is taking up all the floor time, all of the attention. We need to move on.”
Pomeroy is hardly alone.
...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31530.html |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1786 - 16/1/2010, 09:02 | |
| JANUARY 14, 2010, 10:35 P.M. ET[/color] The Health Lady Has Yet to SingObamaCare is still no sure thing. Republican Scott Brown is running strong in Massachusetts on a promise to be the 41st vote against health care in the Senate. Democrats' bigger worry right now is whether Mr. Brown might prove the 218th vote against health care in the House. - Spoiler:
The drama of a Christmas Eve health vote left the country with a feeling of ObamaCare inevitability. The Senate was, after all, the heavy lift. If the White House could just bag Nebraska's Ben Nelson and other Senate teases, this debate would be over, save the regulating. A brief ping-pong between the chambers, and Mr. Obama would have his State of the Union triumph. Political memories are short. Think back to November, when Nancy Pelosi was attempting her own clean-and-jerk of health care. It took three weeks of bribes, cajoling and threats for speaker to eke out a three-vote margin. The action is now back in the House and here's what Ways and Means don Charlie Rangel had to say about it this week: We've got "a serious problem." Martin Kozlowski The biggest problem is that January isn't November. In November, when moderates such as California's Dennis Cardoza were being squeezed for last-minute yes votes, they could take solace that the public was still open to congressional action. This week's Quinnipiac poll has 34% of respondents "mostly" approving the bill. A token 26% of independents back it. In November, House Democrats were being reassured by a relatively popular president. Gallup this week has a mere 37% of Americans approving of his handling of health care. The president has moved from asset to liability. In November, House Democrats had not yet absorbed the wipeout of the Virginia and New Jersey elections. They hadn't witnessed four prominent House members choose to retire rather than face defeat, or two powerful incumbent senators follow suit. They hadn't seen Alabama Democrat Parker Griffith sprint to the Republican side. They weren't holding 40 of the 50 most competitive House seats. They hadn't caught a new poll that is all the congressional gossip right now, showing that North Carolina freshman Democrat Larry Kissell remains relatively popular in his conservative district and easily leads potential Republican opponents. Mr. Kissell was a no vote on health care. What makes the poll particularly relevant is data that shows that among the 44% of voters who incorrectly believe Mr. Kissell voted for the bill, the matchups are tied. Among the 29% who correctly understand he voted against the legislation, Mr. Kissell wins huge. Finally, House Dems hadn't been presented with the mind-blowing sight of a Republican Senate contender running openly against health-care reform—in a state that went 26 points for Mr. Obama—and getting somewhere. "There are a lot of [Democrats] asking the question: There's a need for health-care reform, but our constituents just don't want this, and who are we to say they are wrong?" said one Democratic staffer for a member from a more conservative House district. This is why Mrs. Pelosi (still) has a math challenge. Of her three-yes-vote margin, Democrat Robert Wexler has resigned; his seat remains unfilled until April. Republican Joseph Cao won't be the final vote for a Democratic bill. As for the 39 Dems who initially voted against the legislation, a vote flip now would be an invitation to be singled out—a la Blanche Lincoln—as the individual who brought the nation ObamaCare.The potential for flips the other way is big. Michigan pro-lifer Bart Stupak is still vowing that he and up to 10 other Democrats will bolt without his abortion language. Some 190 members have signed a letter demanding the end of the tax on high-value health plans—which President Obama needs to fund the bill. Liberals are still vowing revenge for the death of the public option (though the Award for Most Empty Threats in One Debate still goes to this crew.) House Republicans smell at least a whiff of blood, enough to launch a campaign targeting 37 Democrats who may have a case of yes-vote regrets. These include members like Oregon freshman Kurt Schrader; 49% of his seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which will be gutted under the legislation. Also up for special attention are Democrats hailing from flat-broke states that will nonetheless be saddled with huge new Medicaid costs under the bill. Critics of the legislation shouldn't get their hopes too high. The Democratic leadership is now clinically obsessed with passage. No first-round yes vote has yet jumped ship, and even if some do, Mrs. Pelosi has options. Prior no votes might be convinced that a more "moderate" Senate bill gives them cover to flip. Three no votes, including Tennessee's John Tanner, are retiring, and may feel liberated. The White House no doubt has a list of plum jobs it can offer people as consolation prizes for voting yes and losing their seats.The point is rather that there is now officially enough nervousness that anything can happen. Whatever the Tuesday election outcome, Mr. Brown already claims victory for rattling Democratic minds. And should he win, health care becomes even more toxic. This isn't over yet.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1787 - 16/1/2010, 09:22 | |
| Les Democrates qui expliquent 1) que les sondages ne veulent rien dire (dans ce cas pourquoi Clinton, Kerry, Obama se deplacent-ils dans un etat qui ne compte que 12% de Republicains? pourquoi depensent-ils 4 millions de dollars par jour sur les chaines a attaquer Brown) 2) que tout depend de qui ira voter (c'est tout-a-fait exact), si tous les electeurs potentiels Democrates vont voter (avec seulement 12% de Republicains) ca devrait etre une victoire somptueuse! Alors attendons les resultats, mardi, oui De toutes facons, il est evident que meme si Coakley passe, le ton anti-Obamacare est donne dans cet etat liberal et dans une campagne electorale pour le siege occupe par Kennedy jusqu'en aout dernier, lui dont le projet cheri etait ce qu'Obamacare ne peut meme pas arriver a obtenir de tous les Democrates (les Republicains n'entrant meme pas en ligne de compte) un systeme medical socialiste totalement sous l'emprise du gouvernement. Stars converge on political HubBy JONATHAN MARTIN | 1/15/10 8:53 PM EST Martha Coakley and Scott Brown brought in a pair of prominent allies to underline what's at stake in Tuesday's special election. Photo: AP photo composite by POLITICO
BOSTON – With the fate of health care reform potentially hanging in the balance, the two candidates vying to fill the seat of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy brought in a pair of prominent allies Friday to underline what’s at stake in Tuesday’s special election. - Spoiler:
Former President Bill Clinton rallied voters for state Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Democrat, while former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani stumped with state Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican in the suddenly epochal battle here over the Democrats 60-seat Senate majority.
Few would have expected when the election began to see such political star-power four days before voters head to the polls, since few thought a Republican could capture the seat held by Kennedy for 47 years, in a state where the GOP makes up less than 12 percent of the electorate.
But the confluence of a lackluster campaign by Coakley and a boiling anger toward the political status quo has galvanized Brown, turning a National Guard JAG officer previously best known for posing in the buff for Cosmo as a young man and having a daughter compete on “American Idol” into what Republicans hope is the leading indicator of a national resurgence.
That Brown could actually win the race, and not just send a scare into Democrats, was brought into stark relief with the Boston Herald’s screaming headline Friday morning: “Great Scott!”
The wonder was over Brown leading Coakley by four percentage points in a new poll, a development that has lifted already-energized Republicans, further rattled deeply worried Democrats and prompted a last-minute rescue mission from President Obama, who is to appear with Coakley here Sunday.
Three of the Democratic speakers who preceded Coakley at an afternoon rally Friday mentioned the polls, attempting the time-honored political tradition of simultaneously raising the threat of defeat to rouse party loyalists while dismissing the surveys to soothe nerves.
Clinton tried the first approach.
“The reason these polls are all over the place is nobody knows who’s going to show up,” he explained to a hotel ballroom full of Democrats.
Recalling the election cycle many Republicans hope to replicate, Clinton warned: “What happened in 1994 was a two-point deficit, which was a normal, minor change in a mid-term election turned into a six-and-half point differential because of who showed up.”
Sen. John F. Kerry offered the balm.
“There’s nothing like one bad poll to get good results, folks,” he said, recalling a similar survey, with a similar Herald headline, that had him trailing in his hard-fought 1996 election against former Gov. William Weld. “The real poll came back on Tuesday.”
Not wanting to appear overconfident, Brown and Giuliani made no mention of the poll in a morning appearance together in a North End park. And when the candidate was asked about it by a reporter, he dismissed the survey before emphasizing what he’s up against in the liberal state, especially now that Massachusetts and Washington Democrats have become alerted to the t
threat.
“Four million dollars worth of bricks are raining down on my head every second,” Brown said, alluding to the negative TV ads saturating the Bay State’s airwaves.
Yet the Republican has his own attack commercials on the air and has become the beneficiary of a flood of national conservative money as the race has grown increasingly competitive.
For Brown and the GOP, victory would carry both substantive and symbolic meaning. As the 41st Senate Republican, he could help block the Democratic agenda all year, starting with the centerpiece of Obama’s preeminent domestic priority, healthcare.
But for the party to capture Kennedy’s seat, scoring a victory in a bulwark of the Democratic establishment, would illustrate the potential gains they could make this fall and send a resounding message that no seat is safe.
And, Republicans hope, it could force Democrats to recalibrate their policies.
“We’re right here in the shadow of Paul Revere who warned about danger and woke up the people of Massachusetts and New England at a much earlier time in our history,” Giuliani said, standing aside Brown in the park that bears the name of the Revolutionary hero. “And we need Scott now to wake us up about some of the mistakes that we’re making.”
He meant the Democrats’ policies on terrorism, health care and spending. But in a state where independents make up just more than half of all voters, even as Giuliani trumpeted what a Republican win here could mean, he was careful not to portray a possible Brown win as a victory for the Republican party.
“Let’s send a signal that Massachusetts is once against (?) independent,” said the former mayor.
But if Giuliani didn’t want to paint Brown as a conservative, others supporting him were happy to do so.
“That’s the Old North Church,” said Gary Rizzuto, a painter from Stoneham, pointing toward the famous steeple. “You know the story to that? One if (by) land, two if by sea. We’re coming by steam roller. Scott Brown and the conservative revolution – we’re coming by steam roller.”
Joe Marino, a Brown supporter from Easton with roots in the North End, offered a more on-message assessment.
“I don’t care if it’s a Republican or a Democrat, if they get 60 votes in the Senate it just sways everything to one side,” said Marino, like many at the rally and others who once hailed from the heavily Italian neighborhood an ex-Democrat. “They don’t have to talk to the other side. At least if they get Scott Brown in they have to talk now. They’d have some balance.”
That’s what Republicans are hoping to leave with the state’s voters. It’s effectively a federal version of the same plea that helped elect a succession of Republican governors here, the idea that Massachusetts’s overwhelmingly left-leaning lawmakers need a check.
Brown made the comparison outright in what he said was his message for Democrats.
“Right now it’s broken here on Beacon Hill, there’s one-party rule that’s contributed to three speakers being indicted, three senators resigning in disgrace, one in jail right now,’ said the state senator. “And in Washington there is no debate. Everything is being done in the backrooms. We’ve lost faith.”
As he and Giuliani made the traditional stroll down along the bakeries, gelato shops and Italian restaurants that dot Hanover Street, Brown put it even more concisely.
“People are tired of business as usual in Washington, it’s pretty simple,” he told POLITICO.
Despite having little statewide profile prior to his senate bid, Brown and what he represents has plainly captured the attention of a segment of the population here. Scores of voters, including union members, approached him to offer their support and nearly as many asked to have their photograph with him as with Giuliani, who’s still a hero to many Italian-Americans here.
Yet across town at the historic Fairmont Copley Plaza, Democrats said Brown’s election would represent a restoration of the despised Bush era and worsen gridlock in the nation’s capital
“We’re fighting the same folks who made the mess we’re in,” exclaimed Gov. Deval Patrick.
Rep. Ed Markey, the senior member of the state’s congressional delegation, said in an interview with POLITICO that a vote for Brown would be a vote for policies far out of step with the Massachusetts mainstream.
“He wants to go down and be the 41st vote and that’s a vote for the agenda that built Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich and George Bush and Dick Cheney, coming from out of Texas and out of the Deep South,” Markey said Coakley, speaking nearly two hours after her event was supposed to begin, seized on Brown’s opposition to the new Obama proposal that would levy a fee on big banks to recoup bailout dollars – a stance Democrats think could imperil his populist credentials.
“Scott Brown says that it’s ok that the CEOs can line their pockets and forget about what taxpayers did last fall to protect against a deep, deep recession,” Coakley said (Talking to reporters, Brown said he was against the proposal because the banks would pass on the increase to consumers).
Kerry, in his remarks, acknowledged that “there is anger out there” and called it justified, given the country’s economic straits.
But he said: “Let’s not forget where that anger out to be directed. It ought to be directed at the people, and the principles and the policies and the party that threw out the regulators and opened the floodgates of greed.” *2
And like the other speakers, the state’s new senior senator used unambiguous language to make Tuesday’s stakes clear.
“The voting here is going to determine the balance of power in America* and with it going to determine the fate of what we started with Barack Obama a little over a year ago,” Kerry said.
*1 Oui Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac sous le regard beat de Barney Frank et la benediction d'un Congres dirige par Nancy  *2 Or so it should!
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1788 - 16/1/2010, 10:21 | |
| JANUARY 14, 2010, 10:35 P.M. ET Don't Shoot the PollsterAttacks on Scott Rasmussen and Fox News show a disturbing attitude toward dissent.By PATRICK CADDELL AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN Polling is both an art and a science, but recently it's also become a subject of political intimidation.- Spoiler:
One shot was fired by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Dec. 8, when he dismissed Gallup's daily tracking of President Obama's job approval. It had hit a record low of 47%, and Mr. Gibbs called the results meaningless:
"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG I'd visit my doctor. If you look back I think five days ago. . . there was an 11 point spread, now there's a one point spread. . . I'm sure a six-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to meaninglessness."
Polling is a science because it requires a range of sampling techniques to be used to select a sample. It is an art because constructing a sample and asking questions is something that requires skill, experience and intellectual integrity. The possibility of manipulation—or, indeed, intimidation—is great.
A recent case in point is what has happened to Scott Rasmussen, an independent pollster we both work with, who has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy. Mr. Rasmussen correctly predicted the 2004 and 2008 presidential races within a percent, and accurately called the vast majority of contested Senate races in 2004 and 2006. His work has sometimes been of concern for Republicans, particularly when they were losing congressional seats in 2004 and 2006.
Most recently, Mr. Rasmussen has been the leader in chronicling the decline in the public's support for President Obama. And so he has been the target of increasingly virulent attacks from left-wing bloggers seeking to undermine his credibility, and thus muffle his findings. A Politico piece, "Low Favorables: Democrats Rip Rasmussen," reported on the attacks from blogs like the Daily Kos, Swing State Project, and Media Matters.
"Rasmussen Caught With Their Thumb on the Scale," cried the Daily Kos last summer. "Rasmussen Reports, You Decide," the blog Swing State Project headlined not long ago in a play on the Fox News motto.
"I don't think there are Republican polling firms that get as good a result as Rasmussen does," Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with the progressive research outfit Media Matters, said in a Jan. 2 Politico article. "His data looks like it all comes out of the RNC."
Liberals have also noted that Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking polls have consistently placed Mr. Obama's approval numbers around five percentage points lower than other polling outfits throughout the year. This is because Rasmussen surveys likely voters, who are now more Republican in orientation than the overall electorate. (Gallup and other pollsters survey the entire adult population.) On other key issues like health care, Rasmussen's numbers have been echoed by everyone else.
Mr. Rasmussen, who is avowedly not part of the Beltway crowd in Washington, has been willing to take on issues like ethics and corruption in ways no other pollsters have been able to do. He was also one of the first pollsters to stress people's real fear of the growing size of government, the size of the deficit, and the concern about spending at a time when these issues were not really on Washington's radar screen.
The reaction against him has been strident and harsh. He's been called an adjunct of the Republican Party when in fact he has never worked for any political party. Nor has he consulted with any candidates seeking elective office.
The attacks on Rasmussen and Gallup follow an effort by the White House to wage war on Fox News and to brand it, as former White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn did, as "not a real news organization." The move backfired; in time, other news organizations rallied around Fox News. But the message was clear: criticize the White House at your peril.
As pollsters for two Democratic presidents who served before Barack Obama, we view this unprecedented attempt to silence the media and to attack the credibility of unpopular polling as chilling to the free exercise of democracy.
This is more than just inside baseball. As practicing political consultants, both of us have seen that the established parties try to stifle dissent among their political advisers and consultants. The parties go out of their way to try to determine in advance what questions will be asked and what answers will be obtained to reinforce existing party messages. The thing most feared is independence, which is what Mr. Rasmussen brings.
Mr. Gibbs's comments and the recent attempts by the Democratic left to muzzle Scott Rasmussen reflect a disturbing trend in our politics: a tendency to try to stifle legitimate feedback about political concerns—particularly if the feedback is negative to the incumbent administration.
Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "The Political Fix" just out from Henry Holt.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1789 - 16/1/2010, 11:15 | |
| Un autre Representant Democrate de l'Assemblee se retire... C'est la fouite... January 15, 2010, 6:44 pm Another House Democrat Bows OutBy JANIE LORBERRepresentative Vic Snyder of Arkansas announced Friday evening that he would not run for re-election in November, becoming the 11th House Democrat to bow out in the tough political environment. - Spoiler:
“2010 will be a robust election year during which great forces collide to set the direction for our country for another two years,” Mr. Snyder, 62, said in a statement. “I have concluded that these election-year forces are no match for the persuasive and powerful attraction of our three one-year old boys under the leadership of their three-year old brother, and I have decided not to run for re-election.”
Mr. Snyder, a seven-term lawmaker who was a certain target for Republicans this fall, faces a formidable Republican opponent in Tim Griffin, a former U.S. attorney.
Mr. Snyder has won past re-election bids comfortably, but his district has become increasingly conservative during his tenure, voting for 54 percent to 44 percent for John McCain in 2008.
His announcement comes after a poll commissioned by the liberal blog Firedoglake reported Thursday that Mr. Snyder was trailing the well-funded Mr. Griffin by 17 points.
|
| | | | jam
Nombre de messages : 1404
Age : 69
Localisation : saint-nectaire land
Date d'inscription : 02/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 16/1/2010, 15:42 | |
| sylvette,
j'ai un peu du mal à suivre tous ces articles supposés être contre le parti démocrate
pour moi, ça n'a aucun sens
c'est de la pure idéologie
c'est juste comme un jeu d'essayer de trouver tout ce que les "démocrates" font mal ou tout ce que les "républicains" font bien
mais en définitive si obama était républicain vous pourriez défendre ce qu'il fait et si bush était démocrate vous pourriez le critiquer
en réalité l'idée c'est de voir ce que chacun fait de positif ou pas
si c'est positif faut continuer c'est c'est négatif faut arrêter
par exemple, obama veut arrêter des choses qui sont négatives
on se fiche de savoir si c'est un républicain ou un démocrate qui a mis en place cette chose
mettons il veut arrêter la guerre
c'est parce que de son point de vue c'est négatif
et qu'il a été élu certainement parce qu'une majorité pense que c'est négatif
et aussi parce qu'en dehors des usa, plein de gens pensent que c'est négatif
et que les guerres ont donné une image négative des usa au reste du monde
et qu'une image négative c'est bon pour personne
alors je vais être "docteur" avec vous
au lieu de vous polariser sur la rivalité démocrate républicain,
pensez par vous même
par votre propre conscience
envisagez la politique par le côté positif vs négatif
mais non pas par une idéologie virtuelle, fictive et historiquement dépassée
jam, | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | jam
Nombre de messages : 1404
Age : 69
Localisation : saint-nectaire land
Date d'inscription : 02/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 16/1/2010, 17:32 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- oui Jam!!!
Vous avez l'esprit si ouvert, contrairement a moi, et de toute evidence vous avez si bien compris la situation que ca fait vraiment plaisir. Il faudra que vous m'expliquiez un jour.. "compris la situation" mais quelle situation ? il y a juste des actes qui produisent des effets la guerre produit des effets négatifs, quelque soit celui qui l'a engagée ou qui est supposé en être "responsable" il faut donc tout mettre en oeuvre pour que ces actes cessent si vous cherchez des "preuves" que les démocrates sont des vilains et que les républicains sont des gentils, vous n'arriverez à rien parce que de toute manière il y aura toujours quelqu'un pour faire une connerie quelque soit son camp "d'appartenance" c'est une lutte sans fin et qui ne peut aboutir qu'à créer une mauvaise ambiance parce qu'on cherche à créer une confusion entre la responsabilité de l'individu de celle de son appartenance les gentils américains tuent des milliers de vilains musulmans, c'est donc bien c'est de la démagogie façon sarah palin "nous on est dans le camp des gentils" forcément !! personne n'irait se présenter en disant qu'il est un vilain et qu'il va en faire baver ses électeurs une fois qu'il sera élu mais la politique "politicienne" ça consiste uniquement à faire croire ça de l'opposant ça ne se base pas sur les intentions ni les actes, ça se base sur la démonisation de l'autre en plus, on le remarque très souvent, ceux qui démonisent sont ceux qui font ce qu'ils dénoncent (dans la série "c'est celui qui le dit qui l'est") c'est comme ça qu'on a souvent vu des prêcheurs du puritanisme se retrouver avec une affaire d'adultère et les militaires tuent des gens mais ils diront toujours que c'est pour protéger la paix (on n'a jamais vu de raisonnement plus aberrant que celui-ci) mais le plus extraordinaire c'est qu'il y ait tant de gens qui croient à ce genre de discours c'est là que se situe la difficulté à "expliquer" à ces gens comment ils se trompent et votre façon de railler en disant "vous avez si bien compris la situation que ca fait vraiment plaisir" vous aussi vous êtes capable de comprendre la situation en principe vous avez tout ce qu'il faut pour ça et apparemment vous l'avez pourtant, vous refusez de le faire parce que ça va contre votre idéologie c'est l'idéologie qui fait qu'on croit ce que dit un chef pas la raison mais objectivement, personne n'a besoin de croire quelqu'un d'autre, fut-il chef le craindre, s'en méfier, oui surtout si c'est une question de survie mais le croire c'est inutile jam, | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1793 - 16/1/2010, 18:46 | |
| Jam Pour l'instant il n'est absolument pas question de guerre mais du fait que le gouvernement Obama et les leaders Democrates du Congres soient en train de passer une nouvelle loi concernant la Sante a laquelle la majorite des Americains est opposee. Mardi, et contre toute attente, une election va avoir lieu au Massachussetts. Le siege a gagne: celui qu'occupait Kennedy. Jusqu'a il y a 2 ou 3 semaines, la candadiate Democrate avait 30 points d'avance, aujourd'hui le candidat Republicain en a 4 d'avance sur elle. Les grosses tetes Democrates qui ont autre chose a faire (Health Care pour Obama, Haiti pour Clinton, etc.) se succedent pour soutenir Oakley et essayer de limiter les degats Le Massachussetts a un systeme social comparable a Obamacare et ses residents n'en sont pas satisfaient; ils ne souhaitent pas voir la nouvelle loi mise en vigueur au niveau national. Ils n'apprecient pas non plus que les Democrates locaux jugent tout-a-fait normal qu'ils votent pour eux. Si le Massachussetts elit Scott Brown, ce qui est loin d'etre sur, cet etat etant un des plus bleus des Etats Unis, la balance des pouvoirs se redressera et il y aura une chance pour qu'Obamacare ne passe pas et que le programme extra-liberal de Barack Obama, dont la majorite des Americains ne veulent pas, soit bloque. De plus, cette vague risque de deferler a travers les Etats Unis jusqu'en novembre prochain. Rien a voir avec qui, des deux partis politiques, est bon ou mechant. Ceci dit, Mr. Obama a repris la guerre en Afghanistan a son nom, et nos soldats sont toujours en Irak.  Si vous aviez reellement lu et compris les articles postes des derniers jours, vous le sauriez, mais bon, celui qui ne veut pas comprendre, c'est un peu comme celui qui ne veut pas entendre, n'est-ce-pas?  |
| | | | 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 16/1/2010, 18:57 | |
| ... ca aussi, oui... |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1796 - 17/1/2010, 09:42 | |
| January 15, 2010 3:36 PM Mark Steyn: Can Obama Hold Teddy's seat By MARK STEYNSyndicated columnistletters@ocregister.comI've been out of the country for a couple of days, so let me see if I've got this right:America's preparing to celebrate the first anniversary of Good King Barack the Hopeychanger's reign by electing a Republican?In Massachusetts?- Spoiler:
In what the tin-eared plonkers of the Democrat machine still insist on calling "Ted Kennedy's seat"?Remember the good old days when the glossy magazine covers competed for the most worshipful image of the new global colossus? If you were at the Hopeychange inaugural ball on Jan. 20, 2009, when Barney Frank dived into the mosh pit, and you chanced to be underneath when he landed, and you've spent the past year in a coma, until suddenly coming to in time for the poll showing some unexotically monikered nobody called Scott Brown, whose only glossy magazine appearance was a Cosmopolitan pictorial 30 years ago (true), four points ahead in Kennedy country, you must surely wonder if you've woken up in an alternative universe. The last thing you remember before Barney came flying down is Harry Reid waltzing you round the floor while murmuring sweet nothings about America being ready for a light-skinned brown man with no trace of a Negro dialect. And now you're in some dystopian nightmare where Massachusetts is ready for a nude-skinned Brown man with no trace of a Kennedy dialect.How can this be happening?You don't need to have been in an actual coma. Subscribing to The Boston Globe, the unreadable and increasingly unread Massachusetts snooze-sheet, has much the same effect. As the house organ of a decrepit one-party state, the Globe endorsed Martha Coakley with nary a thought using its Sober Thoughtful Massachusetts Election Editorial template ("[INSERT NAME OF CAREERIST HACK HERE] For Governor/Senator/Mayor/Whatever") and dutifully obscured what happened when one of the candidate's minders shoved to the sidewalk a reporter who had the lese majeste to ask an unhelpful question. If you're one of the dwindling band of Bay Staters who rely on the Globe for your news, you would never have known that a Massachusetts pseudo-"election" had bizarrely morphed into a real one – you know, with two candidates, just like they have in Bulgaria and places. On Friday, the paper finally acknowledged that something goofy was happening: As the revealing headline put it, "Race Is In A Spinout." As in "spinning out of control"? You mean, out of the control of the party and its dopey media cheerleaders? What they really mean is that the Democrats' coronation procession is in a spinout.Now this is Massachusetts, so the Dems may yet regain control of the spinout and get back on track for victory. If not, they've already taken the precaution of tossing Martha Coakley under the bus the way her minder sent that guy to the sidewalk. Martha? Oh, hopeless candidate.Terrible campaign. Difficult climate. Yes, but this is Massachusetts.Tone-deaf candidates running on nothing but a sense of their own entitlement are all but compulsory: This is a land where John Kerry demonstrates the common touch by windsurfing off Nantucket in buttock-hugging yellow Spandex.As for the "climate," that gets closer to the truth, but, as my colleague Jonah Goldberg pointed out, in this case the Democrats created the climate. If Scott Brown gives Martha Coakley a run for her money on Election Day, Jan. 19, 2010, will be a direct consequence of Jan. 20, 2009. Once upon a time, Barack Obama, in the words of Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, was "standing above the country, above the world, he's sort of God." Seeking to explain why the God of Hope had fallen farther faster than any modern president, David Brooks of the New York Times argued that the tea-party movement had declared war on "the educated class." He seemed to think this was some sort of inverted snobbery: If "the educated class" is for it – "health" "care" "reform," cap-and-trade, Miranda rights for terrorists – Joe Six-Pack and his fellow knuckledragging morons are reflexively opposed to it.This almost exactly inverts what really happened over this past year."The educated class" turned out to be not that educated – if, by "educated," you mean knowing stuff. They were dazzled by Obama: My former National Review colleague Christopher Buckley wrote cooing paeans to his “first-class intellect” and “temperament.” I used to joke that “temperament” was for the Obammysoxers of “the educated class” what hair was to Tiger Beat reporters. But you don't really need analogies. As David Brooks noted after his first meeting with Obama, "I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I'm thinking, a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president." And once you raised your eyes above pant level it only got better: "Our national oratorical superhero," gushed New York magazine, "a honey-tongued Frankenfusion of Lincoln, Gandhi, Cicero, Jesus, and all our most cherished national acronyms (MLK, JFK, RFK, FDR)."Where'd that guy go? "People once thought Obama could sound eloquent reading the phone book," wrote Michael Gerson in The Washington Post last week. "Now, whatever the topic, it often sounds as though he is." If the educated class's pant legs weren't as perfectly creased as Obama's, that's because they were soaking wet. While the smart set were demonstrating all the sober forensic analysis of a Jonas Brothers audience, the naysayers were looking at the actual policies: What is this going to cost me? And my children? And the country? A week before the presidential election, I wrote in this space:"Settled democratic societies rarely vote to 'go left.' Yet oddly enough that's where they've all gone. In its assumptions about the size of the state and the role of government, almost every advanced nation is more left than it was, and getting lefter."For the most part, that's just the ratchet effect of Big Government, growing, expanding, remorselessly, under cover of darkness. What happened this past year is that Obama and the Democratic Congress made it explicit, and did it in daylight. And, while Barack may be cool and stellar if you're as gullible as "the educated class," Nancy Pelosi and Ben Nelson most certainly aren't: There's no klieg light of celebrity to dazzle you from the very obvious reality that they're spending your money way faster than you can afford and with no inclination to stop."The educated class" is apparently too educated to grasp this insufficiently nuanced point.It's not just the money. The notion that the IRS should be able to seize your assets if you don't arrange your health care to the approval of the federal government represents the de facto nationalization of your body, which is about as primal an assault on individual liberty as one could devise.As Michael Barone observed, "the educated class" was dazzled by style, the knuckledragging morons are talking about substance. They grasp that another year of 2,000-page, trillion-dollar government-growing bills offers America only the certainty of decline. Just before the Senate's health care vote, Obama, the silver-tongued orator, declared that we were "on the precipice" of historic reform. Indeed. On Tuesday, we'll find out whether even Massachusetts is willing to follow him off the cliff. MARK STEYN
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/1/2010, 12:00 | |
| EVERYBODY SHOULD READ THIS:
Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?
Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?
Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV or Radio?
Didn't think so. Very few people do know!!!
Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.
Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.
Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his 'allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,' defiantly stating, 'I think I will not apologize for my actions,' and told the court 'I am at war with your country.'
Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:
January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid.
Judge Young: 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.
On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)
On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.
The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.
This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.
Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.
You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not ----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal.'
You are no big deal.
What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led
you here to this courtroom today?
I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.
It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.
We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to Preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.
Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to
mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.
See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America . That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag Stands for freedom. And it always will.
Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.
So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young. Pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1798 - 17/1/2010, 21:00 | |
|  Blue State Blues
Blame Obama
By Jeff JacobyGlobe Columnist /January 17, 2010
EDWARD M. Kennedy has been gone less than five months, but in political terms he is already ancient history. For 47 years he represented Massachusetts in the US Senate; in his home state, no one wielded greater influence or cast a longer shadow. As recently as a few weeks ago, it was taken for granted that the race for the seat he occupied for so long would be shaped unmistakably by his legacy.- Spoiler:
But that’s not at all the way this campaign has worked out. As Tuesday’s special election approaches, Massachusetts voters are not being driven by their esteem for Kennedy’s memory or by affection for his family. Indeed, far from advancing what Kennedy called the cause of his life - universal health care - hundreds of thousands of Bay State voters are fired up in supporting a candidate who promises to derail it.
For the first time in two generations, the outcome of a US Senate campaign in Massachusetts is not a foregone conclusion. Whatever happens on Tuesday, this much is clear: Democrat Martha Coakley will not win in a cakewalk, and Republican Scott Brown will not be a sacrificial lamb. Heading into the final weekend, two of the country’s most respected political handicappers - Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook - pronounced the Bay State Senate contest a “toss-up.’’ A new Suffolk University poll showed Brown surging into the lead, with 50 percent of likely voters supporting him vs. 46 percent for Coakley.
How can this be happening? This is the bluest state of them all - a state without a single Republican in Congress or in statewide office, a state Barack Obama won in a landslide. How can the Senate race be too close to call?
Part of the answer, of course, is that Brown has proved an engaging and indefatigable candidate, while Coakley’s campaign has been plagued with gaffes and missteps. Her claim in last week’s televised debate that the terrorists in Afghanistan are “not there anymore’’ suggested a dangerous naiveté on national security, while her huffy response when asked why she has been such a passive campaigner - “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ - came across as sneering and elitist.
But ultimately the Massachusetts Senate campaign is not about Brown’s personal appeal or Coakley’s shortcomings on the stump. It is about something bigger. This race is a referendum on Barack Obama and the Democratic ascendancy in Washington.
When Obama was inaugurated a year ago this week, he was hailed by his supporters as a political messiah who would transform American politics, ushering in a new era of hope and goodwill. Never had a new administration been greeted with such rapturous enthusiasm. “Obama’s standing above the country, above the world,’’ Newsweek editor Evan Thomas exulted. “He’s sort of God.’’
What Obama and his party delivered, however, was not uplifting and transparent bipartisanship.
It was trillion-dollar increases in government spending. It was party-line votes on 2,000-page bills. It was “cash-for-cloture’’ backroom deals. It was tone-deaf boasts about millions of jobs “created or saved,’’ even as unemployment soared into double digits and millions of American jobs disappeared.
Above all, it was the attempt to force through a radical health-care overhaul that would drive up the cost of medical insurance, slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and subject one-seventh of the US economy to government micromanagement.
The more insistently Democrats in Washington have pushed ObamaCare, the more unpopular it has become - and the more the president’s approval ratings have sunk. In a CNN poll released last week, 48 percent of respondents say Obama’s presidency has so far been a failure, while just 47 percent call it a success. The latest CBS News survey measures only 46 percent approval for Obama - his lowest rating to date and a drop of 22 points since April. On his signature issue - health care - Obama has the support of only 36 percent of the public. Massachusetts residents are no exception: According to the new Suffolk poll, they oppose the health-care legislation by a ratio of 51 to 36.
A year ago, Americans were enchanted with their new president. Today they are suffering from severe buyer’s remorse. Massachusetts may be the bluest state, but voters here are fed up too.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1799 - 17/1/2010, 21:12 | |
| Pas exactement, ce que Nelson "la soixieme voix" esperant sans doute! THE ASSOCIATED PRESSPublished Sunday January 17, 2010
Ratings drops below 50% for NelsonBy Robynn Tysver
Copyright 2010 OMAHA WORLD-HERALD The battle over health care legislation has taken its toll on U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson's political well-being, despite the Democrat's efforts to sell Nebraskans on his vote. - Spoiler:
Nelson, who once enjoyed some of the highest job performance marks in the U.S. Senate, has now seen his approval rating dip below 50 percent in Nebraska, according to The World-Herald Poll.
Nelson said the poll results come as no surprise, especially since Nebraskans have been “bombarded” with millions of dollars in “misleading advertisements.”
He said he expects that people will come to appreciate the health care bill.
“I believe that, over time, as the special interest ads subside, Nebraskans will understand the bill I support will improve their health care, because it ends the denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions, it reduces spiraling costs and it provides new access to coverage for 220,000 Nebraskans without health care today,” Nelson said in a written statement.
In the survey, Nelson's job approval rating was 42 percent and his disapproval rating was 48 percent. By comparison, Republican Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, who voted against the bill, had a 63 percent job-approval rating.
Nelson has been under fire since he supplied the 60th vote to win approval for President Barack Obama's principal domestic policy initiative in the Senate. He was called a “sellout” at a political rally.
Critics say a controversial provision — dubbed the “Cornhusker kickback,” which would save Nebraska on Medicaid costs — was inserted in the bill to win Nelson's vote.
Nelson on Friday asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to scratch Nebraska's exemption and instead extend the Medicaid provision to all states.
In the past few weeks, Nelson and his allies have pushed back against the criticism.
Nelson has been aggressively arguing his case on radio shows and in meetings with newspaper editorial boards. The Nebraska Democratic Party has spent more than $350,000 on a media campaign in support of Nelson.
“It's pretty clear he's taken a hit,” said Randy Adkins, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Adkins said any time a politician's disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating, he's in trouble. He predicted that Nelson would have a tough time trying to change people's minds on the issue, saying his research shows that most people stop listening to a political debate after forming an opinion.
“The survey is a snapshot (in time),'' Adkins said. “Public opinion changes and can often be very volatile. And it is possible for politicians to go out there and sell themselves. It's possible, but it's very difficult to do that.''
The World Herald Poll was conducted Jan. 8-12 by Wiese Research Associates of Omaha. It's based on telephone interviews with 500 registered voters. The statistical margin of error was plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
It's clear the bulk of Nebraskans' dissatisfaction with Nelson rests with his health care vote.
More than 60 percent of those surveyed said they opposed the Senate health care bill. A majority said they opposed Nelson's vote for the bill. About one-third favored his vote.
Not surprisingly, the poll results broke along party lines. Three-fourths of Republicans opposed Nelson's vote, as did only 22 percent of Democrats.
The hit to Nelson's political standing is something new for the veteran politician, whose career was launched in 1990 with his election as governor.
For the most part, Nelson has enjoyed the goodwill of voters, including Republicans. The two-term governor left office in 1999 with one poll showing 80 percent of Nebraskans supporting the job he had done.
He continued to keep his constituents happy during his time in the U.S. Senate. In his re-election bid in 2006, Nelson won 64 percent of the vote. That was after his opponent spent millions of dollars on television advertisements, with many of them attacking Nelson's record.
In April 2006, Nelson was named one of the Senate's most popular members after national pollster SurveyUSA reported that 73 percent of Nebraskans approved of his performance.
That appears to have changed — at least for the time being — in the aftermath of the health care vote. Nelson has been called the “most vulnerable Democratic incumbent in 2012” by the respected Cook Political Report in Washington, D.C.
It is nearly three years until the next Senate election in Nebraska. If Nelson decides to run, it's debatable whether the health care vote will be a key factor.
No one knows who Nelson's opponent will be at that time, or what the top issues of the day will be.
Also unknown is whether Nebraskans will have becomemore comfortable with the health care legislation by then.
But at this point, the bill could haunt Nelson. A plurality of voters (44 percent) in The World-Herald Poll said his vote on health care would be counted against him if he ran again.
It gets worse for Nelson when considering the impact his vote has had on Republicans who have supported him in the past.
Nelson's political success can be attributed in large part to his ability to woo Republican and independent voters. With only 34 percent of the state'sregistered voters, Democrats in Nebraska must go outside their party's base to win a statewide election.
According to the poll, Nelson took a big hit among Republicans who had supported him. Nearly half of the Republicans who said they voted for Nelson in 2006 said they did not approve of his job performance.
Andrew Liebman is one of them. Liebman said it was “unlikely” he'd vote for the Democrat again if Nelson continues to support the Senate's health care bill as it currently stands.
Liebman, a 31-year-old Omaha tech writer, opposes the bill because he fears it will ultimately chip away at his private insurance plan. He believes it is going to cost too much.
“I like Ben Nelson. I have liked him for a really long time,” he said. “But the problem is, I like my health insurance. A lot of Nebraskans like what they have, and they're really afraid this is going to make it so that things will change in their current health insurance.”
Liebman also has not been happy with the way Nelson has defended his vote.
Nelson has argued, among other points, that most people he talks to in Nebraska are supportive of his vote. Liebman said that whenever he hears Nelson say that, he questions whether the senator is actually listening.
“I don't believe I'm living under a rock, and it doesn't feel that way to me,” he said.
|
| | | | 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
| |
| |
| |
|
