CBS News: President Obama- 'Explains Public-Private Infrastructure Investment Program'

Source:CBS News- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking about American infrastructure, in Miami, Florida.

"At the Port of Miami on Friday, President Obama again stressed the need to improve America's infrastructure, expanding on a proposal he announced during the State of the Union that would leverage public and private money to fund improvements to roads, rail lines, schools, and other infrastructure projects across the country." 

From CBS News 

Falling poles, collapsing bridges, outdated airports, overcrowded schools, schools falling apart, congested roads, especially in big markets, like Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco (just. To use as a few examples) these are all things that a developed nation like the United States shouldn't put up with, yet we do every year. 

We don't have weak economic and job growth, with 8% unemployment because we don't have enough work to do, or we don't have enough money, we solve these problems. It's because we are not doing the work, we have the workers, we have the available employees, we are simply not lining up the contracts and rewarding construction companies to do the work. 

The US Core of Engineers, estimates that we have 1T$ in needed in infrastructure investment in. America but we are simply not assigning the work, because Congress is not passing legislation, public works bills (to use as an example) and President Obama is not pushing hard enough to pass this legislation. 

I know we have a 1T$ Federal deficit and 16T$ national debt and I'm not talking about borrowing the money to pay for a jobs bill like this or infrastructure investment is the only answer to get our economy going again, but it is an answer that needs to be part of package, an economic growth package.

We don't need a supply side economic policy, where we borrow the money, we could pay for this legislation, through taxing things that we don't need, like tobacco or even alcohol or. Maybe even tax things that we do need, like gas or tolls. But we need a plan like this to put our people back to work. mixed in with tax cuts designed to encourage new investment: small business tax relief, consumer spending, lowering the corporate tax, that comes with eliminating or at least cutting corporate welfare, as well as encouraging hiring workers in America, rather then sending jobs oversees. 

And finally a policy that moves us towards an energy independence, that gets us off of foreign oil, by investing in new American natural resources, including oil and natural gas, nuclear, wind solar, etc. 

These are all thing we can do, we don't have to settle for 8% unemployment, there's plenty of work to do in this country, we are simply not doing the work.

New York Times: Ross Douthat: 'The Obama Era, Brought to You by the Iraq War'

Source:New York Times- "An antiwar protest in Washington in 2007. The war divided the left but ultimately energized it.Credit...Jim Bourg/Reuters" Also from the New York Times.

"WHEN prominent people in Washington spend an anniversary apologizing for being catastrophically, unforgivably wrong about a decade-old decision, you might expect that the decision in question had delivered their party to disaster or defeat. But last week’s many Iraq war mea culpas were rich in irony: one by one, prominent liberals lined up to apologize for supporting a war that’s responsible for liberalism’s current political and cultural ascendance.

History is too contingent to say that had there been no Iraq invasion in 2003, there would be no Democratic majority in 2012. (It’s easy enough to imagine counterfactuals that might have put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office.) But the Democratic majority that we do have is a majority that the Iraq war created: its energy and strategies, its leadership and policy goals, and even its cultural advantages were forged in the backlash against George W. Bush’s Middle East policies.

All those now-apologetic liberals who supported the war in 2003 are a big part of this story, because without their hawkishness there would have been no antiwar rebellion on the left — no Michael Moore and Howard Dean, no Daily Kos and all its “netroots” imitators. " 

From the New York Times 

OK, so I agree with Ross Douthat that the Iraq War has been good for the Democratic Party. 

Political history lesson of the day: in 2003 the Republican Party had The White House with President George W. Bush and his administration, as well as a Republican Congress (House and Senate) with small majorities, but large enough for them to put through most of their economic agenda through, at least during that Congress. 

With a divided Democratic opposition that really only had the Senate filibuster as a weapon they could use against the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. And any communications strategy and message that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and the Democratic National Committee could put together against the Republican Party. 

In 2004, President Bush is elected, with a small majority, but enough to get him reelected. House Republicans add a few seats to their thin majority. Senate Republicans go from 51 to 55 seats in the Senate. President Bush is at around 50% approval in late 2004 and going into 2005. This all looks like the Republican Party is not only the majority party, but it's going to be that way for a while. 

As the old political saying goes (or one that I just made up) a governing party and majority is only as good as it's ability to govern and lead. You had a divided Republican Party on Social Security reform in early 2005, with House and Senate Democrats having no political reasons to work with Congressional Republicans on SS reform and that dies in the House and Senate by the summer of 2005. Hurricane Katrina happens in the late summer of 2005 and the disaster and the Bush Administration showing almost no ability to deal with that disaster and cleanup happens as well. 

Going into the summer of 2005, I don't think anyone was predicting that House and Senate Democrats had any real shot at either winning back the House or Senate in 2006, but the debacle in the Iraq War, and hurricane Katrina, President Bush's low 30s approval rating by late 2005, as well as the corruption that was going on with House Republicans that year and into 2006, started this feeling in the country, especially with Democrats and Independents, that united government wasn't working and Republican Party needed a check in Washington. 

So yes, the War in Iraq has been good politically for the Democratic Party, especially when you look at where they were in 2003 and where they were less 4 years later. But the country has paid a helluva a price for it economically and militarily that I believe most Americans would love to go back to pre-Iraq War and thinking there's no real good reason to ever invade Iraq, at least at this point.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Crooks and Liars: John Armato- 'America Elects A Liberal Agenda'

Source:Wikipedia- Modern Liberals, according to Wikipedia.

"Whew, what a day and night we had on election day. It was fascinating watching all three cable networks covering the unfolding of an unbelievable night. What did we learn? Well, the lessons were clear. America repudiated conservatism completely...

From Crooks and Liars 

"After President Barack Obama won the 2012 election against the Republican nominee Mitt Romney he gave his victory speech in front of the nation. Watch it in full here." 

Source:The New York Times- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) giving his reelection speech.

From the New York Times

America didn't elect a liberal agenda as much as I wish they have, but they did say no to extremism. (Especially from the Far-Right) And made it clear they weren't ready for Mitt Romney and a Tea Party Congress to be running the Federal Government, or even the entire U.S. Congress. Which is how Senate Democrats actually added a seat to their majority. 

But before Democrats, Liberals (such as myself) or Progressives should get too excited, Americans aren't ready for Democrats to be running the Federal Government completely either. We are still the senior partner of the Federal Government with the White House and Senate, but Republicans still control the U.S. House. Which means Democrats are going to have to work with House Republicans, as well as at least some Senate Republicans,.

Even though Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will have a smaller hand to deal with, but also a weaker hand politically as not just more Democrats were elected to the Senate, but Democrats who believe in a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Which means Democrats could probably get a new millionaires tax or closing tax loopholes out of the Senate to pay for deficit reduction. Why they would leave all of the middle class tax cuts in place. 

But there's no new mandate to let all of the tax cuts expire to finance what so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really ) call the New Green Deal. Which would be around 1T$ in new Federal programs to work towards job creation. 

If so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) want this, then they should've voted for the Green Party. A socialist party that believes in this approach when it comes to economics.

Independent Institute: Special Report With Brett Baier:- John C. Goodman: 'Obamacare Math Doesn't Add Up'

Source:The Independent Institute- John C. Goodman, talking about the Affordable Care Act.

"Dr. John C. Goodman, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of "Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis," discusses the healthcare bill on Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier." To order copies of Goodman's book "Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis," visit:The Independent Institute or call Toll Free 1-800-297-8733." 

From The Independent Institute

This is of course a slanted report about the ACA savings from Medicare, that stops overpayments from Medicare to health insurers as part of the Medicare Advantage plan that was created in 2003. But thats what you get from FOX News, the Tea Party Republican side of things.

Talk Radio News Service: 'Tales From The Spin Room- Democrats React'

Source:Talk Radio News Service- President Obama's Spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki.

"Obama's top advisors and spokespeople weigh in on what they call a successful first debate for the incumbent, President Obama."

From Talk Radio News Service

When one side is talking about the behavior of their opponent in a debate and aren't talking about the substance of the debate, they are admitting they lost the debate. The same thing with the Obama Campaign making the first debate about the moderator, when they knew they lost.

Imagine a football team's head coach who's team just lost by 21 points and at the post game press conference he's saying that: "Well, the reason why we lost the game because our opponents tackled really hard and played really aggressive. Their offensive line blocked really tough and they just did things that should be illegal in this league and we weren't ready for that style of play. Otherwise we would've whipped them because we have a better team." How ridiculous would that have looked to the press and the fans of his team with the head coach complaining about the other team playing too hard and his team not ready for that.

I realize we're talking about American politics and one of the keys of survival and they teach this in political science is not to make public what you're actually feeling. Especially when the news is negative. And instead talk to people including the media as if they're morons. Not because they're morons but so you can keep your supporters with you. And now the secret is out why used car salesman and personal injury attorney's, are more popular than politicians and the people who work for them. 

Vice President Joe Biden won the debate tonight, because he was stronger and tougher for his boss President Obama, then Representative Paul Ryan was for Governor Romney.