Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dems Offer Olive Branch to Bush?

On the eve of President Bush's State of the Union address comes news that the commander-in-chief will address the House Democratic retreat next month in Williamsburg, Virginia.

Bush was invited to the gathering by the Democratic leadership -- spearheaded by new Democratic Caucus chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). He is slated to speak for approximately an hour on Saturday Feb. 3. The retreat is set for Feb. 1-3 at the Kingsmill Resort & Spa.

The highly unusual appearance is one of the first tangible signs that Bush may be ready to make good on his rhetoric about working together with the new Democratic Congress. "The president looks forward to attending and he believes there are many challenges for the American public right now and that voters expect their elected leaders in Washington to work together," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

A House Democratic leadership aide, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation, sounded a slightly more partisan note. "This is an opportunity for the Democratic leadership to reach out to the President and let him know that we hope he will work with us in changing the direction of the country," the source said.

With Bush's speech to the retreat already on the schedule will he get a warmer than usual reception from Democrats in tomorrow night's State of the Union Speech? And will he roll out policy proposals that can draw bipartisan support? We'll know the answers in a little over 24 hours.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 22, 2007; 3:55 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Giuliani Hires E-Campaign Expert
Next: They (Better) Work For Us

Comments

tbwrvhqnp pimatsf scjeo rbctul fduio hntyrj syljhna http://www.hkvjsteyu.jnlpkb.com

Posted by: uljmtxwvi hxag | February 4, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

slnabo crgotiweb wqxjkgizv fngpcab gkhbprfwm ovstpykec nazio

Posted by: nlaok ognhfryqz | February 4, 2007 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Great work!
[url=http://gujmlpow.com/lxog/xjnb.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://wcooojws.com/fjon/hxyh.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Joy | January 28, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Austin | January 27, 2007 3:08 AM | Report abuse

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Tammy | January 27, 2007 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Great work!
[url=http://qtozepyh.com/hgbq/ghny.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://tdkmwqtz.com/wkri/vzut.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Ethan | January 26, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Great work!
[url=http://qtozepyh.com/hgbq/ghny.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://tdkmwqtz.com/wkri/vzut.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Ethan | January 26, 2007 11:27 PM | Report abuse

President Bush is completely out of touch with the American public.

How can he declare today at Dupont that "It makes no sense to say to a young scientist from India, you can't come to America ..."

How about these reasons:


Terrorism - There are over 900,000 engineers from the Mid-East and Southeast Asia (home of Al Qaeda) who are here NOW. The head of Homeland Security declared that this is a major threat. The CIA cannot possibly track them.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/i-ics121206.php

Culture - Datleine exposed scores of H-1B software engineers from India looking to have sex with 13-year old girls.
Indian SW engs - pedophiles:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/15237.asp

Students - Intelligent students will NOT study Math and Science because of what they hear about H-1B abuse and America's deteriorating engineering and scientific professions.


So President Bush does not care about defending America from terrorism. He does not care about protecting children. He does not care about the future of America.

President Bush is a prototypical rich frat boy who only says what's in the best interest of his friends (the tech industry CEOs). To hell with the people.

Posted by: Bushis Anidiot | January 25, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

President Bush is completely out of touch with the American public.

How can he declare today at Dupont that "It makes no sense to say to a young scientist from India, you can't come to America ..."

How about these reasons:


Terrorism - There are over 900,000 engineers from the Mid-East and Southeast Asia (home of Al Qaeda) who are here NOW. The head of Homeland Security declared that this is a major threat. The CIA cannot possibly track them.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/i-ics121206.php

Culture - Datleine exposed scores of H-1B software engineers from India looking to have sex with 13-year old girls.
Indian SW engs - pedophiles:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/15237.asp

Students - Intelligent students will NOT study Math and Science because of what they hear about H-1B abuse and America's deteriorating engineering and scientific professions.


So President Bush does not care about defending America from terrorism. He does not care about protecting children. He does not care about the future of America.

President Bush is a prototypical rich frat boy who only says what's in the best interest of his friends (the tech industry CEOs). To hell with the people.

Posted by: Bushis Anidiot | January 25, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

President Bush is completely out of touch with the American public.

How can he declare today at Dupont that "It makes no sense to say to a young scientist from India, you can't come to America ..."

How about these reasons:


Terrorism - There are over 900,000 engineers from the Mid-East and Southeast Asia (home of Al Qaeda) who are here NOW. The head of Homeland Security declared that this is a major threat. The CIA cannot possibly track them.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/i-ics121206.php

Culture - Datleine exposed scores of H-1B software engineers from India looking to have sex with 13-year old girls.
Indian SW engs - pedophiles:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/15237.asp

Students - Intelligent students will NOT study Math and Science because of what they hear about H-1B abuse and America's deteriorating engineering and scientific professions.


So President Bush does not care about defending America from terrorism. He does not care about protecting children. He does not care about the future of America.

President Bush is a prototypical rich frat boy who only says what's in the best interest of his friends (the tech industry CEOs). To hell with the people.

Posted by: Bushis Anidiot | January 25, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

JEP, I was sitting around last night trying to figure out who will win the democratic nod and I think you might be on to something. Edwards has done the heavy lifting in the states like Iowa and New Hampshire already. He has just as much name recognition as Clinton or Obama, and he is generally well liked. He might become the anti-hillary, anti-Barack candidate, but I would also watch out for Richardson too. The media love this guy and after watching him over the past few days he has done a great job of riding Hillary's coat-tails to get good media exposure.
I will also add that Senator Clinton's announcement I found to be completely fake and staged. Where as Senator Obama's came off as sincere and staged. I am sorry but I don't need to have a conversation with the nominees, I want them to tell me what they think and why they think that way. Then I will judge which one has the better ideas.

Posted by: Andy R | January 23, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Ah, it's time for the usual morning repost of content from other sites. That's always fun.

Maybe instead of posting multi-page articles, you could just post a brief synopsis and a link. I'm tired of scrolling through multiple pages of excerpts from Slate's "Today's Papers" column, unattributed (that means plagiarized) opinion columns, and articles from the Washington Post website. It would be nice if the site admins would block that kind of thing, but I can't even find a link to contact them. So I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Blarg | January 23, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

There are at least three distinct pieces of propaganda floating around since yesterday, picked up by several news outlets, even though the sourcing is non-existent -- all just before the state of the union. bush is sure to mention all three -- watch:

1]I nsurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.

2]Al-Qaeda's deputy leader has mocked US President George W Bush's plan to increase Iraq troop numbers in a video message, according to a US website. Site - a Washington-based organisation that analyses militant networks - posted the video and transcript on its website, but did not say how it obtained it. [Only problem is, no one has ever heard of this 'Site' before. There is not a single reference to it in any press account, ever before.]

3]A Reuters report earlier today -- followed up by a report from AP -- sent shockwaves through the international community airing allegations that Iran had kicked out inspectors of the U.N. atomic watchdog organization.

This, however, does not align with comments from the IAEA themselves. Shockingly, no comment from the agency appeared in either Reuters or AP's article. No sourcing.

Think about it.
Number #1 is to scare us into thinking that if we pull out of Iraq, 'al queda' terrorists will come here and kill us. Of course, the truth is, the longer we stay in Iraq, the more likely it is that we will be attacked here.But bush will use this so-called story [again, sourcing non-existent, completely unsubstantiated] as a reason we must stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Number #2 -- easy. Al Queda dude mocks the president, dares him to send more troops. We are supposed to get angry --how dare he! and want bush to send even more troops to avenge this guy who insulted us!

Number #3 -- also easy. Bush wants an excuse for an invasion of Iran. So they float a story that Iran has kicked out weapons inspectors. Only problem is, it's not true.

Watch for it.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4953

Posted by: lark | January 23, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

'An Inconvenient Truth' was nominated for two Oscars this morning (ok - the second one was for Best Song). I guess it was expected to get one for Best Documentary - I know we have discussed it before, but any chance this will bring Gore in after the ceremony?

Posted by: star11 | January 23, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

The latest Princeton Poll of likely Iowa Cauaus-goers. Instead of pitint the Dems against each other, this poll has pitted the Dems against the leading Republicans (McCain and Giuliani.

And those are the numbers that really count. Only Edwards holds an edge, thus far, and he's got rome to keep moving up in places where Hillary in particular will never make any headway because of her "negatives." With the unions, for instance, and with anti-war progressives in particular, although I still think Hillary's war stance is representative of her constituents more than it is her own, which I respect because that IS her job, to represent her constituents, partiularly their majority opinion.

That being said, I still think Edwards is the only one in the Democratic Presidential candidate mix who has the whole balance of factors that can beat the R's and take back the White House, to return control of two of our checks and balances to We, The People.

Here's that poll.

"Suppose you had to choose between Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, and John McCain, the Republican. Who would you be more likely to vote for? As of today, do you lean more toward Clinton, the Democrat; or McCain, the Republican?"

Total Clinton 48%
Total McCain 47%
Undec./Other 5%

Republicans
Total Clinton 9%
McCain 87%
Undec./Other 4%

Democrats
Total Clinton 81%
McCain 17%
Undec./Other 1%

Independents
Total Clinton 43%
McCain 49%
Undec./Other 8%

3b. Suppose you had to choose between Barack Obama, the Democrat, and John McCain, the Republican. Who would you be more likely to vote for? As of today, do you lean more toward Obama, the Democrat; or McCain, the Republican?

Total Obama
Total McCain
Undec./Other

Current Total
Total Obama 46%
Total McCain 44%
Undec./Other 10%


Republicans
Total Obama 11%
Total McCain 83%
Undec./Other 6%

Democrats
Total Obama 79%
Total McCain 16%
Undec./Other 5%

Independents
Total Obama 40%
Total McCain 44%
Undec./Other 16%


3c. Suppose you had to choose between John McCain, the Republican, and John Edwards, the Democrat. Who would you be more likely to vote for? As of today, do you lean more toward McCain, the Republican; or Edwards, the Democrat?
Total Edwards 48%
Total McCain 43%
Undec./Other 9%

Republicans
Total Edwards 7%
Total McCain 86%
Undec./Other 7%

Democrats
Total Edwards 84%
Total McCain 14%
2%

Independents
Total Edwards 44%
Total McCain 42%
14%

6a/b. Suppose you had to choose between Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, and Rudy Giuliani, the Republican. (Choices rotated) Who would you be more likely to vote for? As of today, do you lean more toward Clinton, the Democrat; or Giuliani, the Republican?

Total Clinton 47%
Total Giuliani 48%
Undec./Other 5%

Republicans
Total Clinton 5%
Total Giuliani 92%
Undec./Other 3%

Democrats
Total Clinton 84%
Total Giuliani 15%%
Undec./Other 1%

Independents
Total Clinton 42%
Total Giuliani 50%
Undec./Other 8%

7a/b. Suppose you had to choose between Barack Obama, the Democrat, and Rudy Giuliani, the Republican. Who would you be more likely to vote for? As of today, do you lean more toward Obama, the Democrat; or Giuliani, the Republican?

Total Obama 45%
Total Giuliani 47%
Undec./Other 8%

Republicans
Total Obama 10%
Total Giuliani 84%
Undec./Other 6%

Democrats
Total Obama 76%
Total Giuliani 20%
Undec./Other 4%

Independents
Total Obama 39%
Total Giuliani 49%
Undec./Other 12%

8a/b. Suppose you had to choose between Rudy Giuliani, the Republican; and John Edwards, the Democrat. Who would you be more likely to vote for? As of today, do you lean more toward Giuliani, the Republican; or Edwards, the Democrat?

Total Edwards 48%
Total Giuliani 45%
Undec./Other 7%

Republicans
Total Edwards 8%
Total Giuliani 88%
Undec./Other 4%

Democrats
Total Edwards 82%
Total Giuliani 17%
Undec./Other 1%

Independents
Total Edwards 43%
Total Giuliani 43%
Undec./Other 14%

So, do we pick a candidate who can actually win against Republicans, or will we pick a candidate (like we did with Kerry) who can only beat their fellow Democrats?

I suspect these poll numbers won't tighten, either, these numbers will continue to widen after Edwards has an opportunity to put his debating skills to work, without taking his directions from ambitious, sleazy staffers, like he was subjected to as the VP candidate for Kerry.

Posted by: JEP | January 23, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse


EX-FEMA HEAD: POLITICS INFLUENCED KATRINA RESPONSE
According to a speech former FEMA head Michael Brown gave to students at Metropolitan College of New York, "[s]ome in the White House suggested only Louisiana should be federalized because it was run by a Democrat, Gov. Kathleen Blanco."
[AP]

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

drindl: The MSM is again showing their dislike for the Clintons, as it has since Bubba first came on the scene back in 1991. The claim that the MSM had/has supported the Clintons, Bubba or Hillary, can pretty well be disputed when one only has to pick any month of the past 15 years or so to find just the opposite. The idea of the dems offering a olive branch to GW is only that, an idea.

Posted by: lylepink | January 23, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Expecting an real, substantive olive branch from Bush merely demonstrates that your brain is impervious to experience. I'm sure that words will be even cheaper following the SOTU address. What someone says is worth nothing. That they do is the only thing worth paying attention to.

Maybe back in 1 B.C. (Before Cheney) Bush was capable of actual bipartisanship. His governorship in Texas certainly demonstrates that. But not now. He is only a semi-autonomous drone and his speeches constantly reflect that. Expecting something different is akin to expecting that Cheney will spontaneously open his files regarding the membership of his Energy panel.

Oh, and global warming is another area in which we (and everyone else) expects more of the same: nothing. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201508.html

Finally, the only real drama is whether Jim Webb will cut Bush a new bodily orifice or whether he'll play nice.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | January 23, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

I urge anyone who has been in contact with someone who's served in Iraq to read this, about possible exposure to a deadly, drug-resistant bacteria:

'In many ways, the Bush Administration's "War on Terror" has been able to accomplish things that the terrorists themselves could only dream of. It has divided the American public against each other. It has stretched our military so thin that we would be helpless in the face of a real national emergency. And now, it has bred its own drug-resistant biological weapons, one of which is rapidly making its way through civilian hospitals from California to Canada, on to Germany and Anbar Province. It's called acinetobacter baumannii and the US military not only created the conditions that led to its development, but the Pentagon has played an active role in exporting it to the world and in the suppression of information that could have led to its containment.'

http://www.wired.com//news/wiredmag/0,72532-0.html

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 9:12 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats invited Bush to their retreat. He accepted. Which is a more significant act of reaching out, extending an invitation or accepting it? Seems to me like the title is accurate.

Posted by: Blarg | January 23, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Just the title of this blog made me laugh! I see no evidence of any olive branches being extended anywhere in Washington! In reading the blog, seems like Bush is the one reaching out to the Democrats -- as well he should.

Posted by: Stephanie | January 23, 2007 8:29 AM | Report abuse

The Moonie Times Magazine shouldn't be lecturing anyone about crackpot religions.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Hey --'proudGOP' -- got your FOX lies about Obama right here:

'JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) -- Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.

Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.

Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa. (Watch video of Obama's school )

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."

Insight stood by its story in a response posted on its Web site Monday afternoon.

The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs. (Watch how the Obama "gossip" spread )

School not a madrassa

But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.

He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.

"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."

Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.

"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."

Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."

"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."

The Obama aide described Fox News' broadcasting of the Insight story "appallingly irresponsible."

Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations.'

And I want to give my first 'Integrity in Political Reporting' award to CNN --good going guys! I mean, seriously. Somebody actually did some fact-checking and printed the truth. Thank God there's still a few reporters who aren't unfair and unbalanced -- mentally unbalanced -- the way that Fox and the Washington Times and the rest of the rightwing trash media machine is.

Posted by: drindl | January 23, 2007 7:57 AM | Report abuse

'The LAT takes a skeptical look at the evidence behind claims by the Bush administration and intelligence officials alleging that Iran is funneling sophisticated weapons to insurgents in Iraq. In a front-page story, the paper says that the claims made in Washington don't always jibe with what commanders in Iraq say, and that the U.S. has refused to provide any documentation of Iranian weaponry, while often releasing photos of other seized ordnance. And the Iranians say that, in fact, the chaos is crossing the border from Iraq into Iran, that ammunition and "illegal equipment" is moving into Iran.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 23, 2007 7:47 AM | Report abuse

I look for more of BUSH-SPEAK in his State of the Union... AND, I wouldn't be surprised to see his approval ratings drop even more, as America recalls ANOTHER State of the Union where lies were told.

Here are excerpts from the BUSH-SPEAK much abridged DICTIONARY by Vince Williams:

AUGMENTATION, n. that which assists others in their efforts. NOT an escalation. [Shhh... hope they don't look up Webster's definition ... we don't want them to find that it means "that which is made greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense.]

CRACKED EGG, n. what the Iraq war has become. An egg that is capable of being UNcracked. Newly coined term: "the Iraq crack attack".

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED". phrase calculated to supply political points showing how SOLDIER I really am and how I've already won a war. A photo-op that can show "US" in a combat flight suit aboard an aircraft carrier.

SUCCESS, n. What we're fighting for; and please don't mention the over 3000 soldiers killed, over 20,000 wounded; and more than 34,000 Iraqis killed just last year, with a total Iraqi death toll of more than 600,000 men, women and children. Oops!

VICTORY, n. undefined; "We'll know it when we see it."

NEW WAY FORWARD, a phrase used to mystify as many people as possible, and to justify STAYING THE COURSE, I mean "The New Way Forward".

SACRIFICE, v. dying in Viet Nam, I mean IRAQ; and being stressed by watching news on television about the war.

SKEPTICISM, n. a word that sounds better than "OPPOSITION". "Thumpin'" can also be used here.

PESSIMISM, n. another word to use when others imply abject and/or total failures of our administration. Sounds better than "OPPOSITION".

ADDITIONAL TROOPS, n. pl. A few more soldiers and marines to effect the "NEW WAY FORWARD" change in the prosecution of the war. Something to help John McCain have a better chance in his bid for the presidency.

INSURGENCY, n. a problem in Iraq; but it isn't "CIVIL WAR".

CIVIL WAR, n. all hell breaking loose with everybody fighting everybody else; not a reason to re-deploy, however.

PLAN B, n. something we don't have. Something we refuse to talk about. Something we didn't think we needed in invading Iraq in the first place.

REASONS TO GO TO WAR, a phrase to mean "If we can scare everyone into believing we will have another 9/11 if we DON'T do so", we can invade and wage war on anyone we want to.

OPTIMISTIC, adj. something to be sure to answer when asked, "How do you view the prospects for the outcome of our efforts in Iraq?"

VIOLENCE IN IRAQ, n. that which essentially began with the SAMARRA incident back in early 2005, "I mean 2006".

LIFE, n. something sacred as long as it isn't possessed by a criminal, an Iraqi, an al Qaeda member, a Taliban member, anyone deemed an enemy by the Administration, a detainee, someone with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or spinal cord injury, or the Casey Sheehans in the war.

DETAINEES, n. pl. DIRT with no rights whatsoever.

DEMOCRATS, n. pl. "DIRT, but gave us a thumpin".

TORTURE, n. something to deny we're doing. Something that we don't want to get caught doing.

EXECUTION, n. a hanging that can decapitate the hangee.

TRUTH, n. whatever "WE" want it to be. Just a word. Something TO BE SURE TO CALL whatever we say.

Posted by: Vince Williams | January 22, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Bush needs the help of the Dems on SOME things-but certainly not on the war.

Posted by: TruthProbe | January 22, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

that being the wealthiest country in the world, we do so little for our citizens... or as your friend Mike B sayz:

The U.S. economy, in terms of wages, has actually been shrinking over the past four years. We are busy exporting our higher wage jobs and replacing them with low wage "service" industry jobs. Take a look at U.S. investor capital and you will see that it has been flowing overseas, to India and China and Vietnam. There is almost no high tech or manufacturing capital being spent domestically. This may not mean much for investors right now, they are making a killing on overseas investments, but the long term prognosis for the U.S. is dangerously poor. We have outsourced most of our technological superiority, computers, arospace, electronic test, and software development, and manufacturing. So, the developing economies of India and China are growing at 10% or more annually, high wages jobs are being created, but along with this we are seeing the emergence of technologically superior defense and offensive capabilties that either match or outsrip anything the U.S. has (or the West in general). Even in the U.S., well over 35% of our technology workers aren't American's at all, they are "guest workers", here on H1B, L1, and similar visa's. Most fully intend to return to their country of origin. A direct consequence of this hjas been a dramatic decrease in the average salaries of technology worklers, which have fallen in some cases by 50% or more.

Our public universities are being used as satellite campuses for students from these countries. Roughly 50% of the limited spots in science and engineering colleges have foreign students enrolled...with fully qualified U.S. students being turned down for those same spots in every single case. Coupled with this, the U.S. has been experiencing a virtual invasion of millions of completely unregulated illegal workers. These workers are taking jobs from lower and lower Middle class citizens and depressing wages and benefits. A meat packing job that paid $18 an hour at a Swift plant in 1980, pays just under $10 an hour today and, today there is no medical or other benefits with this job. Jobs in construction trades are almost exclusively done by illegal workers today, with those workers being paid under the table a rates as low as $6 an hour. The former average wage for a framing carpenter, a roofer, a painter, a drywall or insulation installer was $16 an hour in 1999. Today it is $10 an hour. Legalize those millions of illegal workers and they will be expected to pay taxes on their wages, so don't expect them to accept subminimum wages. They will require and demand wages that will allow them to pay taxes and make a decent living. And, they will embark on a bidding war with every American worker, unskilled, semiskilled, and skilled, that will lead to a downward spiral in wages and benefits.

Much of this is being felt right now. As higher age jobs are disappearing we are witnessing the collapse of the housing market and automobile sales and an ever skinking value for the U.S. dollar. The immediate impact of this has been that the Euro has displaced the dollar on the world's bonds markets. There is a movement to peg the price of oil to the Euro. That, in turn, is already leading to an exodus of foreign capital from the U.S., especially from U.S. bonds which have permitted our outrageous government and personal debt. Couple this with oil prices suddenly increasing by the difference between the U.S. dollar and the Euro and consumer spending is going to take even more of a dive.

Mr. Bernanke has lately been talking up the looming Social Security catastrophy because baby boomers do not have retirement savings. This sounds rather strange to most baby boomers because we actually used to have a retirement savings, but it was looted by the same people who support Mr. Bernanke's boss, and who are such big proponents of outsourcing. In my own case, I religiously set aside 15% of my salary, infvesting it in the 401K programs operated by my employers. Twenty-four years of this, 24 years of thrift and savings and honesty, and my employer outsourced my job, closed down their U.S. facility, moved all assets to their Indian subsidiary, and looted every dime of my savings. Now, I'm 59 and Mr. Bernanke, you had better have a plan B for retirement, because ready or not there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in my position approaching retirement and we find your bosses idea of handing out Social Security benefits to illegals completely unacceptable.

I guess what I am saying in all of this is the United States is in a very bad way. We are the poster child for the disaster that this forums question. Historically we are in a very similar position to that of Roman in the 5th Century, only we're even a bit more leveraged. I think history has in store for America, an even worse demise than that experienced by Rome.

Posted by: it is interesting to me | January 22, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

HOWMUCH YOU DONT MATTER,

the democratic congress would be interested in this...

back doored again...


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_surge_begins_shhh.html

..... William M. Arkin's BLOG
on National and Homeland Security

"The Surge Begins!! Shhh! The first of 3,200 soldiers from the 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division began arriving in Baghdad last week, an event that somehow the Washington Post and New York Times thought not worthy of reporting until this morning and even then, no headline, no lead. I hardly ever comment on what the media writes, being a member of the mainstream media myself and too intent on actually figuring out what the government is up to than in taking the easy and narcissistic path of media analysis or bashing. But when a friend sent me the military statement that the first troops had begun arriving, I found it curious that the only weekend mention I could find - and even here it was buried - was in the Los Angeles Times. Of course the statement was issued on Friday and there was no parade to commemorate the fabulous surge. But it was news, and its absence from the two top U.S. papers seemed strange....."

Posted by: I think | January 22, 2007 01:10 PM

thing of it is...

it is a little hard to put the crackers back in the box, once you have taken them out and played with them...

The Congress, _will_be_held_responsible_ , no matter what happens or how the president did an end run...

Posted by: just a little advance warning, so that you understand the State of the Union and | January 22, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

One thing you will be hearing in bush's speech is his plan to tax people's health insurance, and why that will only make things worse:

'Quoting from Bush's radio address, Krugman writes: "Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it's like to be uninsured.

"Going without health insurance isn't like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It's a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don't need an 'incentive' to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.

"Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can't afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.

"Of those uninsured who aren't low-income, many can't get coverage because of pre-existing conditions -- everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won't solve their problem.

"The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we're least concerned about -- affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. . . .

"What's driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance -- that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket."

You see, that's what repugs want -- for people to have to pay MORE for healthcare. Are we really stupid enough to buy this?

Posted by: lark | January 22, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

If Bush were in a position of strength, he would not have to go talk to the Democrats. But he is increasingly politically isolated. It bears noting that most of the 100 Hours legislation was passed with a large number of Republicans supporting it. Bush is hardly going to get any positive spin out of coming to grovel at a meeting of the party that is kicking his sad butt. Far from being an opportunity for Bush to get Dems to see his side of things it is only the appearance of Dems *offering* Bush a chance to save what little remains of his *legacy*. It is the spider inviting the fly to its web for tea. Or, at least, if I were in Dem leadership, that is how I would see it. Dems can afford to appear bi-partisan because, lets face it, they are going to pass what they want anyway and if Bush wants to veto popular legislation, that is more ammunition for Dems in 2008 to thoroughly crush Republicans.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | January 22, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Here's your official SOTU entertainment...

http://www.drinkinggame.us/

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Nor'eastr: exactly. Gag me with a spoon. Since when in 12 years have R's 'extended a fu**ing olive branch to Dems?

'Bipartisanship' still means 'date rape' to R's, as Grover Norquist so eloquently put it.

'And will he roll out policy proposals that can draw bipartisan support? '

He has no intention of doing so. Just making it look like he is.

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Maybe a nice move for the Dems, to show their drive for bi-partisanship.
But remember, this is the shrub, otherwise known as the "Def Chimpanzee," accent on the word "deaf." If he can't hear the public, the Congress or his generals, why would Rahm think he'll be able to hear these Dem leaders?
Like previous posts, it just gives him an opportunity to look like he's showing "bipartisanship." At least on Iraq, his ship has sailed--and not well.

Posted by: pacman | January 22, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Theoretically this is letting the camel into the tent.

The President will certainly know how to use all of the photo ops coming out of this; and I can't picture him "signing on" to their proposals, except for the minimum wage.

He wins, they lose.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 22, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I doubt the President will get any kind of warm reception in tomorrow night's speech with the '08 election looming. I could recommend some great dining in the Williamsburg area for him however, and of course Kingsmill has some world class links ...maybe some bipartisanship can be had there!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 22, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company