Obama throws childish temper tantrum at debt-ceiling negotiations

All of this is political posturing by the chosen one because he has zero desire to cut any entitlement programs and he wants to throw all the blame on the GOP for the talks breaking down. Meanwhile the amount of cutting keeps going down and Obama dares to speak of Ronald Reagan as if he is on the same level.

Cantor said he told the president that the two sides remain so far apart at this point that he doubted they could get to $2.5 trillion in cuts (to match the debt increase requested by the administration, enough to get through the 2012 election) given the time available. President Obama has said he will not sign any increase to the debt ceiling less than that amount, and Cantor had previously insisted that the House would vote no more than one time to increase the debt limit. Cantor said he was willing to abandon his position in order to allow some kind of short-term measure to increase the debt limit and reassure credit markets while negotiations continue, and asked the president if he would be willing to consider this option.

At this point, Cantor explained, the president became “very agitated” and said he had “sat here long enough,” that “Ronald Reagan wouldn’t sit here like this” and “something’s got to give.” Obama then told Republicans they either needed to compromise on their insistence on a dollar for dollar ratio of spending cuts to debt increase or agree to a “grand bargain” including massive tax increases. Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: “Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.” He then “shoved back” and said “I’ll see you tomorrow.”

Obama doesn't like that he is not in complete control and the public is not buying his message.

It goes hand in hand with his press lanky berating the press for shouting questions at him.

A long-running tiff between the White House press corps and the West Wing over presidential access flared anew today when press secretary Jay Carney faced off with reporters over the right to shout questions at the president during debt talks.

Obama chafes at the time-honored practice of answering questions shouted at him during pooled, non-press conference events — and his staff has often opted for “stills sprays,” excluding print reporters or TV cameras who might capture Obama in the less than flattering non-act of snubbing a query.

When asked today why TV crews and print reporters were barred from the pool covering the White House meeting with congressional leaders on the deficit, Carney responded by pointing out that the administration has held two press conferences in the past two weeks and allowed TV cameras into the spray earlier this week.

"People shouted questions at him," Carney said. He then added, "The purpose of the meeting is not to create a circus, but to negotiate, so today we're doing stills only."

Fort Lauderdale Air Show is back for Spring 2012.

Finally, the fact this city couldn't find a way to keep this going the previous years was ridiculous.

An air show is on its way back to the city beach next spring after a five-year hiatus.

Rival promoters had proposed a show for the last week of April; the City Commission Tuesday night chose the backers of a Cocoa Beach air show as having the best chance to produce the extravaganza.

"We need to make sure this event happens," Mayor Jack Seiler said. "We are going to have a tremendous event. It needs to return to the city of Fort Lauderdale."

Ted Danson joins CSI...Just kill the show already.

This is a sign this show is on its last leg.

The crime scene behind the yellow tape just got a lot more interesting on CSI.
CBS is set to announce that Ted Danson will take over for Laurence Fishburne as the drama’s leading man for the show’s 12th season.

Danson will play the CSI supervisor for the grave shift after heading the crime lab in Portland. He comes to the team as they are still grappling with the professional and personal fallout from last season’s take-down of serial killer, Nate Haskell.

“You can create a new character on the page, but until the perfect actor comes along and breathes life into it, it’s just words,” said executive producer Carol Mendelsohn. “We’re very excited Ted Danson came along.”

Yeah... No. The show has been headed downhill for a while and this is just stunt casting...really bad stunt casting.

States courting companies fleeing California.

But it has nice weather and a future out of control spending high speed rail. Good job.

Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.

And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.

Companies are "disinvesting" in California at a rate five times greater than just two years ago, said Joseph Vranich, a business relocation expert based in Irvine. This includes leaving altogether, establishing divisions elsewhere or opting not to set up shop in California.

"There is a feeling that the state is not stable," Vranich said. "Sacramento can't get its act together...and that includes the governor, legislators and regulatory agencies that are running wild."

Small Businesses won't provide new jobs, Obamacare cited

As if you didn't see this coming.

U.S. policymakers seeking an answer to the country's stubbornly high unemployment rate should not expect relief from small businesses, said a survey released on Monday by a powerful business lobbying group.

Almost two-thirds -- 64 percent -- of companies with income of $25 million or less do not plan to hire more workers over the next year, the poll conducted for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said.

Nineteen percent said they planned to add new employees, but only 12 percent said they expected to lose workers in the next year. That figure is well below the 29 percent who said they lost employees over the past year, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive for the Chamber.

Economic uncertainty was the biggest, or second biggest, obstacle to hiring more workers for 55 percent of the respondents. Some 34 percent cited an expected lack of sales as the first or second reason.

Other reasons cited included the U.S. debt and deficit, President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare measure, over-regulation and high taxes.

The Chamber of Commerce last month launched a campaign against what it called the Democratic president's "avalanche" of new regulations and warned they were costing American jobs.

Obama promises to raise massive taxes in 2013 and beyond.

Just not right now because he is in reelection mode.

Obama was a condescending dick in his presser today towards the American people.

The video says it all. He knows more than the American public.

Obama's 11 am presser preview on Monday

Blame the tea party, blame the GOP, Blame the speaker, blame everyone but Dems and liberals and himself. GOP and conservatives better get in front of this and bury Obama when he tries to make himself out to be bigger than everyone else. All that man knows is raise taxes

Obama lies again, refuses to cut entitlements and wants huge tax raises for debt ceiling deal

Who actually thought the big liberal in the White House would touch the entitlement programs? You would have to be a moron.

The White House dished out the spin that suddenly the Tea Party crowd had nixed a deal. In reality, the White House had upped the ante on taxes. A Republican House aide told me that the White House “started to backpedal on entitlement reforms too.” He explained, “They [the White House] had started to go back on some of the Medicare and Medicaid reforms they had previously said they were ok with.” In other words, either the White House never intended to present a viable grand bargain, or, if Obama did, the left got to him.

Atlanta cheating scandal or how dumb are Atlanta's school children?

Don't be fooled by the talk only former Atlanta School Superintendent Dr. Beverly Hall, a bunch of admins and teachers knew about the cheating. What about the parents or the kids themselves or the business leaders that were close to the situation or the former Mayor herself?

Former Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin called the state investigative report into widespread cheating on standardized tests in Atlanta Public Schools "pretty scary."

However, she said, former Atlanta School Superintendent Dr. Beverly Hall deserves credit for her successes.

"I'm not here to defend Dr. Hall, and I'm not here to smear her," said Franklin, during an interview Saturday. "I'm here to say this is where we are now. We need to take this opportunity and move forward with it."

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal released a report Tuesday that Time magazine is calling "likely the largest cheating scandal in U.S. history to date." It showed officials at nearly 80 percent of 56 Atlanta elementary and middle schools examined cheated on annual student-performance tests, called Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests.

Hall, who retired last month as head of the 48,000-student district, is accused of creating a culture of fear, pressuring faculty and administrators into accepting ever-increasing targets of achievement and turning a blind eye to the way those goals were achieved.

Hall, who was named National Superintendent of the Year in 2009, was already in charge of the school system when Franklin became Atlanta's mayor in 2002. Franklin left office in January 2010 after serving two terms.

The fact only a few people in Atlanta thought it was crazy that one year most of the kids were failing and the next most were passing, everyone connected to the system is to blame. Now we have a decade of kids who were moved on with the proper teaching and will most likely fail as they get into college or a real job. Its a shame but there is a whole lot of blame to go around including parents who never questioned what was going on in the system.

Australia's dumb carbon tax explained...watch a country tie an anchor around its neck.

The green party runs the government with Julia Gillard the ginger puppet who they have mimic their every word. So Australia gets the best of both worlds. A tax that will kill off businesses and causes expenses for everyone to go higher and the mass majority of homes will be getting welfare checks to offset the higher expenses.

So their tax money will be graciously handed back to them to pay back the government for higher energy costs. Niceeeee

Australia will force its 500 worst polluters to pay 23 Australian dollars ($25) for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit, with the government promising to compensate households hit with higher power bills under a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unveiled Sunday

Prime Minister Julia Gillard sought to reassure wary Australians that the deeply unpopular carbon tax will only cause a minority of households to pay more and insisted it is critical to helping the country lower its massive carbon dioxide emissions. Australia is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas polluters, due to its heavy reliance on coal for electricity.

"We generate more carbon pollution per head than any other country in the developed world," Gillard told reporters in Canberra as she released details of the tax, which will go into effect on July 1, 2012. "We've got a lot of work to do to hold our place in the race that the world is running."

Energy Secretary Steven Chu: "We are taking away a choice..."

Thats the attitude of a typical Obama liberal official. Consumers can't make the choice on their own but the government knows best.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu came out swinging Friday against a House bill that would repeal a 2007 federal law effectively outlawing older forms of incandescent bulbs—an effort at energy conservation that has inflamed a wide swath of Americans who don't care for the more expensive alternatives.

In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Chu said the more-efficient bulbs required would save consumers money over the life of the product, even if the up-front price is higher.

"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money," he said.

The light-bulb issue has become a flash point in a broader debate about the expansion of federal regulation into areas of personal choice, such as what to eat, how to save for retirement and how much gasoline to use.

How about you let people choose which light they want and eventually the consumers will choose on their own the light that saves them the most money you leftist twit.