TampaYankee

Only from a Diva Queen.... You still have that big feather boa I gave you in Montreal? I believe this is known in the straight world as 'drag and drop'.

I'm into speedo models.

Send him my way when you are done.

I can't support all the fiscal choices that some states make. Some states and municipalities are disfunctional. However, if you are saying the way to solve those problems is to fire teachers, police, and fireman and close schools and fire houses across the nation then I remain to be convinced that is either good for the country or for those states. Stimulus money ought to be focused and maybe it was not focused well enough. I tend to believe it wasn't and I have faulted Democrats for that. I still do not believe that is an argument for denying focused infrastructure projects as a means for short and medium term job creation and long term benefit to the national commerce infrastructure. You have no argument from me. However, some things cannot be done without money. Job creation is one of them. Somebody has to finance it -- either business or government. And government is not permanment source of jobs, only a spark or temporary bridge over some rough patches when business fails to meet the need, and then as a partial solution. When goverment spending is necessary it is always preferable that it result in lasting benefit to the country rather than make-work unemployment programs with no lasting benefit beyond those programs, even though the latter maybe called for in the most difficult times.

Brings a whole new meaning to 'laying carpet'.

It's not my word I want them hanging on.

Nice underwear. Very nice underwear model. This really isn't appropriate for me though as my sexy underwear days are behind me... by decades actually, if ever. But then so is my hit-of-the-party days. Nevertheless, I appreciate your bringing him and his to my attention.

What is your understanding of the cause of the end of the Great Depression? Why do you believe that the serious refurbishment and expansion of the American infrastructure system (highways, bridges, transportation systems, water, sewer, natual gas pipe lines. etc.) won't create jobs and a long-term contribution to the American economy? I've seen this statement made several times. Granted you want to know your costs so you can gauge your profitability, generally. However, I'd be more inclined to give the above argument more credence if it were presented with specifics. Until I see them, I'm inclined to believe that the reason all that money remains on the sidelines has more to do with lack of demand. Without getting too specific, can you give an idea of the general types of projects that you refer to for which there is significant demand today that regulation uncertainty is undermining? I agree that the Democrats efforts at job creation have been 'compromised' at best. That includes Obama too. I also recognize that the GOP did nothing to really address the problem at all. They chose to stand behind their party dogma, come hell or high water. After all, if the country fails it will be the Democrats in power who are held responsible. Some real American statesmen in that bunch. Honestly, most Americans don't know what Keynesian economic policies are. What the are is pissed. Pissed that the economy fell in a big hole. (Who was responsible for that?) They are pissed because the government didn't come together to effectively fix the problem. (Is there one party to blame for that? No. But it is clear that one party had no interest in helping the governing party solve the problem.) They are pissed because there has been a lot of misinformation promulgated and frankly much of the population has bought into lies and half-truths. Not seeing coherent problem solving coming from Washington they have become pissed with Washington. There is a very strong anti-encumbent mood in the country. It is not unwarranted. Both parties play games. Individual members of congress and groups of members play games. It's all about politics and the country is all about solutions. That is why they are pissed.

I give him a thumbs up for forging ahead to do this. I believe she is the best person to launch this agency. Whether he feels she is the best choice or that failure to appoint her would piss off and further deflate the Democratic base this election season, I do not know or care really. That is is done is enough. Not understandable why there seemed so much earlier opposition feom Geitner, Summers and Dodd. I'm happy to see it overcome finally. Also to hold the launch of this agency hostage to GOP filbuster would demonstrate more weakness in Obama carrying forward his agenda. There has been too much stuttering in his agenda already. Failure to move crisply ahead with is agenda has exacted a high cost on the Democrats to date. Nothing to be gained by more of the same.

Obama Names Elizabeth Warren To New Post Setting Up Consumer Protection Agency JIM KUHNHENN | 09/17/10 06:51 PM | AP WASHINGTON In a poke in the eye to the financial community, President Barack Obama on Friday named Elizabeth Warren, an aggressive consumer advocate and Wall Street adversary, to oversee creation of a new agency to regulate banks, lenders and credit card companies. Sidestepping a Senate confirmation fight for now Obama stopped short of nominating Warren to actually head the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Instead, his action will let the Harvard Law School professor and expert on bankruptcy move quickly to shape the bureau. Senate Republicans view her as too critical of Wall Street and big banks. The business and banking community opposed Warren as director of the new bureau, contending she would make the agency too aggressive. Obama praised her highly. "Never again will folks be confused or misled by pages of barely understandable fine print that you find in agreements for credit cards or mortgages or student loans," Obama said, standing alongside Warren and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the White House Rose Garden. "Elizabeth understands what I strongly believe: that a strong, growing economy begins with a strong and thriving middle class," the president said. "And that means every American has to get a fair shake in their financial dealings." Billed as a big help to abused consumers, the new bureau is charged with writing and enforcing new rules covering the largest banks to the smallest storefront payday lender. Lenders will face new restrictions on the type of mortgages they write and won't be rewarded for steering borrowers to higher-cost loans. The bureau also is to protect borrowers from hidden fees and abusive terms. Obama named Warren a special assistant to the president, giving her an influential province from which to direct the new bureau, a central element of the sweeping financial overhaul Obama signed into law this summer. The consumer bureau was one of Obama's key demands, easy for the public to grasp in an otherwise dense rewrite of complex financial rules. Liberal groups and many consumer advocates want Warren to be named director of the new bureau. With the advisory appointment in place, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said she would be instrumental in selecting a full-time director but hedged when asked if she would be a candidate. Obama has had a difficult time winning Senate approval for even non-controversial nominees, and the White House believed that anyone nominated to the director's job especially Warren would linger without Senate action for months. An Oklahoma native who was a state high school debate champion, the 61-year-old Warren was the architect of the consumer bureau, calling three years ago for the creation of an agency that would consolidate the consumer protection powers now spread across numerous financial regulatory agencies. "Elizabeth is the best person to stand this agency up," Obama said. The job has the official status of a Cabinet undersecretary, but the title of special adviser to the president elevates her stature considerably and gives her direct access to the Oval Office. The designation appeared designed to quell worries among some Warren supporters that she would be subservient to Geithner. Congressional Republicans promptly objected to the arrangement. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., in a letter to White House counsel Bob Bauer, said that by giving Warren responsibilities at the White House and Treasury, Obama was undermining congressional oversight because she could avoid testifying before House or Senate committees. "This is unprecedented," they wrote. The law gives the Treasury Department the authority to run the consumer protection bureau while the nomination of its director is pending. For now, Warren will be responsible for assembling the bureau and shifting consumer functions from regulators to the bureau. On Friday, Geithner set July 21, 2011, as the deadline for that transfer. That means the bureau won't be able to enforce rules restricting mortgages or credit cards until at least then. Warren would not have an immediate effect on other bureau activities. The consumer bureau, for instance, has as long as 30 months for regulations on predatory lending to take effect. Warren has spent the past two years running the Congressional Oversight Panel, charged with monitoring the Treasury Department's handling of the $700 billion bank rescue fund known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. She stepped down from the panel just after Friday's announcement. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a fan of Warren's, said she told him a few months ago that she thought it was more important that she help set up the agency than be its first director. Frank, D-Mass., said he made that point to Obama adviser David Axelrod. "That doesn't mean she doesn't want the job, only that the setup is important and that sacrificing the ability to have her there to set it up so as to preserve her ability to be the full-time director would be a bad trade," Frank said in an interview. Frank disagreed with House Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who has said that even with Warren in her new role, the White House needs to move quickly to nominate a new director. Frank said Warren now has until the end of the president's first term in January of 2013 to set up the agency. Asked whether Obama should nominate a director soon, Frank replied: "Why?...The administration has found a way to put the best possible person in charge of it. I'm satisfied with that for now." The consumer bureau was the most contentious feature of the financial regulation bill. The financial industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce mounted a fierce campaign to kill it while Congress assembled the legislation. David Hirschmann, a senior vice president at the Chamber, said Warren's arrangement prolongs the uncertainty that has some lenders skittish about extending credit. "If you're a credit provider, you're sitting there wondering what types of products you're offering will be second-guessed later as unfair, deceptive or not approved," Hirschmann said. "If you don't know what the speed limit is on the road and you knew there were cops out there trying to catch you, that would make you reluctant to drive." Travis Plunket, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America, said Warren will be crucial in setting the bureau's priorities, its culture and its regulatory tone. But, he added: "I don't see it as substituting for the need to get a director nominated and confirmed." ___ Associated Press writers Julie Pace and Daniel Wagner contributed to this article. Original article can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/17/obama-names-elizabeth-war_n_721307.html

Hot!!

I may have posted this before. All I know is I cannot resist perfect bubble ass. The rest is damn good too.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2009/0615/p06s13-woam.html http://www.newser.com/story/83215/24-die-in-drug-violence-in-mexican-resort.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7897345.stm

I think history will hold Bush accountable although there is some blame to apportion to Bill Clinton too, and the U.S. Congress. Personally, I believe Bush is one of the very worst presidents in U.S. history and I belive history will show that. It will take some time for the topic to recede from the political horizon as party politics on either side precludes the clearest view and discussion of his tenure. He will go down as a poor domestic president, a poor Commander-in-Chief and as a war criminal IMO.

300 Economists Warn Congress: Don't Kill Growth And Jobs In The Name Of Deficit Reduction First Posted: 09-16-10 01:06 PM | Updated: 09-16-10 01:27 PM Arthur Delaney arthur@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting A small army of economists warned Congress on Thursday not to focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation or else risk a 1937-style double-dip recession. "History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity," says a statement signed by more than 300 economists and policy experts. "In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring." Democrats in Congress have had 1937 in mind since March 2009. "We're not going to let it happen again," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time. Nevertheless, deficit hawks dominated the debate in Congress this summer as Democratic leaders struggled to reauthorize a series of programs created by the 2009 stimulus bill. Pelosi and her counterparts in the Senate have had seemingly little choice other than to sacrifice things like COBRA health insurance subsidies and enhanced unemployment benefits to win the support of deficit-hawkish Democrats and moderate Republicans. "This is about a high road to recovery versus a low road to fiscal balance," said Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect and co-author of the statement, along with the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker and the Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey from the Institute for America's Future. "The proper sequencing is: You get the recovery first, that requires increased public investment. And then the road to fiscal balance is much less arduous because people are working, businesses are investing, and tax revenues go up because you're back in recovery. "There is also a low road to fiscal balance, where you have austerity and you get the budget balanced at the cost of whacking the real economy." See original article for more information at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/300-economists-warn-congr_n_719469.html

So much for our hand wringing GOP deficit hawks. Can their hypocracy get any ranker? They are nothing but bag men for the Rich and Wealthy, Wall St, Big Oil and The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Their job is to spread tax favors and money to the sectors and remove any regulations that impede the actions/profits of the big money entities. Never has the true picture of the GOP been any clearer.

Senate Republicans unveil a plan to make Bush tax cuts permanent By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 15, 2010; 3:16 AM Even as they hammer Democrats for running up record budget deficits, Senate Republicans are rolling out a plan to permanently extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade, nearly doubling projected deficits over that period unless dramatic spending cuts are made. The measure, introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) this week, would permanently extend the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts that benefit virtually every U.S. taxpayer, rein in the alternative minimum tax and limit the estate tax to estates worth more than $5 million for individuals or $10 million for couples. Aides to McConnell said they have yet to receive a cost estimate for the measure. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that a similar, slightly more expensive package that includes a full repeal of the estate tax would force the nation to borrow an additional $3.9 trillion over the next decade and increase interest payments on the national debt by $950 billion. That's more than four times the projected deficit impact of President Obama's health-care overhaul and stimulus package combined. "We have a spending problem. We spend too much. We don't have a taxing problem. We don't tax too little," McConnell told reporters Tuesday. "And if we want to begin to get ourselves out of this economic trough that we're in, the only way to do that is to grow the private sector." McConnell spoke as senators returned to the Capitol after a six-week hiatus for a final pre-election session that will be defined by a battle over the Bush tax cuts. Unless Congress acts, the cuts will expire at the end of the year, raising taxes across the board. While Republicans want to preserve all the cuts, Obama has called on lawmakers to extend them only for household incomes under $250,000 a year. That strategy, he argues, would knock hundreds of billions of dollars off the cost of extending the cuts, money that could be used to reduce the nation's debt. Senate Democrats, while generally supportive of Obama's position, have yet to determine the precise shape of the package they hope to put to a vote in the next four weeks. (READ RELATED ARTICLE: Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/putting_the_39_trillion_extens.html) The issue dominated a luncheon meeting Tuesday, but Senate Democrats reached no consensus on how to proceed. Some lawmakers want to hold a vote on the Obama plan - which would presumably not achieve the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster - and then adjourn until after the election. Others prefer to try to resolve the issue before the current session ends to provide voters with certainty on the matter. But that would require at least a handful of Republicans to agree to a compromise, probably involving a temporary extension of all the tax cuts. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) signaled her openness to such a deal Tuesday. "Where we start is to extend all the tax cuts. I think that's important," she told reporters. But she also suggested that she might accept a solution that falls short of a permanent extension of all the Bush cuts - the only approach her more conservative Republican colleagues say they are willing to consider. A handful of Democrats say they, too, would like to see all the tax cuts extended, at least temporarily, to avoid raising taxes amid an economic downturn - and to blunt GOP charges, in the final weeks before critical elections, that Democrats are raising taxes. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said it's an open question whether any tax vote will occur in the Senate before the election. "It's more likely than not, but no final decision" has been made, he said. Beyond the debate over the Bush tax cuts, dozens of other tax issues also remain to be settled. For example, without congressional action, millions of taxpayers will owe thousands of dollars in additional taxes this year under the alternative minimum tax. The temporary patch that protected middle-class families from the AMT has expired. Instead of adopting a measure that would permanently limit the number if taxpayers subject to the AMT, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Tuesday that he could foresee a bill that would limit the number for two years. The latter approach would be less expensive for the government. Baucus insisted to reporters, however, that Bush tax cuts that benefit middle- and lower-income families should be made permanent, arguing that a temporary extension "is basically just kicking the can down the road to avoid making difficult decisions and creates more problems than it solves by creating more uncertainty." Depending on how the AMT is addressed, codifying those cuts would add about $1.4 trillion to deficits over the next decade. But, Baucus acknowledged, "there's little talk about how all this is to be paid for." Asked how McConnell would cover the cost of his proposal, the Tax Hike Prevention Act, aides noted that he has backed a bipartisan plan to freeze spending that would save an estimated $300 billion over the next decade - a drop in the bucket compared with his $4 trillion-plus plan. For the rest of the cash, McConnell has said he will turn to the same place as Obama: a presidentially appointed, bipartisan deficit commission that is due to issue its report in December. "This is not going to be your typical commission that's going to issue a report, sit on the shelf and gather dust," McConnell said last month on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We'll wait for their report. And I intend, if it's a responsible report that I can support, to encourage my members to support it." Staff writer Shailagh Murray contributed to this report. See original post at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091406838_pf.html

Craigslist Tells Congress Its Adult Services Section Is Gone For Good JIM ABRAMS | 09/15/10 05:18 PM | AP WASHINGTON A Craigslist official told lawmakers Wednesday that the classified ad website has no plans to resume its adult services section and defended the company's efforts to stop the sexual exploitation of minors. But William Clinton Powell also told a House Judiciary Committee panel that people seeking to advertise adult or sexual services will now simply migrate to other Internet sites. He said the decision by Craigslist earlier this month to shut down the adult services section "may be a step backward in terms of addressing the core causes of the issue." Craigslist was responding to demands from state attorneys general and anti-child trafficking organizations to end adult services because it had become a favorite conduit for illegal ads. "I have not had a girl who was not marketed online and most of them were marketed on Craigslist," said Linda Smith, a former member of Congress who heads Shared Hope International, a group that rescues women and children trapped by sex traffickers. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., agreed that "the Internet has opened a whole new front in the war on trafficking, allowing demand to run free without practical obstacles." Powell, director of law enforcement relations for the nation's largest classified advertising service, said Craigslist has been aggressive in working to stop child exploitation. He said the company encourages users to report suspected trafficking, features law enforcement and reporting hotlines, participates in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children tipline and manually reviewed every adult service ad prior to posting. "Craigslist has been virtually alone among the many advertising venues carrying adult ads in vigorously combating exploitation and trafficking," he said. Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, agreed that the focus must now be broadened beyond Craigslist. "The goal is to destroy the business model for those who sell children for sex over the Internet." Lawmakers and witnesses said at least 100,000 minors are exploited by the commercial sex industry in the United States every year. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., chairman of the crime subcommittee, cited estimates that 450,000 minors run away from home every year, and about one-third of those end up being forced into prostitution. Despite that, it appears that the United States spends more to combat sex trafficking overseas than it does in the United States, said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who is sponsoring an anti-minor sex trafficking bill with Smith. The Maloney-Smith bill would authorize up to $50 million over four years for grants to provide shelter and care for young victims and ensure adequate resources for law enforcement and prosecutors. Many young people are treated as criminals instead of victims, and there are nationwide only 50 beds in shelters to address the needs of 100,000 victims, Maloney said. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/craigslist-adult-services-shutdown-congress_n_718803.html

This is really a no brainer, IMO. I only know what I see in the media and the story is pretty much the same whatever the news source. The last thing anyone should put stock in is any Tourist or Chamber of Commerce, hotel or Mexican government information. They depend on travelers which colors their information. I would love to go to Mexico but the only way I would go these days is if I were kidnapped and transported there. No way, no how.

#2 should be the entry in the Oxford Picture Dictionary for 'horny hunk', litterally.

This discussion was the undercurrent of my opening post. Even if the GOP leaders survive their leadership posts they wont be able to fashion any reasonable consensus on spending bills and a lot of other stuff either. The best thing those leaders have to look forward too, should they take over, is two years of hell and black eyes, and that from their own. Does offer Obama a chance for reelection once the middle voters see the train wreck. I suspect we are in for a government shutdown. It will sorely test Obama to see if he has the balls to let the train wreck happen or surrenders the reigns of government. This is really contingent on them taking the Senate. I doubt the tea partiers are of sufficient number to drive the House to paralysis. They will cause a definite swing to the right though. If Dems remain in charge in both houses then an even chance Obama goes home to Chicago in '13. That is unless he picks up his selling of his initiatives. To date he has sucked at it, along with the Dem Congress. Here is one simple example: Instead of using class warfare arguments on the Bush Tax Cuts, make the argument that everyone gets treated equally. Period. Everyone keeps tax cuts on first $250k of income. We wish it could be more but we cannot afford because it is deficit exploding which is also of great concern. EVERYONE gets equal treatment. Have you heard anyone make that simple argument? It would sell to the middle which is about fair play and deficit concerns. The problems with Democrats is they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. They all chew gum all the time it seems. As for the argument: 'this will pass too', history supports that as you point out. But there is passing and there is passing. IMO we are in for a bad decade, economy wise. That is what history and economists tell me. We have a job hole that will take us the better part of a decade to dig out of. China and India are booming now and likely to continue over the next decade. They are moving ahead in green energy and manufacturing. We are lagging with no sign that there is or will be a consensus to get moving on green energy or renewed manufacturing base. We 'had' an economy primarily driven by consumerism. Those consumers are no longer consuming as before. They are not flipping houses or even buying new houses for personal use. The unemployed count between 15 million and 22 million depending upon who you believe. However many there are, they wont be consuming a hell of alot. We are not going to fall into a black hole but we are not going to bounce back overnight or in one year to three. Look for a lackluster decade. With that lack of luster comes an inability to shrink the deficit. Afterall, we can only do that by taking in tax receipts which the GOP wants to give the rich or we can print money which has a terrible down side. Yes, it will pass. I'm just not sure when or how pleasantly. The Great Depression passed too but it wasn't a fun ride.

Just what are they promoting?

'bout time.

Actually, I edited my post before you responded but after you began to craft your reply. I checked that no response existed when I edited -- beginning and end. So I was a bit surprised when your post showed shortly after. I thought I had made it clean but obviously you had already snagged my oringial post in your quote window. The reason for the edit was that I had a more substantive remark I wanted to make and didnt think the original offered much. Everyone can make up their own mind as both versions exist under my name and your response. I still do not see in either any support for your conjecture. But it is of no importance that this point.

I guess this is just one of those examples where sarchasm doesnt always survive the medium -- at least in my case. Not unusal as conveying inflective qualities to the posted word is challenging, if not for one end of the comunication then for the other. What in my replies gave you that impression?