Tag Archives: president

Poll Finds Americans Think Dems Are Too Liberal, Undermining Media Meme

The legacy media love to paint steadfast conservatives as “far right” “ideologues” who are destroying the GOP’s “big tent” and “purging” moderates. The notion that the Republican Party has drifted too far to the right, however, is contradicted by a new Gallup poll showing that Americans are more concerned about Democrats’ fringe elements. About half (49%) of poll respondents told Gallup that they thought the Democratic Party is too far left. Forty-two percent said the GOP is too far right. The former number is the highest it has been since 1994, when Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Of course most journalists probably don’t share that sentiment–indeed, a number have bemoaned President Obama’s supposed refusal to move even further to the left. Since those journalists are well outside of the nation’s mainstream, center-right political outlook, they will inevitably see Republicans as too far right and Democrats as moderate and centrist. Hence we have Chris Matthews decrying the “frightening, almost Cambodia re-education camp going on in [the Republican] party, where they’re going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, if you’re not far right, you’re not right enough.” There is probably not much hope in showing Matthews the light, but this new Gallup poll should dispel theories such as Mark Halperin’s , that Republicans’ steadfast opposition to the president’s agenda is “unlikely to produce a majority against the administration.” In fact, as long as voters see the Democrats’ agenda as too far to the left, such opposition is likely to pay off in November. Ed Morrissey explains : First, it speaks to voter enthusiasm for Democratic candidates.  They won’t get the kind of turnout in 2010 that they did in 2008 when half of all Americans consider them the extreme.  Independents are the biggest problem; in 2008, when Democrats extended their control of Congress and took the White House, independents were narrowly split 43/40 in thinking that the Democratic Party ideological position was “about right.”  Now they have a 19-point deficit among independents, 33/52. They have even lost 10 points among Democrats for “about right” in the last two years, although that got evenly split between “too conservative” and “too liberal.” Second, Obama and Democratic leadership have already hinted that they want to argue in the midterms  that Republicans are the real extremists.  That argument would have worked, according to Gallup’s data, until Democrats started pushing ObamaCare through Congress.  At that point, a plurality of voters thought the GOP was too conservative as opposed to “about right,” 43/34.  That has shifted to 40/41, while Democrats have gone from a “too liberal/about right” split of 46/42 to 49/38 in the same period.  They’re not going to win a debate over extremism, not while rolling up debt like a college freshman with his first Visa card.

Go here to see the original:
Poll Finds Americans Think Dems Are Too Liberal, Undermining Media Meme

Network News Shows Largely Skip President’s $50 Billion Spending Request

The network morning and evening news shows have all but ignored President Obama’s Saturday letter to congressional leaders asking for $50 billion in additional spending to prevent the “massive layoffs of teachers, police, and firefighters.” Only Sunday’s Good Morning America on ABC has covered the President’s request so far. The chief executive’s June 12 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader John Boehner urged “swift action” on the multi-billion dollar proposal to prevent the public sector layoffs and “give our nation’s businesses added impetus to hire and grow.” ABC anchor Bill Weir brought up the President’s letter with White House correspondent Jake Tapper 13 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of Sunday’s Good Morning America: WEIR: And then, I guess, slightly more difficult than stopping the leak is keeping open the flow of federal stimulus money- I understand the President [is] asking for another $50 billion? JAKE TAPPER: Another $50 billion, and this has been a tough sell for Democrats on Capitol Hill, not to mention, of course, Republicans. President Obama made the request in a letter yesterday . I will be sitting down today with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Leader John Boehner to see if they have any willingness to pass an additional $50 billion. The President says this is needed as emergency aid to state and local governments, to make sure there aren’t massive layoffs of teachers and policemen and firemen. But, so far, Congress has shown no inclination to pass any more spending bills. Neither Sunday’s Today show on NBC nor CBS’s Sunday Morning program mentioned the spending request. This omission continued on all three networks Sunday evening news programs. The networks’ morning shows on Monday also failed to mention the push for further spending by the President. By contrast, CNN’s Christine Romans devoted an entire segment to it on American Morning: JOHN ROBERTS: Twenty minutes now after the [7 am Eastern] hour- Christine Romans here ‘Minding Your Business’ this morning. And we heard mantras of ‘drill baby drill’- now, I guess this one is ‘spend baby spend,’ right? CHRISTINE ROMANS: Right, the President- KIRAN CHETRY: But don’t call it ‘stimulus.’ ROMANS: Don’t call it- whatever you do, do not call new spending in the economy ‘stimulus’ because we have mid-term elections coming up and Republicans and- you know, frankly, a lot of Democrats are not real keen on spending a lot more money. But the President this weekend sending a letter to congressional leadership, saying this is not the time to pull back on some important emergency spending measures because the economy is really at a critical juncture, he says, in the path to recovery. The President, in this three-page letter to Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, saying basically, we cannot afford to slide backward, that we must take emergency measures. All told, maybe up to $50 billion in new spending for things like keeping teachers on the job, for helping people pay their premiums for health care insurance, for making sure that first responders have money so that they are out there actually being able to answer 911 calls and the like. Here’s the issue that the President points out in his letter. We have an economy that is in a recovery, but that recovery seems to be pretty fragile. You look at the number of people unemployed- it’s still 9.7 percent. You look at the most recent retail sales number- retail sales fell 1.2 percent in the most recent month. That was a surprise to people. And you have you a 30-year fixed rate mortgage of an unbelievable 4.81 percent. Folks, that is so low for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. But you still have a lot of concerns with the housing market. It’s just not going to recover until you see the job situation recover. So the President is asking for some- you know, solidarity behind some new spending. The letter went over like a lead balloon with Republicans- ROBERTS: I’m sure. ROMANS: And even some Democrats are concerned. Look, they can’t support anything in the next few months that’s going to turn up in a campaign ad against them as some kind of a new stimulus or spending money we don’t have. So it’s a tough fight the President has here. CHETRY: All right. Christine Romans, thanks so much. ROMANS: Sure. CHETRY: Oh, what’s your numeral? Sorry about that. ROMANS: Oh, the numeral is 300,000. And this is one of the reasons why the President really makes it personal about this spending- 300,000. CHETRY: This is how many people sign up for unemployment benefits each month? ROMANS: This is- according to David Axelrod, if you don’t spend more money, you’re going to have 300,000 teachers out of work- 300,000. That means if you don’t find the money to spend- ROBERTS: That’s true, yeah. ROMANS: You’re going to notice this in your school, in your classroom. This is something- ROBERTS: State and local budgets. ROMANS: It affects you, and the President noted that in his letter, that state and local people are really in big trouble here. ROBERTS: Okay. And now it’s time to say goodbye to all our company. ROMANS: Or walk. CHETRY: All right, Christine.

See more here:
Network News Shows Largely Skip President’s $50 Billion Spending Request

MSNBC’s Scarborough Insults Republicans as ‘Genuinely Stupid’ for Criticizing Obama’s Oil Spill Response

Ad hominem attacks supplanted thoughtful discussion yet again on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” On Monday, co-host Joe Scarborough chastised Republicans as “genuinely stupid” for criticizing President Barack Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill, adding that the GOP must think the American people are “dumb as hell.” “The Republicans blaming Obama look genuinely stupid because of eight years of deregulation,” scolded Scarborough, who is developing a penchant for favoring personal attacks over rational debate. “Is Mitt Romney suggesting he’s more hostile to the oil industry than Barack Obama?” Scarborough sardonically asked an amused Mike Allen, Politico ’s chief political correspondent. “Do we want to go back and look at the money? And again, I’m not just knocking Mitt Romney, but when Republicans come out like Sarah Palin and suggest the president is too cozy with the oil industry, this suggests that they think the American people are dumb as hell.” Always eager to elevate the dialogue with enlightened commentary, co-host Mika Brzezinski characterized Republicans more bluntly, as “stupid.” Descending into a bizarre abyss of rants and insults, the “Morning Joe” regulars are becoming increasingly irrelevant as serious political analysts. The transcript of the relevant portion of the program can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe 6/14/10 6:24 a.m. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Also, looking at Mitt Romney, hitting the president hard on how he’s handled the oil spill. What’s the angle here? MIKE ALLEN, Politico ’s chief political correspondent: That’s right, Mika. The White House has thought for a while that Mitt Romney is the most likely opponent to the president. You never know a couple years out, but just looking at Republican Party history you kind of think that. And Mitt Romney’s been quiet, everybody knows him, he doesn’t need to establish his name ID. But you’re seeing him start to take some whacks at the president in very high-profile forums. This weekend he was at the state Republican convention in the state of Washington, and he really went after the president on his handling of BP, saying that it shows his inability to lead–he questioned his leadership ability. And of course that’s what Mitt Romney tells voters he has to bring to the table. JOE SCARBOROUGH: So, what did Mitt Romney say exactly he would have done that Barack Obama is not doing? ALLEN: He doesn’t of course. And when President Bush does interviews about his book this fall you can bet that that’s one of the first questions he’s going to be asked. SCARBOROUGH: Is Mitt Romney suggesting that he’s more hostile to the oil industry than Barack Obama? ALLEN: (laughter) SCARBOROUGH: Do we want to go back and look at the money? And again, I’m not just knocking Mitt Romney, but when Republicans come out like Sarah Palin and suggest the president is too cozy with the oil industry, this suggests that they think the American people are– BRZEZINSKI: Stupid. SCARBOROUGH: –dumb as hell. ALLEN: They may not want to go there. Democratic staffers are looking at polling that shows that voters are very receptive to the idea of saying we need to crack down on the companies that took advantage of the government. So, especially with swing voters, there’s not a lot of sympathy for oil companies obviously. BRZEZINSKI: Alright, Mike Allen thank you very much, we’ll see you in just a little bit. SCARBOROUGH: And by the way, really quickly, nobody’s going to be able to play this–really–come the fall, saying “oh, it’s all the Republicans” or these Republicans saying “it’s all the Democrats.” The Republicans blaming Obama look genuinely stupid because of eight years of deregulation. But as Dee Dee Meyers and other Democrats have admitted, that deregulation started in the 1990’s under Bill Clinton. You’ve had three administrations that have basically given oil companies a free pass. And Mike we always talk about the Wall Street Journal article. Five minutes– MIKE BARNICLE: Five minutes for an approval. SCARBOROUGH: for approval for some of these BP regulatory waivers. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
MSNBC’s Scarborough Insults Republicans as ‘Genuinely Stupid’ for Criticizing Obama’s Oil Spill Response

Some Cesc Stuff, + World Cup Update – – The Offside – Arsenal …

Some Cesc Stuff, + World Cup Update . By: Martin | June 14th, 2010 . Not too much to talk about today, Arsenal-wise: Sandro Rosell was elected President of FC Barcelona yesterday, and will take over the office at the end of this month. …. Ashwin: I think Netherlands will win 3-0 today 😀 Since Bendtner isn’t playing, Denmark won’t score . :P; Song Set to be Dropped from Cameroon Squad, + World Cup Update Sairax: @Casimir: Yeah I know we lost to you, I just try to block all …

Originally posted here:
Some Cesc Stuff, + World Cup Update – – The Offside – Arsenal …

Howard Kurtz Oddly Suggests Few ‘Onlookers’ Noticed Helen Thomas Had Veered Into Rants

Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz wrote Monday that Helen Thomas could have spared herself an embarrassing quick retirement if her media colleagues had “gently suggested” it was time to go. He said the press corps saw her as an “eccentric aunt,” but he claimed most of the country never saw her as cranky and ideological: But that’s not how she was seen by much of the country, which still viewed her as the groundbreaking correspondent she once was, not the cranky columnist she had become. So when Aunt Helen snapped that Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” — and go back to Germany, among other places — many onlookers were stunned. Any onlooker who was stunned wasn’t in the habit of watching White House briefings – or reading how media watchdog groups (ahem) routinely recounted Helen’s rants. Kurtz noted that journalists went soft on a colleague because they usually stay together in a pack, but didn’t quite note that journalists shared the vigorously anti-Bush/Cheney viewpoint Thomas offered: Journalists, especially those who spend a great deal of time together, don’t usually turn on each other. If Thomas was spewing bias and bile, the reasoning went, what was the harm? Kurtz acknowledged the reality that few journalists actually read her Hearst column, and she was never known as a great writer or notable breaker of scoops. But her columnist phase seemed to cloud her earlier reputation from her “choice bit of real estate” in the front row seat at the White House: There was something to admire in Thomas’s determination to ask uncomfortable questions. But when she declared George W. Bush the “worst president ever” in 2003, she shed any pretense of fair-mindedness. As time went on, her questions turned into speeches, as in this 2007 challenge to Bush over Iraq: “Mr. President, you started this war. It’s a war of your choosing. You can end it, alone. Today. At this point bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don’t you understand? We brought the al-Qaeda into Iraq.” One might agree or disagree with those sentiments, but she was performing as an activist, not a journalist. Former CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre wrote last week that “there’s a big difference between asking tough questions and getting answers to tough questions. Anyone can ASK tough questions. But figuring out how to hold government officials accountable, by posing questions in such a way that they can’t avoid answering them, is a much harder, and far more valuable journalistic exercise than just venting from a padded front seat in the White House briefing room. Helen Thomas’ questions were not designed to probe weaknesses in the president’s policies. They were just meant to provoke him.” Former Bush speechwriter David Frum said on his blog that “calling on Helen Thomas was a notorious method for a hard-pressed White House press secretary to EVADE tough questions from the rest of the press corps. A zany, out-of-left-field protest from Thomas would disrupt a flow of unwelcome queries, maybe spark a tension-breaking laugh, maybe change the subject altogether.” Frum is right that Helen’s rants were not designed to elicit meaningful answers. But it would be wrong to suggest that an Ari Fleischer would have welcomed the chance to call on Helen to disrupt a flow of questions or change the subject. There were occasions — as when I was in the briefing room in 2001 and 2002 — when other reporters (ABC’s Terry Moran comes to mind, working for “pro-Palestinian” anchor Peter Jennings) would support a Helen question, insist she had a point, and asked Fleischer to elaborate on his answer. I would also beg to differ with Frum on the notion that Helen’s questions could spark a “tension-breaking laugh.” They were often tension- builders , not tension-breakers. There was rarely giggling when Helen asked a question. By contrast, when conservative Les Kinsolving would begin reading one of his long questions from his notebook, often citing a report in The Washington Times, the chortling was an everyday affair, and it would start almost immediately, even if the question was good. PS: Kurtz ended his Media Notes column by relaying Sarah Palin’s interview with Greta van Susteren on “Boobgate” and other controversies. The Post had a picture of Palin with the snarky caption: “REFUTING THE RUMOR: ‘Nooo, I have not had implants,’ Sarah Palin told the intrepid Greta van Susteren.”

Read the rest here:
Howard Kurtz Oddly Suggests Few ‘Onlookers’ Noticed Helen Thomas Had Veered Into Rants

U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials. The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe. An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys. The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said. While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war. “There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.” The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion. “This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines. American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House. So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact. Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country. The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced. Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge. “No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits. At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said. Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.” With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.” [More to read in the link] added by: UrbanGypsy

Kucinich on Obama’s Escalation: Great Speech, Bad Policy

The other “peace candidate” in the 2008 Democratic primary isn’t thrilled with the president’s order to radically escalate the war in Afghanistan, no matter if there’s an exit strategy: “What are we going to learn in 18 months that we haven’t already learned in the last eight years?” truthdig_kucinich_afghan_escalation.mp3

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TruthdigPodcast/~5/G9WWpOv5gjM/truthdig_kucinich_afghan_escalation.mp3

Read more:
Kucinich on Obama’s Escalation: Great Speech, Bad Policy

Jonathan Alter: Health Care Puts Obama in FDR’s League

Newsweek senior editor and columnist Jonathan Alter talks about his new book, “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” and why “Just by getting health care through … [Barack Obama is] now standing alone with Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson in terms of domestic achievement.” Truthdig_JonathanAlter_obama.mp3

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TruthdigPodcast/~5/OWjccxK09sk/Truthdig_JonathanAlter_obama.mp3

Read the original post:
Jonathan Alter: Health Care Puts Obama in FDR’s League

Clyburn, Boiled Down: We’ll Never Stop Blaming Bush

Real Clear Politics currently has a video highlighting statements by Democratic Congressman James Clyburn Jr. of South Carolina. It teases the video with a question asked by Candy Crowley of CNN. Once one sees the entire sequence, it’s clear that Clyburn really answered Crowley’s question before she even asked it. Here’s the full transcript of the vid, which begins after Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence had apparently made some points about how steps taken by the Obama administration to revive the economy to the point where it generates meaningful job growth aren’t working. Clyburn’s answer to when his party will stop blaming Bush is in bold: Clyburn: Uh, Congressman Spence, uh, Pence keeps talkin’ about, uh, the fact that, uh, we are, uh, failing in our approach. We all know exactly what this president inherited, and we will stop talkin’ about that inheritance, uh, when uh Congressman uh Pence and others stop talkin’ about takin’ us back uh to those failed policies. We’re trying to correct some things that we had absolutely nothin’ to do with, and the American people know that. And I would wish that all of us would get on board this in bipartisan approaches to tryin’ and get our economy stabilized, tryin’ to get our children educated, tryin’ to get workin’ men and women back to, uh, on their jobs, and look for the future, look to the future with — Crowley: Congressman? Clyburn: — a little more, uh compassion and bipartisanship. Crowley: Congressman, I think nobody disagrees with you on the goals. I think that one of the questions that’s cropping up now is, when does the statute of limitations run out on blaming the Bush administration and when is it on you all as the governing — really in the House and the Senate and the White House. When does the economy, uh, become your baby, so to speak? Clyburn: The economy is our baby. But let’s stop talkin’ about cuttin’ taxes, cuttin’ taxes, cuttin’ taxes. That simplistic approach to tryin’ to get this economy movin’ again, it’s what got us in this, uh-uh, position in the first place. We just had an across the board cut on 95% of workin’ men and women, they got an across the board tax cut. You all know that. Pence attempted to get in a word or two edgewise during Clyburn’s final two sentences and got nowhere, though Crowley got to him immediately after that. One can also hear Pence chuckling in the background as Crowley asks here “statute of limitations” question. “Congressman Pence and others” clearly have no plans to “stop talkin’ about takin’ us back to those failed policies” — policies that worked reasonably well from 2003 to 2007 , by the way, despite the sand-in-the-wheels impact of the Sarbanes Oxley law. Therefore, the short version of Clyburn’s answer to the question of when the Bush blame game will stop is, “When you guys shut up.” The one-word version is really, “Never.” As to Clyburn’s contention that “We’re trying to correct some things that we had absolutely nothin’ to do with,” it’s time to remind him and everyone else of the true origins of the housing and mortgage lending bubble. They have everything to do with government-sponsored, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and nothing to do with George Bush, who tried — perhaps not hard enough, but genuinely tried — to stop the madness emanating from those two entities. The full scope of what these Democrat crony-controlled perpetrated on the nation didn’t become fully known until late last year. It wasn’t “only” lax credit standards, which would have been bad enough. Beyond that, as I noted on December 31 (last item at link; a column with a more complete treatment of the topic is here ), there was pervasively fraudulent loan packaging: … it’s hard to overstate the relevance of this paragraph from Peter J. Wallison in the Wall Street Journal , because it should end the debate over who is primarily responsible for the housing and mortgage-lending messes: “There is more to this ugly situation. New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.” The two Democrat-crony government-sponsored enterprises created an artificial market for subprime mortgages by bilking investors for 15 years . If they hadn’t done this, subprimes would never have been able to expand to their mortally dangerous levels. Further, the victims of the misrepresentations logically would appear to include the rating agencies that some state attorneys general are going after as the supposed culprits. Sorry, Mr. Clyburn, your party and its cronies had everything to do with it. The only reason much of the American public doesn’t know this is because reporters like Candy Crowley haven’t educated themselves about what Fan and Fred really did, and therefore won’t challenge your full-of-baloney assertions. Or worse, they know and let it slide. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the rest here:
Clyburn, Boiled Down: We’ll Never Stop Blaming Bush

Obama Wants $50 Billion For Teachers, Cops and Firemen

With a relative drop in the bailout bucket, the president thinks he can save 300,000 teachers who would otherwise be kept by economic calamity from annoying America’s children. The money would go to state and local governments struggling to make ends meet. Christian Science Monitor: Mr. Obama has intimated in the past that the federal government’s job of propping up the economy was not yet done. Last week, he sent a letter to Congress supporting efforts to pass two separate measures totaling as much as $50 billion in aid for states and cities. With states still facing large budget shortfalls, Obama wants to minimize the potential loss of teachers, law-enforcement officers, and firefighters. He estimates that as many as 300,000 teachers could be laid off. In this way, the money would largely pick up with the $787 billion federal stimulus bill left off. Read more Related Entries June 13, 2010 Obama Will Demand a BP Escrow Fund for Victims June 12, 2010 Turning the Crisis Corner

Original post:
Obama Wants $50 Billion For Teachers, Cops and Firemen