271 Hard Back Business books sent to Stupid Obama! He read NONE of them!
Feb 12, 2014 07:55:29 #
Why Obama suddenly fears business------------------ Maybe Obama has a newfound respect for business?????
Its shaping up to be the year the business community rolled President Obama.
Related Stories
Obama Rewrites ObamaCare The Wall Street Journal
White House again delays healthcare mandate for employers Reuters
[video] Opinion: Another Lawless ObamaCare Delay MarketWatch
Well, Never Mind Then: To 'Ease The Transition To A 30-Hour Week,' Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed Again Forbes
U.S. to further delay Obamacare employer mandate Los Angeles Times
Since winning the White House in 2008, Obama has largely cast big business as an adversary. He famously derided fat-cat bankers in 2009 and said, They dont get it. You guys are drawing down $10 million, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that its gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem.
In 2011 he singled out millionaires and billionaires oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners as the targets for new taxes. At the end of 2012 he more or less got his wish, as tax hikes went into effect on people earning more than $400,000 per year, an income group that includes many owners of small and medium-sized businesses.
But Obama has since cozied up to corporate America, no doubt because he thinks that will help Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections in November. Most recently, Obama delayed the employer mandate contained in his health-reform law, giving businesses with 50 to 99 employees an extra year until 2016 to provide insurance for their workers as required. Bigger firms must still comply by 2015, but they now have to meet a lower threshold. Its the second time the White House has delayed the employer mandate, which was originally supposed to go into effect at the start of this year. The White House has also delayed other Obamacare deadlines, effectively easing the burden on employers.
At the same time, Obama has made a bigger show of hosting business leaders at the White House, while informally asking dozens of CEOs to do more to hire workers who have been unemployed for six months or longer. Hes quietly promoting two trade pacts that would benefit corporate interests, while enraging traditional liberals. And theres been nary a cross word about fat cats or overpaid CEOs or corporate jet setters in any of Obamas recent remarks, amounting to remarkable détente with an erstwhile adversary. Heres why Obama is making nice with corporate America:
He needs the business community more than he ever realized. During Obamas first term, the White House assumed the economy would be in the midst of a full recovery by now which would have allowed Obama to use big business as a traditional liberal foil. But the jobless recovery has left the whole economy much more deeply in thrall to businesses that control a scarce resource: jobs. It certainly doesnt help that the Congressional Budget Office recently reported Obamacare could cut the size of the workforce by up to 2.5 million over the next 10 years. Its no surprise, then, that businesses have gained considerably more leverage in their give-and-take with Washington.
Big business is more popular than politicians. The public image of banks and big businesses has recovered modestly since the low point of 2008 and 2009, whereas trust in Congress and the presidency has generally declined since then, according to Gallup. And trust in small businesses is considerably higher than for either group. So Obama has basically followed public opinion by dissing the business community when most of the nation blamed them for the recession, while treating them more respectfully now that they seem to hold the key to a revamped economy.
The enemy of my enemy is corporate America. A turning point in political leverage came last fall, when Tea Partiers led the 16-day government shutdown and business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said they had finally gotten fed up with destructive extremist politics and would begin to fund more mainstream candidates challenging Tea Partiers. That brought the business lobby much closer to Obamas position on issues such as fully funding the government and increasing spending on things including infrastructure.
Obamacare has thoroughly weakened the president. Theres little doubt Obamas signature health-reform law is a liability for the president and Democrats in general, due to the rocky rollout of the law in 2013 and ongoing questions about whether it will even work as intended. In fact, its the biggest liability for Dems in the upcoming midterms. With few of Obamas fellow Democrats overtly backing the law (even though most of them voted for it in 2010), momentum has shifted to corporate interests seeking to roll back some of its more onerous provisions. And they're getting what they want.
Maybe Obama has a newfound respect for business. In the runup to the Obamacare launch, the president insisted shopping for insurance on Healthcare.gov would be like placing an order on Amazon (AMZN) or booking a trip on Travelocity or Expedia (EXPE). Needless to say, the cursed launch of Obamacare made the private sector look positively brilliant, since Healthcare.gov would have been Yelped into oblivion if it were a for-profit venture. So maybe Obama has come to realize running a business can be pretty darn difficult and is newly impressed by some of the people who do it.
Its shaping up to be the year the business community rolled President Obama.
Related Stories
Obama Rewrites ObamaCare The Wall Street Journal
White House again delays healthcare mandate for employers Reuters
[video] Opinion: Another Lawless ObamaCare Delay MarketWatch
Well, Never Mind Then: To 'Ease The Transition To A 30-Hour Week,' Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed Again Forbes
U.S. to further delay Obamacare employer mandate Los Angeles Times
Since winning the White House in 2008, Obama has largely cast big business as an adversary. He famously derided fat-cat bankers in 2009 and said, They dont get it. You guys are drawing down $10 million, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that its gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem.
In 2011 he singled out millionaires and billionaires oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners as the targets for new taxes. At the end of 2012 he more or less got his wish, as tax hikes went into effect on people earning more than $400,000 per year, an income group that includes many owners of small and medium-sized businesses.
But Obama has since cozied up to corporate America, no doubt because he thinks that will help Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections in November. Most recently, Obama delayed the employer mandate contained in his health-reform law, giving businesses with 50 to 99 employees an extra year until 2016 to provide insurance for their workers as required. Bigger firms must still comply by 2015, but they now have to meet a lower threshold. Its the second time the White House has delayed the employer mandate, which was originally supposed to go into effect at the start of this year. The White House has also delayed other Obamacare deadlines, effectively easing the burden on employers.
At the same time, Obama has made a bigger show of hosting business leaders at the White House, while informally asking dozens of CEOs to do more to hire workers who have been unemployed for six months or longer. Hes quietly promoting two trade pacts that would benefit corporate interests, while enraging traditional liberals. And theres been nary a cross word about fat cats or overpaid CEOs or corporate jet setters in any of Obamas recent remarks, amounting to remarkable détente with an erstwhile adversary. Heres why Obama is making nice with corporate America:
He needs the business community more than he ever realized. During Obamas first term, the White House assumed the economy would be in the midst of a full recovery by now which would have allowed Obama to use big business as a traditional liberal foil. But the jobless recovery has left the whole economy much more deeply in thrall to businesses that control a scarce resource: jobs. It certainly doesnt help that the Congressional Budget Office recently reported Obamacare could cut the size of the workforce by up to 2.5 million over the next 10 years. Its no surprise, then, that businesses have gained considerably more leverage in their give-and-take with Washington.
Big business is more popular than politicians. The public image of banks and big businesses has recovered modestly since the low point of 2008 and 2009, whereas trust in Congress and the presidency has generally declined since then, according to Gallup. And trust in small businesses is considerably higher than for either group. So Obama has basically followed public opinion by dissing the business community when most of the nation blamed them for the recession, while treating them more respectfully now that they seem to hold the key to a revamped economy.
The enemy of my enemy is corporate America. A turning point in political leverage came last fall, when Tea Partiers led the 16-day government shutdown and business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said they had finally gotten fed up with destructive extremist politics and would begin to fund more mainstream candidates challenging Tea Partiers. That brought the business lobby much closer to Obamas position on issues such as fully funding the government and increasing spending on things including infrastructure.
Obamacare has thoroughly weakened the president. Theres little doubt Obamas signature health-reform law is a liability for the president and Democrats in general, due to the rocky rollout of the law in 2013 and ongoing questions about whether it will even work as intended. In fact, its the biggest liability for Dems in the upcoming midterms. With few of Obamas fellow Democrats overtly backing the law (even though most of them voted for it in 2010), momentum has shifted to corporate interests seeking to roll back some of its more onerous provisions. And they're getting what they want.
Maybe Obama has a newfound respect for business. In the runup to the Obamacare launch, the president insisted shopping for insurance on Healthcare.gov would be like placing an order on Amazon (AMZN) or booking a trip on Travelocity or Expedia (EXPE). Needless to say, the cursed launch of Obamacare made the private sector look positively brilliant, since Healthcare.gov would have been Yelped into oblivion if it were a for-profit venture. So maybe Obama has come to realize running a business can be pretty darn difficult and is newly impressed by some of the people who do it.
Feb 12, 2014 08:09:47 #
Where In The Constitution Does It Say Obama Can Rule By Decree And Do Whatever He Wants?
By making at least a dozen major adjustments to Obamacare without congressional approval, Barack Obama is making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. Throughout human history, political power has always tended to become concentrated in the hands of one man. The Founding Fathers knew this, and they tried very hard to keep that from happening in the United States. A system in which the people rule themselves is a very precious and fragile thing. As humans, we all have the tendency to want more power. That is why a separation of powers was such a radical concept. As Bill Federer is constantly pointing out, the Founding Fathers made our federal government inefficient on purpose. They wanted a system of checks and balances that would make it difficult to push through major changes very rapidly. Unfortunately, Barack Obama has become extremely frustrated by this and has expressed his intention to rule by decree as much as he can during the remainder of his second term.
In our system, the legislature is supposed to make the laws, and the executive branch is supposed to execute them. But Obama does not seem to care for that arrangement too much. Just recently, he made the following statement
Were not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that were providing Americans the kind of help they need. Ive got a pen and Ive got a phone.
And during a visit to Monticello on Monday, Obama said the following
Thats the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.
Of course that was probably a joke, but it just reveals what his mindset is.
Obama believes that he has a tremendous amount of power, and he has consistently exhibited a blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
This week, Obama made another major change to the Affordable Care Act without getting congressional approval. At this point, it has become clear that Obama believes that he can change any law, for any reason, any time that he likes.
The following is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about this most recent lawless act
ObamaCare is useful shorthand for the Affordable Care Actnot least because the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the laws employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever.
This latest modification directly contradicts the plain language of the law, and if the American people do not object to this it will let Obama (and all other future presidents) know that they truly can do whatever they want.
Charles Krauthammer is completely outraged by all of this. He says that this is the kind of stuff you do in a banana republic
But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. Its as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.
Its now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And its changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.
And he is right.
For those that have not read it, the U.S. Constitution states that the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.
If Obama wants part of Obamacare to be changed, he must ask Congress to change it.
He cannot change laws all by himself.
As Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell stated last year, the Office of Legal Counsel for the Justice Department has always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.
What in the world is happening to this country?
Meanwhile, those that are objecting to the lawless behavior of the Obama administration are increasingly being portrayed as national security threats. This is also the kind of thing that we are accustomed to seeing in banana republics. According to a recent WND article, the Ohio Army National Guard conducted a training drill last year in which the enemies were supporters of the 2nd Amendment and had right-wing beliefs
Internal documents from an Ohio Army National Guard training drill conducted in January 2013 describe the details of a mock disaster in which Second Amendment supporters with anti-government beliefs were portrayed as domestic terrorists.
The Guards 52nd Civil Support Unit and first responders in hazmat suits conducted the training exercise last year in Portmouth, Ohio. In the terror-attack scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School teachers follow orders from a white-nationalist leader to poison school lunches with mustard gas to advance their right-wing beliefs about gun rights.
Its the reality of the world we live in, Portsmouth Police Chief Bill Raisin told WSAZ-TV. Dont forget there is such a thing as domestic terrorism. This helps us all be prepared.
Sadly, this was far from an isolated incident. For many more examples, please see my previous article entitled 72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered Potential Terrorists In Official Government Documents.
Whether you support Barack Obama or you are deeply opposed to him, hopefully we can all agree that he needs to follow the law.
Hopefully good sense will prevail and Obama will stop trying to rule by decree. There is a reason why we have a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. One man is not supposed to make all of the decisions. The members of Congress should be loudly objecting to this massive power grab by Obama.
Please pray for Barack Obama and for Congress. Up to this point, they have been behaving very foolishly. Let us pray that they will soon return to following the U.S. Constitution.
By making at least a dozen major adjustments to Obamacare without congressional approval, Barack Obama is making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. Throughout human history, political power has always tended to become concentrated in the hands of one man. The Founding Fathers knew this, and they tried very hard to keep that from happening in the United States. A system in which the people rule themselves is a very precious and fragile thing. As humans, we all have the tendency to want more power. That is why a separation of powers was such a radical concept. As Bill Federer is constantly pointing out, the Founding Fathers made our federal government inefficient on purpose. They wanted a system of checks and balances that would make it difficult to push through major changes very rapidly. Unfortunately, Barack Obama has become extremely frustrated by this and has expressed his intention to rule by decree as much as he can during the remainder of his second term.
In our system, the legislature is supposed to make the laws, and the executive branch is supposed to execute them. But Obama does not seem to care for that arrangement too much. Just recently, he made the following statement
Were not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that were providing Americans the kind of help they need. Ive got a pen and Ive got a phone.
And during a visit to Monticello on Monday, Obama said the following
Thats the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.
Of course that was probably a joke, but it just reveals what his mindset is.
Obama believes that he has a tremendous amount of power, and he has consistently exhibited a blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
This week, Obama made another major change to the Affordable Care Act without getting congressional approval. At this point, it has become clear that Obama believes that he can change any law, for any reason, any time that he likes.
The following is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about this most recent lawless act
ObamaCare is useful shorthand for the Affordable Care Actnot least because the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the laws employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever.
This latest modification directly contradicts the plain language of the law, and if the American people do not object to this it will let Obama (and all other future presidents) know that they truly can do whatever they want.
Charles Krauthammer is completely outraged by all of this. He says that this is the kind of stuff you do in a banana republic
But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. Its as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.
Its now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And its changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.
And he is right.
For those that have not read it, the U.S. Constitution states that the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.
If Obama wants part of Obamacare to be changed, he must ask Congress to change it.
He cannot change laws all by himself.
As Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell stated last year, the Office of Legal Counsel for the Justice Department has always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons.
What in the world is happening to this country?
Meanwhile, those that are objecting to the lawless behavior of the Obama administration are increasingly being portrayed as national security threats. This is also the kind of thing that we are accustomed to seeing in banana republics. According to a recent WND article, the Ohio Army National Guard conducted a training drill last year in which the enemies were supporters of the 2nd Amendment and had right-wing beliefs
Internal documents from an Ohio Army National Guard training drill conducted in January 2013 describe the details of a mock disaster in which Second Amendment supporters with anti-government beliefs were portrayed as domestic terrorists.
The Guards 52nd Civil Support Unit and first responders in hazmat suits conducted the training exercise last year in Portmouth, Ohio. In the terror-attack scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School teachers follow orders from a white-nationalist leader to poison school lunches with mustard gas to advance their right-wing beliefs about gun rights.
Its the reality of the world we live in, Portsmouth Police Chief Bill Raisin told WSAZ-TV. Dont forget there is such a thing as domestic terrorism. This helps us all be prepared.
Sadly, this was far from an isolated incident. For many more examples, please see my previous article entitled 72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered Potential Terrorists In Official Government Documents.
Whether you support Barack Obama or you are deeply opposed to him, hopefully we can all agree that he needs to follow the law.
Hopefully good sense will prevail and Obama will stop trying to rule by decree. There is a reason why we have a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. One man is not supposed to make all of the decisions. The members of Congress should be loudly objecting to this massive power grab by Obama.
Please pray for Barack Obama and for Congress. Up to this point, they have been behaving very foolishly. Let us pray that they will soon return to following the U.S. Constitution.
Feb 12, 2014 09:39:44 #
STUPID VOTERS OF AMERICA! 1 MISTAKE IS STUPID, 2ND TIME VOTER IS MORE STUPID THAN THE ROAD THEY STAND ON! SEE BELOW BLUE AREAS OF STUPID DUMMIES!
Feb 12, 2014 14:58:42 #
Is your boyfriend serious about you? The 50 signs that show you're in a committed relationship
Being comfortable make-up free and in pyjamas signals move to next level
Couples date for average of five months before considering it serious
Sharing details such as health issues and finances shows commitment
Being introduced to family and friends also voted as a top sign
Planning a holiday, driving each others' cars and having a key to your partner's flat are all signs a relationship has got serious, a new survey reveals.
Researchers quizzed 2,000 people to reveal the top 50 things which indicate a couple are past the 'seeing each other' phase.
Posting a 'loved-up' photo on Facebook, changing your status to 'in a relationship' and being introduced to wider friendships circles also show couples are the 'real deal.'
If you and your significant other have started sharing some seriously loved up shots of yourselves online you are probably getting fairly serious+3
If you and your significant other have started sharing some seriously loved up shots of yourselves online you are probably getting fairly serious
Meeting potential in-laws, staying overnight and divulging salary details also show trust and growing love for a partner.
Couples are usually together for just over five months before they deem the relationship to be 'serious'.
More...
Where did the spark go? 75% of couples say their relationship has lost its passion - and it starts to fades after three and a half years
From BO to I DO: Mini deodorant comes with secret ring compartment designed for far-flung proposals
Single at Valentine's Day? Don't panic! How to enjoy the slushiest day of the year solo
The study also highlighted that couples deem a relationship more serious when they get more comfortable with each other - which means seeing each other without make up, showering together, lounging around the house in pyjamas and even discussing intimate health issues.
A couple who drive each others' cars were viewed as having taken it to the next level+3
A couple who drive each others' cars were viewed as having taken it to the next level
The study also highlighted that couples deem a relationship as more serious when they get more comfortable with each other - which means seeing each other without make up, showering together and lounging around the house in pyjamas+3
The study also highlighted that couples deem a relationship as more serious when they get more comfortable with each other - which means seeing each other without make up, showering together and lounging around the house in pyjamas
Other signs that couples are committed to their other half include sharing private details such as pin numbers and passwords.
Sending good morning and good night texts, frequently saying 'I love you' and posting lovey-dovey pictures of the two of them on Facebook also made the list.
The top 50 signs it's serious
1. Meeting the parents
2. Exchanging house keys
3. Planning a holiday together
4. Discussing plans for the future
5. Being invited to family gatherings
6. Saying 'I love you'
7. Staying overnight at each other's houses
8. Signing Christmas / Birthday cards together
9. Seeing each other at least every other night
10. Leaving a toothbrush at each other's house
11. You tell each other absolutely everything
12. Letting them take care of you when sick
13. Being introduced to wider friendships circles
14. Discussing how many children you might want in the future
15. Buying a dog or cat together
16. Driving each other's cars
17. Inviting them to a wedding as a date
18. Divulging salary details
19. Letting them know your pin number
20. Discussing holidays
21. Having a drawer at each other's house
22. When you HYPOTHETICALLY talk about IF you lived together
23. Inviting people round as a couple
24. Having clothes and other belongings at each other's houses
25. First name terms with their mum and dad
26. Talking about intimate health issues
27. Farting in front of each other
28. Inviting them out with your friends / family
29. Receiving cards or gifts addressed to both of you
30. When you know what each other's plans are for every single day
31. Showering together
32. Changing Facebook status to 'in a relationship'
33. You know each other's passwords
34. Wearing pyjamas when you get home from work
35. You share secrets about friends with each other
36. Always being the 'plus one' on invites
37. Getting food in your big shop just for them
38. You start watching TV shows they like
39. Phoning each other at work
40. Stop putting make up on to look gloriously fresh before they wake up
41. When they start asking for your opinion on stuff
42. Going out with friends or family without the partner being there
43. Signing off 'love' in a card
44. You start listening to music they like
45. You stop seeing people you know they don't like
46. Putting a photo of the two of you on Facebook
47. Sending good morning / goodnight texts
48. Having a pet name for each other
49. Telling each other how many sexual partners you've had
50. When all their friends add you on Facebook
Other relationship milestones include meeting the parents, becoming the 'plus one' on all invites, seeing each other through an illness and comfortably phoning each other at work.
While others will show how serious they are by buying a dog or cat together, choosing their partner's favourite foods in the weekly food shop and sharing their friends secrets.
Eight out of 10 people firmly believe that when it comes to keeping a partner happy, actions speak far louder than words.
Which is why many couples would prefer for their partner to make smaller gestures such as watching TV shows they like or listening to the same music.
The study also shows two in 10 people knew their current relationship was serious after they planned a holiday together, while 43 per cent said the words 'I love you' and the same percentage discussed moving in together.
Indeed two thirds of people polled and in a relationship claimed they felt their first holiday together was a real milestone and demonstrated how committed they were to each other.
Four in 10 people went on a short break together first to make sure they got on well, before making the commitment of spending seven nights or longer in each other's company.
And when asked how far into a relationship a holiday should be, the average person reckons about seven months in.
A spokesman for Monarch Airlines, which commissioned the study said: 'Dating is a minefield at the best of times.
'But one of the most confusing and stressful parts is deciding firstly when you are both comfortable saying you are boyfriend and girlfriend, and then secondly, when that partnership has reached the next level.
'As this survey demonstrates, there are loads of factors which couples take into account before deciding whether their relationship is serious or not.
'It's no longer just a case of talking about moving in together, marriage and children. There are smaller elements such as when to say I love you, when to stay the night, and when to swap house keys.
'And there are other acts which can show real commitment such as agreeing to spend a week away together or attending family gatherings.
'We are pleased to see that taking a holiday together is the third most popular sign that your relationship is getting serious.
'People travel for lots of different reasons but spending time together is one of the most popular.'
They added: 'The indications that a relationship has become serious will be different for every couple. But, booking a holiday or short break together can be a good test of a new relationship.
'Others will simply be happy to have a toothbrush at each other's house and a good night text message.
'What is clear is that relationships are a complex business, and it takes time and effort to create a long lasting and meaningful union.'
Share or comment
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2556682/Is-boyfriend-YOU-The-50-signs-youre-committed-relationship.html#ixzz2t8j1cL7M
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Being comfortable make-up free and in pyjamas signals move to next level
Couples date for average of five months before considering it serious
Sharing details such as health issues and finances shows commitment
Being introduced to family and friends also voted as a top sign
Planning a holiday, driving each others' cars and having a key to your partner's flat are all signs a relationship has got serious, a new survey reveals.
Researchers quizzed 2,000 people to reveal the top 50 things which indicate a couple are past the 'seeing each other' phase.
Posting a 'loved-up' photo on Facebook, changing your status to 'in a relationship' and being introduced to wider friendships circles also show couples are the 'real deal.'
If you and your significant other have started sharing some seriously loved up shots of yourselves online you are probably getting fairly serious+3
If you and your significant other have started sharing some seriously loved up shots of yourselves online you are probably getting fairly serious
Meeting potential in-laws, staying overnight and divulging salary details also show trust and growing love for a partner.
Couples are usually together for just over five months before they deem the relationship to be 'serious'.
More...
Where did the spark go? 75% of couples say their relationship has lost its passion - and it starts to fades after three and a half years
From BO to I DO: Mini deodorant comes with secret ring compartment designed for far-flung proposals
Single at Valentine's Day? Don't panic! How to enjoy the slushiest day of the year solo
The study also highlighted that couples deem a relationship more serious when they get more comfortable with each other - which means seeing each other without make up, showering together, lounging around the house in pyjamas and even discussing intimate health issues.
A couple who drive each others' cars were viewed as having taken it to the next level+3
A couple who drive each others' cars were viewed as having taken it to the next level
The study also highlighted that couples deem a relationship as more serious when they get more comfortable with each other - which means seeing each other without make up, showering together and lounging around the house in pyjamas+3
The study also highlighted that couples deem a relationship as more serious when they get more comfortable with each other - which means seeing each other without make up, showering together and lounging around the house in pyjamas
Other signs that couples are committed to their other half include sharing private details such as pin numbers and passwords.
Sending good morning and good night texts, frequently saying 'I love you' and posting lovey-dovey pictures of the two of them on Facebook also made the list.
The top 50 signs it's serious
1. Meeting the parents
2. Exchanging house keys
3. Planning a holiday together
4. Discussing plans for the future
5. Being invited to family gatherings
6. Saying 'I love you'
7. Staying overnight at each other's houses
8. Signing Christmas / Birthday cards together
9. Seeing each other at least every other night
10. Leaving a toothbrush at each other's house
11. You tell each other absolutely everything
12. Letting them take care of you when sick
13. Being introduced to wider friendships circles
14. Discussing how many children you might want in the future
15. Buying a dog or cat together
16. Driving each other's cars
17. Inviting them to a wedding as a date
18. Divulging salary details
19. Letting them know your pin number
20. Discussing holidays
21. Having a drawer at each other's house
22. When you HYPOTHETICALLY talk about IF you lived together
23. Inviting people round as a couple
24. Having clothes and other belongings at each other's houses
25. First name terms with their mum and dad
26. Talking about intimate health issues
27. Farting in front of each other
28. Inviting them out with your friends / family
29. Receiving cards or gifts addressed to both of you
30. When you know what each other's plans are for every single day
31. Showering together
32. Changing Facebook status to 'in a relationship'
33. You know each other's passwords
34. Wearing pyjamas when you get home from work
35. You share secrets about friends with each other
36. Always being the 'plus one' on invites
37. Getting food in your big shop just for them
38. You start watching TV shows they like
39. Phoning each other at work
40. Stop putting make up on to look gloriously fresh before they wake up
41. When they start asking for your opinion on stuff
42. Going out with friends or family without the partner being there
43. Signing off 'love' in a card
44. You start listening to music they like
45. You stop seeing people you know they don't like
46. Putting a photo of the two of you on Facebook
47. Sending good morning / goodnight texts
48. Having a pet name for each other
49. Telling each other how many sexual partners you've had
50. When all their friends add you on Facebook
Other relationship milestones include meeting the parents, becoming the 'plus one' on all invites, seeing each other through an illness and comfortably phoning each other at work.
While others will show how serious they are by buying a dog or cat together, choosing their partner's favourite foods in the weekly food shop and sharing their friends secrets.
Eight out of 10 people firmly believe that when it comes to keeping a partner happy, actions speak far louder than words.
Which is why many couples would prefer for their partner to make smaller gestures such as watching TV shows they like or listening to the same music.
The study also shows two in 10 people knew their current relationship was serious after they planned a holiday together, while 43 per cent said the words 'I love you' and the same percentage discussed moving in together.
Indeed two thirds of people polled and in a relationship claimed they felt their first holiday together was a real milestone and demonstrated how committed they were to each other.
Four in 10 people went on a short break together first to make sure they got on well, before making the commitment of spending seven nights or longer in each other's company.
And when asked how far into a relationship a holiday should be, the average person reckons about seven months in.
A spokesman for Monarch Airlines, which commissioned the study said: 'Dating is a minefield at the best of times.
'But one of the most confusing and stressful parts is deciding firstly when you are both comfortable saying you are boyfriend and girlfriend, and then secondly, when that partnership has reached the next level.
'As this survey demonstrates, there are loads of factors which couples take into account before deciding whether their relationship is serious or not.
'It's no longer just a case of talking about moving in together, marriage and children. There are smaller elements such as when to say I love you, when to stay the night, and when to swap house keys.
'And there are other acts which can show real commitment such as agreeing to spend a week away together or attending family gatherings.
'We are pleased to see that taking a holiday together is the third most popular sign that your relationship is getting serious.
'People travel for lots of different reasons but spending time together is one of the most popular.'
They added: 'The indications that a relationship has become serious will be different for every couple. But, booking a holiday or short break together can be a good test of a new relationship.
'Others will simply be happy to have a toothbrush at each other's house and a good night text message.
'What is clear is that relationships are a complex business, and it takes time and effort to create a long lasting and meaningful union.'
Share or comment
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2556682/Is-boyfriend-YOU-The-50-signs-youre-committed-relationship.html#ixzz2t8j1cL7M
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Feb 12, 2014 15:00:17 #
Professor Tom Leykis gives men 7 reasons to remain scarce on Valentines Day
by Tom Leykis on February 10, 2014 in Leykis 101, Tom's Blog
1) Women use the arrival of Valentines Day as a way of testing your level of commitment which, if you are enjoying a casual relationship, is zero. If youre already a friend with benefits, there are no benefits to pretending to be more than what the two of you are. The beauty part of this? Its honest! You dont really care about her and she wont be fooled into believing that you do. She has no right to expect anything you never promised, much less delivered.
2) By disappearing this week, you keep an air of distance and mystery which are keys to keeping things hot. Letting your girl think you are in demand or otherwise busy on Valentines Week will make her want you more, not less.
3) Acceding to her demands can satisfy her (or simply keep her quiet) in the short term, but will lead to increased demands and expectations in the future that go beyond the carefree enjoyment youre currently used to getting.
4) Think shell be with someone else on Valentines Day instead of you? Why should you care? Shes your friend with benefits, not your girlfriend! Youll be with someone else too if you do it right.
5) Women like your FWB will often resort to going out alone or with friends on Valentines Night. This is when what we call the Human Grab Bag takes place. Everyone frees up their girls for one night, where they become someone elses low-hanging fruit. Men who are laying low should go out and see all the available women who feel low because no one asked them out for Valentines Day. All men who do this get to be with someone elses girl for the evening, when shes at her lowest.
6) After shes been out and done something this desperate, shell be so incredibly happy just to see you again. Youll tell her that youve been so busy, and shell just hope you never find out about what she did on Valentines Night (which will be same thing that you did, only you wont be feeling all guilty and low about it as she will). You continue to get what you got before, only now you get the upper hand because shes feeling guilty.
7) Once you've made it through Valentines season without making any commitments or giving any rings, now you are firmly driving the bus, with no fears or concerns that shell make any demands. Until next Valentines Day, by which time you will have kicked her to the curb if youre doing it right!
by Tom Leykis on February 10, 2014 in Leykis 101, Tom's Blog
1) Women use the arrival of Valentines Day as a way of testing your level of commitment which, if you are enjoying a casual relationship, is zero. If youre already a friend with benefits, there are no benefits to pretending to be more than what the two of you are. The beauty part of this? Its honest! You dont really care about her and she wont be fooled into believing that you do. She has no right to expect anything you never promised, much less delivered.
2) By disappearing this week, you keep an air of distance and mystery which are keys to keeping things hot. Letting your girl think you are in demand or otherwise busy on Valentines Week will make her want you more, not less.
3) Acceding to her demands can satisfy her (or simply keep her quiet) in the short term, but will lead to increased demands and expectations in the future that go beyond the carefree enjoyment youre currently used to getting.
4) Think shell be with someone else on Valentines Day instead of you? Why should you care? Shes your friend with benefits, not your girlfriend! Youll be with someone else too if you do it right.
5) Women like your FWB will often resort to going out alone or with friends on Valentines Night. This is when what we call the Human Grab Bag takes place. Everyone frees up their girls for one night, where they become someone elses low-hanging fruit. Men who are laying low should go out and see all the available women who feel low because no one asked them out for Valentines Day. All men who do this get to be with someone elses girl for the evening, when shes at her lowest.
6) After shes been out and done something this desperate, shell be so incredibly happy just to see you again. Youll tell her that youve been so busy, and shell just hope you never find out about what she did on Valentines Night (which will be same thing that you did, only you wont be feeling all guilty and low about it as she will). You continue to get what you got before, only now you get the upper hand because shes feeling guilty.
7) Once you've made it through Valentines season without making any commitments or giving any rings, now you are firmly driving the bus, with no fears or concerns that shell make any demands. Until next Valentines Day, by which time you will have kicked her to the curb if youre doing it right!
Feb 12, 2014 21:50:07 #
My Twilight Years ~ Clint Eastwood
As I enjoy my twilight years, I am often struck by the inevitability that the party must end. There will be a clear, cold morning when there isn't any "more." No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat.
It seems to me that one of the important things to do before that morning comes, is to let every one of your family and friends know that you care for them by finding simple ways to let them know your heartfelt beliefs and the guiding principles of your life so they can always say, "He was my friend, and I know where he stood."
So, just in case I'm gone tomorrow, please know this.
I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!
Participating in a gun buy back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids.
Regards,
Clint
Feb 13, 2014 04:30:54 #
Most carpool lanes are Toll roads in Los Angeles since 2013
Politics Opinions Local More
NATIONAL
Cruising Californias most congested freeway
By Associated Press, Published: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1:32 AM ET
Aa
LOS ANGELES On traffic maps, Interstate 5 in and around Los Angeles is a very angry road.
Its red. For mile upon mile, hour after hour.
That hardly makes the 5 (as locals call it) unique in a region where the expansive freeway grid is notoriously traffic locked.
But one route has to be the most congested. And in California, Interstate 5 in Los Angeles County is it, according to new data from the state Department of Transportation.
Add up the time stuck in traffic, and millions of people waste centuries on the road every year.
I made my small contribution to that collective misery this week. My assignment: get stuck in traffic on the 5 during morning drive time, then write about it.
Which editor had I upset?
When I moved to Los Angeles a decade ago, several people told me with grim faces that Id better like my car because wed be spending a lot of time together. My car is fine, but my commute is great. A sprint along the cityscape that is Sunset Boulevard to downtown. Its a major reason why we settled in the neighborhood we chose. I can bypass freeways.
Not this day. Just after 8 a.m., I pulled south onto the 5 just east of downtown. Rush hour was several hours old, and even though my initial entry put me on a reverse commute, it wasnt long before I was hitting the brakes.
And this was hardly the bad stuff. Across the median, thousands of cars trudged along. After a fitful drive south, during which I passed a few texting drivers, I doubled back north to join the crush.
Close to 9 a.m., a highway sign said it would take 40 minutes to get back downtown. 40 minutes, 15 miles. Id be averaging just over 20 mph.
Which let me check out a road I avoid as much as possible.
A few things struck me immediately.
On my left and right, in front and in back, everyone was driving alone. The construction zone I soon entered will bring a carpool lane to this most-congested road, though it will be years before the nearly seven-mile stretch opens.
Lost in thought, many drivers wore vacant expressions. One woman drove with her hand on her forehead. Not everyone seemed to wish they were anywhere else one guy was rocking out as if trying to escape a straitjacket. Were his eyes even open?
There was no time to investigate further. I had to slow down, or I would rear-end the car in front.
Not that my car was unscathed. While there werent exactly potholes, the pavement on the 5 has its own texture. Its as if the traffic gods slung down slabs of concrete from on high with little mortal care for how well they connect. The many trucks, often carrying goods to and from the large seaport complex nearby, add their own touches over time.
Though my eyes were fixed on the road, I caught snatches of the areas that flank the freeway, many in industrial or poorer neighborhoods. On my right, a gym to learn Thai boxing. Soon after, same side, a business boasting doors that will, apparently, withstand a nuclear blast. Across the freeway, a place to shop for closed-circuit televisions. Furniture. Truck parts.
Maybe next time, Ill finally stop at that casino.
Downtown LA grew larger and larger, and finally I was off the 5.
Pulling into my office parking garage, I realize the drive wasnt all bad. The road may have been red with traffic, but the drivers were actually quite courteous, despite all the lane changes and merges, construction and congestion.
But Im not giving up Sunset Boulevard.
___
Contact Justin Pritchard at https://twitter.com/lalanewsman
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
COMMENTS
Paul DeLasaux wrote:
February 12, 2014 at 11:20 PM
As a reporter I believe you truly missed the story of human tragedy here. You have failed. Your lack of effort aligns with other local news outlets, perhaps the Arizona Republic is in your future. Is there a connection that could be made between the commuters daily track across the landscape with missed opportunity to raise a child or increase the quality of life they have for themselves? Do commuters feel trapped by a lack of options that is only perceived? What of the child who received an additional two hours of daily supervision from an absent parent spending time in this dysphoric commute? These obvious implicatins that have clearly escaped you in the writing of this story seem foundational in the lack of technical expertise in your field. Where is the interview with a commuter? The lack of empathy you show is truly disturbing and possibly reflects a larger psychological problem that may be treated with drugs. Enjoy your neighborhood off sunset whilst receiving notification of the Washington Post 'moving on' to a newer and more committed resource in the Los Angelas bureau. Certainly I cannot be sure if your lack of quality and inquiry practicing your alleged profession stems from a lack of work ethic or a lack of thought but be sure it does reflect in your lack of quality writing this story. Good luck in your chosen field.
DSmith2014 wrote:
February 12, 2014 at 10:54 PM
The 5 has been a tangled mess forever. I drove on it in the 70's, 80's, and 90's and it was a tangled mess. This is not new.
MORE FROM NATIONAL
MORE
Contact us
Privacy policy
My Account
Sign In
Subscribe
© Copyright 1996-2013 The Washington Post
View desktop site
NATIONAL
CancelOK
Cancel
CancelSave
CancelOK
Share to:
CancelShare
Not NowDownload
Always use this app
Cancel
SocialActions
Select which social services to show:
ReturnSave
Always use this
ReturnSave
Politics Opinions Local More
NATIONAL
Cruising Californias most congested freeway
By Associated Press, Published: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1:32 AM ET
Aa
LOS ANGELES On traffic maps, Interstate 5 in and around Los Angeles is a very angry road.
Its red. For mile upon mile, hour after hour.
That hardly makes the 5 (as locals call it) unique in a region where the expansive freeway grid is notoriously traffic locked.
But one route has to be the most congested. And in California, Interstate 5 in Los Angeles County is it, according to new data from the state Department of Transportation.
Add up the time stuck in traffic, and millions of people waste centuries on the road every year.
I made my small contribution to that collective misery this week. My assignment: get stuck in traffic on the 5 during morning drive time, then write about it.
Which editor had I upset?
When I moved to Los Angeles a decade ago, several people told me with grim faces that Id better like my car because wed be spending a lot of time together. My car is fine, but my commute is great. A sprint along the cityscape that is Sunset Boulevard to downtown. Its a major reason why we settled in the neighborhood we chose. I can bypass freeways.
Not this day. Just after 8 a.m., I pulled south onto the 5 just east of downtown. Rush hour was several hours old, and even though my initial entry put me on a reverse commute, it wasnt long before I was hitting the brakes.
And this was hardly the bad stuff. Across the median, thousands of cars trudged along. After a fitful drive south, during which I passed a few texting drivers, I doubled back north to join the crush.
Close to 9 a.m., a highway sign said it would take 40 minutes to get back downtown. 40 minutes, 15 miles. Id be averaging just over 20 mph.
Which let me check out a road I avoid as much as possible.
A few things struck me immediately.
On my left and right, in front and in back, everyone was driving alone. The construction zone I soon entered will bring a carpool lane to this most-congested road, though it will be years before the nearly seven-mile stretch opens.
Lost in thought, many drivers wore vacant expressions. One woman drove with her hand on her forehead. Not everyone seemed to wish they were anywhere else one guy was rocking out as if trying to escape a straitjacket. Were his eyes even open?
There was no time to investigate further. I had to slow down, or I would rear-end the car in front.
Not that my car was unscathed. While there werent exactly potholes, the pavement on the 5 has its own texture. Its as if the traffic gods slung down slabs of concrete from on high with little mortal care for how well they connect. The many trucks, often carrying goods to and from the large seaport complex nearby, add their own touches over time.
Though my eyes were fixed on the road, I caught snatches of the areas that flank the freeway, many in industrial or poorer neighborhoods. On my right, a gym to learn Thai boxing. Soon after, same side, a business boasting doors that will, apparently, withstand a nuclear blast. Across the freeway, a place to shop for closed-circuit televisions. Furniture. Truck parts.
Maybe next time, Ill finally stop at that casino.
Downtown LA grew larger and larger, and finally I was off the 5.
Pulling into my office parking garage, I realize the drive wasnt all bad. The road may have been red with traffic, but the drivers were actually quite courteous, despite all the lane changes and merges, construction and congestion.
But Im not giving up Sunset Boulevard.
___
Contact Justin Pritchard at https://twitter.com/lalanewsman
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
COMMENTS
Paul DeLasaux wrote:
February 12, 2014 at 11:20 PM
As a reporter I believe you truly missed the story of human tragedy here. You have failed. Your lack of effort aligns with other local news outlets, perhaps the Arizona Republic is in your future. Is there a connection that could be made between the commuters daily track across the landscape with missed opportunity to raise a child or increase the quality of life they have for themselves? Do commuters feel trapped by a lack of options that is only perceived? What of the child who received an additional two hours of daily supervision from an absent parent spending time in this dysphoric commute? These obvious implicatins that have clearly escaped you in the writing of this story seem foundational in the lack of technical expertise in your field. Where is the interview with a commuter? The lack of empathy you show is truly disturbing and possibly reflects a larger psychological problem that may be treated with drugs. Enjoy your neighborhood off sunset whilst receiving notification of the Washington Post 'moving on' to a newer and more committed resource in the Los Angelas bureau. Certainly I cannot be sure if your lack of quality and inquiry practicing your alleged profession stems from a lack of work ethic or a lack of thought but be sure it does reflect in your lack of quality writing this story. Good luck in your chosen field.
DSmith2014 wrote:
February 12, 2014 at 10:54 PM
The 5 has been a tangled mess forever. I drove on it in the 70's, 80's, and 90's and it was a tangled mess. This is not new.
MORE FROM NATIONAL
MORE
Contact us
Privacy policy
My Account
Sign In
Subscribe
© Copyright 1996-2013 The Washington Post
View desktop site
NATIONAL
CancelOK
Cancel
CancelSave
CancelOK
Share to:
CancelShare
Not NowDownload
Always use this app
Cancel
SocialActions
Select which social services to show:
ReturnSave
Always use this
ReturnSave
Feb 13, 2014 10:12:11 #
Feb 13, 2014 12:46:26 #
Subject: VET'S BACKLASH AGAINST OBAMA.
A movement has been started by our armed forces, to get out the vote in
2014.. They are organizing themselves, but this can be done by all of us.
The President, our Commander in Chief, has made the Rules of Engagement
(ROE) so difficult, that our troops are often killed before they can even
get permission to fight. Nothing has been done to stop our troops from being
murdered by Afghanis they are training, either.
Now, the President wants the US to sign on to the UNs International
Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the UNs ICC to arrest and try US
troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under US
Law, and from which there is no appeal. The President, with his Democrat
control of the Senate, has nearly all the power. If the Non-Establishment
can take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected
from unnecessary danger.
Please consider this, and send it on to your mailing lists. Thank You and
Semper Fi.
Interestingly enough, when GWB was president you heard about the military
deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. With Obama in the White House,
the mainstream media has been strangely quiet. More than 1,000 American
soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is
more than the combined total of the nine years before. Thirty have died in
August. During the last month, over 50 additional NATO and US servicemen
have been murdered, inside jobs by those who are hired to be a force for
good in Afghanistan .
The commander-in-chief is AWOL. Not a peep, although he ordered the White
House flag flown at half-staff for the Sikhs that were killed. There is a
deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the
indifferent incompetence of this president. It has taken on a dangerous
tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the
deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war.
Obama has had 4 years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has
vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men
and women in uniform.
But, there is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a
massive get out the vote drive against this president. Not just current
active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all
other prior service members. This is no small special interest group, but
many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of
the November election if they all respond. The million military retirees in
Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all
show up at the polls. It might not keep another one hundred U.S. troops from
dying between now and November, but a turn out to vote by the military
against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement
that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who
just lets our soldiers die.
Veterans: Please forward to your lists. High Priority!
AFA Tucson 105, PO Box 15057 , Tucson , AZ 85708
A movement has been started by our armed forces, to get out the vote in
2014.. They are organizing themselves, but this can be done by all of us.
The President, our Commander in Chief, has made the Rules of Engagement
(ROE) so difficult, that our troops are often killed before they can even
get permission to fight. Nothing has been done to stop our troops from being
murdered by Afghanis they are training, either.
Now, the President wants the US to sign on to the UNs International
Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the UNs ICC to arrest and try US
troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under US
Law, and from which there is no appeal. The President, with his Democrat
control of the Senate, has nearly all the power. If the Non-Establishment
can take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected
from unnecessary danger.
Please consider this, and send it on to your mailing lists. Thank You and
Semper Fi.
Interestingly enough, when GWB was president you heard about the military
deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. With Obama in the White House,
the mainstream media has been strangely quiet. More than 1,000 American
soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is
more than the combined total of the nine years before. Thirty have died in
August. During the last month, over 50 additional NATO and US servicemen
have been murdered, inside jobs by those who are hired to be a force for
good in Afghanistan .
The commander-in-chief is AWOL. Not a peep, although he ordered the White
House flag flown at half-staff for the Sikhs that were killed. There is a
deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the
indifferent incompetence of this president. It has taken on a dangerous
tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the
deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war.
Obama has had 4 years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has
vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men
and women in uniform.
But, there is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a
massive get out the vote drive against this president. Not just current
active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all
other prior service members. This is no small special interest group, but
many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of
the November election if they all respond. The million military retirees in
Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all
show up at the polls. It might not keep another one hundred U.S. troops from
dying between now and November, but a turn out to vote by the military
against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement
that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who
just lets our soldiers die.
Veterans: Please forward to your lists. High Priority!
AFA Tucson 105, PO Box 15057 , Tucson , AZ 85708
Feb 13, 2014 14:03:58 #
Gay Republican House candidate features partner in ad
02/13/14 10:23 AMUpdated 02/13/14 11:32 AM
facebook twitter 0 save share group 73
By Benjy Sarlin
Republican Congressional candidate Carl DeMaios new ad looks like most campaign ads cliched shots of diverse happy voters, American flags, and the local California landscape paired with inspiring music and generic slogans about a problem solver who isnt afraid to be different.
That is, with one big exception. Toward the end of the ad, DeMaios is seen holding hands with his male partner in one shot and waving a rainbow flag in another. While DeMaio is not the first openly gay Republican to run for Congress, nor would he be the first to serve in office if elected, the ad appears to be a new milestone.
This is who I am, DeMaio told the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the ad, in an interview. Its something thats important to me. I want to embrace equality, and feel like the party should, too.
DeMaio, who is challenging Democratic incumbent Scott Peters, is not a fringe candidate. He was the partys nominee for San Diego mayor in 2012, losing narrowly to Democrat Bob Filner, who later resigned over allegations that he sexual harassed multiple women.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has touted DeMaio as a promising recruit in memos and House GOP leaders, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, have donated to his campaign.
DeMaio, who is one of three openly gay Republicans running for Congress this year, reflects an ongoing change in the party as they adjust to a political environment in which gay rights is broadly popular with voters. Once a powerful wedge issue in the 2004 elections, national Republicans bring the topic up only rarely in ads and speeches. A Republican National Committee memo examining the partys 2012 losses warned that the gay marriage debate was boosting Democratic margins with young voters and that the party, without necessarily changing their position, needed to become more tolerant.
Its not always an easy transition. Last year, Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia reportedly lobbied GOP leaders to withdraw support for DeMaio and another promising openly gay House candidate, Richard Tisei in Massachusetts. It didnt work: NRCC chairman Greg Walden issued a statement affirming that the decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender or sexual orientation but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats. Speaker John Boehner also said he had no problem with gay Republican candidates.
There are no openly gay Republicans currently in the House or Senate. Former Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe and Wisconsin Congressman Steve Gunderson came out while in office during the 1990s and each won re-election before leaving the House.
Poll: Is Carl DeMaio a sign the GOP is changing on gay rights?
What do you think?
Is Carl DeMaio a sign the GOP is changing on gay rights?
1070 votes
No, he's a rare exception.Yes, the party is evolving on gay rights.Maybe, let's see if there's a backlash.
02/13/14 10:23 AMUpdated 02/13/14 11:32 AM
facebook twitter 0 save share group 73
By Benjy Sarlin
Republican Congressional candidate Carl DeMaios new ad looks like most campaign ads cliched shots of diverse happy voters, American flags, and the local California landscape paired with inspiring music and generic slogans about a problem solver who isnt afraid to be different.
That is, with one big exception. Toward the end of the ad, DeMaios is seen holding hands with his male partner in one shot and waving a rainbow flag in another. While DeMaio is not the first openly gay Republican to run for Congress, nor would he be the first to serve in office if elected, the ad appears to be a new milestone.
This is who I am, DeMaio told the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the ad, in an interview. Its something thats important to me. I want to embrace equality, and feel like the party should, too.
DeMaio, who is challenging Democratic incumbent Scott Peters, is not a fringe candidate. He was the partys nominee for San Diego mayor in 2012, losing narrowly to Democrat Bob Filner, who later resigned over allegations that he sexual harassed multiple women.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has touted DeMaio as a promising recruit in memos and House GOP leaders, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, have donated to his campaign.
DeMaio, who is one of three openly gay Republicans running for Congress this year, reflects an ongoing change in the party as they adjust to a political environment in which gay rights is broadly popular with voters. Once a powerful wedge issue in the 2004 elections, national Republicans bring the topic up only rarely in ads and speeches. A Republican National Committee memo examining the partys 2012 losses warned that the gay marriage debate was boosting Democratic margins with young voters and that the party, without necessarily changing their position, needed to become more tolerant.
Its not always an easy transition. Last year, Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia reportedly lobbied GOP leaders to withdraw support for DeMaio and another promising openly gay House candidate, Richard Tisei in Massachusetts. It didnt work: NRCC chairman Greg Walden issued a statement affirming that the decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender or sexual orientation but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats. Speaker John Boehner also said he had no problem with gay Republican candidates.
There are no openly gay Republicans currently in the House or Senate. Former Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe and Wisconsin Congressman Steve Gunderson came out while in office during the 1990s and each won re-election before leaving the House.
Poll: Is Carl DeMaio a sign the GOP is changing on gay rights?
What do you think?
Is Carl DeMaio a sign the GOP is changing on gay rights?
1070 votes
No, he's a rare exception.Yes, the party is evolving on gay rights.Maybe, let's see if there's a backlash.
Feb 13, 2014 14:04:38 #
John Boehner smiles as walks to a strategy meeting with fellow Republicans, Feb. 4, 2014.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Boehner: GOP immigration plan isnt amnesty
02/04/14 01:52 PMUpdated 02/06/14 02:54 PM
facebook twitter 2 save share group 25
By Benjy Sarlin
House Speaker John Boehner is defending new Republican immigration principles from critics on the right who complain it rewards illegal immigration and plays into President Obamas hands.
On Tuesday, Boehners office released a Q&A explaining why the speaker had decided to pursue immigration reform and how it would address major concerns within his party.
The focus of this Congress should be on creating jobs and growing our economy, the document reads. Reforms to our immigration system will accomplish those goals and address a serious national security issue.
msnbc Live, 1/31/14, 1:21 PM ET
House Republicans release immigration principles
The immigration principles, released at the House GOPs retreat in Maryland last week, call for a revamped legal immigration system for both high skilled and temporary workers, new border security and enforcement measures, and most controversially a program to legalize qualifying undocumented immigrants.
The most common issue House Republicans have raised with passing reform this year is that they fear Obama will bank the legalization part and then unilaterally refuse to enforce the security measures attached to it. This complaint usually has less to do with immigration, specifically, where the administration has presided over record deportations, and more with a broader critique of the Obama administrations use of executive action on issues like health care, where the White House delayed a mandate for businesses to buy insurance.
But while some Republicans argue that their distrust of Obama is reason to punt on reform for now, even if they agree with it on the policy merits, Boehner affirms their premise to make the opposite case. Immigration reform is worth passing, he argues, because Republicans need a new law that constrains Obama more explicitly.
Unfortunately, the Senate bill would allow this and future administrations to circumvent the Congress and decide unilaterally how to enforce our immigration laws, the Q&A reads. As part of its step-by-step approach, the House would eliminate the ability for any administration to arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce.
This isnt just a theoretical concern. The president has already deferred deportations, over Republican objections, for young undocumented immigrants who would gain legal status under the DREAM Act. Under pressure from immigration activists, Obama hinted last week that he might consider blocking deportations for larger groups of undocumented immigrants if Congress fails to act.
Boehner also takes on the argument that legalization constitutes amnesty for immigration violators.
Just the opposite is true, the document reads. Right now, there are few, if any, consequences for living here illegally. What we have now is amnesty.
It goes on to argue that any legalization would be earned through admitting past wrongdoing, paying back taxes and fines, learn English and American civics, and have to support themselves without federal help. There would be no special path to citizenship, although the actual details on how citizenship would be handled under the Republican plan are still unclear.
The Q&A also raises what could end up being the biggest disagreement between Democrats and Republicans in negotiating a final deal: How quickly immigrants could apply for legal status. Democrats and immigration activists have argued that the process needs to begin almost immediately. But Republicans are worried it would give the administration too much leeway to slow walk the security portions of the bill and want to tie it to unnamed enforcement triggers. While the language in the framework is sitll somewhat vague on this issue, Boehner reiterated its importance on Tuesday.
None of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers on border security and other measures have been met, the Q&A reads. The Senate bill, on the other hand, starts registering illegal immigrants virtually immediately after passage, does not require them to admit they broke any laws, only prohibits access to public benefits during a probationary period.
For the most part, Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have greeted Boehners immigration framework with cautious praise. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted against the bipartisan Senate bill, told reporters on Tuesday he foresaw an irresolvable conflict between the House and Senate that would prevent them from reaching a deal this year.
The Senate insists on comprehensive; the House says it wont go to conference with the Senate on comprehensive; it wants to look at step by step, McConnell said. I dont see how you get to an outcome this year with the two bodies in such a different place.
While immigration reform is a tough slog, McConnells reasoning is a bit odd given that top Democrats have already suggested theyre willing to follow the Houses lead and pass immigration reform as a series of bills. In fact, Boehner paid Obama a rare complement in November for publicly acquiescing to his demand for a step by step approach.
Jansing & Co. , 1/31/14, 11:50 AM ET
GOP House unveils immigration reform plan
Poll: Will Republicans back Boehners immigration plan?
What do you think?
Will Republicans back Boehner's immigration plan?
1413 votes
Yes, Boehner made a good case that it's not amnesty.No, the GOP wants enforcement, not legalization.Not sure.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Boehner: GOP immigration plan isnt amnesty
02/04/14 01:52 PMUpdated 02/06/14 02:54 PM
facebook twitter 2 save share group 25
By Benjy Sarlin
House Speaker John Boehner is defending new Republican immigration principles from critics on the right who complain it rewards illegal immigration and plays into President Obamas hands.
On Tuesday, Boehners office released a Q&A explaining why the speaker had decided to pursue immigration reform and how it would address major concerns within his party.
The focus of this Congress should be on creating jobs and growing our economy, the document reads. Reforms to our immigration system will accomplish those goals and address a serious national security issue.
msnbc Live, 1/31/14, 1:21 PM ET
House Republicans release immigration principles
The immigration principles, released at the House GOPs retreat in Maryland last week, call for a revamped legal immigration system for both high skilled and temporary workers, new border security and enforcement measures, and most controversially a program to legalize qualifying undocumented immigrants.
The most common issue House Republicans have raised with passing reform this year is that they fear Obama will bank the legalization part and then unilaterally refuse to enforce the security measures attached to it. This complaint usually has less to do with immigration, specifically, where the administration has presided over record deportations, and more with a broader critique of the Obama administrations use of executive action on issues like health care, where the White House delayed a mandate for businesses to buy insurance.
But while some Republicans argue that their distrust of Obama is reason to punt on reform for now, even if they agree with it on the policy merits, Boehner affirms their premise to make the opposite case. Immigration reform is worth passing, he argues, because Republicans need a new law that constrains Obama more explicitly.
Unfortunately, the Senate bill would allow this and future administrations to circumvent the Congress and decide unilaterally how to enforce our immigration laws, the Q&A reads. As part of its step-by-step approach, the House would eliminate the ability for any administration to arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce.
This isnt just a theoretical concern. The president has already deferred deportations, over Republican objections, for young undocumented immigrants who would gain legal status under the DREAM Act. Under pressure from immigration activists, Obama hinted last week that he might consider blocking deportations for larger groups of undocumented immigrants if Congress fails to act.
Boehner also takes on the argument that legalization constitutes amnesty for immigration violators.
Just the opposite is true, the document reads. Right now, there are few, if any, consequences for living here illegally. What we have now is amnesty.
It goes on to argue that any legalization would be earned through admitting past wrongdoing, paying back taxes and fines, learn English and American civics, and have to support themselves without federal help. There would be no special path to citizenship, although the actual details on how citizenship would be handled under the Republican plan are still unclear.
The Q&A also raises what could end up being the biggest disagreement between Democrats and Republicans in negotiating a final deal: How quickly immigrants could apply for legal status. Democrats and immigration activists have argued that the process needs to begin almost immediately. But Republicans are worried it would give the administration too much leeway to slow walk the security portions of the bill and want to tie it to unnamed enforcement triggers. While the language in the framework is sitll somewhat vague on this issue, Boehner reiterated its importance on Tuesday.
None of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers on border security and other measures have been met, the Q&A reads. The Senate bill, on the other hand, starts registering illegal immigrants virtually immediately after passage, does not require them to admit they broke any laws, only prohibits access to public benefits during a probationary period.
For the most part, Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have greeted Boehners immigration framework with cautious praise. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted against the bipartisan Senate bill, told reporters on Tuesday he foresaw an irresolvable conflict between the House and Senate that would prevent them from reaching a deal this year.
The Senate insists on comprehensive; the House says it wont go to conference with the Senate on comprehensive; it wants to look at step by step, McConnell said. I dont see how you get to an outcome this year with the two bodies in such a different place.
While immigration reform is a tough slog, McConnells reasoning is a bit odd given that top Democrats have already suggested theyre willing to follow the Houses lead and pass immigration reform as a series of bills. In fact, Boehner paid Obama a rare complement in November for publicly acquiescing to his demand for a step by step approach.
Jansing & Co. , 1/31/14, 11:50 AM ET
GOP House unveils immigration reform plan
Poll: Will Republicans back Boehners immigration plan?
What do you think?
Will Republicans back Boehner's immigration plan?
1413 votes
Yes, Boehner made a good case that it's not amnesty.No, the GOP wants enforcement, not legalization.Not sure.
Feb 13, 2014 17:15:49 #
Europe Considers Wholesale Savings Confiscation, Enforced Redistribution
----------------------------------------------------------
Posted By yihan On February 13, 2014 @ 5:44 am In Economic Crisis,Featured Stories,Tile | No Comments
Zero Hedge
February 13, 2014
At first we thought Reuters had been punkd in its article titled EU executive sees personal savings used to plug long-term financing gap which disclosed the latest leaked proposal by the European Commission, but after several hours without a retraction, we realized that the story is sadly true.
Image: Euro (Wikimedia Commons).
Sadly, because everything that we warned about in There May Be Only Painful Ways Out Of The Crisis back in September of 2011, and everything that the depositors and citizens of Cyprus had to live through, seems on the verge of going continental. In a nutshell, and in Reuters own words, the savings of the European Unions 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says. What is left unsaid is that the usage will be on a purely involuntary basis, at the discretion of the union, and can thus best be described as confiscation.
The source of this stunner is a document seen be Reuters, which describes how the EU is looking for ways to wean the 28-country bloc from its heavy reliance on bank financing and find other means of funding small companies, infrastructure projects and other investment. So as Europe finally admits that the ECB has failed to unclog its broken monetary pipelines for the past five years something we highlight every month (most recently in No Waking From Draghis Monetary Nightmare: Eurozone Credit Creation Tumbles To New All Time Low), the commissions report finally admits that the economic and financial crisis has impaired the ability of the financial sector to channel funds to the real economy, in particular long-term investment.
The solution? The Commission will ask the blocs insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing, the document said.
Mobilize, once again, is a more palatable word than, say, confiscate.
And yet this is precisely what Europe is contemplating:
Banks have complained they are hindered from lending to the economy by post-crisis rules forcing them to hold much larger safety cushions of capital and liquidity.
The document said the appropriateness of the EU capital and liquidity rules for long-term financing will be reviewed over the next two years, a process likely to be scrutinized in the United States and elsewhere to head off any risk of EU banks gaining an unfair advantage.
But wait: theres more!
Inspired by the recently introduced no risk, guaranteed return collectivized savings instrument in the US better known as MyRA, Europe will also complete a study by the end of this year on thefeasibility of introducing an EU savings account, open to individuals whose funds could be pooled and invested in small companies.
Because when corporations refuse to invest money in Capex, who will invest? Why you, dear Europeans. Whether you like it or not.
But wait, there is still more!
Additionally, Europe is seeking to restore the primary reason why Europes banks are as insolvent as they are: securitizations, which the persuasive salesmen and sexy saleswomen of Goldman et al sold to idiot European bankers, who in turn invested the money or widows and orphans only to see all of it disappear.
It is also seeking to revive the securitization market, which pools loans like mortgages into bonds that banks can sell to raise funding for themselves or companies. The market was tarnished by the financial crisis when bonds linked to U.S. home loans began defaulting in 2007, sparking the broader global markets meltdown over the ensuing two years.
The document says the Commission will take into account possible future increases in the liquidity of a number of securitization products when it comes to finalizing a new rule on what assets banks can place in their new liquidity buffers. This signals a possible loosening of the definition of eligible assets from the blocs banking watchdog.
Because there is nothing quite like securitizing feta cheese-backed securities and selling it to a whole new batch of widows and orphans.
And topping it all off is a proposal to address a global change in accounting principles that will make sure that an accurate representation of any banks balance sheet becomes a distant memory:
More controversially, the Commission will consider whether the use of fair value or pricing assets at the going rate in a new globally agreed accounting rule is appropriate, in particular regarding long-term investing business models.
To summarize: forced savings mobilization, the introduction of a collective and involuntary CapEx funding savings account, the return and expansion of securitization, and finally, tying it all together, is a change to accounting rules that will make the entire inevitable catastrophe smells like roses until it all comes crashing down.
So, aside from all this, Europe is fixed.
The only remaining question is: why leak this now? Perhaps its simply because the reallocation of cash on the savings account sidelines in the aftermath of the Cyprus deposit confiscation, into risk assets was not foreceful enough? What better way to give it a much needed boost than to leak that everyones cash savings are suddenly fair game in Europes next great wealth redistribution strategy.
----------------------------------------------------------
Posted By yihan On February 13, 2014 @ 5:44 am In Economic Crisis,Featured Stories,Tile | No Comments
Zero Hedge
February 13, 2014
At first we thought Reuters had been punkd in its article titled EU executive sees personal savings used to plug long-term financing gap which disclosed the latest leaked proposal by the European Commission, but after several hours without a retraction, we realized that the story is sadly true.
Image: Euro (Wikimedia Commons).
Sadly, because everything that we warned about in There May Be Only Painful Ways Out Of The Crisis back in September of 2011, and everything that the depositors and citizens of Cyprus had to live through, seems on the verge of going continental. In a nutshell, and in Reuters own words, the savings of the European Unions 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says. What is left unsaid is that the usage will be on a purely involuntary basis, at the discretion of the union, and can thus best be described as confiscation.
The source of this stunner is a document seen be Reuters, which describes how the EU is looking for ways to wean the 28-country bloc from its heavy reliance on bank financing and find other means of funding small companies, infrastructure projects and other investment. So as Europe finally admits that the ECB has failed to unclog its broken monetary pipelines for the past five years something we highlight every month (most recently in No Waking From Draghis Monetary Nightmare: Eurozone Credit Creation Tumbles To New All Time Low), the commissions report finally admits that the economic and financial crisis has impaired the ability of the financial sector to channel funds to the real economy, in particular long-term investment.
The solution? The Commission will ask the blocs insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing, the document said.
Mobilize, once again, is a more palatable word than, say, confiscate.
And yet this is precisely what Europe is contemplating:
Banks have complained they are hindered from lending to the economy by post-crisis rules forcing them to hold much larger safety cushions of capital and liquidity.
The document said the appropriateness of the EU capital and liquidity rules for long-term financing will be reviewed over the next two years, a process likely to be scrutinized in the United States and elsewhere to head off any risk of EU banks gaining an unfair advantage.
But wait: theres more!
Inspired by the recently introduced no risk, guaranteed return collectivized savings instrument in the US better known as MyRA, Europe will also complete a study by the end of this year on thefeasibility of introducing an EU savings account, open to individuals whose funds could be pooled and invested in small companies.
Because when corporations refuse to invest money in Capex, who will invest? Why you, dear Europeans. Whether you like it or not.
But wait, there is still more!
Additionally, Europe is seeking to restore the primary reason why Europes banks are as insolvent as they are: securitizations, which the persuasive salesmen and sexy saleswomen of Goldman et al sold to idiot European bankers, who in turn invested the money or widows and orphans only to see all of it disappear.
It is also seeking to revive the securitization market, which pools loans like mortgages into bonds that banks can sell to raise funding for themselves or companies. The market was tarnished by the financial crisis when bonds linked to U.S. home loans began defaulting in 2007, sparking the broader global markets meltdown over the ensuing two years.
The document says the Commission will take into account possible future increases in the liquidity of a number of securitization products when it comes to finalizing a new rule on what assets banks can place in their new liquidity buffers. This signals a possible loosening of the definition of eligible assets from the blocs banking watchdog.
Because there is nothing quite like securitizing feta cheese-backed securities and selling it to a whole new batch of widows and orphans.
And topping it all off is a proposal to address a global change in accounting principles that will make sure that an accurate representation of any banks balance sheet becomes a distant memory:
More controversially, the Commission will consider whether the use of fair value or pricing assets at the going rate in a new globally agreed accounting rule is appropriate, in particular regarding long-term investing business models.
To summarize: forced savings mobilization, the introduction of a collective and involuntary CapEx funding savings account, the return and expansion of securitization, and finally, tying it all together, is a change to accounting rules that will make the entire inevitable catastrophe smells like roses until it all comes crashing down.
So, aside from all this, Europe is fixed.
The only remaining question is: why leak this now? Perhaps its simply because the reallocation of cash on the savings account sidelines in the aftermath of the Cyprus deposit confiscation, into risk assets was not foreceful enough? What better way to give it a much needed boost than to leak that everyones cash savings are suddenly fair game in Europes next great wealth redistribution strategy.
Feb 13, 2014 17:15:49 #
Europe Considers Wholesale Savings Confiscation, Enforced Redistribution
----------------------------------------------------------
Posted By yihan On February 13, 2014 @ 5:44 am In Economic Crisis,Featured Stories,Tile | No Comments
Zero Hedge
February 13, 2014
At first we thought Reuters had been punkd in its article titled EU executive sees personal savings used to plug long-term financing gap which disclosed the latest leaked proposal by the European Commission, but after several hours without a retraction, we realized that the story is sadly true.
Image: Euro (Wikimedia Commons).
Sadly, because everything that we warned about in There May Be Only Painful Ways Out Of The Crisis back in September of 2011, and everything that the depositors and citizens of Cyprus had to live through, seems on the verge of going continental. In a nutshell, and in Reuters own words, the savings of the European Unions 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says. What is left unsaid is that the usage will be on a purely involuntary basis, at the discretion of the union, and can thus best be described as confiscation.
The source of this stunner is a document seen be Reuters, which describes how the EU is looking for ways to wean the 28-country bloc from its heavy reliance on bank financing and find other means of funding small companies, infrastructure projects and other investment. So as Europe finally admits that the ECB has failed to unclog its broken monetary pipelines for the past five years something we highlight every month (most recently in No Waking From Draghis Monetary Nightmare: Eurozone Credit Creation Tumbles To New All Time Low), the commissions report finally admits that the economic and financial crisis has impaired the ability of the financial sector to channel funds to the real economy, in particular long-term investment.
The solution? The Commission will ask the blocs insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing, the document said.
Mobilize, once again, is a more palatable word than, say, confiscate.
And yet this is precisely what Europe is contemplating:
Banks have complained they are hindered from lending to the economy by post-crisis rules forcing them to hold much larger safety cushions of capital and liquidity.
The document said the appropriateness of the EU capital and liquidity rules for long-term financing will be reviewed over the next two years, a process likely to be scrutinized in the United States and elsewhere to head off any risk of EU banks gaining an unfair advantage.
But wait: theres more!
Inspired by the recently introduced no risk, guaranteed return collectivized savings instrument in the US better known as MyRA, Europe will also complete a study by the end of this year on thefeasibility of introducing an EU savings account, open to individuals whose funds could be pooled and invested in small companies.
Because when corporations refuse to invest money in Capex, who will invest? Why you, dear Europeans. Whether you like it or not.
But wait, there is still more!
Additionally, Europe is seeking to restore the primary reason why Europes banks are as insolvent as they are: securitizations, which the persuasive salesmen and sexy saleswomen of Goldman et al sold to idiot European bankers, who in turn invested the money or widows and orphans only to see all of it disappear.
It is also seeking to revive the securitization market, which pools loans like mortgages into bonds that banks can sell to raise funding for themselves or companies. The market was tarnished by the financial crisis when bonds linked to U.S. home loans began defaulting in 2007, sparking the broader global markets meltdown over the ensuing two years.
The document says the Commission will take into account possible future increases in the liquidity of a number of securitization products when it comes to finalizing a new rule on what assets banks can place in their new liquidity buffers. This signals a possible loosening of the definition of eligible assets from the blocs banking watchdog.
Because there is nothing quite like securitizing feta cheese-backed securities and selling it to a whole new batch of widows and orphans.
And topping it all off is a proposal to address a global change in accounting principles that will make sure that an accurate representation of any banks balance sheet becomes a distant memory:
More controversially, the Commission will consider whether the use of fair value or pricing assets at the going rate in a new globally agreed accounting rule is appropriate, in particular regarding long-term investing business models.
To summarize: forced savings mobilization, the introduction of a collective and involuntary CapEx funding savings account, the return and expansion of securitization, and finally, tying it all together, is a change to accounting rules that will make the entire inevitable catastrophe smells like roses until it all comes crashing down.
So, aside from all this, Europe is fixed.
The only remaining question is: why leak this now? Perhaps its simply because the reallocation of cash on the savings account sidelines in the aftermath of the Cyprus deposit confiscation, into risk assets was not foreceful enough? What better way to give it a much needed boost than to leak that everyones cash savings are suddenly fair game in Europes next great wealth redistribution strategy.
----------------------------------------------------------
Posted By yihan On February 13, 2014 @ 5:44 am In Economic Crisis,Featured Stories,Tile | No Comments
Zero Hedge
February 13, 2014
At first we thought Reuters had been punkd in its article titled EU executive sees personal savings used to plug long-term financing gap which disclosed the latest leaked proposal by the European Commission, but after several hours without a retraction, we realized that the story is sadly true.
Image: Euro (Wikimedia Commons).
Sadly, because everything that we warned about in There May Be Only Painful Ways Out Of The Crisis back in September of 2011, and everything that the depositors and citizens of Cyprus had to live through, seems on the verge of going continental. In a nutshell, and in Reuters own words, the savings of the European Unions 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says. What is left unsaid is that the usage will be on a purely involuntary basis, at the discretion of the union, and can thus best be described as confiscation.
The source of this stunner is a document seen be Reuters, which describes how the EU is looking for ways to wean the 28-country bloc from its heavy reliance on bank financing and find other means of funding small companies, infrastructure projects and other investment. So as Europe finally admits that the ECB has failed to unclog its broken monetary pipelines for the past five years something we highlight every month (most recently in No Waking From Draghis Monetary Nightmare: Eurozone Credit Creation Tumbles To New All Time Low), the commissions report finally admits that the economic and financial crisis has impaired the ability of the financial sector to channel funds to the real economy, in particular long-term investment.
The solution? The Commission will ask the blocs insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing, the document said.
Mobilize, once again, is a more palatable word than, say, confiscate.
And yet this is precisely what Europe is contemplating:
Banks have complained they are hindered from lending to the economy by post-crisis rules forcing them to hold much larger safety cushions of capital and liquidity.
The document said the appropriateness of the EU capital and liquidity rules for long-term financing will be reviewed over the next two years, a process likely to be scrutinized in the United States and elsewhere to head off any risk of EU banks gaining an unfair advantage.
But wait: theres more!
Inspired by the recently introduced no risk, guaranteed return collectivized savings instrument in the US better known as MyRA, Europe will also complete a study by the end of this year on thefeasibility of introducing an EU savings account, open to individuals whose funds could be pooled and invested in small companies.
Because when corporations refuse to invest money in Capex, who will invest? Why you, dear Europeans. Whether you like it or not.
But wait, there is still more!
Additionally, Europe is seeking to restore the primary reason why Europes banks are as insolvent as they are: securitizations, which the persuasive salesmen and sexy saleswomen of Goldman et al sold to idiot European bankers, who in turn invested the money or widows and orphans only to see all of it disappear.
It is also seeking to revive the securitization market, which pools loans like mortgages into bonds that banks can sell to raise funding for themselves or companies. The market was tarnished by the financial crisis when bonds linked to U.S. home loans began defaulting in 2007, sparking the broader global markets meltdown over the ensuing two years.
The document says the Commission will take into account possible future increases in the liquidity of a number of securitization products when it comes to finalizing a new rule on what assets banks can place in their new liquidity buffers. This signals a possible loosening of the definition of eligible assets from the blocs banking watchdog.
Because there is nothing quite like securitizing feta cheese-backed securities and selling it to a whole new batch of widows and orphans.
And topping it all off is a proposal to address a global change in accounting principles that will make sure that an accurate representation of any banks balance sheet becomes a distant memory:
More controversially, the Commission will consider whether the use of fair value or pricing assets at the going rate in a new globally agreed accounting rule is appropriate, in particular regarding long-term investing business models.
To summarize: forced savings mobilization, the introduction of a collective and involuntary CapEx funding savings account, the return and expansion of securitization, and finally, tying it all together, is a change to accounting rules that will make the entire inevitable catastrophe smells like roses until it all comes crashing down.
So, aside from all this, Europe is fixed.
The only remaining question is: why leak this now? Perhaps its simply because the reallocation of cash on the savings account sidelines in the aftermath of the Cyprus deposit confiscation, into risk assets was not foreceful enough? What better way to give it a much needed boost than to leak that everyones cash savings are suddenly fair game in Europes next great wealth redistribution strategy.
Feb 13, 2014 18:17:47 #
From: Brent Kenefick [mailto:brentkenefick@johnsoncapital.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:28 PM
To: Don Bailey (db@fea.net); Bob Howard; Steve Zipperman; fwkruger@yahoo.com; dennis@title4u.com; Nancye Woodward (nancye@parkplaceescrow.com); Peter Carissimo ASA, CEO (realvalu@gmail.com)
Subject: FW: San Diego's really, really bad news for Democrats
Hope this trend continues .
Brent
Subject: San Diego's really, really bad news for Democrats
San Diego, the eight-largest city in America, elected a Republican as mayor by a 9% margin that surprised all the "experts," 54.5% to 45.5%. Republican city councilman Kevin Faulconer defeated Democratic Councilman David Alvarez in a city that has been trending both Democratic and Hispanic.
There are two hard lessons for the Democrats here in the election.
Lesson one, as noted by John Fund of NRO,
..the vaunted Obama election model - flood the zone with negative attack ads and excite the base of the Democratic party - flopped. Faulconer defeated fellow City Council member David Alvarez by nine points in a city that Barack Obama carried by 63 percent to 37 percent only 15 months ago.
Democrats were stunned at the margin. In the November open primary, Democrats had won 54 percent of the ballots cast and were convinced they could win the runoff between Faulconer and Alvarez.
In the wake of Obamacare's very public and ongoing disaster, it is going to be harder for Democrats to excite their base and drive turnout. With a key mid-term election this year, that is terrible news for the Democrats. The election (and re-election) of The First Black President is no longer on the table. The best the Democrats can come up with in 2014 and 2016 is going to be demonization of the GOP, their perennial means of asking voters to ignore their own shortcomings.
But that strategy faces another, even worse limitation for the Democrats. Fund again:
Unions pitched in a record $4.2 million to promote Alvarez, compared to only $1.7 million from business interests backing Faulconer. In the end, Alvarez outspent Faulconer in total by a million dollars.
Partly the Faulconer blowout was the result of the lower turnout of a special election called to replace disgraced Democratic Mayor Bob Filner. But partly it came from a renewed ability of Republicans to reach out to independent and moderate voters with the need to practice fiscal restraint and sound management. "It's been less than a decade since public-employee unions drove San Diego into near-insolvency, and people were reminded of that," says Jason Roe, a political consultant in San Diego.
Voters in California, the bluest of blue states, recognize both the seriousness of deficits -- owing to the prominent bankruptcies of major cities such as Stockton and San Bernadino - and the rapaciousness of public employee unions. This is a message that the GOP can take nationwide.
In a very under-reported story, voters in San Bernadino delivered a stunning humiliation to the Democrat-union combine. Tim Reid of Reuters:
Residents of bankrupt San Bernardino, California on Tuesday voted to complete a rout of the city's pro-union old guard, electing business-friendly pragmatists who have pledged to try to reduce pension costs and take on vested interests.
As San Bernardino enters into a fourth month of mediation with its creditors, the biggest of which is Calpers, California's giant retirement system, voters on Tuesday elected Carey Davis as the crisis-hit city's new mayor.
Davis, a businessman and political novice, ran in part on a campaign to reduce the city's pension obligations. In an interview in November, when he became one of two mayoral candidates, he said the city had to cut spending on police and fire departments, currently more than 70 percent of the budget.
"You have to roll the pensions back," Davis said in November. Davis did not return calls on Wednesday.
Davis will play a big role in how the city approaches negotiations with its creditors. He will be part of a small team of elected officials who represent the city as the debtor in the bankruptcy.
Along with Detroit, the biggest U.S. city to seek Chapter 9 protection, San Bernardino is likely to set precedent on whether retirees or Wall Street bondholders suffer the most when a city goes broke.
It was not just the mayor's race where voters rejected then unions:
Also on Tuesday, another political novice, Henry Nickel, became a new council member, saying he wanted to take on special interests. Nickel's biggest challenger was Randy Wilson, a police sergeant endorsed by the police union, the only candidate for that seat who did not support pension reform efforts. (snip)
Tuesday's results follow elections in November, when the balance of power in San Bernardino's seven-member council shifted dramatically away from an old guard reluctant to take on unions and reduce pension obligations.
After Tuesday night, six of seven council members are now on record as saying they want to explore reducing San Bernardino's pensions, along with Davis, the new mayor, and a new city attorney, Gary Saenz.
Republicans have a potent issue before them, if they have the wit to exploit it: unions have been abusing taxpayers to the point of bankruptcies, most prominently in Detroit, but also at the federal and state levels. Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, has taken on the public employee unions, and his state has mightily prospered, to the pot where tax reductions are now in prospect, while the economy has improved.
The many scandals involving waste and abuse by federal bureaucrats also taint the image of public employee unions, even when the miscreants are not themselves union members. The many stories about Washington, DC prospering as the rest of America suffers provide another key subject for this message.
The Democrats are completely in bed with unions, most especially public employee unions. The GOP can use this against them. That is the biggest message from California.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/san_diegos_really_really_bad_news_for_democrats.html#ixzz2tDUj1md1
Feb 14, 2014 05:03:07 #
Federal Judge Overturns Virginias Same-Sex Marriage Ban
By ERIK ECKHOLMFEB. 14, 2014
Mark R. Herring, the Virginia attorney general, center, outside the federal courthouse in Norfolk last week. Jay Paul/Getty Images
A federal judge on Thursday evening declared that Virginias ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, in the strongest legal reversal yet of restrictive marriage amendments that exist throughout the South.
Our Constitution declares that all men are created equal, wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. Surely this means all of us.
The ruling, which overturned a constitutional amendment adopted by Virginia voters in 2006 as well as previous laws, also said that Virginia must respect same-sex marriages that were carried out legally in other states.
But opponents of same-sex marriage have vowed to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, and Judge Wright Allen stayed the execution of Thursdays ruling pending the appeal.
This week, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must honor same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, but the ruling did not address Kentuckys own ban on such marriages.
If the Court of Appeals upholds Thursdays decision, the repercussions in the South could be wide. Similar amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman would most likely be voided in other states of the Fourth Circuit, including North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia. (Maryland, the fifth member, approved same-sex marriage in 2012.)
But many legal experts believe that this case, or another among the dozens now being argued in federal district or appeals courts around the country, will eventually be taken up by the United States Supreme Court.
Last year, as it overturned a part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages from states where it is legal, and a majority of justices agreed that discrimination against gay and lesbian couples was unjustified and stigmatized their children. In another decision, it allowed a reversal of Californias ban on same-sex marriage to stand on technical grounds.
But so far, the justices have not decided the basic issue raised by the new decision in Virginia and similar recent decisions by federal district courts in Utah and Oklahoma: whether any sound constitutional reason exists for a state to deny gay and lesbian couples an equal right to marry.
The challenge to Virginias ban was argued by the same bipartisan team of legal stars, Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, that successfully contested Californias ban in 2010. They argued the case on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, a private national group.
When the case was first filed, Virginias Republican governor and attorney general strongly defended the states ban. But Democrats won the two offices in November, and the new attorney general of Virginia, Mark R. Herring, announced that his office considered the marriage ban unconstitutional and would assist the challenge.
Remaining in court to defend the state law were two court clerks, one of them represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a coalition of conservative Christian lawyers.
The plaintiffs in the case are Tim Bostic, an English professor, and Tony London, a real estate agent, who live in Norfolk and have been together for 24 years.
They are joined by Carol Schall, an autism researcher, and Mary Townley, who also works with special needs youth, from Richmond. The two women have been together for 28 years and have a 16-year-old daughter. They married legally in California in 2008, but Virginia refused to recognize that status.
I am proud to say that today I am equal under the law in my home state of Virginia, Mr. Bostic said Thursday. Tony and I just want to get married like everyone else can.
Ms. Schall said, For us, marriage is about love and commitment and our family having the recognition and protection other families enjoy.
The judge often used lofty language in declaring that Virginias marriage ban violated the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. In summing up the decision, she wrote, We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.
By ERIK ECKHOLMFEB. 14, 2014
Mark R. Herring, the Virginia attorney general, center, outside the federal courthouse in Norfolk last week. Jay Paul/Getty Images
A federal judge on Thursday evening declared that Virginias ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, in the strongest legal reversal yet of restrictive marriage amendments that exist throughout the South.
Our Constitution declares that all men are created equal, wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. Surely this means all of us.
The ruling, which overturned a constitutional amendment adopted by Virginia voters in 2006 as well as previous laws, also said that Virginia must respect same-sex marriages that were carried out legally in other states.
But opponents of same-sex marriage have vowed to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, and Judge Wright Allen stayed the execution of Thursdays ruling pending the appeal.
This week, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must honor same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, but the ruling did not address Kentuckys own ban on such marriages.
If the Court of Appeals upholds Thursdays decision, the repercussions in the South could be wide. Similar amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman would most likely be voided in other states of the Fourth Circuit, including North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia. (Maryland, the fifth member, approved same-sex marriage in 2012.)
But many legal experts believe that this case, or another among the dozens now being argued in federal district or appeals courts around the country, will eventually be taken up by the United States Supreme Court.
Last year, as it overturned a part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages from states where it is legal, and a majority of justices agreed that discrimination against gay and lesbian couples was unjustified and stigmatized their children. In another decision, it allowed a reversal of Californias ban on same-sex marriage to stand on technical grounds.
But so far, the justices have not decided the basic issue raised by the new decision in Virginia and similar recent decisions by federal district courts in Utah and Oklahoma: whether any sound constitutional reason exists for a state to deny gay and lesbian couples an equal right to marry.
The challenge to Virginias ban was argued by the same bipartisan team of legal stars, Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, that successfully contested Californias ban in 2010. They argued the case on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, a private national group.
When the case was first filed, Virginias Republican governor and attorney general strongly defended the states ban. But Democrats won the two offices in November, and the new attorney general of Virginia, Mark R. Herring, announced that his office considered the marriage ban unconstitutional and would assist the challenge.
Remaining in court to defend the state law were two court clerks, one of them represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a coalition of conservative Christian lawyers.
The plaintiffs in the case are Tim Bostic, an English professor, and Tony London, a real estate agent, who live in Norfolk and have been together for 24 years.
They are joined by Carol Schall, an autism researcher, and Mary Townley, who also works with special needs youth, from Richmond. The two women have been together for 28 years and have a 16-year-old daughter. They married legally in California in 2008, but Virginia refused to recognize that status.
I am proud to say that today I am equal under the law in my home state of Virginia, Mr. Bostic said Thursday. Tony and I just want to get married like everyone else can.
Ms. Schall said, For us, marriage is about love and commitment and our family having the recognition and protection other families enjoy.
The judge often used lofty language in declaring that Virginias marriage ban violated the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. In summing up the decision, she wrote, We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.