Christie comes to Washington
December 6th, 2012
09:25 AM ET

Christie comes to Washington

Washington (CNN) – New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie will be in Washington, DC Thursday for meetings on Capitol Hill and with White House officials regarding relief for Hurricane Sandy, according to a senior Christie adviser.

Christie's visit follows a similar trip to Washington earlier this week by New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, while both men push for federal funding to aid their states after the late October storm ravaged parts of the northeast.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the Obama administration has "obligated more than $2.3 billion to support response and recovery efforts."

However, he said it was too early to put a price tag on the White House's expected request for relief money.

"I'm not going to get ahead of this process," Carney said at the White House. "I would anticipate that we would get a request up this week, and we can certainly discuss it further then."

FEMA Director Craig Fugate said the agency's Disaster Relief Fund will need refilling as part of a supplemental spending bill. During a Senate hearing last week, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said the administration is finalizing its request based on information coming from New Jersey and New York.

Cuomo has asked for $42 billion in aid for New York while Christie has asked for $36.8 billion for the Garden State.

The spending requests come amid an intense debate over spending levels as both parties are embroiled in a standoff over the fiscal cliff.

But presidential politics are also a bit at play with Christie and Cuomo, both high profile and popular governors, considered potential 2016 presidential candidates.

The Christie-Obama relationship landed in the spotlight when the two showed a united front in the wake of the storm, just days before the presidential election. Christie was an early backer of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and had served as a top surrogate for the GOP nominee during the presidential campaign.

– CNN's Dana Bash, Jessica Yellin, Paul Steinhauser and Gabriella Schwarz contributed to this report.


Topics: Chris Christie

« Previous entry
soundoff (76 Responses)
  1. Dan5404

    79 billion is a tough pill to swallow for both parties in this economy. The Republicans generally say global warming is a myth and are strong on having states take care of their own disasters for the mostpart and pretty much want to get rid of or severely curtail funds for government agencies like FEMA. I wonder if they think they can sell that idea to Christie and Cuomo or the American people,

    December 6, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Durundal

      true, but I would get a chuckle out of watching the republican pushed 'isolated state responsibilities mantra' swallow random ~40 billion outliers and still balance a budget without killing other important programs that would hurt long term growth. Guess that strong federal government is helpful after all...

      Evolved society, who'd a thunk that distributed burdens make things more palatable

      December 6, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • December 2012

      I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THIS SINCE I AM FROM JERSEY BUT I AM SURE THE IRONY IS NOT LOST ON CHRISTIE. AT LEAST HE CAN SWALLOW HIS PRIDE AND IDEOLOGY WHEN THERE IS A CRISIS. I JUST HOPE REPUBLICANS CAN SEE FROM THIS JUST HOW THEIR OWN LANGUAGE HAS HURT THEIR PARTY WHEN KARMA PAYS A VISIT.

      AS FOR REBUILDING, IT IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. PEOPLE HAVE TO REALIZE THESE CATASTROPHES MAY NOT BE A ONCE IN A LIFETIME THING ANYMORE. MONEY HAS TO BE SPEND ON PREVENTION AND BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT $50 BILLION STIMULUS MONEY FOR CONSTRUCTION IS NOT SOUNDING SO SILLY NOW IS IT?

      December 6, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
      • NAM VET

        SCREW THE FEDS-STATES HELP OTHER STATES- ALL STATES SHOULD STEP FORWARD WITH EQUAL AMOUNTS
        AND EACH AND EVERY DISASTER TO BE THE SAME FROM ALL STATES TO ALL STATES IN NEED. CUT BIG
        GOV. TO MAKE ANY SHORT FALL ON EACH EPISODE SO TO SPEAKE. RAISE TAXES ON THE BIG UNIONS AS THEY HAVE BILLIONS TO SPEND ON ELECTIONS. CUT TAXES ON ALL WORKING FOLKS EXCEPT THOSE IN GOV. WHO EARN OVER 1 MIL.NOT COUNT WHAT WE PAY THEM IN SALARIES.-–ON AND ON TILL THE FAT CATS IN WASHINGTON WORK FOR WHAT THEY ARE WORTH -–20.00 PER HOUR.

        December 9, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
      • Cynthia L.

        Well, let's see now – $20.00 an hour for Congress would definetly be a savings as Eric Cantor's Congressional Calendar has them working in House sessions for only THREE MONTHS of the 2013 calendar year.

        December 9, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
  2. John

    "If taxes need to go up for all Americans, so be it" – Obama

    December 6, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • Cynthia L.

      Dear John,
      There is more than one way to skin a Congressional Republican Rat if they continue to fight for only the wealthiest Americans. The tax rates of the Bush era will expire for all and in the new year's early months the NEW tax cuts that will benefit middle and lower income Americans will be set for a vote. Go ahead Republicans – see if you can survive voting that down on it's own without the resulting vitrol you'd deserve. Do it now or, Republicans will be seen as implacable dunderheads (as if we didn't already know)
      As far as the Republican version of "Hold the Debt Ceiling Hostage" most Americans know that it was the Congress who agreed to the stuff THEY APPROVED SPENDING ON and the bill has come due to pay it. The Debt Ceiling has nothing to do with a new debt ceiling so basically they are showing as bad as an example you can get for credit irresponsibility to not only citizens of this nation – they are telegraphing that policy to the world – that we are a credit risk. Seriously? This is what happens when you let the Tea Party dopes take over an already dysfunctional Republican Party.
      When Obama says, "so be it", he is saying if that is the road the Republicans take then that is out of his hands and, we will overcome the tax travesity another way.

      December 6, 2012 at 11:54 am |
      • Cynthia L.

        P.S. I want to break up. Yours truly.

        December 6, 2012 at 11:58 am |
      • John

        The fact that we are here once again is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means the buck stops with Obama. Instead Washington is shifting bad choices onto the backs of our children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

        December 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
      • JS

        Divorce between libs and repubs would be fine. Split the country by land mass right down the middle.
        Libs take the lib judges, ACLU, Affirmative Action Crowd, National Organization for Women. MAKE SURE REID AND PELOSI go with you libs...
        Repubs will take all the guns, police, NRA and the military.
        Libs take Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie ODonnel. Libs are responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move them.
        Repubs take capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceuticals, WalMart, McDonalds and Wall Street.

        December 6, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
      • jean2009

        js I suggest splitting it by Red State – Blue State.

        December 6, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
      • Cynthia L.

        I was breaking up with John. Sorry John, you kept saying the "so be it" thing over and over. I don't believe my nation needs dividing as we have ELECTIONS which should also happen without trying to suppress the votes of the citizens as we saw in this last election and in other recent years. I have two die-hard Republican friends in Florida who dropped out of line to vote because they became furious with Florida's Governor for making it hard on everyone to cast a ballot. That's just two of how many other Republicans that fell out of line for the same reason. It had an opposite effect of what Gov. Rick Scott had in mind. It p.o.'d everyone.
        As far as being insulting, we should all be insulted by the way we are left dangling by the Tea Party who have no hopes, no dreams, no ideas for America.

        December 7, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Caramon

      Cynthia, the Republican party does not just represent the wealthy or the 1 percent. At least 22 percent of the population align themselves with the Republican party. Obviously all these people would not fit into the 1 percent. Many in the group include people from Southern states including farmers. I am pretty certain they are not in the 1 percent.

      Much of the large spending increase has been the result of the 2009 "budget", a budget that was assigned to George Bush. There was no 2009 budget. It was a budget resolution, as Jean has reminded me, that was voted and signed as individual appropriations. There were 12 appropriations many which were not voted on or signed until after January 20, 2009. I will let you research the topic and find out which President signed most of the appropriations. This was the year that spending increased adding 18 percent to the deficit. It does show that both President Bush and President Obama are responsible.

      If common people cannot find common ground on these issues instead of insulting each other, how would we expect our representatives to do it? And both sides are guilty of it.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • jean2009

        You mean it represents the 22% that are well off, the very well off, and the really...really very well off?

        No President Bush didn't signed the 2009 spending resolution created on May 24, 2008, but it doesn't mean he wasn't aboard for the outcome....he was enough aboard to realize he was not going to fair too well in the history books...due to his being so dismally inept. Spending Resolutions are not signed by Presidents....but May 24, 2008 was just after the primaries and after all no one knew who would win in November.....That May 24, 2008 resolution also projected out the proposed spending levels for the next 4 years which is done with each new budget or spending resolution a 4 year projection is included..

        Plus TARP and the Auto bailout were signed by George W. Bush TARP was signed October 3, 2008, and the Auto Bailout to Chrysler and GM was approved on December 19, 2008 where it was agreed that $13.4 billion to the auto industry would be made available in January 2009...with another $4 billion made available to GM in February 2009, and once all their legal paperwork was returned the rest of the $700 billion package could be released in March 2009. These were all preset target dates depending on the terms the auto industry agreed to, and for which legal documents would be provided.

        Source: New York Times Business Day-Dec. 19, 2008 – "Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait For Obama."

        The original amount for TARP Bailout was $700 billion signed by G.W. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008, but The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of March 2012 reduced the original TARP amount to $475 billion. -Source Wikipedia -Troubled Asset Relief Program...FYI – The TARP Bailout Fund was based on the same type bailout fund used for the Savings & Loan debacle of the Reagan/Bush era.

        December 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
      • jean2009

        Still waiting on the moderator....again!

        December 6, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
      • Cynthia L.

        Caramon, I did not ever think ALL Republicans were in the top 1 or 2%. However, not sure why your party looks out for their interests and not the rest of the middle-class in your party?? Trickle down doesn't work – look at the corporations sitting on the biggest pile of money they've ever had, telling the rest of you that you don't deserve the golden parachutes, the cadillac health benefits and enormous bonuses they pay themselves. How can you support that?

        December 8, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon When my sons who are probably in your age bracket (baby boomers who are now grandparents) were in high school, they too had a vehicles to go to school. Simply because the high school did not provide transportation for high school students within the city limits, and it was too far for them to walk to school, plus they had after school jobs. When I was in high school, I lived outside the city limits so there was bus transportation, plus I had public transit to the after school job. Locally public transit is no longer available.

        I think the ones I am most upset with today, are those parents who currently have bus transportation available who still bottleneck traffic around elementary schools, each morning and afternoon, dropping off and picking up children who could have rode a bus paid for with our property tax dollars. Plus, they are the first to complain if sidewalks are not run out to some of these magnet schools. They want buses, they want sidewalks, and they still waste gas dropping off and picking up children?

        For the new world the ipod or a tablet will be a necessity. I am amazed that the great-grand baby (now in first grade) is receiving one (age appropriate) for Christmas, but with a bevy of educators for parents and grandparents; he is as smart as a whip at using one already. He teaches me how to use the features on a cell phone.

        When I was first married, we lived several years on a farm...so cloths lines it was; plus a cranky used washer, it was a 6 mile drive to the nearest laundromat.

        My late father-in-law was born on the day of the Wright brothers flight at Kitty Hawk...the world changes. to those who are older it has always been going to H in a hand basket.

        December 9, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • December 2012

      AND JUST WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIE ASKING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY?

      JOHN LIKES TO RUN HIS MOUTH WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT. IF YOU WANT LEADERSHIP THEN YOU SHOULD DEMAND BOEHNER TO GROW A PAIR AND TELL THE TEA PARTY WINGNUTS THEY DON'T OWN HIM. THE PRESIDENT CAMPAIGNED AND WON WITH HIS TAX PLAN IN MIND. MORE AMERICANS THAN ACTUALLY VOTED FOR HIM AGREE WITH HIS PLAN. STOP FIGHTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THIS.

      December 6, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
      • Caramon

        I believe there are a number of reasons people voted to re-elect the president besides his tax policy. My guess is Hispanics voted because of his promise for immigration reform.

        December, how have you been? Haven't heard from you in a while.

        December 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        HEY CARAMON, I'VE BEEN BUSY WITH THE UPCOMING HOLIDAYS. I HOPE YOURS ISN'T AS STRESSFUL AS IT'S BEEN FOR ME. IT'S BEEN ENOUGH FOR ME TO NOT EVEN LOOK AT ALL THE POLITICS LATELY.

        IT IS TRUE THAT NOT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA DID SO FOR THIS REASON BUT THERE IS ENOUGH ACCURATE POLLING TO INDICATE THAT AMERICANS ARE OKAY WITH OBAMA'S TAX PLAN BEFORE AND AFTER THE ELECTION. THE SAME POLLING THAT PREDICTED OBAMA'S VICTORY. IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE VOTED MOSTLY ON THE ISSUE OF THE ECONOMY THEN THE TAX PLAN IS PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT THEY VOTED FOR.

        December 6, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
      • Caramon

        True, I have already stated that I am okay with a tax increase. However, I also want to see the balanced approach the President talked about. Many have stated that Giethner has provided a plan of budget cuts. But no one seems to know what it is.

        Holidays will be stressful even for me. But, as always, I will survive.

        December 6, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE CUTS THAT REPUBLICANS SEEM TO BE CALLING FOR ARE FOR 'ENTITLEMENT' PROGRAMS. THESE ARE NOT SIMPLE CONVERSATIONS, MOST CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE RUSHED WITH JUST A FEW WEEKS LEFT. I DON'T SEE REPUBLICANS BEING SERIOUS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT EVEN SPEAK CLEARLY ON WHAT CUTS THEY WANT. I DON'T BLAME THEM. YOU TRY TELLING PEOPLE WHO MOSTLY VOTED REPUBLICAN THAT YOU WANT TO CUT MEDICARE. IT SEEMS LIKE THEY WANT THE DEMOCRATS TO DO THE DIRTY WORK FOR THEM!

        THEN THERE IS THE ARGUMENT OVER TAX RATES VS LOOPHOLES. I THINK THE FINAL OUTCOME WILL BE A COMBINATION OF BOTH, THE SPENDING CUTS WILL BE WHATEVER OUTLIERS THERE IS LEFT WHICH IS NOT MUCH.

        December 6, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
      • jean2009

        While I'm waiting on the moderator...I see that Bonehead now wants a sit-down with the President. More Republicans including Coburn agrees to tax hike...and another GOP DeMint is leaving the Senate,

        Caramon we have a bunch of real pansies if a 35% tax rate goes up to a 39% tax rate on amounts over $250,000 and it can't be survived. How about the poor rich during WWII with 90+% rates...and they had just been through the depression?

        December 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
      • Caramon

        Jean, I have already stated that I am okay with the tax hike. But the 1950s was a different decade than today. People have much higher expectations as to what makes them happy.

        December 6, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon...I grew up in the 50's and our expectations were maybe as high, or higher than some of the young people I meet today. i tried to explain to a young man in the super market checkout lane...how to save money on gas. He was buying a case of beer and complaining about the cost of gasoline??? Believe me, it was like talking to a box of rocks.

        He couldn't grasp the concept of shopping for everything you buy even groceries with a gift card. The grocery store sells gifts cards for numerous restaurants, stores, online retailers, amd including Visa gift cards, etc, and they give 10 cents off gasoline up to a total of $2.00 off a gallon for every $100 of purchases which includes.... prescriptions, and the purchase of gift cards. During the holidays they run a 40 cents off for every $100 of purchases. If you shop for everything you buy including groceries with a gift cardsit is possible to fill your vehicle for $2.00 off per gallon.

        December 7, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
      • Caramon

        Hi Jean, I am not certain, but I think you may have supported what I was saying. Of course, I know exactly what you are talking about with the gift cards. Take gas prices for example. Driving at 75 or 80 uses more gas than driving at 60. A good mechanic can explain why. Today, I always see people driving on the expressway on the tail of another car constantly tapping the brakes. This speed up slow down uses even more gas. People want to drive like this without realizing the consequences such as usage of more gas. Even more important is the added pollution caused by fuel emissions. Automobiles provide 60 percent of the carbon monoxide in our air.

        Yet, we expect the government to deal with pollution.

        What you basically stated is that people in the 1950s learned how to save and earn what they have. I don't think many young people realize they should save first, but later. They want it now. This is not a problem of the young only, but many people my age. It started with my generation, the baby boomers. Perhaps it is more an issue of patience.

        December 7, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
      • Caramon

        Oops typo. Should say buy later not but later.

        December 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon, I agree most young people start out thinking they can have everything that their parents took a lifetime to acquire. But that happens to some extent for all generations. Today for many things they are placed in the position of not being allowed to wait until they can afford some items. For many things there are building codes and a other necessary regulation standing in the way of how it was previously done.

        It would be impossible to live where I live without owning a washer or a dryer....installing a clothes line to dry cloths is not permitted. Mass transportation is not available...so everyone has a vehicle....a lot of this goes with societal changes

        December 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
      • Caramon

        True in some cases Jean, but perhaps not all. Many high school kids today drive to school simply because they want to not because transportation is not available. It goes along with ipods and ipads. When I went to the same school, driving to school was not allowed. But I do understand your point. We also could not use a close line. But the facility had washers and dryers available. Of course we still had to pay to use them. We didn't buy the washer and dryer until we could afford it.

        December 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
  3. Drew

    Leadership? Seriously? There is no leadership in Congress because of the vested interest of the Tea Party radicals that unreasonably insist on the Tea Party agenda. They have consistently blocked pro-growth bills from the President and the Senate since their election. Unemployment would be below 6% by now if they only would cooperate but because of the idea that Barack Obama should only serve one term they stupidly made themsselves out to be buffoons. Vote these people out and let the system heal itself through infrastructure and job creation.

    December 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Caramon

      Drew, in 2009 the President stated that if the stimulus passed then unemployment would not go above 8 percent. The stimulus did pass. Yet, unemployment did go above 8 percent and stayed above 8 percent for a very long time. You have absolutely no idea whether unemployment would be down at 6 percent now.

      December 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
      • jean2009

        A genuinely accurate crystal ball is always a plus. In January 2009, everyone's crystal ball was fully fogged by the lack of total clarity from the previous administration.

        December 6, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
      • Caramon

        Jean have you found out which president signed the appropriations for the 2009 budget resolution. I am curious to know what you find.

        December 6, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
      • Caramon

        My apologies Jean, apparently you have already responded. I didn't see it since the article has long passed.

        The annual budget resolution is an agreement between the House and Senate on a budget plan for the upcoming fiscal year and at least the following four fiscal years.

        That sounds about right. So, despite the fact that the large increase in expenditures happened between 2008 and 2009, I think it something like 2.9 T up to 3.5 T, President Bush had very little to do with it. So, why is this budget assigned to him?

        December 6, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
      • jean2009

        Oh Caramon the 2009 budget was agreed to by both houses on May 24, 2008 right after the primaries, and included a4 year projection of spending....that was when Budh didn't know who would win in November, and believe me he may not have signed it...but he knew what it contained, and approved or the GOP wouldn't have gone along.
        I have several things being sat on by the moderator.

        December 6, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
      • Caramon

        Jean, now I am a little confused. Didn't you say earlier...

        You must remember for several years including the 2008 and the 2009 actual budgets were not passed it was the same as now a continual fight, a Budget Resolution was passed. These were continuing resolutions for appropriations. sources – u.s.gov and wiki.sites

        Now you tell me they did pass a budget. Please could you explain?

        December 6, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon a budget resolution was agreed to by Congress on May 24, 2008 for the 2009 Budget appropriations year. It didn't need to be signed by the President...but both houses had to agree on the final resolution...if one or the other body doesn't agree...then the Senate needs 60 votes to pass the Budget Resolution....if both houses agree it only takes a simple 51 Senate majority to pass the resolution. Regardless of whether the President is required to sign or not they do know what is being proposed. Budget years run from Oct 1 of the year to September 30 of the following year. The Budget resolution agreed to in May of 2008 was the actual 2009 Spending Appropriation bill.

        December 7, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
      • Caramon

        Thanks Jean, I understand. However do you remember when you said...

        believe me he may not have signed it...but he knew what it contained, and approved or the GOP wouldn't have gone along.

        The vote was in fact 51 to 44 with 2 republicans voting yea and 2 democrats voting nay. So, why do you think the GOP members went along?

        December 7, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon Maybe for the same reason that Republicans who helped bring the UN Disability Treaty to the floor voted against it along with Rick Insanity.

        December 7, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
      • Caramon

        Sorry Jean, I am not certain that answered the question. Only 2 republicans voted in favor of the resolution. I would think they didn't go along. But wait! There's more.

        The original budget request by George Bush was for 2.9 T. The 2009 budget resolution was for 3.1 T. So, where did the additional 400 billion come from?

        The 2009 Ominubus Appropriations

        Making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

        Introduced:
        Feb 23, 2009
        Sponsor:
        Rep. David “Dave” Obey [D-WI7]
        Status:
        Signed by the President March 11, 2009

        December 7, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon ...You mean like the extra $555 Billion Omnibus Domestic Spending bill that George W. Bush tacked onto the 2008 Appropriations Bill in late December 2007?

        December 7, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
      • Caramon

        Exactly. Understand Jean, I am not saying George Bush is blameless. Just because I voted for him doesn't mean I always agree. As I said before, we should be willing to question our leaders, even those we voted for.

        However, Congress passed an additional 600 billion to the 2009 resolution beyond what George Bush asked for. Therefore it isn't entirely his budget. 400 billion was added long after he was gone.

        December 7, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
  4. kathy/Minnesota

    Christie is no fool, his state needs help and....."HE AIN'T TO PROUD TO BEG"

    December 6, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • Steveo

      Christie is NOT begging. He is working for his state, Just like Cuomo is doing. Is Cuomo begging too?

      December 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
      • DEcember 2012

        OF COURSE THEY ARE BEGGING AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT WHEN THE STATES ARE IN CRISIS. THAT'S WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FOR.

        THE REASON THEY ARE BEGGING IS BECAUSE THEY BOTH KNOW CONGRESS AS IT IS NOW WILL NOT JUST HAND THEM OVER BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. IN FACT, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ASK THEM TO DO JUST ABOUT ANYTHING NOWADAYS.

        BAD TIMING CHRIS. DIDN'T YOU KNOW CONGRESS WAS GOING ON VACATION?

        December 6, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
      • jean2009

        No Gov. Christie is asking for help for his citizens who are hurting. Taking care of Americans is how a government is supposed to function. Otherwise we would all rely on anarchy and chaos. One of these weather related occurrences is just as devastating for citizens, as having a war fought on their' land.

        December 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
  5. Dan B

    I sometimes like Gov. Christie. He needs to go back to being the old Christie.

    December 6, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • Cynthia L.

      I think the more 'humble' Chris Christie is more appealing. Nothing like Mother Nature to give you a reality check and he took it as a point well taken. If he had acted any other way considering the devastation his state experienced with Superstorm Sandy, I would have questioned his sanity first, and his ability to help his state nil after. He appreciated that the President didn't play politics and truly wanted to help and Christie admirably took the heat for saying so. I respect him more for it.

      December 7, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
  6. joep199

    The lack of education and civility in these posts is sad ... it is so obvious that very few of the people who post here have actually studied history, or economics, and that they think that they're actually impressing or intimidating others by their rude, low class, comments. Note that I haven't referred to any political party or viewpoint. It's a disgrace that none of you seem willing to accept the fact that we're all AMERICANS!

    December 7, 2012 at 12:25 am |
    • Caramon

      It is very hard to argue with what you say. The basic problem we have is that each side believes they are 100 percent correct while the opposing side is 100 percent wrong. There seems to be no middle ground anymore. No one seems willing to say, "I don't necessarily agree with everything my party is doing." Instead we are stuck with insulting the other side. Our representatives are doing exactly the same thing. It seems more important to win. There is a different meaning to what it means to be an American. At one time we said the Pledge in school and honored the flag. Today we burn the flag and the Pledge is un-Const.

      It would be an interesting challenge if everyone posting here could find one thing, only one, that they disagree with their own party. Me first...

      The Republicans lack leadership. The party is busy trying to find the reason they lost the election and should focus more on unity. The Republicans will need to consider tax increases. Jean is right. Tax rates during the 1950s for high income earners was 90 percent. What the Republicans could propose is taxes go up this year. Then the next year a committee of both parties could go through the tax codes, all 88,000 pages, and eliminate loopholes. After revisiting the amount of revenue increases eliminating loopholes would create, then revisit the tax rate before the end of next year.

      Any takers?

      December 7, 2012 at 10:41 am |
      • Cynthia L.

        WE burn the flag?? I am 63 yrs. old and have never personally witnessed in real time ANYONE burning the flag. As far as the Pledge of Alligence, that should be a personal choice by adults to make. Not children, who have no idea what the heck that means. Being an American is not just blindly accepting to pledge to anything. Like Grover Norquist's Tax Pledge. Who made him king??
        I am an Independent, who happens to think that Bernie Sanders is an exemplary servant of the people. Democrats have more interest in getting things done right now, and I will support them when they have good ideas. Republicans, of who I used to be aligned are more concerned about having power. It's why I left the party.
        But FIRST I AM AN AMERICAN and proud to have that as my personal banner. I don't need no stinkin' pledge OR a political party to tell me how to think. We are a diverse nation who has never had the appetite of being a lock-step, subserviant-to-power population. We have and will come to agreements and life will still have it's ups and downs. And, as much as I disagree or agree with any of you, I believe we still have so much more in common than not. The first being a citizen of a pretty amazing country.

        December 7, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
      • jean2009

        Caramon,
        Actually another way to start wiping out the deficit would be let the higher rates kick in now for top earners...and once the economy is running at a smoother pace, ask that lower incomes maybe starting at $100K kick in a 1/2 to 1% tax rate increase, and raise the rates on capital gains...by a couple of percentage points...that way almost everyone is paying something. If paying down the deficit so as to have it in sync with GDP is the objective....I think we should all be willing to do a part. Under Reagan (1980) single people making $25,000 were paying the same .35% rate that everyone making over $250,000 today are paying. Source: Tax Foundation -U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

        December 7, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
      • Caramon

        Okay, I guess I could except that as an answer.

        December 7, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
      • jean2009

        Maybe they should let us have a go at doing this?

        December 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
      • Caramon

        It could certainly changes things in Washington.

        December 7, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
      • Cynthia L.

        Caramon,
        Though I am an Independent and not about to bash Sen. Bernie Sanders who is a gem I WILL BASH PRESIDENT OBAMA for trying to slide through a bill WITHOUT PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE F.C.C.'s upcoming ruling that would consolidate further the CORPORATE OWNERSHIP OF OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
        This was tried at the end of the Bush Administration AND BUSH HAD THE DECENCY TO HAVE AT LEAST SIX PUBLIC HEARINGS in which the public totally dissed the idea and it was dropped.
        WHO NEEDS RUPERT MURDOCK OWNING MORE AND MORE OF OUR AIRWAVES along with CNN, COMCAST and the other big three with the rights to CONTROL INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION??!!
        WRITE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AND TELL HIM TO STOP THIS INFORMATION GRAB!!

        December 8, 2012 at 3:21 am |
      • Caramon

        Thanks Cynthia. Good input.

        December 8, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
  7. dieta

    Helpful info. Lucky me I found your site accidentally, and I'm surprised why this coincidence didn't took place earlier! I bookmarked it.

    December 7, 2012 at 12:51 am |
  8. Blinded by the republican lie

    If they want to cut something in order to fund the relief from hurricane Sandy...All they need to do is cut it from the defense budget and quit the crying..I say that because the right keeps trying to pilfer entitlements that are already paid for...It's time to hit what the right hold as their baby too...Cuts all around like they want except theirs...what hypocricy..SMDH

    December 7, 2012 at 1:18 am |
  9. sport

    Thanks , I've recently been searching for info approximately this subject for a while and yours is the greatest I have came upon so far. However, what about the bottom line? Are you positive about the supply?|What i do not understood is in reality how you are now not actually much more smartly-appreciated than you might be now. You're very intelligent.

    December 7, 2012 at 9:24 am |
  10. na sportowe

    Useful info. Fortunate me I discovered your website unintentionally, and I am shocked why this accident didn't came about earlier! I bookmarked it.

    December 7, 2012 at 10:40 am |
  11. Dan B

    Jean, it has already been done... Tax the rich and pay for your 8 days, now let's deal with the other 357. Howard Dean told the truth, Liberals want to tax everyone, they just don't say that to score political points.

    December 7, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • Cynthia L.

      So Dan, I think we should END THE WAR in Afghanistan EARLY – that would really save America alot of money – don't you agree??

      December 8, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • jean2009

      FYI- I am not joep199.

      ""Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

      President Dwight D. Eisenhower

      Other suggested reading: Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment – Section 4.

      "Plain Talk: Obama Lowest Spender Since Eisenhower"- by David Zweifel -The Capital Times

      December 8, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
  12. Dan B

    I'm not opposed to leaving Afghanistan. We did what we needed to do. I do think it was necessary at the time in 2001, butI think that it could save a lot of money. Though the same was said that when Iraq ended, but I haven't seen any deficits go down. Unless there is a diar need to be there, I don't think we need to be.

    December 8, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Cynthia L.

      Well, the Pentagon asked for 2 BILLION DOLLARS LESS on their budget that Republican Congressmen wanted to tag onto it.
      I agree, we don't need to be in Afghanistan any longer.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • jean2009

      Part of that was for tanks that the military said it didn't want and didn't need.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
  13. George Herbert Walker Shrub

    Get ready for another fight! Republican members in the House will no doubt demand cuts elsewhere.

    December 8, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
  14. Dan B

    I hate to say it, but I'm not for the Paul Ryan plan. To be honest, I think that he is too hard line. I do like Susana Martinez. I hope she runs in 2016, although because of her sister I don't know. I think it would be interesting if the final combo after nominations was Clinton vs. Martinez. Either way, you get a woman president

    December 8, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
  15. NAM VET

    SINCE THIS IS THE OBAMA ERA,I THINK HE SHOULD POOL ALL HIS RESOURCES FROM HIS SUPPORTERS AND PAY OFF THE DEBT. HE IS SO SMART, THAT SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM. BUT WE ALL KNOW HE IS JUST ANOTHER DUMMY
    IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WHEN DO WE GET SOME REAL TALENT FROM OUR GOVERNMENT.

    December 9, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Cynthia L.

      Mitt Romney's campaign has been bragging that they made something like $85 Million in the last month of his Presidental run. As a GOOD SPORT on the losing side – HE SHOULD DEFINETLY DONATE. But, seeing as one of the latest pictures of him looking like he gave up permanent-press fabrics, it might be he's been sleeping in his car while on the lam from his high-dollar donors.
      As far as getting talent from our government, perhaps you could give them tap-dancing lessons. Mitch McConnell's last attempt at soft-shoe had him filibustering HIS OWN BILL. Maybe we should lower his hourly wage to 50 cents an hour until you show up and whip him into shape.

      December 9, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
  16. NAM VET

    WE HAVE A LOT OF TALENT IN WASHINGTON-ITS A SHAME WE SEE SO LITTLE RESULTS FROM THE PRESIDENT
    ON DOWN. THEY DO'NT WORK FOR US THOUGH. FOR 200 DOLLARS PLUS AN HOUR I EXPECT A WHOLE LOT MORE
    THAN WE GET. WITH ALL THE HOLLYWOOD FOLKS THAT SEEM TO LIVE INI THE WHITE HOUSE,WOULD THAT SOME
    OF THAT TALENT HAVE RUBBED OFF ON DUFUS.

    December 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • Cynthia L.

      Come on, man, at least Obama can carry a tune. Let Mitt finally show his second tax return. You know, the one he promised to show to the American people BEFORE the election. I'm still waiting...you are still.waiting......Paul Ryan is waiting........waiting. Oops, he lied, wonder why?? Suppose he might have lost some votes over that?? Me thinks YES.

      December 9, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
  17. Dan B

    Cynthia, you expect the loser to donate his campaign funds when the winner is making the situation worse. Maybe Obama should ask Harvard University to stop paying professors 350k a year for 1 class (Elizabeth Warren reference) and save up money to donate. Or, better yet, Obama could do his job for once and cut spending

    December 9, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
    • Cynthia L.

      Those that use Caymen Island addresses that use Post Office drop boxes for an address to avoid paying taxes on PROFITS EARNED IN THE U.S. (like P.O. Box holder, Mitt) are on notice -– You can't fool MOST OF THE PEOPLE. Dan, you can take THAT to the bank because I'm sure you'll find LOTS of money there. NEXT the BAHAMAS AND SWISS BANK CUSTOMERS FROM THE U.S. (like customer, Mitt). Whoopie, let's make a big deal out of this one!! Doesn't matter if you can sing – just pay what you owe AND quit stiffing the country you say you love--Mitt loves his country, doesn't he??

      December 9, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
  18. alsbbbsasda asdam

    wow! many thanks for that tremendous content. I actually beloved it towards the core. Hope you keep posting this kind of wonderful content alsbbbsasda asdam http://asddfsddddfhh46.com

    March 3, 2013 at 11:18 pm |