The Obamanation
This is a cool interactive map which shows the associations of Obama and people on capitol hill and in his new administration. Pretty neat.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a23bf7b4-e65f-11dd-8e4f-0000779fd2ac.htmlNeat chart on that site merc.
Here is the text for the lazy peeps... [COLOR="White"](like me) [/COLOR]
But it’s not just the faces that are changing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The Obama-led White House may be more crowded: So much time are staffers expected to be spending at the White House that Obama officials are already exploring ways in which their families can regularly visit them.
Grassroots campaign rhetoric aside, Mr Obama is likely to take a top down approach to implementing a more grueling schedule for his team. Mr Bush was usually in bed by 10pm and only rarely accepted invitations to dinner outside of the White House, but Mr Obama is a regular night bird. His staff will have to get used to a diet of evening meetings as well as the usual murderously early morning start. And Sunday may turn into a working day as well. Unlike Mr Bush, who had six weekly intelligence briefings a week, Mr Obama has been receiving seven.
More broadly, Washington’s power will switch from conservative to liberal and become younger. Many of the incoming 3,300 presidential appointees will be in their twenties or thirties and hail from Ivy League universities.
And unlike the Bush crowd’s southern tilt, many of Obama’s team will be from America’s derided ‘elite’ east or west coasts. The same may apply to the hundreds of students or young postgraduates filling the much coveted internships across the administration. Under Mr Bush, many interns were fervent Christians from Regent University and Liberty University in Virginia, in spite of those institutions’ relatively less than top-flight academic reputations.
But commentators sometimes also overstate the effects of a change of administration on DC culture. In practice, Washington has always been – and is likely to remain – a town of “Beltway insiders” who share a common addiction to politics and government.
Many of the incoming crowd, including Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, and Eric Holder were already living in Washington. And the outgoing Bush brigade isn’t likely to be leaving town in a hurry. America’s capital presents many tempting think tank sinecures and lobby group partnerships.
Not for nothing is it called the revolving door.
Many of the incoming 3,300 presidential appointees will be in their twenties or thirties and hail from Ivy League universities.
Ugggg, that was a huge part of Clinton's administration and a huge source of problems.
Yeah..one in particular. lol
You are right, but I really wasn't thinking about that one. I was thinking more about some of the stories that were in a book called "Unlimited Access" by the man who was in charge of the security and background checks in the White House.
Yeah I know.
I was just cracking a funny. ;)
(I hope no one notices though. I'd hate word to get out that I actually do have a sense of humour after all)
Don't worry - We all know better, Ali.
I liked this euphemism:
in spite of those institutions’ relatively less than top-flight academic reputations.
Dumb-ass god-botherers from the sticks, roughly. :lol:
Dick Morris
The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism
By Dick Morris
Posted: 01/20/09 06:12 PM [ET]
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.
In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)
But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.
Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.
But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.
Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.
In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.
Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).
Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.
But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)
And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).
And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.
Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.
But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.
So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.
But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.htmlBEWARE OBAMA’S TROJAN HORSE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 01.22.2009 Now that Obama is the president, fasten your seat belts. During his first year in office, and particularly during his first hundred days, we are about to witness the most prodigious output of legislation since 1981-2 (under Reagan), 1964-5 (under Johnson), and 1933-36 (under Roosevelt). The combination of top heavy Democratic majorities in Congress and a mood of public fear bordering on panic over the financial crisis and the looming depression will speed his legislation through a compliant Senate and House.
We will enter his Administration as the United States, buoyed by an aggressive free market economy. We will exit his first year - and even the first hundred days - as France, burdened with massive government regulation, a vast public sector, and permanent middle class entitlements. And Obama will take care to arrange things so that massive and permanent political change accompanies his and protects his legislative achievements in the future.
He will call this radical change a stimulus package. He will dress up a generation of liberal priorities as necessary steps to fight the economic crisis. His programs and policies won’t do much to end the depression. It will end only after the massive burden of debt is lifted from the shoulders of American and foreign households and companies, a process which will take years. At most, his stimulus will act as methadone while we withdraw from our debt addiction, mitigating the pain, smoothing over the trauma, and soothing our system.
But Obama’s strategy is to hide inside the Trojan Horse of stimulus an army of radical measures to change America permanently.
The most pernicious of his proposals will be the massive Make Work Pay refundable tax credit. Dressed up as a tax cut, it will be a national welfare program, guaranteeing a majority of American households an annual check to “refund” taxes they never paid. And it will eliminate the need for about 20% of American households to pay income taxes, lifting the proportion that need not do so to a majority of the voting population. Unlike the Bush stimulus checks, this new program will be a permanent entitlement, a part of our budget that can only go up and never down. Politically, it will transform a majority of Americans from taxpayers, anxious to hold down government spending, into tax eaters, eager to reap new benefits.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/01/22/beware-obamas-trojan-horse/#more-531That's a pretty bleak outlook.
I think it's bleak if you don't like the idea of safety nets and have no faith in your governments ability to manage them. On the other hand, you could view it as a positive step towards caring for those less fortunate or in situations that're sometimes hard to get out of.
He will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.
That is a bad idea - The fairness doctrine is anything but fair.
Unlike the Bush stimulus checks, this new program will be a permanent entitlement, a part of our budget that can only go up and never down.
Insomuch as anything our government ever does is permanent. It will not automatically expire, but it can be gotten rid of just as easily as it is implemented.
Has a great potential to create a more dependent society. I'm ok with giving people a hand, but I don't like the idea of a handout. That can further the entitlement mentality.
I think it's bleak if you ... have no faith in your governments ability
ding ding ding! Bang on the money.
I think it's bleak if you don't like the idea of safety nets and have no faith in your governments ability to manage them. On the other hand, you could view it as a positive step towards caring for those less fortunate or in situations that're sometimes hard to get out of.
They never have been able to manage them so what makes you think we should suddenly have faith in their ability to do so now? No, I see it as a further step towards a socialist european model.
Just because a society develops more of a social conciousness doesn't mean they're going to turn into socialists over night...or at all.
I don't think our society has been without a social consciousness. Our government has just not considered throwing money at social issues until recently.
I didn't say it had. In fact, my exact wording was 'more of a social conciousness'. (pardon the spelling error)
I know this argument has been had here many many times, but the level of assistance the govt provides citizens in Australia and the UK is much higher on average than that of the US and yet we're no closer to communism than you are. We still have massive social issues though, and some people think the govt should give more here...others think less.
Personally I think the balance is about right atm for us although it sux that our family benefits nothing at all from government assistance at all. Being what's considered high middle income earners, we dip out from both sides. We don't get the tax breaks high earners manage, but we get none of the assistance from various schemes the government offers. I don't think we suffer because of it, but it annoys me that Dazza works so hard and financially we're really not much better off than people who earn $30k less.
True. You are more a more taxed burdened society and society is more dependent on government handouts. Which creates an environment of dependence. No?
Not exactly. It means if you need help it's there. Most people are not dependant on the government, but there are programs available for those who need help.
We are in no way dependant on the govt ourselves as i mentioned. Nor is my father who happens to be pretty annoyed with the govt atm. He's recently retired, owns property, has never had to accept help from the govt and is self funded as a retiree (not through superannuation which is like your 401k accounts from what I can tell), and yet he just wanted a public transport card so he can get half price fares and do some train trips, but he's not eligible because he is 'too wealthy'. You should hear him grumbling about it! lol I don't think he should care so much though. He doesn't need it, but there are plenty who do. I get his point, but seriously, he's created exactly the life he wanted for himself and no one can take it away from him now. That's better than needing to rely on the govt in my view.
Dick Morris, humph.
First of all, we have not had "free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire" capitalism for a long time. What we have is socialist corporatism. We have been bailing out rich corporations for decades. About every 10 years or so, some big catastrophe happens, and they get bailed out.
Many rich corporations are completely subsidized by the government. They get government funding to build things (like sports stadiums), they get it for their employees health care (WalMart), they get it for R&D (pharmaceuticals). But, WE do not share in their profits, even though WE subsidized them. That is not capitalism, so please, stop insulting people by claiming it is.
In addition, all those really smart CEOs and Wall Street people artificially manipulate the market to make money. Then we the people pay when their houses built of cards come falling down. If you or I did that, we would be thrown in prison for fraud. That is what happened with the housing market, that is what with energy prices and blackouts caused by Enron, that is what happened with gas prices last year, and who knows what else all those so called "smart people" have done that will ultimately cause damage to the rest of us, while they luxuriate under their golden parachutes, and tell us we are too dumb to understand what happened. (Frankly, I am wondering if THEY know what the hell they are doing. and we have left these people in charge? *scratches head*)
Wall Street and deregulation caused all this mess. But conservatives answer to everything is to lower taxes on rich corporations and the very top wealthy elite. Hmmmm, they fucked up royally, so let's give them even more money and allow them to keep running things. But... it doesn't work. We have tried it. Some big corporations actually pay no taxes. And they hide their profits offshore, so they don't pay taxes on that. Conservatives like to complain about "tax and spend" democrats, but republicans are addicted now to "lower taxes and spend" philosophy. They spend more, but tax less. So where are we supposed to get the money to pay for all that spending? At least democrats want to tax people who can afford it so people who can barely scrape by might be able to have a few more dollars in their pocket.
Another thing, rich people (you know, really rich people) are not going to spend any more than they do otherwise if you let them keep more of their money. They just won't. The middle class drives the economy. We have been doing trickle down economics for 40 years, and it doesn't work. Do you realize that now, the top 300 people in this country have more wealth than the rest put together? It's insane. Why does any one person need to have 60 billion dollars? That money would be better spent if it was in circulation. Our country is strongest when we have a large middle class, but our middle class is shrinking, because so many good jobs have gone bye bye. Now we are losing high paying engineering jobs as well. I have an idea, maybe we should outsource all those CEO and executive jobs instead, and keep the workforce jobs. Imagine how much money we could save, and how many people we could employ, if we did that.
We need to support small business. Yes, ther are big corporations that employee lots of people, but the bigger they get, the harder they fall. We have allowed some industries to become so big that they really control us. Like media. Congress keeps raising the limits on how many newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations any one person can own. That is dangerous. Seriously. Do you honestly think it is healthy for only a few voices to have control over what we hear and see? I don't. It limits us. And in the same vein, allowing one company to diversify to where it limits competition, that isn't healthy either. They get too much power. And, in the process, not only does it limit competition, it also lowers standards (look at Microsoft).
Regarding health care. Republicans have been on TV whining that we need to cut taxes for corporations so they can compete globally, because other countries have lower corporate taxes. Well, other countries also have government-sponsored health care, and that is huge cost to corporations here. But, republicans don't want to give government-sponsored health care to our people either. So, give us the health care, and maybe we would be more ammenable to lowering corporate taxes. But only when corporations are taxed properly. (you know, that offshore thing again, and other ways corporations get away with not paying taxes, and being subsidized in almost every way imaginable. I mean really, if taxpayer dollars are paying for that sports complex, they should share in the profits.)
Health care costs are out of control. I notice the costs have gone up astronomically, because of ADVERTISING. How is it not drug pushing if a pharmaceutical company advertises its drugs on tv? Maybe we really DO need to take control of everything, from banks to pharmaceutical cos, because honestly, in the long run, it would probably be more beneficial to society.
About Obama, he actually wants to go through the budget and cut waste. If it doesn't work, he has pledged to get rid of it, or make it more efficient. The spending he wants to do will create jobs in the short term, and are investments for the future in the long term. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and weak regulation of certain industries is costing us money, and damaging the environment. Not to mention our addiction to oil. Pumping money into infrastucture and green technology will create jobs now and is long term investment for our country. And putting reasonable regulations on business is a good thing.
Let's at least give the man a chance. He has been in office for a week. Let's give him some time. I don't like everything he's doing either, and I'm skeptical of some of it. But I also have hope. He's intelligent, and thoughtful, and he LISTENS. He has already taken some HUGE steps that seem very promising. It took 8 years of Bush to get here. It will take time and thought to get out of it.
And ftr, why is "socialism" such a bad thing? People in Europe and other countries seem to like it pretty well.
One last thought (I know this is long, I'm not usually this loquacious. :D), I reeeally think we need repeal most of the drug laws. Espeically with regard to plants, like weed and mushrooms. I read the other day that pot is now the most profitable drug in the US. If we repealed the laws, and taxed it, imagine all the money we could bring in. Plus, it would start a whole new industry, and combat crime at the same time. If people could grow their own, or become a grower for profit, there would be no more drug wars, or illegal gangs to worry about. Of course, I also think prostitution should be legal, for many of the same reasons, and more, but that is another thread. ;)
I had to scroll up and doublecheck who the poster was on that one.
heehee, I am worshipping sugarpop right now!
I had to scroll up and doublecheck who the poster was on that one.
She is one of my best friends and I love her to death. If I get divorced I am going to marry her. But we could never discuss politics before we had sex. :D
Dick Morris, humph.
~Big Snip~ Of course, I also think prostitution should be legal, for many of the same reasons, and more, but that is another thread. ;)
You forgot the walking on water part but I'm sure it was an innocent mistake
You forgot the walking on water part but I'm sure it was an innocent mistake
oh, well, I didn't want to brag, but I do possess that talent...
Hollow victory: Republicans deliver slap in the face to Barack Obama
By: Toby Harnden at Jan 29, 2009
President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught - at least on the House side.
Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.
Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."
He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."
That's fine. No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership.
It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill.
The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.
Obama said yesterday he did not feel he had ownership of the bill. Be that as it may, if it goes through the Senate in similar fashion and is signed into law then - the efforts of Pelosio and Senator Harry Reid notwithstanding - it will be his and his alone.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/01/29/hollow_victory_republicans_deliver_slap_in_the_face_to_barack_obamaProblem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he[COLOR="Red"] reportedly[/COLOR] responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."
He [COLOR="red"]apparently[/COLOR] added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."
Great reporting.
Apparently, he said "I am the grand black poobah now, and you will follow my every whim."
Reportedly, he then smacked everyone with a hickory stick.
lol...just sayin' ;)
I read the same things in several other papers, I think it does not bode well for all the bipartisan BS that has been spouted. So far this looks a lot different than the "stimulus plan" it was originally sold as. There is a lot spending in this bill, but not a lot of stimulation/job creation. Still, I'll hope for the best.
The Senate will probably create a bill they can all live with, but the Repub Reps wanted to look tough first, so that it appears he caved when in fact he offered them a lot of what they wanted right from the start.
Stimulus bill moves to Senate
The Senate Finance Committee added about $70 billion to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was intended to place a tax on the wealthy but now hits many middle class families.
I'd like to more on this, I thought they were giving to the middle class not making them pay more.
Aides say housing relief is also going to be a big issue for some Republican senators. The main concerns are similar to those of their House counterparts. They want more tax cuts and less spending.
"We look forward to offering amendments to improve this critical legislation and move it back to the package President Obama originally proposed -- 40 percent tax relief, no wasteful spending and a bipartisan approach," McConnell said.
Obama has made it clear that he's not willing to budge on some of the big ticket items, like how the tax cuts are structured.
The version passed in the House is two-thirds spending and one-third tax cuts.
thats a lot of spending with a lot less tax relief.
Much of the $550 billion in spending is divided among these areas: $142 billion for education, $111 billion for health care, $90 billion for infrastructure, $72 billion for aid and benefits, $54 billion for energy, $16 billion for science and technology and $13 billion for housing.
Those opposed to the bill say it includes too much wasteful spending, pointing to things like $335 million in funding for education on sexually transmitted diseases and $650 million for digital TV coupons.
I think there are many worthy causes where this money is going, but again, it seems as though this is a spending package not a stimulus package. The more I see the less I can determine where exactly the job creation is coming from.
A growing number of Republicans and Democrats say measures such as those don't create jobs.
The Democratic rationale is that healthier Americans will be more productive. And on the millions for digital television coupons, the hope is that money will go to new call centers explaining how the technology works.
OMFG - are they seriously calling that job creation? That is frightening.
"There's something in there for literally every interest. It's a pent-up wish list of spending programs that many around here have wanted to implement for a really long time," said Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota.
Great, but excuse me Mr. Senator, We're in a fucking crisis right? Isn't this supposed to CREATE JOBS & get the economy going?
Congressional leaders did drop some of the controversial provisions, like one that provided $200 million worth of contraceptives to low-income families.
Whoop die flocking doo - 200 million outta 800+ Billion is relatively nothing. (I can't even comprehend what planet these people are from - they're all insane.)
A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it.
There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.
Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."
So far, I contend that this is not a stimulus plan at all. This is simply spending money we already don't have.
It is a liberal wish list by the Democrats in Congress being fulfilled by a willing President.
Hollow victory: Republicans deliver slap in the face to Barack Obama
By: Toby Harnden at Jan 29, 2009
President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught - at least on the House side.
Obama vowed to change Washington and usher in a new post-partisan era. The the mood music and optics were pitch perfect as he trekked up to the Hill. Republicans praised his gesture, welcomed his sincere demeanour and appreciated his willingness to listen.
Problem was, he wanted only to listen and did not want to act on what Republicans said. When he was asked if he would re-structure the package to include more tax cuts, he reportedly responded: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."
He apparently added: " I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself."
That's fine. No doubt Obama will indeed get beaten up on Fox News. But his failure to get even the squishiest moderate Republican - including the 11 entertained in the White House by Rahm Emanuel last night - to back him is not merely a big score for Rep Eric Cantor, Republican Whip, and the rest of the GOP leadership.
It also shows that it is not just Fox, the loony Right or Rush Limbaugh - or however else you might want to characterise the opposition in order to marginalise it - who had grave misgivings about the content of the bill.
The Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill badly miscalculated by treating the bill as a victor's charter. Not that it seemed to bother Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who grinned from ear to ear as she announced the result of the vote.
Obama said yesterday he did not feel he had ownership of the bill. Be that as it may, if it goes through the Senate in similar fashion and is signed into law then - the efforts of Pelosio and Senator Harry Reid notwithstanding - it will be his and his alone.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/01/29/hollow_victory_republicans_deliver_slap_in_the_face_to_barack_obama
hummph. He met with republicans before he met with his own party. He made concessions to them in the bill... twice, before it was written, and it was adjusted after they met and discussed it. They led Obama to believe if he gave them certain things, they would get behind him. Lots of tax cuts (over a third of the bill is tax cuts), which is all republicans ever want. I hope all those concessions get taken out, so we can have more for infrastructure.
And why should we listen to House Republicans anyway? Because they reeealy put the brakes on spending when they were in charge. They have nothing to offer but failed policies. Obama and democrats won by landslide. Republicans really should get over it and learn how to play with others.
First of all, I haven't seen the bill, so I don't know exactly what's in there. But a lot of things being mentioned will create jobs, or cut money. the 200 million for contraceptions, well, it's less expensive than paying for unwanted children.
Some of the things mentioned, there was no mention of how the money would be used. for instance, the money for Amtrak could create jobs, depending on what it's for and how it's spent. R&D funds jobs, and also creates technology (or whatever) for the future. the digital TV coupons, they've already been giving those away, for months. I suppose IF they are forcing everyone to have digital TV, they should provide a way for people to view it who don't have digital televisions, satellite or cable. etc etc etc. I'm not saying there is no reason to be skeptical, but he has promised to show us exactly where the money is going. I am choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's a very intelligent guy. I don't think he wants to fail.
First of all, I haven't seen the bill, so I don't know exactly what's in there. But a lot of things being mentioned will create jobs, or cut money. the 200 million for contraceptions, well, it's less expensive than paying for unwanted children.
Some of the things mentioned, there was no mention of how the money would be used. for instance, the money for Amtrak could create jobs, depending on what it's for and how it's spent. R&D funds jobs, and also creates technology (or whatever) for the future. the digital TV coupons, they've already been giving those away, for months. I suppose IF they are forcing everyone to have digital TV, they should provide a way for people to view it who don't have digital televisions, satellite or cable. etc etc etc. I'm not saying there is no reason to be skeptical, but he has promised to show us exactly where the money is going. I am choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's a very intelligent guy. I don't think he wants to fail.
We the details are coming out of Congress now and it is quite obvious this is something other than pure job creation. It includes many things that have nothing to do with jobs are were included on bills the Dems tried to pass before. With a Obamastamp they may have a better chance. It is a sham and the Demoncrats will have to explain it, not Obama.
David Brookes on what is wrong with this bill.
First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”
The Democrats need to remember that this is supposed to be a stimulus package. As a Head Start teacher, I want a well considered HS funding bill. They have time to do that.
Economists Debate: Diverse Perspectives on Stimulus
- Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth. –Statement signed by more than 200 academic economists
- The fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that’s what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake… The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big but that it delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the time to get it right. –Martin Feldstein, Harvard University
- We simply don’t know how well the proposed stimulus will work — if at all (is aggregate demand always the relevant war?). It’s a kind of Hail Mary pass, an enduring belief in aggregate demand macroeconomics at the theoretical level, even in light of broken banks, sectoral shifts, and nasty, failing expectations, all mixed in with hard to spend well, slow to come on line, monies. Yes it could work but our agnosticism should be strong rather than just perfunctory. –Tyler Cowen, George Mason University
Outstanding article with some pros and cons from some of the best economists.
There are a lot of mixed opinions, but overall they do not seem very positive.
An opinion piece that says what a lot of economists are saying.
Economic Recovery Act is wiser alternative to massive spending
Congressional Democrats have engaged in a full offensive to convince the American people that another massive dose of borrowing and spending is the solution to our economic tribulations. They talk of an economic near-Armageddon without as much as a trillion dollars in new spending. The rhetoric, in point of fact, sounds remarkably similar to the appeals for their last economic solution, the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The truth is, proven by history, that massive government spending is not a solution. And the American people know there is another way — a real economic solution that empowers our people without mortgaging our future. After a year of bailouts, rebates and taxpayer-funded backstops, we can move toward renewed prosperity by unleashing the potential of and providing economic relief for our real economic growth engines — hard-working Americans and businesses.
Unfortunately, congressional Democrats and the president are immovable in their intent to spend our way into prosperity. So they have set forth a proposal heartbreaking in both its purpose and its consequences. It must be made clear: The Democrat proposal is not a stimulus, but rather a gross political opportunity to borrow against future generations to achieve ideological goals today. As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel recently said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
http://thehill.com/op-eds/economic-recovery-act-is-wiser-alternative-to-massive-spending-2009-01-27.html
Depressing economics
Willem Buiter is worried:
I used to be optimistic about the capacity of our political leaders and central bankers to avoid the policy mistakes that could turn the current global recession into a deep and lasting global depression. Now I’m not so sure.
I share his fears, though not in all details. Protectionism, I’d argue, is less of a danger — both in terms of whether it will actually happen and in terms of how bad it would be if it does — than Willem thinks. But the capacity of our leaders and central bankers to avoid depression-era policy mistakes — and, I’d add, the capacity of our economists to avoid falling into depression-era fallacies — is proving far less than I’d hoped.
In the United States, the Republican party remains committed to a belief in that old tax-cut magic, with no willingness to rethink its doctrine in the face of catastrophe. In Europe, the ECB is basically operating on the principle that unorthodox policy would be very hard, so we must assume that no such policy is needed. And so on.
And economists, who should be helping introduce some clarity, are on the whole making things murkier. I had thought that the lessons of the Depression would help guide us through this crisis; but it turns out that a large part of the profession knows nothing about those lessons, and is peddling fallacies exploded three generations ago as if they were profound new insights.
So yes, we can have another depression — because those who refuse to learn from history may be condemned to repeat it.
Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/depressing-economics/As long as our leaders keep telling us that this is going to last for years, it will. As long as they keep talking our situation down, nothing will change.
As long as our leaders keep telling us that this is going to last for years, it will. As long as they keep talking our situation down, nothing will change.
Sounds sort of like Jessie Jackoffson telling the masses how we have to keep the people down.
So maybe if they kept saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" a la John McCain, they could have averted the whole mess. :p
Cmon Sugah - I think you know what I mean. Thats a cheapshot, I expect more from you.
yea yea, well I thought I needed to lighten up a little. ;)
I've had my concerns, but I'm beginning to wonder how much of a 's problem Pelosi is really gonna be for Obama. I think that he is genuine in his desire to do what is right, but after four appointees with tax issues, this has not been a great start. He is getting some things done and seems to be trying. Doesn't he have these appointees checked out beforehand? I mean seriously - WTF? Did these people think no one would notice or find out about prior problems? This makes him look naive.
Enter Nancy Pelosi -
WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — As whispers of tension between the White House and congressional Democrats cloud negotiations over the stimulus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reassured her rank and file Thursday that they remain President Barack Obama's "most enthusiastic supporters."
"We have his back," Pelosi told a roomful of Democrats at the party's annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, according to people in the room.
The speaker also pledged "to work in a bipartisan way" before complaining that Republican ideas "take us in the wrong direction."
Her remarks won loud applause from the assembled lawmakers, according to one participant.
In her remarks to the Democratic retreat, Pelosi also promised her caucus that she would restore regular order to the House by bringing legislation through committees — something Democrats often ignored during their first two years in power."
The speaker also promised to be more fiscally responsible as Congress moves forward.
"We must not heap mountains of debt on our children and grandchildren," Pelosi told the crowd.
Well isn't that interesting, She "promised to be more fiscally responsible"
Not with this bill - doesn't this thing "heap mountains of debt on our children and grandchildren." The exact thing she said we couldn't do?
Pelosi has had to fight back reports that Obama administration officials had tacitly encouraged dissent from moderate Blue Dog Democrats. Many of these fiscally conservative Democrats have pushed back on the size and scope of the stimulus, and Obama has been open about trimming back Pelosi’s version of the bill.
From Time
On nearly every major issue — from the auto bailout and the stimulus bill to tax cuts and the delicate question of whether to investigate Bush Administration officials for crimes related to torture — Pelosi has voiced and even pushed through the House differing positions from the President, at times to the embarrassment of Democrats. Obama and Pelosi each, of course, have distinct motives, and personalities: Pelosi is a partisan warrior who must tend to her caucus, while Obama got elected as a postpartisan healer, implicitly attacking the old ways of Washington and striving to appeal to a broader national base.
"Is it your fault in some ways," pressed a reporter at Pelosi's weekly press conference last Thursday, "that Barack Obama's first vote was so partisan and not bipartisan?"
Pelosi snapped back: "I didn't come here to be partisan. I didn't come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest."
Obama may have the political capital, but Pelosi has no illusions about the way things work on Capitol Hill. "What she realized with Obama coming in was that, yeah, we can go through this dance, but at the end of the day, this was going to be a tutorial for the Obama folks," a House staffer close to Pelosi told Politico. "They're all going to vote against you and then come to your cocktail party that night."
I find this very interesting - there seems to be a power struggle taking place here.
I find this very interesting - there seems to be a power struggle taking place here.
No doubt. In the end I expect both of the Demoncrats, Pelosi and Reid, to want to "Jessie Jackson" him and want to cut his balls off over his ability to get things done. I am cautiously optimistic for him, not so much for Pelosi and Reid.
No doubt. In the end I expect both of the Demoncrats, Pelosi and Reid, to want to "Jessie Jackson" him and want to cut his balls off over his ability to get things done. I am cautiously optimistic for him, not so much for Pelosi and Reid.
I have no idea what wanting to "Jessie Jackson" him means and I really dont want to know.
I dont think the minor differences between Obama and the Congressional Democrats are all that dramatic. It comes with being the "big tent" party and having to be responsive to a diversity of views and constituents...from the blue dogs to the leftists. Its the process of feeling each other out and setting boundaries. Pelosi and Reid know who is in charge.
The so-called "power struggle" is more a creation of the right to take attention away from their own struggles in attempting to placate their base and appeal to the broader national constituency that they have lost in recent years and who want change in both tone and policy.
I was amused by a Repubican Congressman from Texas who suggested the Republicans need to understand and consider "insurgency" as a response strategy to Pelosi...and using the Taliban as a model before an aid shut him up..:mad2:
Sessions: GOP Insugency "May Be Required"
That will play well with the swing voters!
Great so why can't they get a fucking thing done! Really? The Demoncrats own this. They are in charge. If this fails it is their fault.
Great so why can't they get a fucking thing done! Really? The Democrats own this. They are in charge. If this fails it is their fault.
Why can't they get a fucking thing done? Perhaps, because they have been debating the stimulus package for all of two weeks. Damn, why are you in such a fucking hurry to declare "no change" or "failure" before even giving them a chance...perhaps because that is what you want to see?
I would prefer that they make the package as good as possible rather than do it as quickly as possible within a reasonably expeditious time frame.
The one significant difference in what we are seeing with the Democrats controlling both the Congress and the White House....no quick rubber stamp of the administration's wishes by the Congress on what is likely to be the most significant action of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress over the next four years.
Would the country have been better off if there had been more debate and less rush to rubber-stamping by the Republican majority at the time (and yes, a minority of Democrats as well) of Bush's wishes on his most significant "achievements" (ie, $multi-billion tax cuts targeted to the top taxpayers, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War)? I think so.
In the end, as I said, I think those differences between Obama and the Congressional leaders are not that significant. Obama will get most of what he wants, much of the Congressional pork will be removed, bi-partisan provisions (ie more targeted tax cuts) will be added in an attempt to respond to the Republican wishes..... and those Congressional Republicans can choose to join or oppose.
And as you say, and I agree, if it fails, the Democrats will be responsible and the voters will decide in a few years if they want want to continue down that road.
And if they succeed, they will also be responsible and it will cement their approval by the public and perhaps even result in a larger majority in Congress for an even longer period of time than a typical party cycle change....something that has the Republicans shitting in their pants.
They can't get anything done, because they need at least two republican votes. But republicans want to water down the spending (which HELLO! that's exactly what we NEED!) and load it down with tax cuts, which is exactly what we DON'T need. Look at what Paul Krugman had to say this morning...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.htmlThey can't get anything done, because they need at least two republican votes.
I wish they'd let the Republicans actually filibuster, instead of pretending that a bill needs 60 votes to pass.
Yeah, it's weird. A filibuster will be wildly unpopular with the country, and the Republicans would back down almost immediately and cave. I guess the Democrats are trying the bipartisan approach first before giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves. I'm not sure if they are being nice, or stupid.
I still think this situation has a lot to do with Obama and his wanting to be bipartisan and put an end to "business as usual in DC" versus Pelosi trying to flex her muscles. The R's, depending on your perspective, seem to be either trying to get what they think will work into this while cutting the pork or are just dickin around trying to play the spoilers.
It seems to me that if the pork got removed as well as the nice stuff that doesn't belong in a stimulus bill, this would pass in an instant. Thats the fault of both sides.
I still think this situation has a lot to do with Obama and his wanting to be bipartisan and put an end to "business as usual in DC" versus Pelosi trying to flex her muscles. The R's, depending on your perspective, seem to be either trying to get what they think will work into this while cutting the pork or are just dickin around trying to play the spoilers.
It seems to me that if the pork got removed as well as the nice stuff that doesn't belong in a stimulus bill, this would pass in an instant. Thats the fault of both sides.
That appears to be what is happening.
Politicians of both parties are creatures of habit. Its not easy for them to change how they act.
In the House, they are, and have always been, highly partisan. In the Senate, they like to talk alot and debate for days, then find some level of consensus that wont please all, but would often ensure passage of legislation.
Much of the House inserted pork and popular non-stimulus related programs are being removed in the Senate (with Obama's support) to the tune of $!00 billion less then they started with.
It should pass by next week, but with little bi-partisan support, perhaps a handful of Republicans. Most Rs will dig in their heals and not support a bill that, in their ideological belief, contains too much spending and not enough tax cuts.
That works for me!
I still think this situation has a lot to do with Obama and his wanting to be bipartisan and put an end to "business as usual in DC" versus Pelosi trying to flex her muscles. The R's, depending on your perspective, seem to be either trying to get what they think will work into this while cutting the pork or are just dickin around trying to play the spoilers.
It seems to me that if the pork got removed as well as the nice stuff that doesn't belong in a stimulus bill, this would pass in an instant. Thats the fault of both sides.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Well done.
I wish they'd let the Republicans actually filibuster, instead of pretending that a bill needs 60 votes to pass.
I think they should let them fillibuster too.
McCain wrote a bill that was almost completely tax cuts. Every republican voted for it. WTF are they THINKING? TAX CUTS are not going to help this situation. Getting a tax break will do NOTHING for people who are out of work. Buncha fucking wankers. We are losing jobs at an enormous rate. The longer we put this off, the worse it will get, the longer it will last, and it will be much more difficult to dig ourselves out of it. What the fuck don't they get about that? :mad2: (sorry for the potty mouth, but I'm PISSED OFF.
Sugarpop.......You have my vote for Speaker of the Cellar!
Remember when the campaign promise was to repeal the Bush tax cuts?
That's off the table now. You don't hear it. Why d'ya think that is Sugarpop?
Remember when the campaign promise was to repeal the Bush tax cuts?
That's off the table now. You don't hear it. Why d'ya think that is Sugarpop?
Well, I think it's because of the economy. I believe he will just let them expire, which they are set to do next year (I think).
Well, I think it's because of the economy. I believe he will just let them expire, which they are set to do next year (I think).
Yep..the Bush 01 and 03 tax cuts were to be temporary stimuli for the minor recession Bush inherited and legislated to expire after 2010.
If there was any evidence that they contributed to job creation and long term economic growth or stability, there could be a case made to keep them. But that didnt happen.
I'll again state that I believe Obama is sincere in his nonpartisan desires. I will also state again that Pelosi and Reid and a few other want to fuck with the Rs as much as they can and want to wield their newly found power more than anything. I think they/this are/is as much, if not more/most of the problem as the Rs right now.
I'll again state that I believe Obama is sincere in his nonpartisan desires. I will also state again that Pelosi and Reid and a few other want to fuck with the Rs as much as they can and want to wield their newly found power more than anything. I think they/this are/is as much, if not more/most of the problem as the Rs right now.
Doesn't gibe with the fact that Reid and 70% of the other dems spent the last two years whoring themselves out to Bush for pork.
Or the fact that they stripped out a bunch of stuff from the House version of the stimulus bill, at the Republicans' request, and the Republicans still refused to vote for it. They could have passed the bill intact, by the same margin.
In fact the many of the same Republicans who voted for the Bush $1.3 trillion tax cuts in 01 and 03 are now the ones saying $800 billion is too expensive.
I agree it would be too expensive if those tax cuts had actually worked and created jobs and economic growth. But that didnt happen.
Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.
Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.
The costlier of the two Bush tax cuts, the first in 01 at a cost of over $1trillion had little short term (month to month) impact on jobs in 02 and 03:
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics
[INDENT]
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth
[/INDENT]
The job growth in 04-07, after the second Bush tax cut in 03 (over $500 billion) was at a healthy rate although
real earnings were flat or decreased suggesting that the job growth (mostly in lower paying jobs) was not necessarily stimulating the economy.
But in case where we are now after the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts?
Talk radio has been hammering this porkulous bill for a week now. It's the wish list of liberal causes and groups that have been left out for the past 10 years or so IMO.
Watching the tides change from one extreme to another this bill is completely predictable and that's just the rules of the game. Who ever is in control takes care of "thier people". I completely get that.
What I thought was interesting was to find a chunk of the porkulous bucks for Filipinos.
Specifically veterans that have been under the control of the US mil. Ok.
Reading further, this chunk is set aside for Filipino vets ....from WWII!
My next thought was, "didn't we ( the US ) give those veterans a big pension or lump sum in the late 40's under Magsaysay?" The answer would be yes, we did. That was under the Rogers Bill.
On April 23, 1946, Magsaysay was elected as an Independent to the Philippine House of Representatives. In 1948, President Roxas chose Magsaysay to go to Washington as Chairman of the Committee on Guerrilla Affairs, to help to secure passage of the Rogers Bill, giving considerable benefits to Philippine veterans.
I've been unable to locate my book to cite the exact sum but it was indeed granted. Was it considerable? I can't remember. The vets were very happy about it whatever the amount was.
So my point is.....
If this group of Filipino veterans benefits was included in the bill,
a group that had already been paid nearly 60 years ago.....they were digging
deep to find recipients for this money.
Stimulus for the American economy? Or the world?
Granted, it's a small amount in the scheme of things but talk about kitchen sink!
Talk radio has been hammering this porkulous bill for a week now. It's the wish list of liberal causes and groups that have been left out for the past 10 years or so IMO.
Talk radio likes to cherry pick the data to stir up their listeners.
I am not suggesting that the fact you presented is wrong, but simply that it is not representative of the overwhelming majority of provisions of the bill.
The Senate is taking out much of the pork and/or popular projects that arent stimulative...to the tune of $100+ bill less than the House bill.
US News has a good summary:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $888 billion in investments and tax cuts. Of this total, $694 billion will enter the economy by the end of Fiscal year 2010, meaning that 78 percent of the monies allocated will reach the American people by September 30, 2010, providing an immediate boost to the overall economy and creating an estimated four million jobs.
The Act provides for the following critical investments:
* Tax cuts for Working Families - $247 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Infrastructure and Science - $165 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Health - $153 billion
* Job-creating Investments in Education and Training - $138 billion
* Job-creating Investments for an Energy Independent America - $82 billion
* Job-creating Tax Cuts for Small Businesses - $21 billion
* Helping Americans Hit Hard by the Economic Crisis - $72 billion
* Law Enforcement, Oversight, Other Programs - $10 billion
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/02/02/summary-of-the-888-billion-stimulus-bill-under-debate-in-the-senate.html
Its worth reading all five pages of the summary to understand the bill a little better than how it is presented on talk radio.
There is still more I would take out but that is what compromise is all about...give and take, with the majority rightfully having the greater voice and ultimately getting more of what they want...along with the greater responsibility if it fails to meet expectations.
Talk radio likes to cherry pick the data to stir up their listeners.
This specific portion of the bill was mentioned in a blog and I found it doing a search.
The source link is from the
ArmyTimes and not talk radio. It is absolutely true that there are issues that "talk radio" in general covers that get people riled up. In this example as with many others that I hear on the radio, I went to check up on this a bit myself.
On average I believe that at least half of those hot button issues on TR are to be concerned with and overwhelmingly true.
There have been some biggies that have been false. There have been some biggies that have been true. There are also details that through my wordly travels know for fact are not true.
So that's where I'm at.
I am not suggesting that the fact you presented is wrong, but simply that it is not representative of the overwhelming majority of provisions of the bill.
Thank you for expressing your point in such soft friendly language. :) There are many here that do not. You hold a lot of credibility already even though we're polar opposites on the political spectrum.
its worth reading all five pages of the summary to understand the bill a little better than how it is presented on talk radio.
Yes, it's great. Everything is listed out and all the grammar is perfect, the spelling is perfect and the format is perfect. It's very credible as source.
The entire article is very convincing.
But.
Let's take a look at page two. It's beautiful as the others.
If you take a look down the page you will find this:
"$17 billion in one-time payments to seniors, disabled veterans and
[COLOR="Red"]others[/COLOR] will provide an immediately usable payment of $300 to seniors on Social Security, low-income recipients of Supplemental Security Income, disabled veterans and veterans on pensions, Railroad Retirement beneficiaries, and others who may not qualify for the Making Work Pay."
If the red-bolded word "others" means the Filipino veterans from WWII that have already been paid, what might the other descriptions translate to in the details of the bill?
Take a look further down on page two:
"$5.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to secure the homeland and
[COLOR="Red"]promote economic activity[/COLOR]."
Would the bolded-red phrase be a huge stimulus gift of red roses to all the staff at the Pentagon? We can guess no but it's vague.
Just like the word "others". Is that money listed on the
actual bill attached to peoples' names or groups' names? I'm guessing yes.
Why aren't they included in this fabulous looking article about the bill?
Talk radio often times digs in and tells us. No, not in the perfect format that is shown to us in US News but they often times get us to dig further.
Some things are bogus and some things are not.
But in case where we are now after the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts?
Shrug. In the middle of the 18th recession since they started collecting economic data, which may become a depression due to the mortgage meltdown crisis.
I think Keynes would say either spending or tax cuts are both reasonable ways of managing the start of a recession. One works on one side of the Keynesian equation, the other works on the other side. One gives money to the government to spend, and the other gives it to the economy to spend.
Government revenues were higher not long after the tax cuts. But the problem is, Bush lost the Keynesian notion when he continued spending like a drunken sailor in 2004-2007. The deficit fell somewhat, but can you imagine where we'd be if we were in surplus right now? There would be room for all that additional spending; instead, 100% of this thing has to be financed, which will make it another couple hundred billion given to China.
Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007.
We discussed this same thing back then. Cited were the Kennedy tax cuts and the resulting upturn. Who was it who also reminded what happened many years later because of those Kennedy tax cuts? Recession.
Deja vue. Tax cuts only for the rich have contributed to an economic malaise. When the first tax cuts started a recession, they used more tax cuts to mask the inevitable. Welcome to an economy created by Cheney's tax cuts.
Tax cuts are based on the theory that free money can cure all economic ills. But as predicted when we had this same discussion, free government money would make the economy get better (it did not boom - just improved). And now we must pay for all that free money with recession. Those who ignored the history of those Kennedy tax cuts are doomed to repeat it - and still deny it?
Bottom line - the Dow is lower than it was when George Jr entered office because he tried to fix the economy by throwing money at it while stifling innovation. We can expect his 'throw money at problems like a grenade' economics to cause a 36% drop in American incomes after causing the average American income to drop 2% over his past eight years. You would call that a better economy?
Most of the mid 2000s growth was fictitious paper growth and years of deregulation - Enron accounting was alive and well. Ie housing prices increased 40% too high. Assets attached to nothing real. Instant wealth when war consumes capital (that causes massive recessions four and seven years later ie Vietnam). Wealth created by putting more people deeper in the debtor column. Massive wealth converging on the rich. Economic numbers 'looked' better because the average American was spending 140% of his disposable income rather than 80% in order to 'keep up' and because money was so cheap (interest rates). More money spent on consumption rather than productive R&D and innovations. Numbers look good when real economic growth did not exist.
Average American incomes dropping by 2% while "Reagan proves that deficits don't matter" - destroying the Clinton balanced budget to have a drunken party and call that economic growth? Now we pay for his economic policies and tax cuts. Bottom line - growth finishes massively negative compared to world standards. Government throwing money like a grenade created minor economic improvements in those cited early years followed by much larger losses later.
"The only tax cut is one that cuts spending". An economic reality that George Jr has now proven but again.
Unfortunately, in making concessions to Republicans, the so called stimulus plan is now something like 42% tax cuts. That is the equivalent of requiring everyone to replant their lawns every year – another law that can create economic growth according to the numbers UT was citing. Those tax cuts mean the recession will be longer and worse years later into the next decade. Who noted what happened to the economy after those Kennedy tax cuts created a temporary boom? Deja vue. We see the resuting economics turmoil again because of tax cuts and other money games.
But in case where we are now after the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts?
Where it was predicted back in early 2000 when the full story of the Kennedy tax cuts were cited. "Only tax cut is one that cuts spending". Otherwise any gains are more than destroyed by the resulting recession. Money can never solve economic problems despite the many who even cited Kennedy tax cuts to justify George Jr's same economic solutions. Unfortunately, the myth continues to be promoted by politicians who work to prolong the inevitable recession.
Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.
But wasn't that a house of cards built on irrational exuberance and carefully orchestrated fraud?:confused:
Really hard question. Might require a philosophy major to work out.
To go further. We had easy access to capital and it was good times. A lot of stuff got built around here. We got big box stores, cool big-ass convenience stores, a bunch of new neighborhoods and the tax money built a nice new extension on the schools.
Now we have difficult access to capital and it's bad times. Does that mean the good times were fake? Well for one thing, all that stuff didn't go away. The box stores will get new names on them and the houses will be foreclosed on, but it just means other businesses will move in and other people will move to the houses.
The hard access to capital is because of a market failure leading to a crisis. Here's where the philosophers come in. It seems that crisis is inevitable. We had a market failure in 1929. We built protections. Now we have one in 2009 and we wonder if the protections failed.
Maybe it's more like a river; some rivers flood every 10 years, some every 50 years and some every 100 years, but the flood is inevitable.
So markets make us rich, but every 4 generations there's a major upset and a bunch of people suffer. Should we A) stick to the markets because the good times are very good, and not lost simply because bad times come? B) Stifle the markets so that there is less chance of upset, but not so many good times either?
Should we not build on the flood plain, where all the grains grow? Should we move to the mountains where there are no floods but very little grows?
I would say that the non-upset market is the norm, so productive that it pays off enough to make it worth it when the bad times show up.
To go further. ...
Now we have difficult access to capital and it's bad times. Does that mean the good times were fake? Well for one thing, all that stuff didn't go away.
Simply see the same thing in the 1920s. What made the roaring twenties possible? Innovations. Things like the electric motor, lights, and motor car. But these innovations existed in the 1800s?
Yes, after letting innovations sit stifled for a few decades, suddenly new products became fashionable. And then with those new products, the 1920s was a time of making more of those products and getting richer. Well the 1920s was also a period when the status quo again got good enough. And so financial markets boomed based only on economic activity - no longer on newer and more productive economic activity. Financial markets cannot tell the difference. But a shortage of innovation eventually results in recession.
In short the bean counter mentality of profits replaced the product oriented concept of innovation - new and better ways. People started getting rich by only doing more of the same rather than seeking better ways. But what made it worse - any protection from so much fraud was being removed under the name of deregulation. SEC had long been stripped of any real enforcement powers by simply not paying its people sufficiently - see Harvey Pitts testimoney before Congress. Financial instruments were created without any real basis in assets. Markets such as CA energy and oil were even being manipulated without regulatory knowledge or prosecution. Even loans were make routinely without zero due dilligence.
Unfortunately that 1920 economic collapse was so massive as to destroy a financial system that supported innovation. Remember, finance never creates innovation. But innovation always requires some financial support. Without that financial support, even those who innovate are stifled.
Example: how long did it take to build the Empire State Building including removal of the existing hotel on that property? 18 months. They were phenomenal innovators. But when the finance service industry collapses, innovators who created the Empire State Building never made a profit.
An innovator should make a profit. One without innovative products will always lose money (ie GM). But a profit does not mean innovation (again 1990s GM). Appreciate the complex concept.
Innovation was not happening (sufficietly) in 2000s America to justify those profits and salaries. Notice drug companies now with so few innovations in their pipeline. Major steel companies whose profits from obsolete technology plants were created only by a massive worldwide demand for steel. Expect those 'fear to innovate' steel companies (which does not include Nucor) to be hurting. Essentially most innovation is still coming from the west coast companies. We have yet to see how much innovation out there has been stifled by a corrupt finance industry.
We do know that late 1990s and 2000s profits were more often created by Enron style accounting - ie CA energy crisis, oil prices, LTCM and other hedge funds, GM that averted being saved by bankruptcy in 1991 by playing these money games, etc. IOW money games made possible profits of 2000s when necessary product innovations and productivity really did not exist.
And then we diverted more otherwise productive efforts to put 300,000 soldiers half way around the world which we have yet to pay for. This too meant more profits without anything productive.
As in the 1920s, finance only saw a shortage of productive economic activity too late. When finance finally discovered its empty shell, it collapsed and destroyed itself. In America, companies like GM that should have been in bankruptcy in 1991, instead, used those same money games to invent profits for another 15 years. GM continued to make crap products (no innovation) for 15 years before spread sheets finally made reality obvious.
2000 was not a productive decade for America. Too many of those good economic numbers were inventions created by money games and not by new innovative industries and products. The problem should have been obvious with LTCM and Enron. Instead we ignored it so that even the insurance industry (AIG) could create money where no real profits existed.
A major difference between 1920 and 2000; 1920s took out every industry. So far, America's productive industries (ie centered around a concept called the Silicon Valley) have remained innovative. We really do not yet know yet how many industries are still being innovative. Financials are still trying to catch up with economic realities. We should eventually know by the depth or length of the resulting recession if we can remove distortions created by government stimulus.
There have been other recessions with shortages of innovations. But only two were masked by massive financial fraud that continued to make money on myths rather than products - 1920 and 2000. During those periods, finance industry profits were massively higher than those of any other industry. Which makes no sense in an honest economy. Finance people are nothing more than glorified bankers. Even your stock broker is nothing more than a salesman. They are service people - not the innovators that make an economy prosperous and powerful. When that industry has higher profits, fraud and corruption is widespread. As in 1920 and in 2000.
Didn't happen? The growth from 2003-2006 was quite brisk, third quarter 2003 after the cut was phenomenal. Negative growth didn't happen until third quarter 2007. It wasn't Clinton- or Reagan-era growth, but it was growth for sure. Unemployment dropped from 6% when the 03 tax cut happened to 4.5 by 2007.
Clinton created a
much better economy than Bush did, and he raised taxes. You can't really compare this economy to that of the early 2000's. It's different in too many ways.
Also, I remember hearing (no I don't have a citation) during much of the past few years that the unemployment was actually worse than the numbers, because of people whose unemployment had run out, or who were working part time, not being counted. Bush did have a tendency to flub the numbers, or change the wording so things appeared better than they were, in order to support his agenda.
To go further. We had easy access to capital and it was good times. A lot of stuff got built around here. We got big box stores, cool big-ass convenience stores, a bunch of new neighborhoods and the tax money built a nice new extension on the schools.
Now we have difficult access to capital and it's bad times. Does that mean the good times were fake? Well for one thing, all that stuff didn't go away. The box stores will get new names on them and the houses will be foreclosed on, but it just means other businesses will move in and other people will move to the houses.
The hard access to capital is because of a market failure leading to a crisis. Here's where the philosophers come in. It seems that crisis is inevitable. We had a market failure in 1929. We built protections. Now we have one in 2009 and we wonder if the protections failed.
The protections failed because we've slowly gotten rid of them over the past 30 years. It's called deregulation.
Maybe it's more like a river; some rivers flood every 10 years, some every 50 years and some every 100 years, but the flood is inevitable.
So markets make us rich, but every 4 generations there's a major upset and a bunch of people suffer. Should we A) stick to the markets because the good times are very good, and not lost simply because bad times come? B) Stifle the markets so that there is less chance of upset, but not so many good times either?
Should we not build on the flood plain, where all the grains grow? Should we move to the mountains where there are no floods but very little grows?
I would say that the non-upset market is the norm, so productive that it pays off enough to make it worth it when the bad times show up.
Why would you think there were not so many good times under market regulation? I think that's wrong. There may not have been as many multimillionaires or billionaires, but the middle class was very strong. The American dream of owning a home and having a decent, well paying job was attainable for most people, even without a college education, because manufacturing was the backbone of the American economy. Health care was affordable and in most cases it was a benefit provided by the employer. And while there was still a lot of wealth concentrated at the top, it was spread much more evenly through the middle, and the people at the top did not own SO MUCH MORE of it. IMHO, that is a huge part of the problem... there is too much wealth concentrated at the top, among a very small percentage of people.
But wasn't that a house of cards built on irrational exuberance and carefully orchestrated fraud?:confused:
YATTA, BITCHES!
Make no mistake, we are experiencing the beginning of the worst economic times since the dustbowl. Possibly worse, if you want the truth.
But people don't
want the truth, do they? The wheels have fallen off the monster truck of state, but since we're still sliding on the chassis rather than rolling over, everyone pretends that things aren't that bad. The band is still playing, so we can all rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, and pretend that the band will play on.
Well, wake the fuck up. Things really ARE that bad...the lights are going out all over the world, and nobody knows when - or if - they will ever come on again. The proof of this was listening to that waterhead Paulson at the Fed babble on last month about how the recovery will begin in the second half of the fiscal year. Now, how the FUCK would he know that? He doesn't. He's making a prediction that sounds reassuring, but is far enough out that he assumes nobody will remember it when summer rolls around, the harvest is in...and we are not saved.
Herbert Hoover said the same thing, back at the beginning of 1932: "Prosperity is right around the corner". As a note to those of you who don't study Doom, 1932/33 was the worst fiscal year of the depression.
The worst part about this is that the problem WAS fixable. The bailout was intended to allow the banks to steal capital from us, so they could loan money (specifically, OUR money to US). Our economy functions on lines of credit, and all that was required to turn this from disaster to a mere recession was for them to actually LOAN THAT MONEY OUT. However, thanks to a weak-sister congress, the language of the bailout bill changed it instead into a massive giveaway with no accountability. The bankers took the money, smiled, and then wrote themselves some bonus checks and used the rest of the money, apparently, to buy up assets. When asked about it, they laughed in congress' face, and told them that they don't have to tell anyone where the money went, and by the way, give us the other $350 Bn, please.
Well, I have something to say to those bankers. Something that should have been said long ago, when they first refused to renegotiate the toxic mortgages that started this whole mess. Listen closely, my fat larcenous friends, for this is very, very important:
WE WILL FUCKING
EAT YOU.
That's right. I, for one, will not starve because of your greed. When the deal goes South and it all comes crashing down, I will eat you before I starve. I will use your skull as a wine glass. I will gnaw on your bones with my very own teeth.
My son informs me that eating people is actually very unhealthy. Something about "prions" and mad cow disease. But what does he know? He hasn't been around long enough to really understand DOOM. He lives at that wonderful age of 15, where Really Bad Things happen to other people, and tomorrow's biggest worry is whether or not he'll get to feel up Suzy Rottencrotch under the bleachers during the homecoming game.
Well, I'll ask him again, in a few years, after the lights have gone out and the coyotes begin eying us with interest. When he's learned how to make fuel out of alcohol, and we all live by pillaging those who still try to stand still and grow things. Bankers will be a rare delicacy by then; no longer low hanging fruit dangling from the light poles.
Be warned. The easy times, the years of light and prosperity are behind us, brought low by the same greed and stupidity that has plagued the human race since Og the Caveman decided to corner the market on edible berries. Rough times are ahead, and even if we DON'T get to eat bankers, we can at least stockpile A1 Sauce.
Or kill me.
snip~ The bailout was intended to allow the banks to steal capital from us, so they could loan money (specifically, OUR money to US). Our economy functions on lines of credit, and all that was required to turn this from disaster to a mere recession was for them to actually LOAN THAT MONEY OUT. ~snip
I didn't think they we going to lend that money(ours) out.
I thought they would use that money(ours) as collateral so they could borrow more money(ours) from the Fed at 0% interest, and loan it out(to us) at 5% to 29% interest.
Then when we pay that money back, the banks could pay back the Fed(us), pocket the interest to pay back the bailout(to us), and pay their green's fees.
No?
The whole thing is a racket. It seems to me the banks and financial institutions are just looking for work arounds to each and every dollar they get from the tax payer to do business as usual and keep those in the rich seat rich. Meanwhile the solutions from the Obama team is to attack middle America with new taxes and penalties for working hard and making something. The only way this will work is for Congress to remove all the excess that does not directly make jobs for the 1/2 million people recently out of work. For them the rest of these detail we all have spent hours discussion and researching mean squat.
The whole thing is a racket. It seems to me the banks and financial institutions are just looking for work arounds to each and every dollar they get from the tax payer to do business as usual and keep those in the rich seat rich. Meanwhile the solutions from the Obama team is to attack middle America with new taxes and penalties for working hard and making something. The only way this will work is for Congress to remove all the excess that does not directly make jobs for the 1/2 million people recently out of work. For them the rest of these detail we all have spent hours discussion and researching mean squat.
You're still looking at this as a democrat problem.
Interesting.
Eat the rich. Not a new solution.
Big up Lemmy.
FTR (no pun intended) this was spraypainted on a bridge on the A41. I saw it every time I stayed over at my BF's. No matter how often I saw it, it always raised a smile. Then again - I'd usually just had sex.
You're still looking at this as a democrat problem.
Actually I am not. I am looking at their track record for the last 2 plus years of empty promises. Don't think I view the Republickins in a much better light.
Actually I am not. I am looking at their track record for the last 2 plus years of empty promises. Don't think I view the Republickins in a much better light.
I view both parties in precisely the same light. Exactly the same. There is no difference, none at all.
Steny delivers $8.5 million in earmarks
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was the Dems' point man on rebutting GOP charges that the omnibus was stuffed with pork. His main talking points? That you can't spell "earmark" without an "R" -- and that the GOP was responsible for about 40 percent of the estimated 8,000 earmarks in the bill.
Hoyer, in turn, isn't shy about trumpeting his own earmarks to the folks back in the district, sending word to local papers that he secured more than $8.5 million in projects, including $3 million for highway construction and smaller grants for homeless shelters, bus lines and job training programs.
But the most interesting one: $280,000 for a University of Maryland initiative to study alternative uses for tobacco to help farmers compensate for the drop-off in smoking.
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2009/9506.shtmlSometimes this shit makes me laugh until I can't stop screaming.
Let Spending Dogs Lie
Obama chooses not to fight earmarks from last year's tardy spending bill.
http://www.slate.com/id/2212674/Obama budget director: We'll cut pork after '09 spending bill
Facing mounting criticism of a spending package packed with billions of dollars in earmarks, the Obama administration made a vow Sunday: This president will bring a halt to pork-laden bills.
"[Such bills] will not happen when the president has the full legislative and appropriations process in place," Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told CNN's "State of the Union with John King."
He argued that the White House had little choice but to support the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which it inherited from the previous administration. The bill would keep the government running through 2009.
"This is like your relief pitcher coming into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game," Orszag said. "Next year we're going to be the starting pitcher, and the game's going to be completely different." Video Watch Orszag say it's too late to fight earmarks in this spending bill »
But House Minority Whip Eric Cantor rejected the argument and noted that President Obama had vowed to take action against earmarks during the presidential campaign.
"If you make a promise, people expect that you live up to it. And that's why this administration's refusal to go in and change this bill, I think, is a false position," Cantor told "State of the Union."
"There is no way anyone could take what Mr. Orszag has said with any credibility," Cantor said.
The spending bill contains nearly $8 billion in earmarks, which are pet projects of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The Senate postponed a planned vote on the bill Thursday after Democratic leaders came up short of the support they needed to pass it.
While many lawmakers consider at least some of the pet projects worthy, most openly reject the system of slipping earmarks into the bill to try to bring home as much "pork" as possible. But many of those who have complained about earmarks also have earmarks in the bill. They argue that until everyone is prevented from taking part in the process, their states or districts should not lose out. Video Watch where some of the earmark money is going »
In a debate last September against Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, Obama discussed earmarks and vowed to go "line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Obama has vowed to sign the spending bill.
"Would we have written this thing differently? Absolutely," Orszag told King. "But we face a basic choice here. ... Is it uglier than we'd like? Yes. But again, this was negotiated last year. We think we should just move on. When we are engaged in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process, it's going to look a lot different."
But Cantor, R-Virginia, said "people are expecting this administration to live up to the promises made."
Asked whether his argument is undermined by the earmarks from Republicans, Cantor responded that he and House Minority Leader John Boehner had asked their party to adopt a moratorium on the practice. Indeed, some lawmakers from both parties have called for a moratorium.
"There is no question that we've got to change this entire process. It is a system gone bad," Cantor said.
Ahhh a glimmer of hope.
Cantor.
:lol:
You might consider a different spokesman. Just saying.
Cantor is not my spokesman, but in this instance I agree with him. The system is what it is, but I think something is wrong here. And if all you got out of that article is that, then you didn't even read it.
Cantor is not my spokesman, but in this instance I agree with him. The system is what it is, but I think something is wrong here. And if all you got out of that article is that, then you didn't even read it.
I saw "Cantor" and started laughing.
Sorry.
"But House Minority Whip Eric Cantor rejected the argument and noted that President Obama had vowed to take action against earmarks during the presidential campaign."
That says it all....
I believe he said he would cut earmarks when he was campaigning, not end them completely, and supposedly this bill has less than the previous bill by a lot. (I could be wrong about that. I did see an interview where he said that though.)
But I agree. He should send it back and tell them to take them out. There really should be a line item veto.
Maybe what they should do is give x amount of money to each state depending on population, and that state can spend the money on whatever projects are needed. It is the budget. If there are projects for which states need money, that money should be in the budget in some way.
I just cant get as excited as McCain or some here about earmarks, which represent about 1% of the federal budget every year.
There are fewer in this omnibus bill than previous years and they are more transparent as a result of the Democratic earmark reform in '07.
I think Obama could have been more honest to simply suggest even greater transparency (ie requiring every member of Congress to publish and justify his/her earmarks on their respective website).
Then both parties could stop with the hypocrisy and admit that part of their role is to bring federal $$$ back to their respective communities.
All earmarks are not bad....many contribute to a valid and valued public function.
I recall Sarah Palin lashing out about an earmark for fruit fly research. On the superficial level, it sounds frivolous and wasteful.
I think it was during a speech where she focused on special ed needs and children with disabilities, from her own personal experience.
She might want to read this:
Fruit Fly Research Set To Revolutionize Study Of Birth Defects
A Queen's University study of fruit flies that may revolutionize the way birth defects are studied has identified the genes affected by a widely prescribed drug known to cause birth defects....
or
The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905123832.htm
A couple $ million to a university for more fruit fly research to gain a even better understand to birth defects and/or autism? Sounds ok to me.
It is impressive how few of the earmarks that are complained about are actually wasteful. You'd think that with such a large number of earmarks, the people who like to complain about them would be able to find a few that are legitimately silly.
1% of the budget is a huge percentage when you think about it.
that only leaves 99 other items to fund if they're all the same size.
I imagine there are a lot more than 99 or even 100 funding applications or requirements.
1% of the budget is a huge percentage when you think about it.
that only leaves 99 other items to fund if they're all the same size.
I imagine there are a lot more than 99 or even 100 funding applications or requirements.
Its about equal to 2-3 months of the cost of our 6+ year folly in Iraq.
Yes well I'm not even going to talk about Iraq, but we all know that's a huge amount of money no matter which way you look at it.
If they are such a minor part, Obama and Pelosi should do as they have stated and reduce wasteful spending, and they shouldn't be missed if they are so minor.
I dont even have a problem with the $1.7 million earmark for pig odor research in Iowa.
Iowans say 'earmark' for pig-odor study passes the smell test, isn't Grade A example of pork
You would have to had visited Iowa, with its massive hog farms to feed the rest of country their daily dose of bacon, to understand why they might think this is money well spent.
20 million hogs in Iowa and 3 million people.
Sounds like a reasonable "pork" project to me.
So far this administration has spent trillions of dollars. Yet no response on the recovery front. This is not a good sign. Few things are looking positive.
If they are such a minor part, Obama and Pelosi should do as they have stated and reduce wasteful spending, and they shouldn't be missed if they are so minor.
Seriously Merc? IIRC more than half are from R's.
So far this administration has spent trillions of dollars. Yet no response on the recovery front. This is not a good sign. Few things are looking positive.
Yeh, like thats gonna happen in 30 days. It'll be more like a year before any real change is noticed aside from the seasonal stuff.
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
Posted: March 08, 2009
6:54 pm Eastern
From Wikipedia's Barack Obama page
Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.
A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
In one example, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" added the following to Obama's page:
"There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts."
As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com
The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.
(Story continues below)
According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain's Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND's coverage.
When the user "Jerusalem21" tried to repost the entry about Obama's eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.
Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website's rules.
Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama's Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.
Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.
"Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia."
According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites.
Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio
The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.
For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.
That paragraph states: "Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand 'the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.' He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades."
Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.
WND monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:
"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."
Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.
The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."
The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114Yeh, like thats gonna happen in 30 days. It'll be more like a year before any real change is noticed aside from the seasonal stuff.
What happened to all the talk about "shovel ready projects" Obama preached to us about? Contracts should already have been awarded and we should be hearing about them.
Yeh like any gov't project moves that fast. I do know that there are a ton of projects ready to start in NJ. I assume it is similar in other parts of the country as well.
Yeh like any gov't project moves that fast. I do know that there are a ton of projects ready to start in NJ. I assume it is similar in other parts of the country as well.
Hush. Obama is just having trouble finding the shovels. They're apparently all jammed up Pelosi's...skirt.
I mean, would YOU crawl up there looking?
Didn't think so.
What happened to all the talk about "shovel ready projects" Obama preached to us about? Contracts should already have been awarded and we should be hearing about them.
Good grief. I have seen several governors on TV talk about projects that have started or were getting ready to start, and people being able to keep government jobs who otherwise would have had to be fired. Give it a rest Merc. Even Sonny Perdue has been on TV talking about it. The money is slowly getting out there. It will not happen overnight. The bill just passed less than a month ago.
Go here for more info:
http://www.recovery.gov/Merc is Veruca Salt to Obama's Willy Wonka.
I throw salt on everybody's wounds. Haven't you been listening to the gossip? :D
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns
After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.
The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.
Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.'s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.
Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/17/guns-on-a-plane-obama-secretly-ends-program-that-l/Why? Whats the benefit to anyone of this?
Because it's not entirely true. Comment, from a man named gman (call it an editorial on the editorial, if that helps) after posted article:
Relax folks. The TSA and the Administration has come out saying that they will not be ending or scaling back anything to the FFDO program in any way. After this Editorial came out, the TSA quickly reaffirmed to ALPA, APA, APSA and others of their committment to the FFDO program. They plan to expand it. The editorial is false. And besides...one man...even the President cannot change a Legislative Bill. Don't forget that it was Pres Bush that was adamantly opposed to the FFDO program in the first place. FFDOs came into being after Congress overwhelmingly created the FFDO program against Bush's wishes. Even left coast Barbara Boxer was the co-creator of the Bill that became Law.
Regurgitation can be fun if done with a modicum of skepticism even if it makes all our points seem to have been justified.
Who is putting aside the issue of transparency?
Apparently Obama
We are not making this up:
Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.
This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."
The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.
The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.
From the president's official schedule:
"Later in the afternoon, the President and the First Lady will attend a reception with the National Newspaper Publisher Association in the State Dining Room, where they will be presented the Newsmaker of the Year award. This event is closed press."
More than anything I find this humorous.
Apparently Obama
More than anything I find this humorous.
LOL..I do see the irony of a press award event being closed to the press.
But a "closed to the press" social event hardly rises to the level of an issue of transparency in government policy making.
It was supposed to be humorous - shoulda used a smilie
It's the gun people trying to freak everyone out by claiming Obama wants to take away the 2nd ammendment and their guns. waaaaa
It's the gun people trying to freak everyone out by claiming Obama wants to take away the 2nd ammendment and their guns. waaaaa
You doubt that? Or you just agree with them?
I think radical gun advocates overreact. I equate them with ecoterrorists, on the other side of the spectrum.
Again, let's ignore the fact that the "editorial" was grossly misinterpreted. Even within that, the only thing the author points to as a threat to pilots and their guns is this:
The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
OK, and that means...?
The selective stupidity here is sometimes amazing, full of hope for non-hope, and blinding in its sheer clarity.
I think radical gun advocates overreact. I equate them with ecoterrorists, on the other side of the spectrum.
Really? They are burning down car dealerships and multi-thousand dollar homes to make their point? I haven't seen that. Where? /sarc
The early entertainment value. Let the count begin. Biden/Obama Gafes. I guess this was started by his latest dig at children with mental disabilities. Good one. Not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/20/top_10_gaffes_by_barack_obama_and_joe_biden_That was a stupid throwaway comment that deserves no attention or ridicule. Just like most of the comments that resulted in days of skewering Bush.
I think radical gun advocates overreact. I equate them with ecoterrorists, on the other side of the spectrum.
You mean people like - - - -
you?:eyebrow:
It's the gun people trying to freak everyone out by claiming Obama wants to take away the 2nd ammendment and their guns. waaaaa
Not much of an admirer of the bill of rights, are we?
HOW OBAMA GETS THINGS DONE
By Neal Boortz @ March 19, 2009 8:22 AM
Does Barack Obama really think that he can push all of his dreams and schemes through Congress? The answer is yes. And when it comes to government healthcare, global warming initiatives and increasing taxes, he wants to make sure that there is no way the Republicans can stop him. How is he going to do this? By including these policy provisions in the annual budget. Then they can use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation. Basically what that means is that the Democrats wouldn't have to worry about gaining Republican support in the Senate .. because reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation to a simple majority (which the Democrats clearly have in the Senate). It also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments. So we are talking about less than 20 hours on the floor of the Congress would be devoted to such grandiose plans as government healthcare and cap and trade schemes.
HOW OBAMA GETS THINGS DONE
By Neal Boortz @ March 19, 2009 8:22 AM
Boortz.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Isn't he great! :lol: He nails the bastids every time. I love it.
Isn't he great! :lol: He nails the bastids every time. I love it.
DITTO, RUSH!
UNNNNNG!
Follower.
HAAAAAAAAAA!
You think Rush and Boortz are similar!!!!!!!! :lol2:
HAAAAAAAAAA!
You think Rush and Boortz are similar!!!!!!!! :lol2:
I think they're identical, in practice. They tell their little sheep what to think, and off you run, posting their gospel everywhere you go, like the good little Moonies you are.
That is pretty funny. Why don't you learn to think for yourself and stop letting people tell you what to believe about Boortz? You obviously don't read much about his ideas or you would know he and Rush are not really.... ummm...pals.
Who says his commentary is "gospel"?
That is pretty funny. Why don't you learn to think for yourself and stop letting people tell you what to believe about Boortz? You obviously don't read much about his ideas or you would know he and Rush are not really.... ummm...pals.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry I insulted your god.
:lol:
My god? Who is god?
:lol:
So, tell me Mercenary. Do you have another record? Besides "lol obama," I mean?
Yes, "lol demoncrats", "lol republickins", and "lol TGRR". :)
Yes, "lol demoncrats", "lol republickins", and "lol TGRR". :)
Now that's funny. The board's king-hell neocon suddenly is against the republican party?
:lol:
Now that's funny. The board's king-hell neocon suddenly is against the republican party?
:lol:
Who is a neocon? That's pretty funny. :lol:
You come up with that all by yer self?
Ah. Only a great fence-sitter and general bullshitter can change sides that fast.
Ah. Only a great fence-sitter and general bullshitter can change sides that fast.
Are you TGRR's new boy? Just wondering since you are a "Recruit or Something".
Nope. Just thought I'd check in tonight, I've got nothing better to do.
Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions so fast, hmm?
I just read it under your name, that you have now changed, I guess you want to cover your tracks.
Uhm, just to let you know... I'm not changing my little tag line.
Guess the mods here are lacking in entertainment on Sunday night.
EDIT: Actually, I think it does it automatically. Which, I'd assume you knew, with +10,000 posts and all.
Who is a neocon?
You are.
Are you TGRR's new boy? Just wondering since you are a "Recruit or Something".
And you were the guy talking about tinfoil hats.
:lol:
You are.
Wait, you said I was a "hippie". :D
Damm, a neocon hippie. What is that?
Wait, you said I was a "hippie". :D
Damm, a neocon hippie. What is that?
What you are is a lightweight.
You have, apparently, never checked anything out for yourself in your entire life. Whatever Boortz and Limbaugh tell you to believe is gospel.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why the so-called "conservative" movement is as dead as Pastor Hagee's brain.
What you are is a lightweight.
Really? That is quite the conclusion for a person who is just another of millions of people on the internet.
You have, apparently, never checked anything out for yourself in your entire life. Whatever Boortz and Limbaugh tell you to believe is gospel.
Really? where is that quote?
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why the so-called "conservative" movement is as dead as Pastor Hagee's brain.
And that is quite possible. And we can only hope if the last 8 years is an example.
Really? That is quite the conclusion for a person who is just another of millions of people on the internet.
It's also the cold, hard truth, Merc. You're out of your league here.
You should probably go over to freerepublic. They're more your speed.
freerepublic.
:lol2: freerepublic.
:lol2: freerepublic.
What? You'd like it there.
Naw. Not my game. You guys can have it.
Naw. Not my game.
Bullshit. You sound just like them. You believe whatever Boortz and Hannity tell you, you have nothing other than appeal to ridicule, and you can't do basic math.
You're freerepublic material, through and through.
Bullshit. You sound just like them. You believe whatever Boortz and Hannity tell you, you have nothing other than appeal to ridicule, and you can't do basic math.
You're freerepublic material, through and through.
Now you want to throw Hannity out there. :lol: Man we better add him to the list in your crystal ball there.
Now you want to throw Hannity out there. :lol: Man we better add him to the list in your crystal ball there.
If it smells like shit...
If it smells like shit...
Man if your crystal ball smells like that you should really consider getting a new one. So far it has really given you some bad info about me. Trust me, you need to trade it in.
Man if your crystal ball smells like that you should really consider getting a new one. So far it has really given you some bad info about me. Trust me, you need to trade it in.
Hey Merc.
I can smell you from here. I think it is
you that needs to be traded in.
Man if your crystal ball smells like that you should really consider getting a new one. So far it has really given you some bad info about me. Trust me, you need to trade it in.
I've just read your posts. You are a dyed in the wool, knee jerk republican yahoo...right down to having never read the US constitution.
I've just read your posts. You are a dyed in the wool, knee jerk republican yahoo...right down to having never read the US constitution.
You had to read his posts to see that? Seemed pretty obvious to me from the way he was endlessly talking absolute bullcrap.
:lol:
Hey Merc.
I can smell you from here. I think it is you that needs to be traded in.
:lol2: man where do you get your jokes dude?
:lol2: man where do you get your jokes dude?
I think he gets them where you get your stale-ass "wit".
I've just read your posts. You are a dyed in the wool, knee jerk republican yahoo...right down to having never read the US constitution.
:lol2: Ok, broken stinky crystal ball guy.
You had to read his posts to see that? Seemed pretty obvious to me from the way he was endlessly talking absolute bullcrap.
:lol:
He IS a world class bullshitter, isn't he?
:lol2: man where do you get your jokes dude?
A place you have never been, evidently.
Also, I'd like to thank whichever mod finally got off their fat ass long enough to approve this account. I was getting sick and tired of that goddamn underscore.
:lol2: Ok, broken stinky crystal ball guy.
Jesus...and you had the nerve to criticize BDS's jokes.
It's good that you crack yourself up, though. At least SOMEONE is laughing with you (as opposed to at you), even if it's yourself.
He IS a world class bullshitter, isn't he?
Oh, totally. I'm still amazed at the sheer volume of it.
Oh, totally. I'm still amazed at the sheer volume of it.
Funny as hell. The dumbshit has never even read the constitution, and pretends to be an authority on it, among other things.
Funny as hell. The dumbshit has never even read the constitution, and pretends to be an authority on it, among other things.
It's wonderful how a few wires can give someone such an inflated ego, isn't it?
Unless he's like this in the real world, in which case, I worry for the safety of his neighbours.
It's wonderful how a few wires can give someone such an inflated ego, isn't it?
Unless he's like this in the real world, in which case, I worry for the safety of his neighbours.
Did you know that the US constitution is apparently NOT a limitation on governmental powers, but is somehow now a contract between the government and the government?
:lol:
:lol2:
It's good that you can laugh at yourself, Cletus.
Cletus.
Should I add that to your list of insults? :D
Seriously, you need to start drinking or something.
Did you know that the US constitution is apparently NOT a limitation on governmental powers, but is somehow now a contract between the government and the government?
:lol:
How interesting. I wonder how this happened. Oh. That's right. Fuckwits like Merc let it happen, while they were amusing themselves arguing over Punch and Judy dolls on internet forums. Good job, asshat.
Should I add that to your list of insults? :D
Seriously, you need to start drinking or something.
You should probably drink less. Don't you know it limits reaction times?
Obama will own your bank.
The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks..
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving U.S. government bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last month, as part of the stimulus package, Congress barred top executives at large banks getting rescue money from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay.
Beyond the pay rules, officials said the regulatory plan is expected to call for a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/22/america/22regulate.phpOh, and we're back to "lol obama."
Great.
Oh, and we're back to "lol obama."
Great.
I ALMOST ACCIDENTALLY THE WHOLE BANK.
I ALMOST ACCIDENTALLY THE WHOLE BANK.
forget about it :)
forget about it :)
I will if you will.
well BDS - you've made quite a contribution since coming to the cellar. Welcome.
knock knock - your sarcasm meter broken?
Oh and by the way, Merc & BDS - If you don't set your usertitle, it changes with every post up to a certain number. So you were both wrong. See you DO have something in common. lol
My ignore list grows.
Ah. So you're one of
them then.
And Classicman, I did say I thought it did it automatically. :P
No that was sir simplesomething OH I see you are he and he you. Another sockpuppet -
So you're one of them then.
BUSTED!
:D
Dodd Blames Obama Administration for Bonus Amendment (Update2)
By Ryan J. Donmoyer
March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month’s $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.’s bonuses.
Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said yesterday he agreed to modify restrictions on executive pay at companies receiving taxpayer assistance to exempt bonuses already agreed upon in contracts. He said he did so without realizing the change would benefit AIG, whose recent $165 million payment to employees has sparked a public furor.
Dodd said he had wanted to limit executive compensation at companies that got money from the government’s financial-rescue fund. AIG has received $173 billion in bailout money. His provision was changed as the stimulus legislation was negotiated between the House and Senate.
“I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment” to the stimulus bill, “but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG,” Dodd said in a statement released last night. “Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.” He didn’t name the administration officials who made the request.
No Insistence
An administration official said last night that representatives of President Barack Obama didn’t insist on the change, though they did contend that the language in Dodd’s amendment could be legally challenged because it would apply retroactively to bonus agreements. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity.
That provision in the stimulus bill may undercut complaints by congressional Democrats about the AIG bonuses because most of them voted for the legislation. No Republicans in the House and only three in the Senate supported the stimulus measure
“Taxpayers deserve better than this from their government, and this is just the latest reason why legislation must be transparent for all Americans to see before it is recklessly signed into law,” said Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House.
The new law, approved by Congress Feb. 13 and signed into law by Obama the next week, effectively authorized bonus arrangements at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts as long as they were in place before Feb. 11. The AIG bonuses qualified under that provision.
Obama and many lawmakers who voted for the legislation, such as Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, are demanding AIG employees surrender their bonuses.
Schumer Letter
Schumer yesterday sent a letter to AIG Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy warning him to return bonuses or face confiscatory taxes on them. The letter was signed by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and seven other senators.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Schumer, said the senator “supported a provision on the Senate floor that would have prevented these types of bonuses, but he was not on the conference committee that negotiated the final language.”
A House vote is planned for today on a bill to impose a 90 percent tax on executive bonuses paid by AIG and other companies getting more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds.
“I expect it to pass in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday in Washington.
Republican Attacks
Republicans seized on the provision in the stimulus bill to paint Democrats as hypocrites.
“The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate,” Iowa Senator Charles Grassley said in a statement.
AIG donated a total of $854,905 to political campaigns in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group. AIG employees as a group represent Dodd’s fourth-biggest donor during his career, the group’s research shows. The company’s political action committee, employees and immediate family members have given Dodd more than $280,000, the group said.
Dodd said the provision was written to give the Treasury Department enough discretion to reclaim bonuses as necessary.
“Fortunately, we wrote this amendment in a way that allows the Treasury Department to go back and review these bonus contracts and seek to recover the money for taxpayers,” he said.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told lawmakers in a letter this week that department lawyers believe it would be “legally difficult” to prevent AIG from paying bonuses.
Other Democrats who voted for the stimulus bill have ramped up criticism of AIG’s bonuses, including Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who told reporters, “I think the time has come to exercise our ownership rights.”
http://www.bloomberg.comNo that was sir simplesomething OH I see you are he and he you. Another sockpuppet -
So you're one of them then.
BUSTED!
Incorrect. I indeed was Sir_Simpletoon, from when I came over from the Safari. I thought I'd pop in tonight, attempted to register BDS, as I'd forgotten the password to Sir_Simpletoon.
Of course, in your great and wise benevolence, this forum is based on an activation system, thus meaning I couldn't post. So, I put more effort into finding the pass for Sir_Simpletoon, which lo and behold, I cracked.
But then, when this accout was activated, I switched back to here.
Would you like to many any more assumptions, while you're at it? Maybe I'm secretly a lizard overlord. Or maybe I'm actually seven people, each behind a different proxy.
Jesus fucking Christ you're an idiot.
Uh, I was just bustin your chops - sheesh.
Dish it out, but can't take it much? WTF?
Hey, I can take it.
I just like to respond with... Shall we say, a more aggresive tactic than Merc?
Oh, you mean being a bigger asshole? It showed.
Oh, you mean being a bigger asshole? It showed.
Why should Merc have all the fun?
My ignore list grows.
Sorry. I didn't realize you were a pansy.
Link
Even though he was almost a member of the new Obama administration, New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg Sunday slammed President Obama’s approach to handling the country’s fiscal outlook.
Watch: [COLOR="Blue"]Gregg warns of fiscal 'crash'
[/COLOR]
“The practical implications of this is bankruptcy for the United States,” Gregg said of the Obama’s administration’s recently released budget blueprint. “There’s no other way around it. If we maintain the proposals that are in this budget over the ten-year period that this budget covers, this country will go bankrupt. People will not buy our debt, our dollar will become devalued. It is a very severe situation.”
Gregg, known as one of the keenest fiscal minds on Capitol Hill, also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that he thought it was “almost unconscionable” for the White House to continue with its planned course on fiscal matters with unprecedented actual and projected budget deficits in the coming years.
“It is as if you were flying an airplane and the gas light came on and it said ‘you 15 minutes of gas left’ and the pilot said ‘we’re not going to worry about that, we’re going to fly for another two hours.’ Well, the plane crashes and our country will crash and we’ll pass on to our kids a country that’s not affordable.”
Despite his criticism of Obama’s approach to the long-term finances of the country, Gregg praised how Obama’s top economic lieutenants are trying to get the sick banking system back to health.
“They’re doing the right things,” Gregg said about embattled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House economic adviser Larry Summers. “They haven’t done it as definitely as they should have . . . but they are moving in the right direction and the Fed is moving in the right direction,” Gregg said on CNN’s State of the Union.
Gregg broke ranks with some of his fellow Republicans and said he did not think Geithner should step down from his Cabinet post.
On the recent scandal of more than $150 million in bonuses paid to the AIG employees whose work pushed the financial giant to the brink of collapse, Gregg criticized the plan afoot on Capitol Hill to tax those bonuses at very high rates. But, Gregg pointed out that the Obama administration and, to some extent, the Bush administration before it failed to “discipline” the bonuses paid out by AIG, which is now 80 percent owned by the federal government.
The Republican senator was appointed to be Obama’s Commerce Secretary but then bowed out unexpectedly, citing policy differences with the Democratic administration.
I wonder if tw's buddy told him what to think and say too.
Really? They are burning down car dealerships and multi-thousand dollar homes to make their point? I haven't seen that. Where? /sarc
:rolleyes: WHO ELSE is doing that? You are one of the ones whining about gun rights being taken away by the Obama administration. I have heard nothing in the news about car dealerships or big houses being burned down.
Not much of an admirer of the bill of rights, are we?
Yes, I am. But we have had this discussion already, and I'm not going to rehash it.
You mean people like - - - - you?:eyebrow:
I am not an ecoterrorist.
Obama will own your bank.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/22/america/22regulate.php
This only covers banks getting TARP funds, and only until they pay back the money. Why should that bother you? After that, they can go back to their old behavior. Which sucks. We NEED pay reform in this country.
We NEED pay reform in this country.
Pay reform? Is that code for
we need to not let people more successful than me have what I can't get?
The companies that took the government money are pretty screwed and will have to play by the rules but well run companies who are able to stand and succeed on their own should not have any input at all from the government on pay beyond the legal minimum wage guidelines.
Pay reform? Is that code for we need to not let people more successful than me have what I can't get?
The companies that took the government money are pretty screwed and will have to play by the rules but well run companies who are able to stand and succeed on their own should not have any input at all from the government on pay beyond the legal minimum wage guidelines.
Agreed. Pay reform through government regulation is a stretch.
However, I do think publicly traded companies should be required by regulation to fully disclose executive compensation (salaries, bonuses, stock options, golden parachutes, etc) to stockholders with those stockholders having greater authority to deny or adjust such compensation.
I agree with you on that Redux. Greater disclosure would be a positive as it would help shareholders know exactly what is happening inside their investment.
Pay reform? Is that code for we need to not let people more successful than me have what I can't get?
What, like "the power to ruin the banking system with irresponsible bonuses and practices"?
Pay reform? Is that code for we need to not let people more successful than me have what I can't get?
The companies that took the government money are pretty screwed and will have to play by the rules but well run companies who are able to stand and succeed on their own should not have any input at all from the government on pay beyond the legal minimum wage guidelines.
No, it is not code for that. I am saying that, over the past 30 years or so the tax codes have increasingly favored the rich, and not only that, executive pay has gone through the stratosphere while the average workers wages have stagnated severely, plus they have been losing benefits. Capitalism NEEDS checks and balances, and we haven't had any for a very, very long time. Over the past 30 years, the difference between a CEOs pay and the average worker has grown from 30 times more, to about
500 times more. While executive pay has ballooned, middle class wages have not kept up with inflation. If they had, we wouldn't need so many government programs, and people wouldn't be so far in debt. Don't you GET IT?
Minimum wage is a fucking JOKE. Who can live off of that? And you know most other wages for the middle class and working class are based on minimum wage standards, NOT what is fair or how hard the job is or how hard the person works or how valuable they are to the company or the economy, or how profitable the company is. ALL jobs are important. ALL work is important. I'm sick of executives and business graduates thinking they are so much more valuable than everyone else, because they aren't. Without many of the "lower class" or "less valuable" jobs, this country would come to a screeching halt.
None of that matters if the top percent pay the majority of taxes.
None of that matters if the top percent pay the majority of taxes.
Of course it matters, if the other 99% can't afford to buy products produced by industry.
I adore you Merc, but you really are clueless about this particular issue.
Sugarpop<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<issue>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Merc
Minimum wage is a fucking JOKE. Who can live off of that? And you know most other wages for the middle class and working class are based on minimum wage standards, NOT what is fair or how hard the job is or how hard the person works or how valuable they are to the company or the economy, or how profitable the company is. ALL jobs are important. ALL work is important.
You're right comrade, all jobs are important. If we didn't have someone doing them then there would be a problem. What you don't seem to understand is that pay is not based on whether a job is important or not, but rather supply and demand.
How many people can bag groceries? Pretty much anyone. Welcome to minimum wage.
How many people can efficiently push auto financing through so John Q Public can drive his new Nissan? Not all that many really so the job pays pretty damn well.
How many people have gone through the education and licensing procedures to become financial planners and are willing to deal with the stress? Not that many, that is why the pay is much much more than the grocery bagger.
How many people have gone through medical school and have specialized in neurosurgery? Not many, so they get megabucks.
How many people scratch and claw their way to the top of major corporations? Only a few so they're fucking wealthier than I can even imagine.
How many people have sold their souls and formed the right networks to get them into the White House? Only a few guys so they get to write their tickets for life.
The people themselves are of no more intrinsic value than one another, but the skills and abilities they bring to the table are of a vastly different value. This isn't about the value of man, but the value of skills.
And for the record, minimum wage isn't supposed to be liveable. You can raise the dollar amount to anything you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference ten years later. If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour ($60K/year) every job up the ladder will rise in the same curve and in ten years the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor and only the numbers will have changed.
That was a great post, cous. :) Good points.
If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour you will be bagging your own groceries. Back in the day when the minimum wage was fought to be liveable, every increase matched an increase in unemployment, one to one.
You're right comrade, all jobs are important. If we didn't have someone doing them then there would be a problem. What you don't seem to understand is that pay is not based on whether a job is important or not, but rather supply and demand.
How many people can bag groceries? Pretty much anyone. Welcome to minimum wage.
How many people can efficiently push auto financing through so John Q Public can drive his new Nissan? Not all that many really so the job pays pretty damn well.
How many people have gone through the education and licensing procedures to become financial planners and are willing to deal with the stress? Not that many, that is why the pay is much much more than the grocery bagger.
How many people have gone through medical school and have specialized in neurosurgery? Not many, so they get megabucks.
How many people scratch and claw their way to the top of major corporations? Only a few so they're fucking wealthier than I can even imagine.
How many people have sold their souls and formed the right networks to get them into the White House? Only a few guys so they get to write their tickets for life.
The people themselves are of no more intrinsic value than one another, but the skills and abilities they bring to the table are of a vastly different value. This isn't about the value of man, but the value of skills.
And for the record, minimum wage isn't supposed to be liveable. You can raise the dollar amount to anything you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference ten years later. If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour ($60K/year) every job up the ladder will rise in the same curve and in ten years the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor and only the numbers will have changed.
I agree with you to a point (I know, that's a surprise:P). In fact I agree with you entirely right up until your final point. The minimum wage should be livable. It shouldn't be enough to pay for two holidays abroad every year and a brand new car; but it should pay enough to put food on your family's table and keep your kids well shod. It should be enough that people don't have to work two jobs and never see their kids just to make ends meet. That doesn't breed happy families. Make the mimium wage a dignified amount. The rest may get paid more, and that's fine,. They can take their holidays and buy their kids a great computer at Christmas.
I adore you Merc, but you really are clueless about this particular issue.
Not really. The facts are quite clear. A minority of income earners pay the majority of income tax.
Not really. The facts are quite clear. A minority of income earners pay the majority of income tax.
Top income earners (top 2 percent) definitely pay the greatest share of the total federal income taxes (as they should, IMO), but its no where near paying the majority of total federal income taxes (over 50% of the total). Its true the top half of income earners probably pay more than 90% of the total.
Those same top income earners (the top 2%) also consistently see the greatest percentage rise in their income on an annual basis.
Top income earners definitely pay the greatest share of the total federal income taxes (as they should, IMO), but its no where near paying the majority of total federal income taxes (over 50% of the total).
Those same top income earners also consistently see the greatest rise in their income on an annual basis.
This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.htmlRight
the top 1 percent paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes..
The greatest share but not a majority. (I thought it was under 33% -a third of the total, but I wont quibble with the tax foundation)
And the income for the top 1 percent consistently increases on an annual basis at a greater rate than any other income bracket.
pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent.
Since I am not in the top one percent it does not bother me so much. This is a country made up of a stratified group of income earners. A mega Bell Curve. There will always be a minority that make a bunch and a minorty that are very poor. The problems comes in when a very small percent pay the majority of income taxes, as my link documents, and the majority think that top percent that pay the majority of all income taxes should pay more, while they continue to pay the same, less, or nothing. They need to buy more helmets.
Thats how a progressive income tax works.....and the way its been in the US for 80+ years,....the highest income earners, with a greater ability to pay (disposal income), pay a higher share....and lower income earners who rely solely on their income to meet basic necessities....pay a lower share.
It needs to be changed.
Why?
Has the progressive income tax stifled or adversely impacted economic growth over the last 80+ years? (no evidence to suggest that)
Has it discouraged people from working harder to make more money and move up to a higher tax bracket (no evidence to suggest that either..in fact, the number of millionaires and billionaires continues to grow)
Are the top 1-2% of income earners objecting in great numbers that they pay too much? (not that I have read or heard).
What it really comes down to is the question of if a progressive income tax is inherently unfair?
Thats a matter of opinion on which we obviously disagree, but which every president and Congress (and overwhelming majority of the public) for the last 80+ years are in agreement, with the only differences being the question of rates...how much more should people pay as their income rises.
Why?
Because:
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent).
So you dont really have any evidence that it adversely impacts economic growth or is a disincentive for people to aspire to greater income and wealth.
You just think its inherently unfair?
OK.
Any progressive tax is unfair. Income or otherwise. It adversely affects economic growth because if everyone pays the same, with a few exceptions, and you eliminate many of the loop holes, we could significantly receive more collected taxes. And that would be an opportunity for economic growth.
I support a flat tax as I've described it in the past but I know that won't happen because it cuts into too many empires. My only major complaint with current tax rates comes mainly when I hear people earning under $40K/year who are already paying relatively little bitch about how someone else should pay more so they can pay less.
....It adversely affects economic growth because if everyone pays the same, with a few exceptions, and you eliminate many of the loop holes, we could significantly receive more collected taxes. And that would be an opportunity for economic growth.
cite please....from an objective source.
My only major complaint with current tax rates comes mainly when I hear people earning under $40K/year who are already paying relatively little bitch about how someone else should pay more so they can pay less.
It was that wild and crazy socialist, wealth redistributor Ronald Reagan who expanded the earned income tax credit!
I agree those earning under $40K got a pretty good deal.
There is no such thing as an objective source these days when it comes to a controversial issue, esp one as hot as taxation. You obviously support a progressive tax. I support a consumption tax. For every opinion that supports progressive taxation there are opinions that support a consumption tax.
I would close this discussion with the fact that I share the views of The Tax Foundation:
As an institution, the Tax Foundation believes that the current income tax system is fundamentally broken and should be replaced with a code adhering to the principles we have advocated for 70 years: neutrality, simplicity, stability, transparency, and growth promotion.
We do not align ourselves with any particular tax reform camp. Indeed, we have Flat Tax advocates and sales tax advocates on our Board of Directors, and our research was cited in both Steve Forbes' book on the Flat Tax and Neil Boortz's book on the FairTax.
From an economic perspective, there are many similarities between the FairTax and a Flat Tax. For example:
Both the FairTax and the Flat Tax are "consumption taxes." In other words, people are taxed for spending money, not earning it. The Flat Tax would require citizens to file tax returns as they do now, paying tax on all spent money (income minus savings). The FairTax would rely on merchants to collect tax at the point of sale, as they now collect state and local sales taxes.
Both would eliminate the estate and capital gains taxes.
Both plans are single tax rate systems that eliminate double taxation.
Both plans would dramatically reduce compliance costs and the tax system's dead-weight loss to the economy.
Any tax reform plan will have transition issues and these will have to be thought through carefully. That said, the long-term benefits of fundamental tax reform should far outweigh the short-term transition costs.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22562.html
According to this economics professor at Princeton, simply a 5% increase in the form of a consumption tax would raise $500billion a year.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/a-future-consumption-tax-to-fix-todays-economy/
More than enough to deal with many of our problems in a few short years.
According to this economics professor at Princeton, simply a 5% increase in the form of a consumption tax would raise $500billion a year.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/a-future-consumption-tax-to-fix-todays-economy/
More than enough to deal with many of our problems in a few short years.
$500 billion would barely cover the annual interest on the US national debt.
$500 billion would barely cover the annual interest on the US national debt.
Tell it to Obama and the Dems in Congress.
Which is why it should be 23% IMHO and not 5%.
Tell it to Obama and the Dems in Congress.
Which is why it should be 23% IMHO and not 5%.
LOL....it took awhile for you to blame Obama and the Dems in Congress.
The fact remains that every president and Congress, Dems and Repubs alike, for the last 80+ years has supported a system of progressive taxation rather than a flat consumption tax.
LOL....it took awhile for you to blame Obama and the Dems in Congress.
The fact remains that every president and Congress, Dems and Repubs alike, for the last 80+ years has supported a system of progressive taxation rather than a flat consumption tax.
Not when you compare the national debt and the way money is being spent by Congress in the last three months.
Any progressive tax is unfair. Income or otherwise. It adversely affects economic growth because if everyone pays the same, with a few exceptions, and you eliminate many of the loop holes, we could significantly receive more collected taxes. And that would be an opportunity for economic growth.
cite please....from an objective source.
You would also recieve more collected taxes if you have a progressive tax
and you eliminate many of the loop holes.
Just like you can lose weight if you eat my new herbal supplement and exercise more.
You would also recieve more collected taxes if you have a progressive tax and you eliminate many of the loop holes.
Just like you can lose weight if you eat my new herbal supplement and exercise more.
Maybe, but I wouldn't participate in either of your schemes to make you more money.
Right. You don't need to change to a flat tax, and you don't need to take the herbal supplements. You can just close loopholes and exercise more.
Right. You don't need to change to a flat tax, and you don't need to take the herbal supplements. You can just close loopholes and exercise more.
It would still involve you getting money from me and I can't participate in that.
I read your post wrong. I thought you were still trying to sell me down the river with your stupid supplements.
Right. You don't need to change to a flat tax,
I don't think you have your facts straight. You don't know what I need.
You can just close loopholes and exercise more.
Ding ding ding - We have a winner. I'm in.
You don't know what I need.
Perhaps not, But I'll still tell you & you'll like if I have to beat it into you.
:D Thank you may I have another. :D
:whip:
Who do you think I am Sugarpop?
Who do you think I am Sugarpop?
Dude, you are no Sugarpop. I know Sugarpop. And well... you're a dude. She is hot.
You're right comrade, all jobs are important. If we didn't have someone doing them then there would be a problem. What you don't seem to understand is that pay is not based on whether a job is important or not, but rather supply and demand.
How many people can bag groceries? Pretty much anyone. Welcome to minimum wage.
How many people can efficiently push auto financing through so John Q Public can drive his new Nissan? Not all that many really so the job pays pretty damn well.
How many people have gone through the education and licensing procedures to become financial planners and are willing to deal with the stress? Not that many, that is why the pay is much much more than the grocery bagger.
How many people have gone through medical school and have specialized in neurosurgery? Not many, so they get megabucks.
How many people scratch and claw their way to the top of major corporations? Only a few so they're fucking wealthier than I can even imagine.
How many people have sold their souls and formed the right networks to get them into the White House? Only a few guys so they get to write their tickets for life.
The people themselves are of no more intrinsic value than one another, but the skills and abilities they bring to the table are of a vastly different value. This isn't about the value of man, but the value of skills.
And for the record, minimum wage isn't supposed to be liveable. You can raise the dollar amount to anything you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference ten years later. If you raise the grocery bagger to $30/hour ($60K/year) every job up the ladder will rise in the same curve and in ten years the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor and only the numbers will have changed.
I get what you're saying, and I agree,
to an extent. I do not believe any CEO is worth 4-500 times what the average worker is worth. We have this mentality in this country that is... evil, for lack of a better word.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ELIMINATE POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY. So why shouldn't we try? Not everyone wants to be filthy rich. Everyone DOES want to be able to live, to have a life, and to be treated with respect. Why can't we create that? It's in our power. NO ONE should have to work 3 jobs just to survive. Not in this country.
Everyone DOES want to be able to live, to have a life, and to be treated with respect. Why can't we create that? It's in our power. NO ONE should have to work 3 jobs just to survive. Not in this country.
You are right, but you will never be rich if you don't.
I don't care about being rich. Many people don't care about being rich. They do care about having a good quality of life, where they can afford to live and pay their bills and make their obligations, and save a little for later in life, and still have some money left over to have some fun, and people should be able to that without having to work 2 jobs to make ends meet. People should not have to live paycheck to paycheck, no matter what job they do. Not in this country, supposedly the best country in the world. You can't argue that we have the greatest country when so many people, people who work hard, are struggling just to survive.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ELIMINATE POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY.
No we don't. We have the ability to raise incomes across the board, thus bringing everyone above the current poverty line. Yippee! oh wait, what was the definition of inflation again? If minimum wage is $50K/year, within a short period of time it will cost $60K to be above the poverty line. That is how it works, like it or not.
You are right, but you will never be rich if you don't.
Meh. Shrouds don't have pockets.
No we don't. We have the ability to raise incomes across the board, thus bringing everyone above the current poverty line. Yippee! oh wait, what was the definition of inflation again? If minimum wage is $50K/year, within a short period of time it will cost $60K to be above the poverty line. That is how it works, like it or not.
It also depends on what you call "poverty". 3 square meals and a roof over your head is unheard-of luxury, historically speaking.
I don't care about being rich. Many people don't care about being rich. They do care about having a good quality of life, where they can afford to live and pay their bills and make their obligations, and save a little for later in life, and still have some money left over to have some fun, and people should be able to that without having to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.
There is a cost for "not being rich" If you want all that goes with it, you have to make the sacrifices to reap the rewards.
People should not have to live paycheck to paycheck, no matter what job they do.
You can't argue that we have the greatest country when so many people, people who work hard, are struggling just to survive.
There is no utopia - it doesn't exist. I agree though this doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards this goal, but if you want, you have to earn. Your "I'm entitled to all these wonderful things just because I exist" is a mentality that I disagree with.
I don't care about being rich.
I forgot my /sarcasm tags.:o
No we don't. We have the ability to raise incomes across the board, thus bringing everyone above the current poverty line. Yippee! oh wait, what was the definition of inflation again? If minimum wage is $50K/year, within a short period of time it will cost $60K to be above the poverty line. That is how it works, like it or not.
:rolleyes:
It does not have to work like that.There is a cost for "not being rich" If you want all that goes with it, you have to make the sacrifices to reap the rewards.
There is no utopia - it doesn't exist. I agree though this doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards this goal, but if you want, you have to earn. Your "I'm entitled to all these wonderful things just because I exist" is a mentality that I disagree with.
What is the cost for not being rich? Not being able to own a big yatch or an expensive sports car, or not being able to go skiing in Switzerland every year? I'm not even talking about that stuff. I'm talking about people who work their ASS off, and still have trouble affording food and health care and the necessities of life.
People should be able to have a decent job, and if they work hard, they should be paid well enough to afford nutritious food, and since we don't want government health care in this country, then they should be paid enough to afford a GOOD insurance policy that completely covers them and their family (if they have one), and they should be able to afford to buy new clothes/shoes once in a while, and their utilities and a phone, and some kind of transportation (even if it's a bicycle), and to go out to dinner once in a while, maybe once every couple of months, or to see a movie, and they should be paid enough to save a little.
Now I am not stupid. I know that, even if we paid everyone well enough to afford those things, some people still would not manage their money well. But what has gone on in this country for the past 30 years is not about that, it's about people being left completely behind. There IS plenty of money for everyone, if the people at the top would just be a little less greedy.
The truth is, the GAP between the top and bottom has grown horribly over the past 30 years. CEO pay has skyrocketed, while pay for the middle class has remained stagnant or grown very little. Why is it OK with you for the pay to jump so damn much at the top, and to remain the same for everyone else? Don't you see the unfairness of that? Not only that, don't you see the unsustainability of it? I honestly
do not get the reasoning of people like you, who cheer for the uber wealthy, while demonizing the majority of Americans. In this country, CEOs used to earn 30x more than the average worker, which is close to what it is in other countries right now, higher even, NOW, a CEO earns around 500x more. What makes you think that is OK? Why was it OK for Carly Fiorina to walk away from HP with millions of dollars after she ran the company into the ground? Why is it OK for CEOs to take giant sums of money in bonuses while they lay people off and cut their benefits? Good grief!
Warning: Thread Drift.
Where does this end? I guess since the Bush twins and Palin's daughter were attacked and followed in the press for their growing pains, so is Biden's daughter. We learned during the last election cycle that the press knows no bounds in the BS they can publish. Now rumors about Biden's daughter, who btw is 27 years old and a completely independent adult, was caught on tape doing cocaine. So do you get to be famous by proxy? It would seem so.
I heard about this too.
One link I found had this in it.
The video showed a woman resembling the Vice-President's daughter taking a red straw from her mouth, bending over a desk, inserting the straw into her nostril and snorting lines of white powder.
The woman then stands up and starts talking with other people in the room as a young man - identified as her boyfriend - watches from behind.
“At one point she pretty much complains that the line isn't big enough,” one told the newspaper. “And she talks about her dad.”
~~~~~~~~~
Radaronline.com, an online gossip site, said that one of its freelance reporters had also viewed the video.
It described a man cutting up five lines of what is said to be cocaine, as the woman claimed to be Ms Biden jokes that the lines are not big enough.
The man hands her a rolled-up dollar bill and she pulls back her hair and snorts a line. After she snorts the first line, she lifts her head to wipe her nose and then snorts a second and third line.
Bold mine - Note that in the first description it's a red straw and in the second its a rolled bill.
I don't really care what she does, just like I didn't care about what Palin's kids did. All media hype.
Asan aside, I'll bet that video gets a good buck though.
Yea, but you know in the pre-election phase the press and liberal media outlets liked to hold Palin's daughters private life as if Palin failed as a mother or could not control her daughter which contrasted with Palin's christian conservative views she preached about on the road to the election. Who control's a 17 year old and what they do? Biden's daughter is 27. This has nothing to do with Biden the VP.
Wasn't coke. Was Botox.
They start early in that family.
EXCLUSIVE: Biden Cocaine Scandal Video
Lawyer Quits
The explosive video that purports to show Vice President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley snorting cocaine was shot with a hidden camera, RadarOnline.com has learned.
And as the scandal grows, the lawyer trying to peddle the tape while representing the man who shot it has quit.
Tom Dunlap, an attorney for the Washington, D.C. firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver has dropped the seller of the tape as a client.
Dunlap told RadarOnline.com early Sunday that he is no longer involved in the attempted sale of the video and informed his client he would not continue to represent him. The lawyer said he did not want to be involved due to circumstances surrounding the publicity of the matter.
On Saturday, RadarOnline.com broke the story that a video showing a woman who is allegedly Ashley Biden snorting cocaine has been shopped to several media entities. The woman on the tape appears identical to 27-year-old Ashley.
The New York Post, a British newspaper and the National Enquirer were shown the tape and asked to bid on it. RadarOnline.com has seen the video, but did not offer to pay for it.
The woman in the tape looks identical to Ashley and is clearly seen snorting several lines of white powder.
Despite contrary reports, RadarOnline.com has learned that the tape was shot with a hidden camera by the seller and made without the knowledge of the woman who is said to be the vice president’s daughter.
Our viewing of portions of the tape is consistent with that. The low, tilted angle of the camera and the actions of the woman both indicate the camera was not in plain view.
The tape was shot last month at a party in a house in Wilmington, Delaware.
We have also learned that the seller of the tape did not receive any written bids for it.
Ashley is the youngest of three siblings. She is also the only child of Joe and his second wife Jill.
Attempts to reach Ashley for comment have been unsuccessful.
The vice president has been a leader in the war on drugs, created the Drug Czar post and sponsored much anti-drug legislation.
:rolleyes: It does not have to work like that.
Yes it does. It is simple mathematics applied to the law of supply and demand. If you think there is another way please describe it.
Just have everyone put all their earnings in a big pot [COLOR="SlateGray"](Gov't)[/COLOR] and [COLOR="SlateGray"](let them)[/COLOR] divide it up equally between everybody. Won't that work?
Just have everyone put all their earnings in a big pot [COLOR="SlateGray"](Gov't)[/COLOR] and [COLOR="SlateGray"](let them)[/COLOR] divide it up equally between everybody. Won't that work?
Or just stuff everything in a great big strawman! Won't that be FUN?
:blah:
Yes it does. It is simple mathematics applied to the law of supply and demand. If you think there is another way please describe it.
No, it doesn't. People at the top don't have to be so greedy. If a company is profitable, everyone should share in the success, not just the executives and the shareholders. The pay at the top does not have to be 500x that of the average employee. Why not something reasonable? There is no other country on earth where the pay scale is so imbalanced. It works in other countries, and it worked in this country for years, so please don't be so insulting as to say it can't work, because it has worked, and it does work.
The people at the top are not the subjects we were speaking about. We were talking about all the people at the bottom having a higher level of income/standard of living. We were talking about the elimination of poverty. Quite simply that cannot happen. If the lowest income earner in America received $50K/year then the poverty line would be moved to $60K because of inflationary pressure. If there is that much cash injected into the economy then the cost of items increases - that is an economic fact that has absolutely nothing to do with john q billionaire's most recent gold plated yacht.
if the grocery bagger earns $50K/year the plumber will earn $100K. If the plumber earns $100K the surgeons will earn $500K. There is no other way for things to play out.
We live in a society where the poor still have food, shelter, tv, and transportation. They have a minimum expectation for healthcare. Never before in history have the poor lived so well. While we should always strive to improve life for all, don't be so foolish as to believe the current high income earners will stand still while those at the bottom move up.
I am talking about the disparity of income in this country. If we didn't have such a huge gap, everyone could live more comfortably. The gap was not always this huge. Couples in the middle class used to be able to afford living on one income even while buying a house. The middle class is what made this country strong. The middle class is disappearing because the people at the top keep demanding ever higher incomes. We need things to swing in the other direction for a while to bring us back into balance. And NO, I do not mean that everyone should have the same things and earn the same amount. We DO have the ability to end poverty in this country. Maybe we need to snatch some of the power away from the people at the top in order to acheive this. Greed has brought us to the brink of destruction. It's time to do something about that.
And don't think those at the bottom will continue to just take it from the rich. One day people will rise up and we will have a bloody revolution on our hands if these things are not addressed.
Couples in the middle class used to be able to afford living on one income even while buying a house.
How much did that house cost? Did they have two new(er)cars? Did they multiple cell phones? Big screen TV's? The gap between the richest and poorest has increased obscenely but what you seem to ignore is that neither is standing still. The middle class and in fact the lower class are have and do much more than they did 30/50/70 years ago. Once playthings for the rich, luxuries like these are available to most of the people you see in day to day life.
I know many middle class couples today who live on one income. That is a choice they made based on their priorities. They live within their means knowing they earn less than dual income middle class couples.
I am talking about the disparity of income in this country.
There will always be a gap and there should be a gap, otherwise we call it socialism. We do not live in a socialistic society.
We do not live in a socialistic society.
Prove it. ;)
IMO it all boils down to the fact that I don't really care what the rich have. If they gained it by playing inside the lines then good for them. There will always be a poverty line and there will always be some beneath it. I don't care at all about the amount it is set at because that will change. I support trying to make life tolerable with safety net programs designed to help them back on their feet and moving upward. Very few people genuinely don't have the ability to better their position in life if they see it as a priority and are willing to work at it.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1890/hammer.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bogdanov/1919/socialism.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=lSmU3aXWIAYC&pg=PA1461&lpg=PA1461&dq=elements+of+a+socialist+society&source=bl&ots=3SgmlbV0vp&sig=4QghC8dOqgSFJOFDPI6768DvQBk&hl=en&ei=-0bSSchcxYm2B4KduOYG&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
Q. What do people mean when they say they are "socialists"?
A. As for "socialist", there are again two types - genuine ones fighting for the abolishment of wage labor and the rule of capital, and reformists. Many reformists call themselves "socialist" but have generally imperialist policies. For example, the French government is currently "socialist" - yet they are pursuing criminal imperialist aims such as the bombing of Yugoslavia! In Marxist terms, socialism is generally regarded as the period of transition between capitalism and communism - the transition to a system in which we can truly have "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". So genuine Marxists can be interchangeably called socialists so long as they have as their goal the abolishment of capitalism and the establishment of genuine worker controlled, democratic socialism. Just remember, those who call themselves "socialists" need to be taken with a grain of salt - look at the contents of the jar before you eat it - don't rely only on the label! :)
http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/117/60/ There will always be a gap and there should be a gap, otherwise we call it socialism. We do not live in a socialistic society.
We live in a society that is influenced by socialism. It isn't black and white.
We live in a society that is influenced by socialism. It isn't black and white.
But thank God the influence of Capitolism far outweighs it. And we need to be sure we are talking about the same "socialism" as I have defined above.
How much did that house cost? Did they have two new(er)cars? Did they multiple cell phones? Big screen TV's? The gap between the richest and poorest has increased obscenely but what you seem to ignore is that neither is standing still. The middle class and in fact the lower class are have and do much more than they did 30/50/70 years ago.
This is going off on a tangent, but most of that material wealth is just disposable crap.
Houses today are built with drywall and plastic siding, not plaster and wooden clapboards. Plastic windows instead of wood. Furniture is mostly particleboard crap. Electronics are meant to be thrown away after 5 years. My last TV lasted 20 years. Think my new one will? We were recently looking for a dresser for my daughter. To find a decent one built of hardwood, it was $2000 to buy new one from a furniture store. Fortunately, we found an antique for less. The $400 dressers from IKEA will be in the trash in 10 years. Look at lot sizes for houses. They are tiny.
I understand what you are saying, but we live in a disposable society today, and if you want to buy quality items that last, you have to pay a fortune. Most people buy disposable crap and throw it away after a few years. Cars are about the only material thing we have that are better than what our parents had.
There will always be a gap and there should be a gap, otherwise we call it socialism. We do not live in a socialistic society.
Merc, you repeatedly miss her point. The AMOUNT of the gap is her issue.
I understand the tangent Glatt and I'll readily agree that the quality of everyday mass consumption items has gone down. Of course to say that we have to compare them to items that weren't everyday mass consumption items when they were made.
My point is that the lower income brackets have filled their lives with stuff that would have been viewed as pure luxuries to the lower brackets thirty and forty years ago. Hell, I remember when my uncle got one of those big rear projection tv's in the late 70's - early '80's. EVERYONE knew about it. It was an event when someone in our low blue collar town made a luxury purchase like that. A new (used) car was worth whistling at for a week or two. I didn't know anyone who purchased a new-new car until I was in high school and that guy owned the biggest construction company in the area.
The quality of items may be lower, but that goes with mass production. If we remove the nostalgia from the equation it is fairly clear that the lower income brackets have access to much more than they did before. I'm not saying they shouldn't grow anymore, I'm just saying that while the rich have grown richer, so have the poor. We live in a society where it is a tragedy if someone can't have a cellphone from the company of their choosing.
Merc, you repeatedly miss her point. The AMOUNT of the gap is her issue.
I have known her for years. She her focus is always on the top 1%. But when you look at the overall discussion it is not so much about the top 1% as it is about the bottom 60% or so and how she believes that those who make more should make less so the wealth can be transfered to the lower socio-economic class.
So what you are saying is that the disparity between the top and the bottom should be less.
Actually, I am really not concerned that much about the disparity. I believe that there will always be uber rich and uber poor. I believe it is a natural distribution of society.
See, now was that so hard?
And from our friend Barney the Purple Congressman:
But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html
nice.
There will always be a gap and there should be a gap, otherwise we call it socialism. We do not live in a socialistic society.
Of course we do. We have for decades.
How much did that house cost? Did they have two new(er)cars? Did they multiple cell phones? Big screen TV's? The gap between the richest and poorest has increased obscenely but what you seem to ignore is that neither is standing still. The middle class and in fact the lower class are have and do much more than they did 30/50/70 years ago. Once playthings for the rich, luxuries like these are available to most of the people you see in day to day life.
I know many middle class couples today who live on one income. That is a choice they made based on their priorities. They live within their means knowing they earn less than dual income middle class couples.
You know they didn't because that stuff wasn't invented yet. And you are right. They are not standing still. They are moving in opposite directions.
The people you are talking about must be upper middle class.
You know they didn't because that stuff wasn't invented yet. And you are right. They are not standing still. They are moving in opposite directions.
The people you are talking about must be upper middle class.
Lookout has apparently never hung out with the dirty boys on Grant Road, here in Tucson.
Big screen TVs, my ass.
Prove it. ;)
IMO it all boils down to the fact that I don't really care what the rich have. If they gained it by playing inside the lines then good for them. There will always be a poverty line and there will always be some beneath it. I don't care at all about the amount it is set at because that will change. I support trying to make life tolerable with safety net programs designed to help them back on their feet and moving upward. Very few people genuinely don't have the ability to better their position in life if they see it as a priority and are willing to work at it.
You and I have different lines. I do not think it is
playing inside the lines if they are getting bonuses while they lay off workers and cut their benefits. I do not think it is
playing inside the lines when they get obscene salaries while the company they are running loses money, or when they rake in obscene profits, but they don't supply health care for their emplyees, so they are subsidized by the government. I do not believe it is
playing inside the lines when the corporation is subsidized by the government but they keep all the profits. I do not believe the system is fair the way it is now.
But thank God the influence of Capitolism far outweighs it. And we need to be sure we are talking about the same "socialism" as I have defined above.
yea, because that capitalist system is so great it has brought western civilization to the brink of destruction.
Merc, you repeatedly miss her point. The AMOUNT of the gap is her issue.
Wow. Thank you classic. You actually got it. :)
Obama declares US not at war with Islam
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Barack Obama, making his first visit to a Muslim nation as president, declared Monday the United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam."
Calling for a greater partnership with the Islamic world in an address to the Turkish parliament, Obama called the country an important U.S. ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism. He devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, portraying terrorist groups such as al Qaida as extremists who did not represent the vast majority of Muslims.
"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical ... in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."
The U.S. president is trying to mend fences with a Muslim world that felt it had been blamed by America for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyia, two of the biggest Arabic satellite channels, carried Obama's speech live.
Obama said the partnership between the U.S. and the Muslim world is critical in rolling back what he called a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.
"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida," he said. "We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."
"We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country," Obama said.
Could someone please explain some of them to me. Specifically those in the US. I am curious.
They saved Classical knowledge from the Christians (and added a significant amount of their own), enabling the Rennaissance.
That was quite a while ago, though, and they now seem to be where the Christians of that period were. Hopefully it takes them less time to get through it.
Specifically those in the US. I am curious.
They saved Classical knowledge from the Christians (and added a significant amount of their own), enabling the Rennaissance.
That was quite a while ago, though, and they now seem to be where the Christians of that period were. Hopefully it takes them less time to get through it.
I agree - I find his comments quite intriguing and with respect to the U.S., I am curious to know what Obama meant by that.
He might have just been speaking in general terms, alluding to the fact that we're a nation of immigrants all bringing different contributions to our local, state, and nationwide society. The "Great Melting Pot" idea and all that. An appeal to commonality, and an attempt to make the US appear more benevolent, in an effort to reverse the hawkish nature that some in the foreign Islamic communities see the US as is my knee-jerk reaction to what he said there. I doubt he'll make much progress with Turkey since he has recently (2008 I think) called for those yahoos to accept the Armenian Genocide.
I applaud Obama for making that speech. What I don't get is, so many people in the US think that people in that part of the world are different from us, and in one sense they are, but others, not so much. I'm sure most of the people over there want peace, and respect, and they want to live their lives without oppression. That does not necessarily mean they want a system like ours. I don't think they want to be occupied by US forces, just like we would not want to be occupied by foreign forces. I do not think they want to be told what they can or can't have or what they can and can't do, by us or by the Taliban. They are not children, and we should not treat them as such. I think we'll find, if we act in concert with them, that we will get a much better response than we have gotten in the past. This antiAmerican sentiment has been building for a long time. In order to repair that, we can't act like their parent. We have to like their partner.
So what happens when they act like our partner and in fact they are actually using the relationship to screw us at every corner and take advantage of our friendships to exploit the relationship for their gain at our loss or worse to facilitate our demise?
We realize they are no different then any other country?
If that is the case do you continue to treat them as "partners".
Of course, you just try to put yourself in the position to exploit them in return.
no merc, you are mistaken and your fear is irrational. The whole world just wants to hold hands with us and sing Kumbayah.
So what happens when they act like our partner and in fact they are actually using the relationship to screw us at every corner and take advantage of our friendships to exploit the relationship for their gain at our loss or worse to facilitate our demise?
It is my contention that we are the ones who created the mess in the first place, by our past actions. We continually get involved in the politics of these kinds of countries, and it always comes back and bites us in the ass. Usually though, we do it for selfish reasons. Maybe if we try doing something for unselfish reasons we might find more success. However, there will still be some (al qaeda, taliban, etc.) who want to destroy us. We will never minimize those people if we continue doing what we've always done, because we know it doesn't work. It's time to throw that playbook away and try something different. Maybe we should just LEAVE that part of the world altogether and let them work out their problems on their own.
we haven't tried turning that region into a glass parking lot yet. should we try that?
we haven't tried turning that region into a glass parking lot yet. should we try that?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to park on glass?
I think you mixed your metaphors there.
It is my contention that we are the ones who created the mess in the first place, by our past actions. We continually get involved in the politics of these kinds of countries, and it always comes back and bites us in the ass. Usually though, we do it for selfish reasons. Maybe if we try doing something for unselfish reasons we might find more success. However, there will still be some (al qaeda, taliban, etc.) who want to destroy us. We will never minimize those people if we continue doing what we've always done, because we know it doesn't work. It's time to throw that playbook away and try something different. Maybe we should just LEAVE that part of the world altogether and let them work out their problems on their own.
Well just nail us to a cross.
Not.
Fuck that.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to park on glass?
I think you mixed your metaphors there.
I think it would be pretty. miles and miles of glass.
An Airport to Nowhere. You'all remember that bridge in AK?
Murtha's Earmarks Keep Airport Aloft
State-of-the-Art Pennsylvania Facility Sees Few Travelers but Lots of Funding
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 19, 2009
JOHNSTOWN, Pa. -- The John Murtha airport sits on a windy mountain two hours east of Pittsburgh, a 650-acre expanse of smooth tarmac, spacious buildings, a helicopter hangar and a National Guard training center.
Inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six pieces of luggage. For three hours that day, no commercial or private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays, all bound for Dulles International Airport.
The key to the airport's gleaming facilities -- and, indeed, its continued existence -- is $200 million in federal funds in the past decade and the powerful patron who steered most of that money here. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway.
The facility, newly renamed the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, is a testament to Murtha's ability to tap streams of federal money for pricey, state-of-the-art projects that are rare among regional airports of comparable size.
Murtha, dubbed the King of Pork by critics, consistently directs more federal money to his district than any other congressman -- $192 million in the 2008 budget. His pattern of steering millions in earmarks to defense contractors who give to his campaign and hire his allies as lobbyists is being scrutinized by the FBI as part of an investigation of a lobbying firm led by one of Murtha's closest friends.
The lawmaker, who uses the airport frequently during his campaigns, has steadily steered millions of taxpayer dollars to it to build a new terminal with a restaurant; a long, concrete runway sturdy enough to handle large jets; and a high-tech radar system usually reserved for international airports.
The airport's passenger count has fallen by more than half in the past 10 years. When Johnstown native Bill Previte arrived on a recent morning, he lamented that his plane was half-empty and that the terminal was deserted.
"Doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous to have a motorized carousel for the baggage claim when 15 people get off the airplane?" he said. "It's obvious: There's not enough population to justify this place."
Murtha, who heads the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has fought for airport funding as a way to bring jobs to his congressional district, devastated by losses in the steel and coal industries.
Murtha spokesman Matt Mazonkey defended the public spending and said it is unfair to weigh the airport's low volume of passengers against the federal dollars invested in the facility. He noted that several regional airports are confronting the same problem.
"Would we like to have additional commercial flights and business? Absolutely. But you don't attract additional business without having the infrastructure in place to do so," Mazonkey said.
Airport officials said the facility has been a selling point for businesses that are considering locating in Johnstown and praised Murtha's dedication to ensuring air service for the community.
"Mr. Murtha's been a godsend to this airport, no question about it," said airport manager Scott Voelker, who took the job nine months ago. "The economy's been really bad here since the steel mills pulled out. He has a vision for developing this airport and using it to bring businesses into this community."
But a watchdog group on federal waste called the airport a "white elephant."
continues:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/18/AR2009041802128_pf.htmlI am shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
He should be voted out of office.
Hopefully this silliness will start ending and the money will only be spent where it actually should be used. That isn't to say that money should never be used in sparsely populated areas. But, it should be used wisely, and that doesn't sound wise, what Murtha was doing.
But the "watchdogs" will be lining up to use it when dirty bombs hit the cities with major airports. Once again PA in preparing while the rest of the country lags behind. :p
$800,000 to repave a backup runway.
Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays
Isn't the Pittsburgh airport just a hundred miles or so away?
Who is the backup runway for anyway?
a watchdog group on federal waste called the airport a "white elephant."
So what, we in the cellar have a
pink one!
He should be voted out of office.
Hopefully this silliness will start ending and the money will only be spent where it actually should be used. That isn't to say that money should never be used in sparsely populated areas. But, it should be used wisely, and that doesn't sound wise, what Murtha was doing.
I am not sure that they treated the Gov of AK with such kit gloves.
I am not sure that they treated the Gov of AK with such kit gloves.
What, she was impeached, or something? News to me.
Morris nails another one on Obama.
Obama’s leap to socialism
By Dick Morris
President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country’s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.
This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.
The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.
When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.
But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.
And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.
Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.
With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common — except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.
Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial “stress test.” Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But don’t believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.
The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html On this note Obama should be applauded.
Obama is doing what he said he would do to put science back in business. In response to a Federal court decision, his administration is allowing 17-year-olds to obtain the morning after pill without a prescription or parental consent.
George Bush had refused to approve the use of morning after pills for young women, so this new decision has consequences politically for the Obama administration and at the same time fulfilling a promise to overturn the previous administration’s policies on matters of birth control. While some people will react this encourages promiscuity, others believe that this will in effect reduce the risk of teenage pregnancies. That’s particularly true if the teenager has been a victim of date rape, incest or one of these issues of consequence to young women. Still it is controversial.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271391 I would think moving from preferred stock to common stock would raise more eyebrows because it means taxpayers are less protected, which is bad.
As far as nationalizing the banks, they might should have done that from the beginning, at least until everything is under control. If they have common stock, they have a big say in what is going on, and since the banks aren't doing what they were supposed to be doing with all the stimulus money they received, then I say good for Obama for making a tough choice. Someone needs to be protecting our interests, and if that is the only way to do it then bankers only have themselves to blame, right? After all, all those highfalutin wall streeters brought this hell down on the rest of us.
George Bush had refused to approve the use of morning after pills for young women
Because righty knee-jerkers confused it with RU-486, the "abortion pill"...
...thus
more actual abortions happened amongst young women who could not get the Plan B pill.
In the culture war, I guess we call that friendly fire. Shooting off your fetus to save your face, or something...
Not sure if this is the kind of publicity that they should be proud of at the moment.
First Lady Michelle Obama steps out in Lanvin sneakers and they're only $540!
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_feat_for_fashionistas_lanvin.htmlWhy not, they're millionaires spending their own money.
I guess I just thought they should be a little more sensitive to the millionis being laid off from work this week. But hey, that's just me. :footpyth:
I guess I just thought they should be a little more sensitive to the millionis being laid off from work this week. But hey, that's just me. :footpyth:
Because rich people NOT spending money is going to fix the economy.
No, really.
Why do you hate the rich just for having more than you do?
Oh, you're so sensitive. :rolleyes:
She was volunteering at the food bank and spending money to get the economy rolling. :p
I found some shoes for her! She can order them and shouldn't have to pay the VAT.
http://www.zazzle.co.uk/obama_world_sneakers_shoes-167455166347623860This is why Obama should simply forget that the right exists. They're going to hate him no matter what, so he should allow them precisely zero say in his policies.
Congressional Dems should, too, especially with Specter's defection. If I was in their shoes, I'd be booting republicans off of committees so fast they'd leave skidmarks in the cloakroom.
xoxoxoBruce
That's what UG wears.
Heh. I doubt it.
You're right, they'd probably clash with his My Little Warhorse outfit.
That's what UG wears.
Oh I do not! :D Really, I don't.
And c'mon, have you ever tried to make a barded warhorse giddyup by thumping at his flanks with sneakered feet? It's a real study in no go.
Not sure if this is the kind of publicity that they should be proud of at the moment.
First Lady Michelle Obama steps out in Lanvin sneakers and they're only $540!
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_feat_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html
Oh good grief! Most of the time she wears stuff like J. Crew, which is a store
I could actually afford to shop in. So you're going to condemn her for having a pair of shoes, which she bought
with her own money, that are expensive? Where oh where was the outrage when Sarah Palin was donning clothes costing
many thousands of dollars and paid for
with campaign funds, hmmmm?
Oh good grief! Most of the time she wears stuff like J. Crew, which is a store I could actually afford to shop in. So you're going to condemn her for having a pair of shoes, which she bought with her own money, that are expensive? Where oh where was the outrage when Sarah Palin was donning clothes costing many thousands of dollars and paid for with campaign funds, hmmmm?
When is the last time you could afford $550+ shoes and felt like you could flaunt it as thousands and thousands of Americans were laid off from their jobs? Get the point?
When is the last time you could afford $550+ shoes and felt like you could flaunt it as thousands and thousands of Americans were laid off from their jobs? Get the point?
No.
Unless your point is that you want the first lady to dress like a WalMart yahoo.
Is that your goal? Or are you just truly desperate for something to snivel about?
Personally, in low-quarter shoes I mostly top out at about $150. I once got some custom-built mocs for roughly $260.
$550+ shoes Get the point?
I get you're point, but I have to say I disagree.
They are millionaires and she is the FIRST LADY - She better be wearing the best there is.
I get you're point, but I have to say I disagree.
They are millionaires and she is the FIRST LADY - She better be wearing the best there is.
Not while people can't feed their families, she better be keeping quite about it and setting the example with some Keds.
Again, I still disagree. What I do find more than irritating is the press coverage over every article of clothing she has and wears.... Who gives a shit? Geez, get a life people!
I want to know if she is a thong gurl or a panties gurl. Now that would be news.
WASHINGTON—After nearly four months of frank, honest, and open dialogue about the failing economy, a weary U.S. populace announced this week that it is once again ready to be lied to about the current state of the financial system.
Tired of hearing the grim truth about their economic future, Americans demand that the bald-faced lies resume immediately, particularly whenever politicians feel the need to divulge another terrifying problem with Wall Street, the housing market, or any one of a hundred other ticking time bombs everyone was better off not knowing about.
"I thought I wanted a new era of transparency and accountability, but honestly, I just can't handle it," Ohio resident Nathan Pletcher said. "All I ever hear about now is how my retirement has been pushed back 15 years and how I won't be able to afford my daughter's tuition when she grows up."
The national call for decreased candor began last month, after the Department of Labor released another soul-crushing report that most Americans agreed "wasn't helping anything" and "didn't need to be so specific."
I guess they've had enough of the transparency. :rolleyes:
Again, I still disagree. What I do find more than irritating is the press coverage over every article of clothing she has and wears.... Who gives a shit? Geez, get a life people!
I wonder if all this crap surrounded Jackie? Seriously.
You're right, c-man...she is the first freaking lady for christ's sake. She is also a beautiful and intelligent woman. Leave her the hell alone.
I want to know if she is a thong gurl or a panties gurl. Now that would be news
Nice.
Hey, I was just piling on. :D
Hey, I was just piling on.
But you are all alone in that pile. :eyebrow:
I say put them all on a bus and send them to Washington D. C. and drop them off in front of the White House en mass.
Obama budget nixes aid for jailing illegal immigrants
By Ian Swanson and Walter Alarkon
Posted: 05/08/09 09:24 AM [ET]
President Obama voted in the Senate to provide additional funding for a program targeted for elimination by his budget that provides states a federal subsidy to offset the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.
Killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP) would save $400 million, according to Obama's budget for fiscal 2010 released Thursday. It's one of the largest non-defense discretionary cuts proposed in the president's budget.
The program is popular with border-state politicians on Capitol Hill, however, making its elimination a tough sell to lawmakers, particularly from California.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has repeatedly pushed for additional funding for the program, and lawmakers from other states that have costs associated with illegal aliens have also offered support.
A bipartisan trio of House members from California have drafted a letter urging the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to restore funding for the SCAAP program. The three members, Reps. Mike Honda (D), Adam Schiff (D) and Jerry Lewis, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, are also asking the rest of the California House delegation to sign the letter, Honda's office said.
As an Illinois senator, Obama co-sponsored an amendment offered by then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), now Obama's secretary of state, that would have provided additional funding for the program. It also would have established a grant program to defray local government healthcare and education costs for non-citizens.
"Each year, the SCAAP program is underfunded," Clinton said in 2006 comments urging support for her amendment. She cited a 2005 Government Accountability Office study that found local governments get only 25 percent of their costs reimbursed through the program.
"Throughout our country and in my state, there are counties and municipalities that are covering the costs of dealing with education, healthcare, and law enforcement without adequate or any federal reimbursement," Clinton said. "So we have left our local and state governments to fend for themselves. They should not be left to bear these costs alone because it is not they who are making federal immigration policy."
Another Obama Cabinet member, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado, was also a co-sponsor.
Obama voted for the amendment, but it was defeated 43-52.
Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that has called for tougher border security, predicted it is "very unlikely" that Obama's proposal to cut the program will be accepted by Congress. He noted that the Bush administration repeatedly tried to zero out the program, but always ran into opposition in Congress.
"It's hard to justify getting rid of it honestly," Krikorian said. "It's a necessary program because the federal government is reimbursing states and localities for the federal government's own mistakes."
Krikorian, like Clinton in 2006, argued immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and if state and local jails are incarcerating illegal immigrants, it is because of failed federal policies.
According to the fiscal 2010 budget, Obama's administration thinks resources used for the program could be better used to enhance federal efforts to curb illegal immigration.
"In place of SCAAP, the administration proposes a comprehensive border enforcement strategy that supports resources for a comprehensive approach to enforcement along the nation's borders that combines law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts to investigate arrest, detail, and prosecute illegal immigrants and other criminals," the budget states.
It emphasizes that the budget will provide funding for an additional 20,000
Border Patrol agents, and an additional $1.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs to support the quick identification and removal of illegal aliens who commit crimes in the U.S.
The Office of Management and Budget did not respond when contacted about this story.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-budget-nixes-aid-for-jailing-illegal-immigrants-2009-05-08.htmlBut you are all alone in that pile. :eyebrow:
Use to it. No surprise there. Nor do I care much anymore.
Well, that was a poor attempt at humor on my part - you really can't have a one-man pile now can you?
you really can't have a one-man pile now can you?
I wouldn't think so but I am sure someone here will debate that with you. :D
:(
CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.
"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."
Feherty, a former Ryder Cup player who grew up in Northern Ireland, has gone to Iraq over Thanksgiving the past two years to visit with U.S. troops, and he created a foundation to help wounded soldiers.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/10/golf-analyst-feherty-sorry-pelosi-joke-dallas-magazine/
Not funny: Barack Obama laughs at Wanda Sykes "joke" about wanting Rush Limbaugh dead
What was Wanda Sykes thinking? Perhaps more to the point, what was President Barack Obama thinking when he laughed and smiled as the comedienne wished Rush Limbaugh dead?
Although the Left is reporting her White House Correspondents' Dinner speech as "taking shots" at Limbaugh and mocking everyone, that's a gross misrepresentation of what turned into a hateful and disgusting diatribe.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/05/10/not_funny_barack_obama_laughs_at_wanda_sykes_joke_about_wanting_rush_limbaugh_deadSaying she wished him dead is a serious stretch, but hey if thats all they got to go with... I wish them luck.
Saying she wished him dead is a serious stretch,
Death of Limbaugh could only be good for Republicans. The party could then stop infighting - have leadership - stop self-destructing as extremists such as Limbaugh drive smarter (moderate) Republicans from the party.
Some need Limbaugh to lead a charge forward into political destruction. This Republican Party self-destruction means more harm to America.
So it's OK for people on the right to wish Ted Kennedy dead, but it isn't OK for a comedian to wish Rush Limbaugh dead? Ok, got it.
Cite some examples of that sugar.
It's OK...the universe balances out: Cheney singing Limbaugh's praises to Bob Schieffer (who couldn't contain a grin) as the evil forces continue to blow each other.
Wanda Sykes is a comedienne: she also ripped on Michelle "look at you pattin' the queen on the back like you just slid into home."
I don't think poor Mr Limbaugh really gives a shit, and if he does he can just pop another oxy.
And a dead Limbaugh isn't such a bothersome thought. So sue me.
And a dead Limbaugh isn't such a bothersome thought. So sue me.
Yes, but they
smell. :turd:
Yes, but they smell. :turd:
LIM-baugh, LIM-burger...coincidence? I think not.
:lol:
If these guys were white the press would have hung them.
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1GM just gave some 20k workers a notice their plants will be closed for an undetermined time. Meanwhile, Obama went on an expensive date...
$24,000 tax payer dollars?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189893/How-Obamas-romantic-120-trip-Broadway-racked-45-000-bill.htmlGet off it Merc - Bush was gone physically more than anyone and mentally absent for the last few years, it seems. Obama can go on a 1.3 million dollar date with his wife if he wants. He made her a promise and he kept it. Thats a frickin drop in the bucket, relatively speaking.
It's about image when people are out of work, losing jobs, losing homes, with no sight of relief on the horizon. When Bush was president people weren't losing jobs and the economy was not tanking. And that is not a statement in support of Bush. It is all about how it looks in the eye of the public. He should just lay low on that stuff.
I see no problem with the date, but... three planes?
One of the planes was to cary "aides" and another for "reporters". The latter was totally redundant - I've never been to New York, but I guess they have reporters there already.
If the "aides" were really that crucial (I'm thinking of body guards, communication officers, the guy carrying the "football" - the briefcase that has the Big Red Button in it) then they should have been on the same plane as the prez.
It costs at least $24000 for him to anything. As a DC resident, I appreciate any time the President takes a helicopter instead of a limo. There are enough VIPs blockading traffic in the city as it is.
And don't forget about the carbon footprint the trip left. Why they probably detoured to Greenland and clubbed some baby seals, too. :rolleyes:
CBS news just reported (a few mins ago) that their estimate for the date, excluding security, was around $81,000.00.
I reckon they were celebrating the appointment of a 31 year old person to "fix" the General Motors company.
Remember, joyriding Air Force One around for a few hours over Manhattan a couple months ago cost $250,000, so the cost of the weekend trip was likely not likely that low.
With the White House simply refusing to say how much taxpayer money it spent,
How about that for selective transparency...
Here's a helpful way to calculate the cost of the trip:
First, the First Couple (and entourage) flew from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base — three choppers (two decoys). That means dozens of men and women — radar, communications, mechanics, crews, everyone, perhaps 100, were involved. (A batch of tagalongs must've taken a taxpayer pool of vehicles out from the White House to AAFB, since it took three jets to get the gang to NYC).
Second, the president moving on a Saturday takes a full operation at and around the White House, dozens and dozens of people. Maybe they're all on salary, so that didn't likely cost much. But all the cops involved — D.C. police, uniformed Secret Service officers, Capitol police — were probably paid overtime, even double time. Probably, again, 100 personnel or so.
Then there were the jets — at least $24,000 for the three aircraft used to ferry the Obamas, aides and reporters to New York. The Obamas' jet, a Gulfstream 500, served as Air Force One.
Third, a C-17 had to fly to NYC to put in place a full motorcade (at least a dozen vehicles, maybe more). The military cargo plane may have taken up at least two, but maybe three, more choppers to fly the whole party from JFK to a Wall Street landing zone, where the motorcade was waiting. If not, the choppers flew there solo (White House veteran reporter Mark Knoller of CBS Radio wrote recently that "The VH-3D that serves as Marine One consumes about 1,200 pounds of fuel per hour." Ouch.
Fourth, driving through Manhattan is an expensive exercise. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of NYPD have to be stationed all along the way, shutting down roads, holding back pedestrians. There were police cars involved, dozens of motorcycles, and the ever-present NYC ambulance (oh, don't forget that the White House doctor also probably went — with all his gear). The city likely gets reimbursed by the White House for the cost (they usually do). And they were all probably getting time and a half (the NYPD overtime budget is extraordinary).
Fifth, the United States Secret Service (USSS) had to scope out the whole thing, then station agents all over — sharpshooters, undercover agents, etc. — at a huge cost. Who knows if they were on overtime. And if you think they went up Saturday morning, think again. They were likely in NYC upwards of a week before, planning the whole evening, every second of every movement. They had to map out five movements — from JFK to the Wall Street LZ, then a motorcade to the restaurant, then another motorcade to the play, then a final motorcade back to the LZ, then a chopper flight to JFK, before the First Couple and crew jetted back to AAFB for another chopper to the White House.
A lot of things I hadn't thought about that would be included in the cost.
Right. It doesn't matter what he does, it's expensive. All of those costs are completely standard for Presidential trips. It's extremely petty to begrudge him a date, especially when Bush went to
Camp David 149 times and Crawford 77 times in eight years.
I agree HM - This is nothing new, IIRC other past presidents also did their fair share. To criticize Obama on taking this is nothing more than petty. For Obama not to disclose the cost is just stupid though. I still can't figure that one out.
I did find it interesting how all the costs add up and that was the real point of my last post.
Right. It doesn't matter what he does, it's expensive. All of those costs are completely standard for Presidential trips. It's extremely petty to begrudge him a date, especially when Bush went to Camp David 149 times and Crawford 77 times in eight years.
Exactly. I'm so goddam sick of that crap I can't stand it already.
It's like bums crawling around in alleys looking for a scrap of food or a cigarette butt, because there's just nothing better around (in this case NOTHING BETTER TO BITCH ABOUT.)
but but but - wasn't it cool to see how much it costs for them to go out on a friggin date? Holy crap. Thats nuts. Could you imagine all the planning and coordination just to go to a show with your SO. What a PITA on top of everything else.
He is certainly entitled and this is another example of extremists making the entire party look bad. That whole broad brush....
It's an example of a bunch of losers going "see? see? see?" They never point backwards.
No offense to you, classic. I'm glad it was brought up.
Really, it's ridiculous, but people run around like sheep going "BAH? Bah? Bah bah bah? Well, Bah!" Shocking. :cool:
I like the guy, but maybe he can just take the motorcade 5-6 blocks over to the Kennedy Center next time. They have world class shows there too, and a seat that's reserved for him.
but but but - wasn't it cool to see how much it costs for them to go out on a friggin date?
Just another example of what it costs when we decided to be the world's policeman. Costs must now increase because we have decided to impose democratic principles and Christian values on the world. Imposed as specifically stated in George Jr's "State of the Union" speech. Costs that increase when we invent myths (ie Saddam's WMDs) and then decide to impose our will (and myths) on others.
Nations that solve problems with military action rather than using negotiations must create and massively increase Fatherland Security. We could have been smarter. Instead we could have supported and concluded the Oslo Accords rather than subvert them. Or protected and used our massive popularity for rescuing Kuwait. Instead, we created even more enemies. Those costs are a microcosm of costs we incur when we unilaterally impose our extremist will rather than let the world chose to be more like us.
And then are the Rush Limbaugh, et al suggestions that all but encouraged the assassination of Obama. In reality, the greatest threats come from domestic wacko extremists encouraged to kill people in the name of their wacko politics or religion. These wackos even encourage to assassination of abortion doctors - and then openly praise it.
maybe he can just take the motorcade 5-6 blocks over to the Kennedy Center next time.
yeh, that'll only cost $500,000
JUST KIDDING!! !!! !!
It's an example of a bunch of losers going "see? see? see?" They never point backwards.
No offense to you, classic. I'm glad it was brought up.
Really, it's ridiculous, but people run around like sheep going "BAH? Bah? Bah bah bah? Well, Bah!" Shocking. :cool:
There is an awful lot of that going around right now. That rudderless ship needs a serious tune-up, its almost as bad as Gov't Motors.
Ohh......
:dedhorse: Blah :dedhorse: blah :dedhorse:blah :dedhorse:blah:dedhorse:
STFU - That has nothing to do with it.
So, what do you reckon happened after the date?
I tell you, if I take a girl out and spend upwards of twenty grand showing her a good time, helicopters, planes, limos etc, damn I expect some ACTION afterwards!
:doit: :doit: :doit: :doit: :doit: :doit:
You know it totally ruins the mood, when your mother-in-law lives in the same house with you.
So, do they go parking? Would that be on G street?
mile high club. Just send the secret service guys up into the front of the plane.
Paris date in a little nice bistro, no wine was served.
300 euros
about $425.309 USD for one meal. I can't ever think of a day I spent that much for a meal the size of French portions.
Ahh, but it waz zee cheeze, you must unnerstand, so fine, so deeliscious, ahh, it is even worth surrendering for, is it not so?
Ahh, you crude Americans, go eat your 'amburgers. Zere is a reason zey are so cheap.
Well you just eatcha sum of them thar snails y'all like so much. How cheap is snails, they's just crawlin' around on the ground...and in our kitchen.
Damm snails must be highly prized. Eh.
Meh. Fuck snails.
Give me a big plate of pasta!
Me too! I had a friend in college who went to Italy for the summer and came back skinny. She said all she ate was pasta but they walked up and down the hilly streets so much it was good for her.
Let's all eat a bunch of pasta and walk around Italy! :)
Damm snails must be highly prized. Eh.
Meh. Fuck snails.
Give me a big plate of pasta!
The pasta you may have, but you leave those poor snails alone. Sicko.
:sheep: (Couldn't find a snail-screwing smiley).
I don't believe he can do it. Not without much more spending. So far the job creation promises have been a complete failure.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Eager to show action on the ailing economy, President Barack Obama promised Monday to speed federal money into hundreds of public works projects this summer, vowing that 600,000 jobs will be created or saved.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98MK0JG1&show_article=1Created or saved.
Loophole alert. How are you going to count that?
Good question. I asked that question repeatedly during the promises made in the immediate post election period.
[COLOR="White"]Well, I asked myself that anyways.[/COLOR]
Obama repackages stimulus plans with old promises
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama assured the nation his recovery plan was on track Monday, scrambling to calm Americans unnerved by unemployment rates still persistently rising nearly four months after he signed the biggest economic stimulus in history.
Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.
He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.
Neither the acceleration nor the jobs goal are new. Both represent a White House repackaging of promises and projects to blunt criticism that the effects haven't been worth the historic price tag. And the job estimate is so murky, it can never be verified.
The economy has shed 1.6 million jobs since the stimulus measure was signed in February, far overshadowing White House announcements estimating the effort has saved 150,000 jobs. Public opinion of Obama's handling of the economy has declined along with the jobs data.
For the first time, the administration admitted the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were overly optimistic.
"At the time, our forecast seemed reasonable," Vice President Joe Biden's top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, said Monday, explaining that the White House underestimated the scope of the recession. "Now, looking back, it was clearly too optimistic."
By now, according to earlier White House economic models, the nation's unemployment rate should be on the decline. The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today's unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.
Some analysts believe the White House is still not being realistic, that Obama will be lucky if any real job creation from his recovery effort is seen by the end of the year, let alone the employment explosion he predicts.
"I think these estimates are overly optimistic," said Arpitha Bykere, a senior analyst with RGE Monitor.
Wow and some posters thought Reagan's deficits were a bad idea. Yikes!
Perhaps we should all invest in vaseline...
Wow and some posters thought Reagan's deficits were a bad idea. Yikes!
Perhaps we should all invest in vaseline...
I stocked up during the Bushie years...rented a warehouse...it's almost empty but I have a couple jars left.
Ahhh - you financial types always hoarding stuff for yourselves. :P
I should have sat on them (pun intended.) I could make a killing when the Vaseline industry fails.
Obama seeks fiscal responsibility mantle
President Barack Obama sought on Tuesday to show he was serious about improving the U.S. budget picture as he called on Congress to pass new limits on tax cuts and spending programs to avoid adding to deficits.
Obama urged passage of "pay-as-you-go" legislation that would require any new tax cut or automatic spending program to be paid for within the budget.
"The 'pay as you go' principle is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere," Obama said in a speech at the White House attended by several Democratic members of Congress.
"Entitlement increases and tax cuts need to be paid for. They are not free," said Obama, who has been criticized by Republicans for proposing a hefty domestic agenda that includes overhauling the health care system, bolstering education and tackling global climate change.
The White House has forecast a budget deficit for this year of $1.84 trillion, or 12.9 percent of gross domestic product.
Republicans have warned that programs such as the proposed health care plan would add to the budget deficit for years to come and have also criticized Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan, which was passed by Congress in February.
Wait Whaat?
Headline:
Obama FARTS. Ruins OZONE. Spends 40 dollars on AIR FRESHENER. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I never saw so much watchdogging, not during the years spent getting us into the whole mess.
In other unsurprising findings:
Rev. Wright still an unreconstructed A-hole.
A-holes should get their shit wiped slick.
A-holes should get their shit wiped slick.
I don't know what this means, exactly, but it sounds a little disgusting.
I don't know what this means, exactly, but it sounds a little disgusting.
And gave me a much needed giggle! I don't know what it means either, but I'm sure of two things:
1) It's disgusting AND
2) It's something about hating liberals
:lol:
maybe he needed a comma in there as in...
A-holes should get their shit wiped, slick.
Perhaps ( just arguing here) he was referring to someone as "slick" :headshake
Ya know like "Hey Slick, let go bake some cookies."
Hahahaha...I haven't used "slick" since I was maybe 16. Sometimes we'd change it up and say "Hey there, schlick."
:lol:
Sorry, these laughs are coming in very handy right now.
Keep in mind we are talking about UG here :)
:lol:
he's tryin' to be hip and groovy?
I don't think UG was bashing liberals, I think he was bashing a racist bigot a-hole.
I think most of us got that spud - we just like bustin his chops - ya know?
Yeah, spud, because it was such a sly and unexpected diversion from the immediate subject at hand, ya know? Very UG-like, in both smell, I mean style, and appearance. :)
Cite some examples of that sugar.
It was back when he had that brain tumor over a year ago. I refuse to go look for something that was that long ago. All I can say is, I was a member of another board at the time, full of rightwing jerks, and most of them wished him dead, as did a few pundits on the right as well (publicly).
You refuse to prove your outrageous OPINION because its too much trouble? That's BS. Perhaps some extremist zealots wished him dead just like many did for Bush, Cheney, Obama, Pelosi and so on.
Whew!
I was stating something that happened on another BB. Period. I don't feel like googling and looking for really old posts about it. I don't feel the need to prove anything there. Sorry. FTR, I don't see WHY it would be so hard to believe Rush or Michael Savage or Michelle Malkin or one of those people would say something like that. They are extremely hateful and spew crap like that all the time.
Laziness is no excuse. So do your beloved - get real. Its all about what you want to believe.
No, it's what I hear with my ears that makes me KNOW, not believe, what I heard.
If it is said, then it must be true... ok - gotcha.
Good grief. Do you not trust your ears when you hear, say, Nancy Pelosi say something really stupid?
No sugar, I don't believe everything I hear nor read nor see. I try to get facts to back it up before spreading misinformation and half-truths. Hey, but thats just me.
You still cannot justify your statement. Probably because outside of that idiot Limballs there weren't many.
OK, we are obviously not communicating. If you hear someone say something, then the fact that THEY SAID IT is what I'm talking about, not whether what they said was true or accurate or relevant or nice or mean. I said some neocons said they hoped Ted Kennedy would die back when he was first diagnosed with a brain tumor. It has nothing to do with whether what they said is relevant. It is what they said. Those were the words coming out of their mouths. Get it? That isn't my OPINION. It is what they actually said. Why would just lie and make that up?
Why would just lie and make that up?
That is something only you can answer. I can only guess as to your motivations.
All I asked you to do was prove that some elected official wished that another elected official with a brain tumor would die. As of yet you have been unable to do so.
I never said it was an elected official, did I? I don't think I did. I said pundits. As in people like Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin or Michael Savage or Bill O'Reilly, those kinds of people. I don't think an elected official on either side would ever be stupid enough to say they wished another politician dead. Except maybe Sarah Palin. She might.
I never said it was an elected official, did I? I don't think I did. I said pundits.
Either way, still waiting on those cites. Something like that would surely make the news.
As in people like Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin or Michael Savage or Bill O'Reilly, those kinds of people.
Oh I gotcha, you mean the people that you disagree with politically.
I don't think an elected official on either side would ever be stupid enough to say they wished another politician dead. Except maybe Sarah Palin. She might.
weak :eyebrow:
Here's one I found;
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person." -- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.[/SIZE][/FONT]
I found
this piece shocking.
It seems as though Dr. Dyson is merely struck with what 2008 Green Party Presidential Nominee Cynthia McKinney, my candidate, referred to as the Obama-election "buyer's remorse." In other words, voters who, having waited unsuccessfully and hopelessly for the fruition of democratic policies from the Obama administration, now feel they've been had, tricked, bamboozled, hoodwinked. In their words, Obama "played" them with his mean oratorical game. White liberals were first to express such disbelief at what they perceived to be "deceit" on Obama's part, but more and more Black people are beginning to feel just as violated.
When the news broke that Senator Kennedy had a malignant brain tumor, Jewish talk show host and America's favorite bigot, racist and dirtbag Michael Savage responded to the news in standard hate fueled savagery. He constantly played a clip of Arnold Schwarzenegger from "Kindergarten Kids" saying "It's not a tumor!", played songs by the Dead Kennedy's so he could keep saying "Dead Kennedy's", and other forms of popular Republican fun.
http://rackjite.com/archives/1537-Michael-Savage-Makes-Fun-of-Ted-Kennedys-Tumor.html
This past week has seen a perverse conspiracy of events that strains the capacity for people of good will to avoid giving up on civilization all together.
It began with the sad news that Sen. Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. As the shock and trauma of that news was settling in, James Rosen of Fox News declared on air that this could not be considered a tragedy because he had lived (past tense) a full life. Soon after, radio Neanderthal Michael Savage decided it would be appropriate to play snippets of the 1980’s punk band The Dead Kennedys, which Savage said was “in respect” for the Senator.
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=ted-kennedy
And this from a blogspot...
"Freepers bubbling with suppressed glee. (0.00 / 0)
Their posts are filled with snide comments about 'immediate retirement' from the Senate, combined with sanctimonious asides about God 'sending Ted a message'. Thank goodness their prayers are ineffectual; otherwise we'd probably all be dead. Assholes.
To post this comment click here:
A shock to my system from the freeper managment... (0.00 / 0)
I just wandered over there, and I was shocked to see that apparently their moderators have actually been at least somewhat actively purging threads that have gotten too hate-filled. Either that, or the crazies that post there are putting up a really good illusion of being in fear of having topics deleted...
But even that shows their true colors, I think...
On my own level, here's hoping for the best for Senator Kennedy."
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/5462/
That is all I'm going to post. I'm wasting time doing this.
There you go, classic. Now can you hush with the cite demands and address the sickness of it all?
Get your shit straight - What was said was:
"After reading from the lyrics of "California Über Alles," Savage said, "No gloating today, no laughter, all serious. You don't joke about a man's cancer. I do it, but I won't do it today; it's something I will not do."
He played a Dead Kennedys song too - For the Record, we are talking about Michael Savage a "self admitted Shock Jock"who is really just a Limballs wannabe - not someone of ANY significance to anyone.
FAIL
You still have not shown one who "said they hoped Ted Kennedy would die back when he was first diagnosed with a brain tumor."
Oh and Pam's house blend - HA HA HA HA HA - thanks I needed a good laugh - its been a shitty day.
Oh and S123 - you may go to your room now.
From your newscorpse link - this was a good one though -
Hillary Clinton weighed in on why she persists in pursuit of a nomination she can’t possibly win:
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
So while Sen. Kennedy is awaiting a treatment plan for an often fatal affliction, Sen. Clinton is using brother Bobby’s demise to remind voters that Sen. Obama might be felled before this is all over. If she has any conscience at all, she would be regretting tonight that she didn’t drop out of the race yesterday.
Oh and S123 - you may go to your room now.
grumblegrumble I didn't do nothin' grumble [COLOR="DimGray"]grumble [/COLOR][COLOR="Gray"]grumble[/COLOR] [COLOR="Silver"]grumble[/COLOR]
You can interpret what Michael Savage said and did any way you like, and I will interpret it the way I want, OK? And YES, Hillary Clinton was extremely insenstive as well, not about Ted, but the stuff she said about Bobby Kennedy, at a time when the family was going through something very difficult.
You are asking me to find crap that was over a year ago, and as I said, I was mostly talking about MY EXPERIENCE on another BB and what the people THERE said. The people on there were relentless. Merc may have been around back then, I'm not sure, but if he was, he can corroborate my facts.
Merc, we you on SMN back when Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with that brain tumor, and all the ashhole republicans (not the nice ones, just the dicks) said they hoped he would die?
I would post a link to them, but they don't go that far back. And ftr, I find it completely insulting that you wouldn't take my word about this. Every time you have asked me for a cite for something, I have given it. I don't think this is all that important, I was mostly talking about people like you and me, not people you would know of, and I don't want to waste any more time on it.
FTR - I get my last word as well...
You made a claim and then when pressed offered some bloggers on another board that you used to visit that has no archive or history from all of a year ago which therefore can't be verified. OK. That I'll believe, Thats my take on it.
Westicles Re: Ted's convulsion
Guest
[SIZE="1"]« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2008, 10:38:30 AM »[/SIZE]
Whatever the cause, I hope Teddy Kennedy dies soon. The sooner the better.
There ya go - one psycho "Guest" on a local blog.
There were more than one. And he wasn't a GUEST. He was a regular member. They all were.
There were more than one. And he wasn't a GUEST.
IT is listed under his name - WTFE.
ok - You were correct in that there are some psycho idiots on some blog in Georgia that you and Merc frequent. :notworthy
And that Michael Savage and that Fox News guy said something disrespectful as well.
And no one on the left ever said anything disrespectful of anyone on the right. Puhlease. Just stop.
Obama Closes Doors on Openness
As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."
The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation." Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other "lawyerly hedges" means the Holder memo is now "astonishingly weaker" than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)
Administration officials say the Holder memo was drafted by senior Justice lawyers in consultation with Craig's office. The separate standard for "pending" lawsuits was inserted because of the "burden" it would impose on officials to go "backward" and reprocess hundreds of old cases, says Melanie Ann Pustay, who now heads the FOIA office. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says Obama "has backed up his promise" with actions including the broadcast of White House meetings on the Web. (Others cite the release of the so-called torture memos.) As for the visitor logs, LaBolt says the policy is now "under review."
He missed the meetings that Obama had with the Insurance company heads also.
Ahhh Transparency
In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.
“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”
Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”
He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”
“Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of the — of what the demonstrators there are working towards?”
Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.
CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was "very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about."
According to POLITICO's Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by deputy press secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference.
Pathetic. I expected a lot more from him. Still he can actually craft a complete sentence and all which is a refreshing change, but still.
Obama has
answered more questions from the press so far in his first 4 months than Bush did in two entire terms. What's the problem with him calling on Huffington? That he's trying to get his desired message out first before moving on to other off-topic questions later?
Classic, you're a broken record: Obama! Transparency! TW! Obama! Transparency! TW!
Merc, we you on SMN back when Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with that brain tumor, and all the ashhole republicans (not the nice ones, just the dicks) said they hoped he would die?
The people who said that stuff were dicks. Savage is a dick. They do not represent what most people thought or stated in any way shape or form. You are painting the issue with a very broad brush.
Classic, you're a broken record: Obama! Transparency! TW! Obama! Transparency! TW!
They were just picking up on the shtick by Redux.
;)
Obama has answered more questions from the press so far in his first 4 months than Bush did in two entire terms.
Haggis! very cute.
What's the problem with him calling on Huffington? That he's trying to get his desired message out first before moving on to other off-topic questions later?
No problem - just don't act like its something it isn't. It was a setup intended to deceive people. Something I hoped and thought he was above.
If "he's trying to get his desired message out first" as you said - then he can, rather should, make a statement, or read it off the prompter. There was no reason to do what was done.
They were just picking up on the shtick by Redux.
;)
Ah...the Cellar and its folksy little closed community mannerisms.
The political forum? What a fucking joke.
The schtick?
Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Merc and Classic) hiding behind a shield of invisibility when they “contribute to a discussion” by, more often than not, posting purely partisan editorials that misrepresents the facts...and the not even having the balls to offer more than a one line snarky remark.
To challenge such pillars of the community by citing factual information? Beware and prepare for the inevitable “you're just an Obama mouthpiece” retort rather than addresses the facts.
Damn the facts, full speed ahead, Merc!!!!
I wish classic had nit-picked the Bush presidency as he does the Obama presidency. Then again, Bush presented so many larger issues to be concerned about, but Obama...well, Obama told a reporter to ask a question. EGAD. I demand impeachment NOW.
Classic/Tweedle:
Here's a fact for you.....Nico Pitney, the national editor of Huffington Post, has been blogging and tweeting with, and posting videos from, Iranian protesters, as much or more than any other reporter.
So, wtf is wrong with recognizing that fact by calling on him to ask a question about the current chaos in Iran.
In what appeared to be
It
appeared to be
Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be
It
seemed odd...
said over Twitter it was "very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second
Very unusual. Oh, and Twitter. :lol:
Ooooohhhhhh, I think we should all be frightened and hiding....oooohhhhhhhh.
I mean seriously...crack reporting in that article, eh?
Look who came out from under his rock. Here to defend his beloved. Isn't that special. WTFE to you and S123.
Look who came out from under his rock. Here to defend his beloved. Isn't that special. WTFE to you and S123.
Hey..i just popped in to respond to Merc's cheap shot at me.
I really dont expect either one of you to ever acknowledge or respond to the facts. You never did.....you just took your petty shots.
Old dogs, new tricks? Never gonna happen with the two of you.
Long live the Tweedledudes!
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
The rocks at the foundation of the cellar's political forum.
Hey..i just popped in to respond to Merc's cheap shot at me.
Bullshit - you've been lurkin and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't have known he baited you.
Bullshit - you've been lurkin and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't have known he baited you.
Yep...sure have...and its always good for a laugh. :D
I know I can count on the Tweedledudes to keep me up-to-date on the latest wing nut outrage.
OBAMA: Niko, I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?
QUESTION: Yes, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions on tonight from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online. And one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of -- of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?
Of course Obama knew he had a question - It was set up beforehand. Niko was escorted to a nice seat by the deputy press secretary Josh Earnest. I'm sure all the members of the press get escorted to their seats - puhlease.
Niko was escorted to a nice seat by the deputy press secretary Josh Earnest.
I believe he was standing at the back of the room.
So he was invited to ask a question from Iranian protesters because he has been in contact w/the protesters more than most reporters.
Outrageous!!!!!
Of course Obama knew he had a question - It was set up beforehand. Niko was escorted to a nice seat by the deputy press secretary Josh Earnest. I'm sure all the members of the press get escorted to their seats - puhlease.
WHO GIVES A FUCK?
This is why I quit posting in politics, though you've said "how come no one ever wants to argue politics anymore?" This is the most stupid inconsequential thing you could have possibly dredged up.
But don't get snippy when I do respond to it, to tell you it's stupid.
You don't have a response to any of it, just regurgitating a political blogger who is posing (YES POSING...how's that for honesty/transparency?) as a concerned person "in the know." Redux is right, it's a non-issue and you have no reason for posting it except to pretend like you can say "I told you so."
Boy you sure got awful upset about it if its so stupid and inconsequential ... why'd you bother? Why not wait till something more tangible?
Seems to me both you and rerun got all bent over it.
No problem - just don't act like its something it isn't. It was a setup intended to deceive people.
Where was the deceit?
Somehow, from
“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran, I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”
you managed to deduce that Obama knew Nico had been soliciting questions for Obama from Iranians! Impressive; you're a veritable Sherlock Holmes.
Why, Nico is the Joe the Plumber of the Obama administration.
Ahhh Transparency
Pathetic. I expected a lot more from him. Still he can actually craft a complete sentence and all which is a refreshing change, but still.
I don't see what's pathetic about that even if he did know what the question was going to be. Obviously you know that on one to one interviews people generally have a list of questions prior to the interview so they can be prepared. Working on the assumption that Obama knew he had a question and what the contents would be doesn't seem pathetic or even underhanded in my opinion.
This is a world issue at the moment. It would certainly pay to be informed.
I'm just not sure if this is even newsworthy to be honest. Who gives a rats backside if it was set up or not? Most of the press are little more than one eyed mules anyway.
Redux, I have always enjoyed your perspective on issues. I hope you continue to post here, regardless of the right wing nutjobs you have to contend with. ;)
Most of the press are little more than one eyed mules anyway.
You are so right on that, Ali.:cool:
Good job takin that out of context HM -
Although I may be the only one who thinks this was lame. I will stand firm in my belief whether its popular or not, especially here on the cellar.
S123 - please don't insult the man like that. thats rude.
But why is it lame? What has he done that makes it lame? He asked for a question from someone other than the mainstream? He may have known what the question would be? What's lame about that?
Ahhh Transparency
Pathetic. I expected a lot more from him. Still he can actually craft a complete sentence and all which is a refreshing change, but still.
I thought that was a pretty lame answer as well. Didn't answer the question in any way, shape or form. Niko should have insisted upon a follow up.
*EDIT*
After reading the rest of thread, I'm confused as to what you thought was lame, the fact that he asked Niko the question, or the answer he gave. Personally, I think the Huffington Post is just as relevant as any other news organization. I just thought his answer was a non-answer, because it didn't really address the question that was asked.
Good job takin that out of context HM -
Taking what out of context? He said he knew the guy had a question from an Iranian, and it turned out the guy had a question from an Iranian. I ask again, where's the deceit?
What context makes him not have said that he knew the guy had a question from an Iranian?
Good job takin that out of context HM -
LMAO.....now that's a classic pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw one.
Hell, not just one.
I could fnd 10-20 classic "cut and paste" of right wing editorials/blogs that take the facts out of context....and when pointed out, one is graced with the standard classic retort that refuses to acknowledge the playing loose with the facts by his "sources".
IT WAS AN OBVIOUS SETUP!
It wasn't obvious to me.
IT WAS AN OBVIOUS SETUP!
Yeah, they had a podium, chairs, microphone and everything!
IT WAS AN OBVIOUS SETUP!
By "OBVIOUS", do you mean that Obama actually said that he knew the guy had a question from an Iranian, and invited him to ask it?
You said there was deceit. What was implied, and what was the reality, and what was the difference?
No difference. I guess its just me. Everything is well in the world.
You are all right and I am all wrong.
Deputy press secretary Bill Burton admitted calling Pitney prior to the press conference. and Pitney admitted he was called prior to the press conference to ask his Iran question.
That, my friends is what I call a set up. These conferences are supposed to be open so that the reporters can ask questions about whatever they want. They are not supposed to be infomercials. I also know this is not the first time an administration has done this.
You all disagree and thats fine - we all are, or should be, entitled to our opinions.
Who was not permitted to ask a question?
glatt, are you serious? really?
ok - just for the fun and pointless banter - I'll answer...
I don't know and neither do you.
The point is that both the administration and the reporter, AFTER THE FACT, admitted it was predetermined. Or as some would call it - a set up.
Its not that big a deal as I said - Its happened in previous administrations and will happen in future ones as well. Just note & admit that it happened.
You said:
These conferences are supposed to be open so that the reporters can ask questions about whatever they want.
Which implies that there were some reporters who weren't able to ask questions about whatever they wanted.
Granted, not everybody can get into the White House press corps, but those that were in it were all able to ask the questions they wanted to. Nobody there was shut out.
Ah...the Cellar and its folksy little closed community mannerisms.
The political forum? What a fucking joke.
The schtick?
Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Merc and Classic) hiding behind a shield of invisibility when they “contribute to a discussion” by, more often than not, posting purely partisan editorials that misrepresents the facts...and the not even having the balls to offer more than a one line snarky remark.
To challenge such pillars of the community by citing factual information? Beware and prepare for the inevitable “you're just an Obama mouthpiece” retort rather than addresses the facts.
Damn the facts, full speed ahead, Merc!!!!
:lol2:
Nobody there was shut out.
Not true - He refused to take questions about Iraq or Afghanistan.
You said:
Which implies that there were some reporters who weren't able to ask questions about whatever they wanted.
Granted, not everybody can get into the White House press corps, but those that were in it were all able to ask the questions they wanted to. Nobody there was shut out.
It really is a pretty well known fact that these things, the WH Press Corps events are quite staged. They know who they are going to call on and in what order. It is a dance. Quite orderly. With specific steps. And depending who gets to come to the dance and who does not is well controlled.
Not true - He refused to take questions about Iraq or Afghanistan.
Ah, my mistake.
Still, I see no problem.
The point is that both the administration and the reporter, AFTER THE FACT, admitted it was predetermined.
Also before and during the fact. Huffington Post solicited questions from Iranians, and Obama apparently thought that was a good idea, and supported it. In what way was he not upfront about it?
The bottom line guys is that much of our mainstream press is a well oiled machine. The other side of the coin is Huffington Post and Rush, who can pretty much get away with saying anything they want and others pick it up as news. Which it is not.
Not true - He refused to take questions about Iraq or Afghanistan.
Bullshit.
It is true that he did not address Iraq or Afghanisistan in his opening remarks.
But refused to take questions on the subject?..uhhh NO.....none were asked.
In what way was he not upfront about it?
I have already answered that - repeatedly. In fact, that was covered in the original post. You disagree, fine.
But refused to take questions on the subject?
Attempts were made toward the end of the conference. They were not answered nor acknowledged.
I have already answered that - repeatedly. In fact, that was covered in the original post. You disagree, fine.
I dont see how it is any different than knowing in advance that the major networks will get a question....or at least one minority media and at least one foreign media.
Attempts were made toward the end of the conference. They were not answered nor acknowledged.
Bullshit....unless it was after the alloted time when questions are always shouted out by those not called on
I love how you jsut make this shit up. Cite it with a vid. The full press conference is available.
I have already answered that - repeatedly.
You've done nothing of the sort. You're acting like some skullduggery has been uncovered, when he announced at the time exactly what he was doing.
I ask again, where was the deceit? What was implied, what was the reality, and what was the difference.
No difference. I guess its just me. Everything is well in the world.
You are all right and I am all wrong.
Just. Wow.
Much ado...
Well, the last time I asked, he said:
No difference. I guess its just me. Everything is well in the world.
You are all right and I am all wrong.
And this time, he said:
I have already answered that - repeatedly. In fact, that was covered in the original post. You disagree, fine.
That's actually a common tactic from press conferences- fail to answer a question and then refer followups to your previous response.
Now that you mention it , he did fail to answer the question in question as well.
If you don't start impeachment proceedings right away, classic, I fear for our very lives. It's obvious he's more corrupt and evil than any leader the world has ever known. Now, we're not quite sure why, but we're sure of it. I demand action now. I won't stand for it.
I am, in all seriousness, not just doing this to needle you, classicman. I seriously cannot figure out what aspect of this you are concerned about. That's why I broke it down to the specific "What was implied, what was the reality, and what was the difference?" formulation. I thought that was a good way to convert the innuendo into specifics, but when I asked, you faux-surrendered, and then went back to innuendo.
No, I just realized that it was useless to discuss it with you, Rerun and S123. So in order to not get shitty about it, I let it go.
Basically, the questioner and the question were discussed beforehand, of that there is no doubt. That is very uncommon from our press conferences as it removes credibility to anyone actually paying attention both here and around the world.
As I said before. I do not believe having prepared, previously discussed or softball questions is right. That is all.
No, I just realized that it was useless to discuss it with you, Rerun and S123. So in order to not get shitty about it, I let it go.
Right, you let it go.
And, you don't point out the other 5 or so people who were like
what are you talking about?
A suggestion: if you don't want to hear what people say about your political hollering, don't post it. Yeah, you love a good argument, unless you're wrong or others say you are.
Leave me out, because I am out.
Basically, the questioner and the question were discussed beforehand, of that there is no doubt.
The questioner and the
source of the question were discussed beforehand. That is all that there is no doubt about. Both sugarpop and yourself have noted that it did not appear that he was particularly prepared for the question itself.
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Red"]WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
EVER! [/SIZE][/COLOR]
I don't even know what y'all are talking about, but I'd like for classicman to explain it to me in unambiguous terms.
E.
A.
D.
How that flintlock?
This thread has certainly degenerated overnight.
If I get this right classic, you simply feel that HP was given prefferential treatment because it suited Obamas own agenda right?
I think what others (including myself) are trying to point out is that this scenario is nothing new and in fact is pretty standard regardless of who's in office.
So the question which follows on for me is, do you think it's wrong that any Pres should be able to somewhat manage their press conferences or would you concede that it's an advantage to have a pres who doesn't look like a drongo during press conferences?
The questioner and the source of the question were discussed beforehand. That is all that there is no doubt about.
Ding ding ding.
I think what others (including myself) are trying to point out is that this scenario is nothing new and in fact is pretty standard regardless of who's in office.
False - This is actually extremely rare. The reaction of other members of the press was apparently one of shock. This exchange was that blatant.
So the question which follows on for me is, do you think it's wrong that any Pres should be able to manage their press conferences ?
Ding ding ding - we have a winner. A press conference is NOT an infomercial.
I am done with this. I am the only one who feels this way. I get your point and quite honestly, no longer care if anyone else gets mine. Now you all go and have a Blessed day, ya hear?
False - This is actually extremely rare. The reaction of other members of the press was apparently one of shock. This exchange was that blatant.
The "reaction of shock of other members of the press" certainly doesnt show up on the video of the press conference...only apparently "reported" as such on right wing blogs.
Oh...and the all too
classic short and selective memory of wing nuts.
How soon they forget Jeff Gannon, the poser as a conservative reporter, given WH credentials, called on by Bush on numerous occasions for "soft questions" and thought by many long time WH reporters to be planted....until he was exposed as a male stripper/gay prostitute....at which time, no more access to WH briefings.
James Dale Guckert (born 1957) posed as a conservative columnist under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon and was given credentials as a White House reporter between 2003 and 2005, eventually being employed by the news organization Talon News during the latter part of this period. Gannon first gained national attention during a presidential press conference on January 26, 2005, when he asked United States President George W. Bush a question that some in the press corps considered "so friendly it might have been planted."Gannon routinely obtained daily passes to White House briefings, attending four Bush press conferences and appearing regularly at White House press briefings. Although he did not qualify for a Congressional press pass, Gannon was given daily passes to White House press briefings "after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number."Gannon came under public scrutiny for his lack of a journalistic background prior to his work with Talonand his involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name "Bulldog". Gannon resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005. Continuing to use the name Gannon, he has since created his own official homepage and worked for a time as a columnist for the Washington Blade newspaper, where he confirmed he was gay after he was outed as a homosexual prostitute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
As opposed to a US-based reporter who had more contact with Iranian dissidents then probably any other reporter in the room.
nice tail post about your buddy there Rerun.
The truth will set you free!
If you dont choke on it first when it contradicts your bullshit.
The questioner and the source of the question were discussed beforehand. That is all that there is no doubt about.
Ding ding ding.
The fact that the normal order was disrupted shows that there was a a normal order in the first place. If there's a normal order, then it is normal for the questioner to be predetermined.
So apparently the "Ding ding ding" is over the fact that he knew the source of the question would be an Iranian, which he anounced when he called on the reporter.
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Red"]WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
EVER! [/SIZE][/COLOR]
Ding ding ding.
False - This is actually extremely rare. The reaction of other members of the press was apparently one of shock. This exchange was that blatant.
Maybe they were just jealous? :D
Ding ding ding - we have a winner. A press conference is NOT an infomercial.
I am done with this. I am the only one who feels this way. I get your point and quite honestly, no longer care if anyone else gets mine. Now you all go and have a Blessed day, ya hear?
I just don't think it's all that uncommon classic. The fact that Obama is a smooth operator maybe makes some people nervous, but I really just don't think he did anything out of the ordinary. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that almost every leader of state knows exactly what questions are going to be asked of them and by whom at every press conference simply because they know what's on the agenda. Just because he pointed out to the HP journo that he knew what his question was going to be doesn't mean anything. In fact, he might even have been humouring him as a parent would an inquisitive child. It's Obama's job as president to know what's going on, and also to answer the questions that seem most important to his countrymen.
And thus, the end of a another non-story, despite the best classic efforts and [SIZE="5"][COLOR="Red"]WTFE[/COLOR][/SIZE]s
don't forget to wipe your mouth Rerun. You still got a little shit on the left side from all that ass sucking.
Hit me with your best shot, dude....
Just occasionally, add a few facts for a change of pace :)
I wish you fellas would stop being rude to each other.
It's disappointing.
Just another day in the political Cellar.
It doesn't have to be like that. You could both (all) just be respectful of each others differing opinions surely? (I know it's not one sided of course. This would have to be a three pronged action. At least. lol)
Well Ali ... How many times have I said "I'm done" only for asshole (Rerun) to bring it up again? I've repeatedly said that I am done with this. Apparently I am the only one who feels this way. I get your (plural) point and quite honestly, no longer care if anyone else gets mine.
Sorry, Ali....I call it like I see it
Bullshit and baseless allegations (question was known to the WH in advance - [COLOR="Red"]bullshit[/COLOR], it is rare that questioners are pre-determined - [COLOR="Red"]bullshit[/COLOR], the press corp was visibly shocked - [COLOR="Red"]bullshit,[/COLOR] the guy was escorted to his seat by WH aide- [COLOR="Red"]bullshit[/COLOR].....) by any name is not an opinion.
Classic, it wasn't just Redux who pressed the point mate. There were a number of us who were at a loss as to your point of view. I think we all just wanted to try and understand.
Maybe there's something else going on, but it just seemed like you decided to take your bat and ball and go home instead of trying to elucidate your point, or was it that you realised maybe there's really not that much to it after all? I'm not saying that's how you feel, but I still don't get what the issue is for you and if you don't want to bother with it anymore then that's fine, but don't get nasty when others want to continue with something you started. ;)
Sorry, Ali....I call it like I see it
Bullshit and baseless allegations (question was known in advance - bullshit, it is rare that questioners are pre-determined - bullshit, guy was escorted to his seat by WH aide- bullshit.....) by any name is not an opinion.
Well that may be the case, but you two niggling each other doesn't make either of you look good imo.
yup - I'll take my bat and ball and go home. But don't be surprised if after that exchange that I take a few swipes on my way.
And no I will not discuss my point any longer. I feel like MLK speaking at a KKK rally.
Anyway, that's it for me. I'll return to politics at a later date. :) Sorry if I've upset anyone here. I just think it's a shame that every discussion degenerates this way lately.
I missed what your point was. Can you tell me? I'm just curious.
Well that may be the case, but you two niggling each other doesn't make either of you look good imo.
I'm having a Dov moment in this discussion. ;)
lol...dov got banned from this place for being an arse if you can believe that.
Haggis.
For the record, I consider c-man a friend. We should never ever talk politics to each other. Mostly this issue, which I still consider to be of the big NON variety, sticks in my craw because of the seeming constant watchful eyes for anything that seems inappropriate for our President (this, Michelle's clothes...those kinds of things) when it all really is just "who gives a rat's ass?"
That, and whenever you point this out, you are deemed an ass-kisser, you hear snide remarks like "oh he's not our savior?" and a million other tiny comebacks to go with tiny points.
It gets tiring, and when I saw this I thought "you're freaking kidding me." So I said as much.
Eh, this thread degraded as much as any thread where classic and I discuss politics. ;)
and haggis
I love Haggis. Want to hear the story?
Someone please pass me whateverthefuck youallaresmoking. Thanks.
Someone please pass me whateverthefuck youallaresmoking. Thanks.
'ere!
Ummmmmm.... smoked Haggis!
C'mon man don't bogart that haggis
I think I'll avoid whatever y'all are smoking. ;)
The bottom line guys is that much of our mainstream press is a well oiled machine. The other side of the coin is Huffington Post and Rush, who can pretty much get away with saying anything they want and others pick it up as news. Which it is not.
I cannot believe you are comparing the Huffington Post with
Rush.No, I just realized that it was useless to discuss it with you, Rerun and S123. So in order to not get shitty about it, I let it go.
Basically, the questioner and the question were discussed beforehand, of that there is no doubt. That is very uncommon from our press conferences as it removes credibility to anyone actually paying attention both here and around the world.
As I said before. I do not believe having prepared, previously discussed or softball questions is right. That is all.
Obama apparently knew this person had been in contact with many people in Iran. What is the problem with letting him know in advance, if they wanted to ask him a question, he would answer it? Since the Iranian people had no reason to believe they
could ask him a question, that would have had to be set up in advance. I really don't see a problem there. I personally don't believe Obama adequately answered the question, but that is another discussion.
I cannot believe you are comparing the Huffington Post with Rush.
They are the both different sides of the same coin.
Republicans love false equivalency.
Well I am not a Republickin but I fail to how you can draw the conclusion that it is a "false" equivalency. There is nothing false about it. You have two sources of information. Both of which are representing the extremes of the political continuum.
Haggis are moist, and difficult to light.
They are the both different sides of the same coin.
No, they are not. Rush makes completely ridiculous claims as truth, like Obama is somehow responsible for Mark Sanford's affair of the past year, or that Obama caused the recession. Seriously, I saw clips of his radio show where he actually said those things. I suppose it's a good thing we have proof the recession started before he was elected...
The Huffington Post is admittedly a more left of center news source, but they do not make ludicrous claims like that about the right.
No, they are not. Rush makes completely ridiculous claims as truth, like Obama is somehow responsible for Mark Sanford's affair of the past year, or that Obama caused the recession. Seriously, I saw clips of his radio show where he actually said those things. I suppose it's a good thing we have proof the recession started before he was elected...
The Huffington Post is admittedly a more left of center news source, but they do not make ludicrous claims like that about the right.
They are no different. But because you are a leftist you can't see it any more than someone who supports what Rush says.
They are no different. But because you are a leftist you can't see it any more than someone who supports what Rush says.
I entertained this idea for a minute, wanting to be open-minded, but I can't see how you can say that and not see the difference. Then again, if what you say is true I will never be able to see that difference. This is a tactic used by both sides, and what makes me wonder if all of us are wrong or none of us are wrong.
Still...really? :)
I entertained this idea for a minute, wanting to be open-minded, but I can't see how you can say that and not see the difference. Then again, if what you say is true I will never be able to see that difference. This is a tactic used by both sides, and what makes me wonder if all of us are wrong or none of us are wrong.
Still...really? :)
It is a reality that no one shares.
Yours, or others.
Neither side will see the others.
It will always be us against them.
You all are as wrong as those who are the same or different.
Our President sets the new standard for international relations with women... :D
I wonder how old that girl is. She looks like she is half his height.
I wonder how old that girl is. She looks like she is half his height.
:eyebrow:
She looks (to me) like her head is above his shoulder. If she isn't fully adult she is damn close. And she has a nice tush.
I like Sarkozy's expression, though... hmmmm, tasty ...
He certainly has set a great example... for the Gov of SC. :lol2:
Don't cost nothin' to window shop
[bluesbrothers]"How much for your daughter?"[/bluesbrothers]
Her name is Mayora Tavares, she is 16 and she comes from Brazil.
Mayora was at the G8 summit in Italy as part of the J8 – a group of 53 people aged between 14 and 17 who have been meeting in Rome since the start of the week.
They were discussing how the lives of young people around the world can be improved.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/07/10/barack-obama-nicolas-sarkozy/oh-la-la-us-president-checks-out-bum-of-g8-delegate.htmlI can't wait until you start citing Weekly World News. See below. GASP!
Now Merc, you've seen hundreds of those types of pics...where camera angle makes it seem something it's not. There were many for Bush, what about the one where it looked like McCain was going to grab Obama's ass?
When I first saw this pic I giggled. Now that you won't shut the fuck up, because you have nothing else to hang your I Told You So Hat on, I would like to point out that I don't think he was blatantly watching some girl's ass go by. He might have been making sure she was on the step and her foot was out of the way before he kept going.
Obama is a man, but he has some class. Frankly, from what I've heard from your mouth (fingers) it seems more likely you'd disrespect a woman by drooling and staring.
Maybe he was quickly glancing at her ass. Who knows? But in this higher resolution pic, it looks like he could simply be caught while blinking. Oh, and here's another picture of the girl from the front.
(
The photographer who took these pics, got some
funny ones of Bush over the years, so at least he spreads it around.)
Really. Relax. I thought it was pretty funny someone caught the Savior looking at some 16 yr old girls ass. :D
(smacks Merc upside the haid) I'm so damn easy...mom always said I was "pickable."
;)
Maybe he was quickly glancing at her ass. Who knows? But in this higher resolution pic, it looks like he could simply be caught while blinking.
There's video.
[youtube]w_deB-qSQAg[/youtube]
Oh gee, in context we can see it was nothing. Quelle surprise.
Ah yes, butt the beauty of the visual (sound) bite. :D
I wonder how old that girl is. She looks like she is half his height.
She looks to be the about the same height as Sarcozy. :D
And clearly he is looking at her SHOES! :p
So were are the frigging jobs OBAMA?
The jobs that WERE are no more. Not so?
I am no Dumb ass. Where are the job he and the Demoncrats promised with the spending bills that are nearly bankrupting this nation?
I imagine all the people whose jobs were saved would say, "right fucking here." :p
Don't be dumbasses.
That's super easy. C'mon,
try demanding more! If you can bear the result -- for we can be smarter than you can, and we are ready to show it off.
Sugarpop, I haven't heard any such reply. Unemployment in my county is presently 10.4 percent, though there has been a 600-job increase in the nonfarm sector of late. From over here, doesn't look like anybody could say "Right here!" yet. But it is being read as a hopeful sign.
Recessions and depressions seem to me to come and go on their own cycle and their own pace, regardless of anything Government does -- except for cutting taxes and expenditures.
I imagine all the people whose jobs were saved would say, "right fucking here." :p
Cool, show me how the stimulus money saved you a job. What is your full time job anyway?
There's a big sign on the interstate on my way here and home: project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There are like, orange cones and everything.
Sounds like jobs to me.
I am no Dumb ass. Where are the job he and the Demoncrats promised with the spending bills that are nearly bankrupting this nation?
Here.
Cool, show me how the stimulus money saved you a job. What is your full time job anyway?
I didn't say it saved ME a job. I was talking about some state governors who have said, on TV, that the stimulus money stopped them from laying off people.
There's a big sign on the interstate on my way here and home: project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There are like, orange cones and everything.
Sounds like jobs to me.
Obama said, "This plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector, jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, laying broadband and expanding mass transit."
3.5 million jobs... Where are they?
Here.
Nope, not 3.5 million jobs...
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JUNE 2009
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in June (-467,000),
and the unemployment rate was little changed at 9.5 percent, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.
Job losses were widespread across the major industry sectors, with
large declines occurring in manufacturing, professional and business
services, and construction.
Unemployment (Household Survey Data)
The number of unemployed persons (14.7 million) and the unemployment
rate (9.5 percent) were little changed in June. Since the start of the
recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has increas-
ed by 7.2 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 4.6 percentage
points. (See table A-1.)
In June, unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men
(10.0 percent), adult women (7.6 percent), teenagers (24.0 percent),
whites (8.7 percent), blacks (14.7 percent), and Hispanics (12.2 per-
cent)--showed little change. The unemployment rate for Asians was
8.2 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who com-
pleted temporary jobs (9.6 million) was little changed in June after
increasing by an average of 615,000 per month during the first 5 months
of this year. (See table A-8.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or
more) increased by 433,000 over the month to 4.4 million. In June, 3
in 10 unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. (See
table A-9.)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htmIt's been 5 months. Are you really as obtuse as you pretend to be?
Why am obtuse? Because I disagree with the fantasy that Obama and the Demoncrats have sold the American people?
Because you're so busy nay-saying you can't see 5 inches in front of you.
Give it up.
Give it up.
Never. I will be here to point out his failures for the next 8 years. Or 4 if he really screws up. :D
I hear ya bitchin' Merc, but without a time travel machine, there's no way to go back in time and not spend the stimulus money to see how bad things would have gotten if we hadn't spent the money.
Maybe Obama's right and 3.5 million jobs have been saved. Maybe unemployment would be at 50% if the spending hadn't been done. No way to know for sure.
I went to the mall yesterday with my wife because we were near there and had to kill some time. The place was packed with people, and most of them were carrying shopping bags. From what I could see, there was no recession. My wife even bought a pair of pants.
Obama said, "This plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector, jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, laying broadband and expanding mass transit."
Immediately prior to that quote, as part of the same sentence in fact, he said, "Over the next two years".
Here.
Nope, not 3.5 million jobs...
I'm not sure who you're trying to refute here. If you want to assume the stimulus was supposed to save or create jobs at a linear rate (probably not a good assumption), I guess you could complain "Nope, not 730,000 jobs." (5/24ths of 3.5 million).
It reminds me of the Y2K problem. We spent billions fixing Y2K bugs, and then people complained about the hype when we hit Y2K and the bugs were already fixed.
If you want to assume the stimulus was supposed to save or create jobs at a linear rate (probably not a good assumption), I guess you could complain "Nope, not 730,000 jobs." (5/24ths of 3.5 million).
Ok. :D
Not even close to 730,000 jobs yet.
glatt and HM,
[ohrant] that is the point, it is all smoke and mirrors and yet we continue to bleed over 500,000 jobs a month. In the mean time our deficit rises to the TRILLIONS. Well hell, who is going to pay that off? Our great great great grand kids? Look, if I could have just seen some restrained defined spending in these "stimuli bills" I would not be bitching so much. I truely held out hope for Obama, not so much the Dems in Congress, but I really had a little hope that they would all do what they said they were going to do. He is rubber stamping this shit. And Obama and the Dems are in this together. There is no separation of powers. The Repubs were no different, but he could have significant influence over what the Dems produce. But no, they have fucked us over and over. Look at the bills coming from Congress, they are filled with pork and they have ram rodded the legislation through Congress will little other than "my way or the highway". There is no frigging transparancy till it comes out of Pelosi's ass. And then few changes are made. Granted the Republickins were not much different but is that an excuse? They had a historic opportunity to straighten this shit out in a concerted and pinpoint way but instead they have just thrown our frigging money at it and really have had little idea if it was going to work, if it worked a little, or even if it will really work in the long run. I am a bit more wrapped up over the health care issue because I have been in it for 30 years and I know the issue pretty well. And what they are proposing and how they think it will work is filled with holes, uncertainty, and more smoke and mirrors. And if you really look closely it is all being INFLUENCED by the darlings of the DEMS, the big pharm and insurance corps and we are about to be royally butt fucked. So yea, I am a little more than wrapped on the issues. [/endorant]
thanks.
Another fine example of the Double Standard....
Democrats irked by Obama signing statement
By ANNE FLAHERTY (AP) – 35 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same.
Four senior House Democrats on Tuesday said they were "surprised" and "chagrined" by Obama's declaration in June that he doesn't have to comply with provisions in a war spending bill that puts conditions on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion bill, Obama said he wouldn't allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.
Earlier in his six-month-old administration, Obama issued a similar statement regarding provisions in a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He also included qualifying remarks when signing legislation that established commissions to govern public lands in New York, investigate the financial crisis and celebrate Ronald Reagan's birthday.
"During the previous administration, all of us were critical of (Bush's) assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of congressional statutes he was required to enforce," the Democrats wrote in their letter to Obama. "We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTUXZ57-4A_UnsbDtQDPlUwZlbIQD99J2DQG1Another fine example of the Double Standard....
Where is this double standard? Levees are failing everywhere because of wacko extremists who loved George Jr and Rush Limbaugh. We are still patching the destruction. Today's jobs losses now and for years to come are directly traceable to wackos who stifled innovation, created enemies where none existed, tried to even get into a shooting war with China, spent so much money as to both destroy a surplus and run up record deficits, turn even our allies adversarial, subvert innovation and science by even having White House lawyers rewrite science papers, all but try to destroy Hubble, encourage GM et al to destroy even Hybrid technology (because anything done by Clinton has to be destroyed),so encouraged he destruction of education that now something like 50% of designers in the Silicon Valley are immigrants, ‘Mission Accomplished’ which we have yet to pay for (wacko George would not even put those bills in the budget), gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban (because only the dumbest would say "America does not do nation building"), enriched big pharma with laws that protect their 40% price increase for drugs, inspired hate of immigrants, gays, and other minorities, even refuse to prosecute Enron, encouraged fraud at the highest levels of the economy, even subverts the Security and Exchange Commission, refused to prosecute those who created the CA energy crisis, refuse to condemn or address those who intentionally created the NE blackout, ignored the lessons of ‘Long Term Capital Management’, protected industries so that they remain unproductive (corporate welfare), continued to destroy American jobs by protecting enemies of America such as big steel, encouraged fraud and deception across the entire financial industry - AIG, Merrill Lynch, et al, ....
But none of these stupidities caused today’s job losses? Ostrich thinking is alive and well. Job losses today are directly traceable to wacko politics and Rush Limbaugh diatribes that replaced intelligent thinking.
Even lessons from Nixon and Vietnam are déjà vue. Lies, mismanagement, spending, and denials in 1968, 1970 and later resulted in massive job losses, stagflation, and even destruction of US military power in 1975 and years later. We have yet to see damage created George Jr and wacko extremist. As intelligent people have warned long ago, we will be paying for these disasters for the next ten years. We are reaping disasters created when wacko politics were spouted here by the brainwashed. Fortunately, this time we have intelligent leadership that has apparently minimized much of the damage. Things were that close to near disaster.
Never forget the faces on those Congressmen as they left the briefing by Bernanke and Paulsen. We were that close to an abyss that was that deep. And we will be paying for years for damage created by wacko extremist politics.
How much damage? Australians are learning how that destruction has yet to affect their national security. America will suffer significant military weakness in the next decade because of wackos like Cheney. Whereas Clinton would even send two carrier groups to Taiwan to confirm their protection. Today and in years future, the US will no longer be able to do that with confidence. America military strength will diminish tomorrow due to the disasters both financial and military created by yesterdays wacko extremists. Even deja vue Nam. Australia must reassess their national security today because America’s military strength must diminish tomorrow. Thank you Cheney - who claims he was one of history's greatest military tacticians. Who even all but protected bin Laden for a politcal agenda.
Thank you George Jr for being so destructive as to do absolutely nothing useful (but sit in a child's chair) even on 11 Sept 2001. When told "America is under attack" by his chief of staff, what did the dumb man do? Sat there in a child’s chair for 15 minutes. Did not even ask one question. Did on 11 Sept what he continued to do to even harm American jobs today. Sat their so that innovators and other partiots would do nothing. Went to CA for a campaign fund raiser so that even the USS Bataan could not help save Americans in New Orleans.
Job losses directly traceable to people with too much politics, too little intelligence, and now in denial about why jobs are being destroyed.
Jobs losses today are but another trophy of wacko extremists and those who are told how to think using only a political agenda. Even Australia must change their strategy; to make new plans for their national security due to the stupidity of those who worshipped wackos extremism and overt military crusades this past decade. So dumb as to even try to get into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. We have yet to see all the damage created by those so dumb as to vote for Cheney.
Wacko politics says, "Blame Obama". Then we will not blame the real reason why jobs will continue to be lost. Fortunately we have leaders who use intelligence (not politics). So a near disaster has been averted. Can you imagine where we would be today if George Jr had a ninth year? That should make every intelligent person tremble. Worse, wacko extremist already miss George Jr. Even make speeches hoping that Obama will fail. Wacko extremists never worked for America - which is why they cannot admit how many more jobs will be lost due to their politics.
Thanks Tom - I needed a good laugh - you actually made me smile today.
Thanks Tom - I needed a good laugh - you actually made me smile today.
I can't read it but let me guess, it said something about blaming Wacko Extremists.:D
I can't read it but let me guess, it said something about blaming Wacko Extremists.
No. It blamed you (in font=0). I was taught by White House lawyers and Cheney.
Meanwhile, we were that close to the abyss. Only one of the stories is told by PBS Frontline in June 2009 at
Breaking the Bank or
Breaking the Bank video. Once we eliminate all so many political cheapshots now being fired by extremist Republicans, bottom line, our leaders who did something deserve great praise for averting disaster.
Fortunately George Jr did absolutely nothing - therefore did not make things worse. Oh, he did go outside to make 20 second statements to the press about how our economy was sound. But everyone - even Republicans - acknowledged he had no idea what was happening let alone know what to do. George Jr was the classic example of an extremist who created these problems and could only make things worse.
More of the double standard by the Obama administration....
Remember the outcry, which continues, about the people from the energy industry coming to the White House and supposedly meeting with Cheney et. al.?
Where is the transparency everyone likes to spout off about?
Where are the protests?
White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives
Citing an argument used by the Bush administration, the Secret Service rejects a request from a watchdog group to list those who have visited the White House to discuss the healthcare overhaul.
By Peter Nicholas
July 22, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.
continues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-talks22-2009jul22,0,7434392.storyAnother great view:
Obama's suicide march
21 Jul 2009 06:15 pm
I don't know if I would call it a "leftward surge" or a "suicide march"--a little hyperventilating for my taste--but David Brooks is essentially right in this column. Those, including me, who predicted that Obama's most difficult challenge would be his confrontation with Democratic party liberals have been proven wrong. Obama is falling out not with them but with the party's moderates. As Brooks says, he did it on the stimulus, he did it on the budget, and he is doing it on healthcare. Obama remains well-liked overall, but his support among independents is slipping, and his policies are less popular than he is. A rot appears to be setting in. Can the White House really be surprised?
For a moment put the merits of the policies to one side. (Just to remind, I was for a big fiscal stimulus, but wanted to see more front-loaded tax cuts; I was dismayed by the long-term fiscal implications of the budget; I am for comprehensive health reform with a guarantee of universal coverage but favor broad-based taxes to pay for it, including limits to the tax deductibility of employer-provided insurance.) Let us suppose Obama thinks that Nancy Pelosi and the unions are right on all these topics, and Max Baucus is wrong. Even then, shouldn't somebody be advising him on political strategy? This is the aspect I find completely perplexing.
Brooks says:
continues:
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/obamas_suicide_march.phpMore of the double standard by the Obama administration....
Remember the outcry, which continues, about the people from the energy industry coming to the White House and supposedly meeting with Cheney et. al.?
Where is the transparency everyone likes to spout off about?
Where are the protests?
continues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-talks22-2009jul22,0,7434392.story
ummmm, what happened to the transparency?
IMO,
anyone who is involved in helping make policy, ESPECIALLY IF THEY BENEFIT FROM IT, should be open to public scrutiny and their names should ALL be disclosed.
Another great view:
continues:
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/obamas_suicide_march.php
Oh no! You find this to be a "great view"?
But its based on polls:
[INDENT]Obama is falling out not with them but with the party's moderates. ...Obama remains well-liked overall, but his support among independents is slipping, and his policies are less popular than he is...[/INDENT]
And we know that polls are worthless and have no validity, because you said so repeatedly!
Or perhaps, that only applies when you dont like the polls.
Oh no! You find this to be a "great view"?
But its based on polls:
[INDENT]Obama is falling out not with them but with the party's moderates. ...Obama remains well-liked overall, but his support among independents is slipping, and his policies are less popular than he is...[/INDENT]
And we know that polls have no validity, because you said so repeatedly!
Or perhaps, that only applies when you dont like the polls.
The poll emphasis is minor in this Op-Ed bit. I enjoyed his insight and opinion into what the Demoncrats are doing in Congress.
The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.
See it is not about the polls themselves but how they are twisted and inaccurate from the outset. :D
Merc..you continually crack me up with your dodging and weaving.
You don't believe me? Polls are worthless.
You don't believe me? Polls are worthless.
Perhaps you should tell that to Clive Crook, whose insight and opinion you like, but who was compelled to link and cite David Brooks op ed, that was all about polls, in order to make his point.
Waiting for the "whatever" defense.
Maybe you missed it.
The poll emphasis is minor in this Op-Ed bit. I enjoyed his insight and opinion into what the Demoncrats are doing in Congress.
See it is not about the polls themselves but how they are twisted and inaccurate from the outset.
I love it. "Hello Kettle, meet Pot."
Obama 2004: Bush Rushed Legislation Through Congress Without Allowing Time to Read Or Debate
BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/27/obama-2004-bush-rushed-legislationthrough-congress-without-allowing-ti
:lol:
I love it. "Hello Kettle, meet Pot."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/27/obama-2004-bush-rushed-legislationthrough-congress-without-allowing-ti
:lol:
Obama has had numerous WH meetings (and a few on the Hill) where Republican leaders were invited to participate. It might even be fair to say that Republicans have been invited to WH meetings more in the first six months of the Obama administration than Democrats in eight years of the Bush administration (no, I dont have a link..just a gut assement).
It seems to me the health reform proposals have been subject to a quite of bit of debate in the various committees to-date...and numerous opportunities for the Republicans to offer amendments...and is likely to continue into the fall.
The Senate Health and Labor Committee took up every amendment offered by the Republicans...same is happening in the Finance Committee, along with a likely bi-partisan proposal to emerge from that committee....and on the House side, the rules will allow more amendments than the Republican-controlled House, under the Hastert rule, ever allowed the Democrats to offer. The best (or worst) example, if you really want to look back, was the Republican medicare prescription drugs legislation...where
Tom Delay actually bribed a Republican House member right on the floor during the vote...after extending the voting time beyond the allowable time in order to ensure passage.
Just the facts :)
Obama has had numerous WH meetings (and a few on the Hill) where Republican leaders were invited to participate. It might even be fair to say that Republicans have been invited to WH meetings more in the first six months of the Obama administration than Democrats in eight years of the Bush administration (no, I dont have a link..just a gut assement).
I doubt that seriously. So it is most likely bs...
It seems to me the health reform proposals have been subject to a quite of bit of debate in the various committees to-date...and numerous opportunities for the Republicans to offer amendments...and is likely to continue into the fall.
Opinion, not based in fact. The Demoncrats control all the committees.
The best (or worst) example, if you really want to look back, was the Republican medicare prescription drugs legislation...where Tom Delay actually bribed a Republican House member right on the floor during the vote...after extending the voting time beyond the allowable time in order to ensure passage.
Not important, the Dems are in charge.
I doubt that seriously. So it is most likely bs...
When I have time, I will search out the number of Bush WH meetings with Dems in eight years. They were scarce and I can count at least 5-6 meetings that Obama had with Republicans in six months.
Opinion, not based in fact. The Demoncrats control all the committees.Opinion, not based in fact
Its not an opinion that the Republicans have had numerous opportunities to have their amendments presented in committee...its a fact and its a fact that the Republicans will have the opportunity present amendments on the floor.
Not important, the Dems are in charge.
Of course the Democrats control all committees and ultimately, the final outcome...it's called majority rule.
And the first thing Pelosi did was end the Hastert rule...a fact.
I get it....the majority party has more influence on shaping legislation and you find something wrong with that because you dont like the party in power.
I get if further...the only opinions that are valid to you are the ones from partisan right wing editorial writers and bloggers...a double standard?
Opinion, not based in fact. The Demoncrats control all the committees.
They control all the committees that the Republicans are also members of. There are Republican ammendments on the bills. So, even knowing that it is unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the bill, they are letting the Republicans help shape it.
Of course the Democrats control all committees and ultimately, the final outcome...it's called majority rule.
And the first thing Pelosi did was end the Hastert rule...a fact.
I get it....the majority party has more influence on shaping legislation and you find something wrong with that because you dont like the party in power.
I get if further...the only opinions that are valid to you are the ones from partisan right wing editorial writers and bloggers...a double standard?
I have no problem with the Majority rule. And for you to defend the practices of that scumbag Pelosi states much about how you see the world in your rose colored glasses. She has Rahmrodded the legislation through with very little input from Republickins. She promised change and nothing has changed. The Demoncrats are no better then when the other party was in charge.
"We won the election; we wrote the bill," Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
People talk about using scare tactics to get things done?!?! In an effort to ram her bill through Congress she said this:
"Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs." Nancy Pelosi
It was total BS. And on top of that no one could read the damm thing it was so long and filled with pork.
"I don't think anyone will have the chance" to read the entire bill before voting on it, admitted Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey.
After the vote on the bill:
For instance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told everyone, "There are no earmarks or pet projects' in the bill. But everybody knows that's simply not the case. Sure, it once involved $819 billion in spending and tax cut provisions, and has since been whittled down to $790 billion. But it was 700 pages last week and has since mushroomed into nearly 1,000 pages festooned with so much spending that even those in Congress cannot possibly grasp it all. And whether it was approved through the shortcut of earmarks or not is irrelevant; it is certainly full of pet projects, and it certainly didn't receive much scrutiny prior to being passed.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2009/02/15/opinion/editorials/editorials_8765325205_01.txt
Great so where are all the jobs?
You must still work for the Demoncratic Party right?
They control all the committees that the Republicans are also members of. There are Republican ammendments on the bills. So, even knowing that it is unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the bill, they are letting the Republicans help shape it.
Token shaping. Very little input on the more important bills to come out since Jan.
I have no problem with the Majority rule. And for you to defend the practices of that scumbag Pelosi states much about how you see the world in your rose colored glasses. She has Rahmrodded the legislation through with very little input from Republickins. She promised change and nothing has changed. The Demoncrats are no better then when the other party was in charge.
I dont defend all of Pelosi's actions but it is a fact that the minority party in the House has more rights now than under the Hastert rule...compare the House rules.
In case you dont understand what the Hastert rule was, it required support of the "majority of the majority" (ie a majority of Republicans at the time) in order for an amendment to even be considered.
Pelosi's first action as Speaker was to end that rule. The Republicans have had opportunities to offer amendments on every piece of legislation to reach the floor of the House....a fact.
The practical result of the end of the Hastert rule? Here is one example from last year. The FISA reform enacted would NEVER have passed if Pelosi had kept the Hastert rule in place because it NEVER had a "majority of the majority" (Democrats) support . As a result of the no-Hastert rule, a bi-partisan bill passed.
Great so where are all the jobs?
Most objective observers recognize that the recovery bill projections are for an 18 month - 2 year time span.
You must still work for the Demoncratic Party right?
Don't you think the "Demon"izing is little childish?
I dont defend all of Pelosi's actions but it is a fact that the minority party in the House has more rights now than under the Hastert rule...compare the House rules.
In case, you dont understand what the Hastert rule was, it required support of the "majority of the majority" (ie a majority of Republicans at the time) in order for an amendment to even be considered.
Pelosi's first action as Speaker was to end that rule.
Good on her.
Most objective observers recognize that the recovery bill projections are for an 18 month - 2 year time span.
Where are all the "shovel ready jobs" being stimulated? Or was that more BS to get the bill passed. President Obama says the stimulus will create or save 3.5 million jobs. Where are they?
Don't you think the "Demon"izing is little childish?
Absolutely not. If the shoe fits...
President Obama says the stimulus will create or save 3.5 million jobs. Where are they?
Oh for god fucking sake. That was the camel-breaking straw. :lol:
Where are all the "shovel ready jobs" being stimulated?.....Where are they?
John Boehner, the Republican minority leader in the House said the same thing last month and came off looking like an idiot:
[INDENT]
In Ohio, the infrastructure dollars that were sent there months ago — there hasn’t been a contract let, to my knowledge. And the fact is is that I don’t believe it will create jobs."[/INDENT]
The OHIO DOT stepped right in and called him out:
With the awarding of more than $36.9 million in construction contracts today, the Ohio Department of Transportation is spurring the creation and retention of hundreds of construction-related jobs by investing federal stimulus funds into 29 roadway and bridges projects across the state.
Combined with the contracts awarded so far using funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ODOT has awarded more than $83.9 million in contracts for work on 52 projects - a combination of interstate, local roadway and bridge modernization projects.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/ODOTsStimulusInvestmentsspurringmoreConstruction-RelatedJobs.aspx
So Boeher was either lying to make political points or was clueless.
That is because Boehner is an idiot.
I am just a regular joe.
So where are the jobs for the people being laid off? Road jobs really only employ a VERY limited number of people with specific skills. They have really not addressed or impacted the people getting laid off each month to the tune of nearly 500k last month. The unemployment rate has gone up to over 9% country wide in this year and in some places is greater than 25%. What ever we spent our money on is not working.
I am just a regular joe.
I knew it!!!! We have a celebrity in our midst!
You are Joe the Plumber! That explains everything!
So where are the jobs for the people being laid off? Road jobs really only employ a VERY limited number of people with specific skills. They have really not addressed or impacted the people getting laid off each month to the tune of nearly 500k last month. The unemployment rate has gone up to over 9% country wide in this year and in some places is greater than 25%. What ever we spent our money on is not working.
Those employed by the stimulus money turn around and spend money! They go to local restaurants..they buy a new refrigerator...they take vacations...and all that money circulating in the economy again saves or creates additional jobs.
You want it to fail so you find reasons for failure prematurely.
Those employed by the stimulus money turn around and spend money! They go to local restaurants..they buy a new refrigerator...they take vacations...and all that money saves or creates additional jobs.
Reading the tea leaves again? The taxes on those who make money will erase most of that after this new health bill.
You want it to fail so you find reasons for failure prematurely.
Don't put words into my mouth. I don't want it to fail. But it has failed. It has failed to do what they promised it would do. It is not going to put all those people unemployed and laid off since Jan back to work. And the money is going to be gone. And there will still be no jobs for those people.
Token shaping. Very little input on the more important bills to come out since Jan.
They're in the committees, have access to the bills, and can offer ammendments. So now, for you, "transparency" means not only having access to the bill and offering ammendments, and even having the ammendments accepted, but the minority party also gets to write the bill?
They're in the committees, have access to the bills, and can offer ammendments. So now, for you, "transparency" means not only having access to the bill and offering ammendments, and even having the ammendments accepted, but the minority party also gets to write the bill?
Not really. But being on a committe means very little if little to none of your suggestions are adopted. That is just the way it is when you have one party that has such overwhelming power in Congress. It was no different when the Republickins were in charge. I fully understand that. But don't try to claim an environment where there is transparency when bills are being Rahmrodded and Pelosi Pushed to the floor for a vote by the group in power when no one has had time to read them.
John Boehner, the Republican minority leader in the House said the same thing last month and came off looking like an idiot:
[INDENT]In Ohio, the infrastructure dollars that were sent there months ago — there hasn’t been a contract let, to my knowledge. And the fact is is that I don’t believe it will create jobs."[/INDENT]
The OHIO DOT stepped right in and called him out:
So Boeher was either lying to make political points or was clueless.
IF ANYONE EVER READ ANYTHING I WRITE AND THAT INCLUDES YOU REDUX, WHOSE SIDE I HAPPEN TO BE ON, YOU WOULD REMEMBER ME TELLING YOU THERE'S A SIGN ON THE INTERSTATE SAYING PROJECT FUNDED BY THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT.
I'd get out of my car in the middle of the interstate to take a pic, but you wouldn't read that post either.
Seriously Red, besides arguing with merc, do you ever pay attention to ANYONE else?
Oh, why do I try to engage you self-absorbed asshats? :rolleyes:
I'll be careful what I wish for.
DOOM DESPAIR COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE ALERT
A good report on the Stiumlus and Highway jobs.
Millington told [9] the Salt Lake Tribune‘s Brandon Loomis that the Utah DOT’s estimate of six to seven thousand jobs saved or created by stimulus funding — an estimate produced by a federal formula — was likely inflated. According to the Tribune, Millington said some of the construction workers on stimulus projects would be counted twice because they would be employed on one contract and then another.
Millington told the Tribune that the estimate was as high as it was “because the stimulus money was supposed to create all these jobs.”
http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/tracking-highway-stimulus-jobs-is-no-easy-job-724IF ANYONE EVER READ ANYTHING I WRITE AND THAT INCLUDES YOU REDUX, WHOSE SIDE I HAPPEN TO BE ON, YOU WOULD REMEMBER ME TELLING YOU THERE'S A SIGN ON THE INTERSTATE SAYING PROJECT FUNDED BY THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT.
I'd get out of my car in the middle of the interstate to take a pic, but you wouldn't read that post either.
Seriously Red, besides arguing with merc, do you ever pay attention to ANYONE else?
Oh, why do I try to engage you self-absorbed asshats? :rolleyes:
I'll be careful what I wish for.
DOOM DESPAIR COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE ALERT
I will try to be more attentive. :3eye:
That is because Boehner is an idiot.
I am just a regular joe.
So where are the jobs for the people being laid off? Road jobs really only employ a VERY limited number of people with specific skills.
So you're asking where the non-construction-related "shovel-ready" projects are?
Reading the tea leaves again? The taxes on those who make money will erase most of that after this new health bill.
I don't think that
1-5.4% of income over $280.000 is anywhere close to "most of that".
Someone making $280.001 would pay one cent in new taxes. I don't think they'll be skipping Starbucks.
So you're asking where the non-construction-related "shovel-ready" projects are?
I don't think that 1-5.4% of income over $280.000 is anywhere close to "most of that".
Someone making $280.001 would pay one cent in new taxes. I don't think they'll be skipping Starbucks.
You need to re do your math. 5.4% of $280,001 is $15,120.1. And that would be on top of their already 33% Federal tax rate, which would be 38.4% tax rate, and if you live in my state, add another 7% to that and you get 45% tax rate. So you think that the guy who worked his ass off to make that much should give 45% to the governemt?
Not really. But being on a committe means very little if little to none of your suggestions are adopted.
It means you're there when the other suggestions
are adopted, so crying about not having time to read them is moot.
Also, plenty of Republican amendments are adopted, even though their inclusion doesn't seem to bring any Republican votes.
You need to re do your math. 5.4% of $280,001 is $15,120.1.
That may be, but it is irrelevant. 1% of ($280,001 - $280,000) is one cent. There are a couple more gradations, until it is 5.4% of anything over $1 million. So someone making $1,000,001 would pay 5.4 cents plus whatever the formula works out for the income between $1 million and $280,000.
That may be, but it is irrelevant. 1% of ($280,001 - $280,000) is one cent. There are a couple more gradations, until it is 5.4% of anything over $1 million. So someone making $1,000,001 would pay 5.4 cents plus whatever the formula works out for the income between $1 million and $280,000.
No where does it say that the tax is only on the income over $280,000. It says income earners who make more than that amount.
From Shovel Watch.
Questions Spread About Stimulus Job Numbers
The Associated Press’s Ryan Kost reports on the difficulty of obtaining accurate numbers of jobs created by the stimulus [1]. Welcome to the hunt, AP! ProPublica is happy [2] to have the company. Kost notes that in Oregon, lawmakers say the stimulus has created 3,236 jobs — even though the average job lasts just one week, after which workers are once more unemployed. “Sometimes some work for an individual is better than no work,” the AP quotes Peter Courtney, president of the state Senate, as saying.
New Jersey has passed a stimulus bill of its own [3], reports the Star-Ledger of Newark. The bill includes incentives for developers. However, the Star-Ledger notes, the bill does not call for recipients of tax breaks to meet any new standards on transparency — a point of contention after last week’s arrests of three Garden State mayors on charges of accepting bribes from a would-be developer.
New York City will be left out of $1 billion in stimulus funds meant to avoid police layoffs [4], the Daily News reports. According to the paper, Justice Department officials decided the money should go to cities with a combination of serious budget shortfalls and high crime rates. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it doesn’t make sense to punish New York’s police force for its success in keeping crime low. The AP adds that Seattle, Houston and Pittsburgh will also be left out of the funding program [5].
Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons is pushing to hire a “stimulus czar,” [6] reports the AP. The position is expected to cost $500,000, money that would come from the state’s contingency fund, since it wasn’t included in Nevada’s budget. Neighboring California has such a position, as do a number of other states.
The New York Post reports that tens of millions of dollars in stimulus money is going to toilets [7]. Various federal departments are spending a share of their stimulus funding to build and repair toilets, including $2.8 million for toilets in national forests in New Mexico alone, the Post‘s Geoff Earle reports.
http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/questions-spread-about-stimulus-job-numbers-728It should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about income taxes.
But much of the rest of the money would come from a new tax on families earning more than $350,000 a year and individuals earning more than $280,000. The taxes, which would take effect in 2011, would affect about 2.1 million taxpayers, the nonprofit Tax Policy Center projected.
The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on income exceeding $1 million.
The description is poor, but it does rule out your math. The 5.4 percent is explicitly applied only to income over $1 million. And the tax explicitly starts at 1%. I interpret that to mean that it is 1% for anything over $280,000, but, even if this tax worked completely differently from income and payroll taxes, and suddenly turned on, applying to all income, at $280,000, the number would be $2,800.
But that's not how progressive tax systems work. It reminds me of the people during the election who thought they would outwit Obama by lowering their income.
But no where does it say that it is on income only over that amount and I have never heard of anyone try to make that connection. If it were true they would certainly never pay for the 1 Trillion Dollars needed over the next 10 years.
I am quite aware of how progressive tax systems work and they are completely unfair.
Like I said, that's how income taxes work, and I'm fairly confident that my interpretation is correct. And even if I'm wrong, the number is $2,800, not $15,120.10.
There aren't many places in the tax system where earning an extra dollar will decrease your take-home pay. A few aid programs have hard cutoffs if your income is too high, which is equivalent to a sudden tax increase. But the actual taxes seldom (never?) operate that way.
There aren't many places in the tax system where earning an extra dollar will decrease your take-home pay.
What?
The more you earn the more you pay in tax in our system. The majority pay little to no income taxes. That is an unfair system. The taxation burden is being placed on a minority.
Further, the % goes up in 2012 in each income bracket.
H.R.3200
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General- Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this title, is amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:
`Subpart B--Surcharge on High Income Individuals
`Sec. 59C. Surcharge on high income individuals.
`SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
`(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to--
`(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
`(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
`(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
`(b) Taxpayers Not Making a Joint Return- In the case of any taxpayer other than a taxpayer making a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting for each of the dollar amounts therein (after any increase determined under subsection (e)) a dollar amount equal to--
`(1) 50 percent of the dollar amount so in effect in the case of a married individual filing a separate return, and
`(2) 80 percent of the dollar amount so in effect in any other case.
`(c) Adjustments Based on Federal Health Reform Savings-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, subsection (a) shall be applied--
`(A) by substituting `2 percent' for `1 percent', and
`(B) by substituting `3 percent' for `1.5 percent'.
`(2) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON EXCESS FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS-
`(A) EXCEPTION IF FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS BASE AMOUNT- If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $150,000,000,000 but not more than $175,000,000,000, paragraph (1) shall not apply.
`(B) FURTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS- If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $175,000,000,000, paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) (and paragraph (1) of this subsection) shall not apply to any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012.
`(C) EXCESS FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS- For purposes of this subsection, the term `excess Federal health reform savings' means the excess of--
`(i) the Federal health reform savings, over
`(ii) $525,000,000,000.
`(D) FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS- The term `Federal health reform savings' means the sum of the amounts described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3).
`(3) DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS- Not later than December 1, 2012, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall--
`(A) determine, on the basis of the study conducted under paragraph (4), the aggregate reductions in Federal expenditures which have been achieved as a result of the provisions of, and amendments made by, division B of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 during the period beginning on October 1, 2009, and ending with the latest date with respect to which the Director has sufficient data to make such determination, and
`(B) estimate, on the basis of such study and the determination under subparagraph (A), the aggregate reductions in Federal expenditures which will be achieved as a result of such provisions and amendments during so much of the period beginning with fiscal year 2010 and ending with fiscal year 2019 as is not taken into account under subparagraph (A).
What?
Exactly what I said.
There aren't many places in the tax system where earning an extra dollar will
decrease your take-home pay. And I would agree that any place that does happen should be fixed.
When you enter a new tax bracket, it only applies to the income in that bracket. I don't know the numbers offhand, but I'll make some up for illustration.
Brackets:
$0-$10,000 0%
$10,000-$100,000 20%
$100,000 and up 40%
If you make $10,000, you pay nothing.
If you get a $1 raise, your take-home
increases by 80 cents. It doesn't decrease by $2,000.
If you make $100,000, you pay $18,000 in taxes.
If you get a $1 raise, you pay $18,000.40 in taxes, for a take-home
increase of 60 cents.
Further, the % goes up in 2012 in each income bracket.
Except the 5.4%.
So your post verifies that my interpretation was correct, with some updated numbers.
Someone making $350,001 would pay one cent, or two cents in 2012.
So your post verifies that my interpretation was correct, with some updated numbers.
Someone making $350,001 would pay one cent, or two cents in 2012.
Wrong. The math shows would never pay for it at that amount.
Given the US is about 305million people, the top income earners are about 2.5% of that or about 762,500. A one cent tax will not rais 1 trillion dollars.
You just posted the proposed law. Did you read it?
`SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
`(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to--
`(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
`(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
`(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
(edit)
The only people paying one cent would be people earning $350,001 exactly. With an income of $500,000, you'd pay $1500. With an income of $1,000,000, you'd pay $1500 + $7500 = $9000. For an income of over $1,000,000, subtract a million, take 5.4%, and add $9000.
Yep. 1 percent of the agi as tax payers income exceeds $350,000 is $3500.
See my edit, and read closer.
If you make $450,000, "so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000" is $100,000, and you pay 1% of that.
Dude. You can't pay the bill with that.
I can't speak to that, but that is what it says.
Tax tables from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2422&DocTypeID=1
It is on the whole AGI. Not just the amount above the lowest ceiling.
What leads you to that conclusion?
From your table,
Cash Income Level: 200-500 thousand
Average Federal Tax Change: 108 dollars.
So out of all of the people making between $200,000 to $500,000, the average tax increase would be $108. Makes sense, most of the people in that line of the table would obviously be less than $350,000.
Cash Income Level: 500 thousand to a million
Average Federal Tax Change: 2769 dollars.
That fits in my calculation of $1500 to $9000.
Ok, you win. That is what it looks like. But that is not what it says in the fine print.
The fine print can be misinterpreted in the same way that the article I posted could. The law you posted is (thankfully) more precise.
The way to parse that fine print is that it all applies to one tax unit, and it divides their income into piles. It doesn't divide tax units themselves into piles.
(1) Calendar year. Baseline is current law. Proposal is the surcharge on high income indivduals described in America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Tax units pay a 1 percent tax on modified AGI between $350,000 and $500,000 for couples ($280,000 and $400,000 for others), a 1.5 percent tax on modified AGI between $500,000 and $1,000,000 for couples ($400,000 and $800,000 for others), and a 5.4 percent tax on modified AGI exceeding $1,000,000 ($800,000 for others). Modified AGI is AGI less any deduction for investment interest.
So a couple puts up to $350,000 into one pile, and pays 0% on that.
If there's any left, they put up to $150,000 (half mill total) into the next pile, and pay 1% on that.
If there's any left, they put up to $500,000 into the next pile, and pay 1.5% on that.
And they pay 5.4% on the remainder.
I think it is largely the misunderstanding of this mechanic that leads people to claim that a progressive tax system "punishes success".
But a progressive tax system does punish sucess if they are the only ones paying the tax.
Each additional dollar may be taxed a bit more, but that is counterbalanced by far by the fact that each additional dollar is much easier to earn.
The libertarian, of course, asks if such a thing is fair ab initio. He can make a case for it not being so.
The libertarian, of course, asks if such a thing is fair ab initio. He can make a case for it not being so.
Adam Smith, the icon of many free traders, made a case for a progressive tax in "The Wealth of Nations":
[INDENT]The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[/INDENT]
Each additional dollar may be taxed a bit more, but that is counterbalanced by far by the fact that each additional dollar is much easier to earn.
What makes it easier to earn?
Every extra dollar I make is hard to earn.
Alexander Hamilton On Taxation
Excerpt from FEDERALIST No. 21
Other Defects of the Present Confederation
By Alexander Hamilton
for the Independent Journal
To the People of the State of New York:
HAVING in the three last numbers taken a summary review of the principal circumstances and events which have depicted the genius and fate of other confederate governments, I shall now proceed in the enumeration of the most important of those defects which have hitherto disappointed our hopes from the system established among ourselves. To form a safe and satisfactory judgment of the proper remedy, it is absolutely necessary that we should be well acquainted with the extent and malignity of the disease.
. . . There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Federalist_No_21.pdfI can't speak for you in particular, but here are a few ways in general.
At my level of income, most people's raises are in percentages of their current salary, which compounds over the years. People making the minimum wage have to wait for Congress to give them a raise, or work extra jobs.
I can invest. The more I have, the more I can invest. Dividends are in proportion to the amount I already have.
If you can build up a down payment, purchasing property causes housing payments to add rather than detract from your net worth.
If you have money, it's much easier to get loans of more money if you wish to start a business.
And that's at my middle-class level. At the ultrarich level, it is hugely exaggerated. Bill Gates could get his next million a bit quicker than I could get my first.
Yea, but you know it is common to hear people make comparisons to the likes of Bill Gates or other mega millionares. It really is not an accurate comparison to reference someone at that extreme. I am certainly in the upper middle. But I have worked my ass off to get here. And I have taken some pretty significant risks to make it happen over a lifetime.
Hard work gets you more. But it does not make the next dollar come any easier. And then you have the example of young people comparing themselves to what you may have in material goods or your bank account and they want that NOW. They don't think it is fair since you have so much more than them. You should share it. But they don't want to do the work or make the sacrifice to get to the same spot. There is always an excuse as to why they can't get to the same level of prosperity. But they know that you have more and therefore you can "afford" to help take care of their needs. That ain't happening.
Bill Gates is the extreme, but it applies all the way down. I just listed a bunch of ways that having money does make the next dollar come easier, even at my level. Care to respond to any of those?
I can't speak for you in particular, but here are a few ways in general.
At my level of income, most people's raises are in percentages of their current salary, which compounds over the years. People making the minimum wage have to wait for Congress to give them a raise, or work extra jobs.
At some small percentage of growth in salary is hardly making progress. I don’t really consider that significant growth. You can barely keep up with inflation or cost of living and almost all of those jobs have a ceiling to which you max out. Many jobs like that, for example a GS job is on a similar sliding scale that is determined by time and job description. Eventually you max out so growth stops. With the exception that government jobs are given a cost of living adjustment while most jobs do not give those. So sure you make more but only a very little more and then it stagnates.
I can invest. The more I have, the more I can invest. Dividends are in proportion to the amount I already have.
This is quite true. I do that with all of my investments.
If you can build up a down payment, purchasing property causes housing payments to add rather than detract from your net worth.
But the long term investment is what pays off in real estate, unless of course you got in during the recent bubble. But even with that you should come out ahead in the long run. Smart buyers can really make this work to your advantage. Simply paying an extra payment a year makes a significant difference. Real estate becomes your real nest egg over time. If you move frequently it will never likely pay off. But if you are settled down, like me, I will make more than 50% back on my house sale if I sold it in 5 years (because it will be nearly paid off). I would disagree, real estate can be a real money maker.
If you have money, it's much easier to get loans of more money if you wish to start a business.
That is very true. And if you don’t have any assets you will find it hard to get any kind of financing. And you would then be truly at the bottom of the economic scale.
And that's at my middle-class level. At the ultrarich level, it is hugely exaggerated. Bill Gates could get his next million a bit quicker than I could get
Again, ultra and uber rich is not an accurate or fair comparison in any of these scenarios. That is a whole class of people and situations which few to none of us will ever experience.
But the long term investment is what pays off in real estate, unless of course you got in during the recent bubble. But even with that you should come out ahead in the long run. Smart buyers can really make this work to your advantage. Simply paying an extra payment a year makes a significant difference. Real estate becomes your real nest egg over time. If you move frequently it will never likely pay off. But if you are settled down, like me, I will make more than 50% back on my house sale if I sold it in 5 years (because it will be nearly paid off). I would disagree, real estate can be a real money maker.
Sounds like you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. If you can afford to buy, you will make more than if you can't.
I agree with some of your examples, but not all of them.
The only "disagreement" I see is that the raise improvement isn't huge, and you don't think Bill Gates should count. You're not disagreeing with the examples, just about how much they factor in.
Even ignoring those examples, my point stands. It's easier to make more money if you have more money.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter who is in charge, the Federal Reserve is calling the shots. Doesn't matter who sits in the big chair.
Who needs to read the bill? Holy fucking shit! You people are so drunk on the koolaid that this does not bother you!?!?!
WTF?
Guys this is so telling of how the Demoncrats are taking care of your future...
During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
And you trust your future to these people?????????????
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=onAnd you trust your future to these people?????????????
Thank FSM I'm not entrusting my future to your ilk. Not right now.
Thank FSM I'm not entrusting my future to your ilk. Not right now.
What is my "ilk??"
Describe it to the rest of us.
Closed-minded. Always right. Never any real reasons for being so except for what you've been spoon-fed, which satisfies your hunger for being a power. Oh, and using too many question marks. ;)
:D
Closed-minded. Always right. Never any real reasons for being so except for what you've been spoon-fed, which satisfies your hunger for being a power.
Damm, you talking about Redux again?
Spoon fed? :lol2:
A pile of shit from the Demoncrats maybe.
8 years of Republickin Bull shit and now a shit sandwhich of Demoncratic Bull shit. Yea, the American public is getting a huge dose of it. I can't agree more.:D
You change it. Good luck.
I need to sleep. Damn, merc, I stayed up this late to argue with you? haggis!
:)
Good point. Again.
A waste of time. :D
Who pays the majority of taxes in this country?
The Democrats war on successful people continues unabated. Nancy Pelosi's choice comments yesterday, referring to insurance companies as "villains" is only the latest in what has been a series of statements and actions from Obama on down that show the Democrats aren't only anti-business; they're anti-businessman.
Now comes new data from the IRS that put to rest the myth that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. In fact, the data shows that the top 1% of taxpayers pay considerably more of their income as a percentage of the whole than the bottom 95% of taxpayers.
Scott Hodge writing on the Tax Policy Blog:
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007-the most recent data available-the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.
Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.
To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.
This has all taken place under the evil Bush regime that, as everyone knows, favored rich people and stuck it to the middle class.
In fact, a study done last year showed that it wasn't France, or Sweden, or any European country that had the most "progressive" tax system in the developed world. It was the good old USA.
Don't expect any change in the Democrat's tactics of attacking the rich. They have to have a scapegoat for their own failures and the rich fill the bill nicely.
by Rick Moran
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/making_liars_of_democrats_who.htmlWe have a completely different tax structure than the Euros. We'd have to include all taxation and then sus out who is paying what. For example SS hits the working poor hardest but isn't included.
We need to be very careful when using O'Reilly as a source on anything that requires math.
O'Reilly?
I was only addressing Federal Income Tax. Nothing to do with SS. They collect their tax. Completely different.
I assumed that since you were using O'Reilly's tactic on intentional misunderstanding of the tax levels, you were modeling after him, I guess you get your marching orders elsewhere. Moran is being intentionally deceptive on tax rates by excluding FICA which is capped at $106,800. Tax structure is too complicated and too individual to each country to be compared without a serious accounting of all taxes by all levels of government. As a percentage of income, FICA and gas taxes lean harder on the working poor, but are not included in the Income taxes are the only measure paradigm. I'm not saying I know what an honest accounting of taxation would reveal but I am saying that Moran is intentionally omitting the taxes that hit the working poor.
Sort of like the VAT in the UK, right? That certainly does not affect the poor. :rolleyes:
Moran is addressing the only thing I have addressed. That the progressive income tax is unfair and unbalanced.
Obama and the Press and people bitched about Bush using the press. They are no different.
The Prez, The Press, The Pressure
Networks Grouse About Obama in Prime Time
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 3, 2009
In the days before President Obama's last news conference, as the networks weighed whether to give up a chunk of their precious prime time, Rahm Emanuel went straight to the top.
Rather than calling ABC, the White House chief of staff phoned Bob Iger, chief executive of parent company Disney. Instead of contacting NBC, Emanuel went to Jeffrey Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric. He also spoke with Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, the company spun off from Viacom.
Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months. But network executives have been privately complaining to White House officials that they cannot afford to keep airing these sessions in the current economic downturn.
The networks "absolutely" feel pressured, says Paul Friedman, CBS's senior vice president: "It's an enormous financial cost when the president replaces one of those prime-time hours. The news divisions also have mixed feelings about whether they are being used."
While it is interesting to see how a president handles questions, Friedman says, "there was nothing" at the July 22 session, which was dominated by health-care questions. "There hardly ever is these days, because there's so much coverage all the time."
Had Obama not answered the last question that evening -- declaring that the Cambridge police had acted "stupidly" in arresting Henry Louis Gates at his home -- the news conference would have been almost totally devoid of news. And that raises questions about whether the sessions have become mainly a vehicle for Obama to repeat familiar messages.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080202045_pf.htmlObama's program not working, small fractions helped.
Mortgage aid program helping fraction of borrowers
By ALAN ZIBEL, AP Real Estate Writer Alan Zibel, Ap Real Estate Writer – Tue Aug 4, 6:24 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The government's $50 billion program to ease the mortgage crisis is helping only a tiny fraction of struggling homeowners, and a list released Tuesday showed which lenders are laggards.
As of July, only 9 percent of eligible borrowers had seen their mortgage payments reduced with modified loans. And the first monthly progress report showed that 10 lenders had not changed a single mortgage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_bi_ge/us_mortgage_helpSo now ole Rahm it Through wants to stifle Free Speech?
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel warned liberal groups this week to stop running ads against Democratic members of Congress.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25900.htmlSo now ole Rahm it Through wants to stifle Free Speech?
Oh No!
He's invoking
Reagan's 11lth Commandment:
[INDENT]
"Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican (Democrat)"[/INDENT]
How could he stoop so low!
Closed-minded. Always right. Never any real reasons for being so except for what you've been spoon-fed, which satisfies your hunger for being a power. Oh, and using too many question marks. ;)
Actually, Shawnee, it is less that we're always right, than that you are so often so consistently wrong.
Capitalism's the way of the future, basically because the future goes to the money, not to the poverty. Our reasons are realer than any reason you can muster up, and we stand ready to demonstrate that over and over and over and over and over and over ad infinitum until even the worst, most economically illiterate fanatic Socialist must be convinced. Or else left isolated in his own cyst, walled away from the body politic by his own opinions. This eternal willingness is because what is true doesn't change... and it's more truth than you've ever possessed. Here's a teachable moment. Will it teach Shawnee enlightenment, or teach the enlightened that Shawnee has the brains of a planarian?
Will it teach Shawnee enlightenment, or teach the enlightened that Shawnee has the brains of a planarian?
Um duh, um, mebbe I kin larn to think, ya think? Buts I only gots ONE brains so I can't live in that there planetarium your talkin' 'bout.
Now I see the problem: you are multi-brained, while little old me only has the one. :(
Actually, Shawnee, it is less that we're always right, than that you are so often so consistently wrong.
Capitalism's the way of the future, basically because the future goes to the money, not to the poverty. Our reasons are realer than any reason you can muster up, and we stand ready to demonstrate that over and over and over and over and over and over ad infinitum until even the worst, most economically illiterate fanatic Socialist must be convinced. Or else left isolated in his own cyst, walled away from the body politic by his own opinions. This eternal willingness is because what is true doesn't change... and it's more truth than you've ever possessed. Here's a teachable moment. Will it teach Shawnee enlightenment, or teach the enlightened that Shawnee has the brains of a planarian?
I would suggest that the so called drift to socialism is, in fact, simply a series of short term measures to correct the economy that was broken and heading towards collapse as a result of drifting away from any government regulation....to be followed by the restoration of reasonable regulations to keep the free marketeers from returning to those excesses.
They said "short term" about FDR's New Deal too. And its opponents opposed it on the grounds that if it was different from state socialism, they'd sure wouldn't want to live on that difference. It's not very much talked about, but might they have had a point then? You're not going to hear about this in high-school American History class, are you? (American history is not, I think, very well taught in grades 1-12 -- in spite of my always enjoying it and getting good grades. I could see why some people got bored and tuned it out and I could watch them getting bored stiff too.)
And the present bureaucracy and multiplicity of Federal Agencies of this that and the other is still here, even after the Supreme Court dissolved the National Recovery Administration.
That Other NRA
It's best if most of us don't get fooled again. That way we can resist the harebrained headlong national debt increase and the inflation that will follow in its wake if implemented, and vote out the dopes who've enacted this whole attempt to dismember a fifth of the world's economy, namely the American economy.
The finger of blame has been pointed at the Federal Government, particularly certain named Congresscritters like Barney Frank, for rejiggering investment risk and lending risk to induce a too-large expansion of debt as a part of the national economy. This would not have occurred
without Congressional mandate, now would it have? Earlier Federal financial regulation was designed to contain the excesses of debt mismanagement that crashed the stock market and then everything else into the Depression. This earlier regulation was replaced by removing such regulation and insisting that credit be extended wider and wider and deeper and deeper -- and whattaya know, the debt burden grew to enormous size. It's a matter of public record, d'ya know. I mean, if Fox News Channel can find it, surely you can too, if you think you're smarter than a Fox.
Um duh, um, mebbe I kin larn to think, ya think? Buts I only gots ONE brains so I can't live in that there planetarium your talkin' 'bout.
I devoutly hope that you can.
For it would be pleasant. I like pleasant, and all the more for not always being so myself.
Sidereally yours,
UG/Reid
___________
"Keep Looking Up." --
Jack HorkheimerFox News Channel :eek:
Of course they blame Barney Frank, rather than eight years of a nearly totally deregulated financial services industry that ran amok.
In all fairness, Clinton and the Republican Congress of the late 90s share the blame with Bush and Republican Congress (of 2000-06) and the lack of any serious oversight for six years. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen..and to no surprise, it happened.
It didnt just happen in 2007 when Barney Frank rose to the chairmanship of a House committee.
This only covers banks getting TARP funds, and only until they pay back the money. Why should that bother you? After that, they can go back to their old behavior. Which sucks. We NEED pay reform in this country.
Apparently, they can't repay the loans, pop.
source
Text:
As you know, I did not support the legislation creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Among the many reasons I could not support the legislation was the fact that, despite verbal assurances by your predecessor and others about the purposes for which the TARP program would be used, once monies were appropriated there were virtually no meaningful safeguards against them being used for – quite literally – any reason and in any manner whatsoever.
Sadly, almost immediately after Congress funded what amounted to a blank check, the TARP was put to other purposes than those used to sell the program. One such use was the ‘Capital Purchase Program,’ through which the federal government has become a stockholder in many financial institutions.
But we now know that the very largest institutions were summoned to Washington and essentially informed by Secretary Hank Paulson that the government was buying into their businesses through the Capital Purchase Program – whether they liked it or not. In fact, one of Mr. Paulson’s “talking points” for that meeting was that “if a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware your regulator will require it in any circumstance.” Other institutions were merely ‘urged’ by their regulators to participate in the Capital Purchase Program. Tony Soprano could not have been more direct.
Unfortunately, it now also seems that – as with Tony Soprano – getting Uncle Sam out of your business is much more difficult than letting him in. Now many healthy institutions (institutions that have just passed government “stress tests”) have concluded they no longer want the government as an investor in their businesses. They want to pay back the TARP funds and conduct their businesses without the aid or interference of government.
But, rather than hearing “hallelujah” from a federal agency eager at the prospect of recovering taxpayer money and winding down the TARP program, these institutions find themselves at the end of a growing list awaiting “permission” to repay the government! It gives the appearance that the Troubled Asset Relief Program – which was sold to the people as being one thing, but which has been conducted as another – might not be so eager to go out of business.
Reports that Treasury’s TARP office recently signed a 10 year lease on new office space in downtown Washington do not give comfort to those who question the motives of those running the ‘temporary’ TARP program. And I am sure that they do not give comfort to private sector institutions that do not understand why they need to get “permission” to give the taxpayers their money back.
Mr. Secretary, the federal government had no business making banks “an offer they couldn’t refuse” and muscling its way into their businesses by threatening regulatory retaliation. Now, when institutions want to return taxpayer money, their government should take it – and do so while refraining from any inference of reprisal.
The time has come for the federal government to exit the bailout business, and accepting returned Capital Purchase Program investments would be an excellent first step in that direction. Anything less is unacceptable.
Walter B. Jones, Jr.
(R), Representative of North Carolina.
I've been dragging my bagpipe case out lately -- with its Kingdom of Atlantia sticker centered on its lid.
Actually, Redux, Fox News does and did apportion blame all over. Barney was just one of the ones they fingered. They found the things you found. See? -- they can't be wrong just because they sound a little more Republican than everybody else except the blogoverse.
I've been dragging my bagpipe case out lately -- with its Kingdom of Atlantia sticker centered on its lid.
:luv:
I devoutly hope that you can.
For it would be pleasant. I like pleasant, and all the more for not always being so myself.
Sidereally yours,
UG/Reid
:) I'm not always pleasant either. But next time I have a hankerin' for being pleasant I'll be sure to shower some on you. :)
Economy recovering? No wai not with them stupid dems and Obama in charge...o wait...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. unemployment rate fell in July for the first time in 15 months as employers cut far fewer jobs than expected, giving the clearest indication yet that the economy was turning around from a deep recession.
U.S. employers shed 247,000 jobs in July, the Labour Department said on Friday, the least in any month since last August, taking the unemployment rate down to 9.4 percent from June's 9.5 percent. ....
U.S. stocks rallied on the data as investors took the view that the recession was ending. The Dow Jones industrial average ended up 1.2 percent at 9,370.07. The dollar surged, while government bond prices tumbled. ...
Link
BUT WHERE ARE THE JOBS???!!!
Um duh, um, mebbe I kin larn to think, ya think? Buts I only gots ONE brains so I can't live in that there planetarium your talkin' 'bout.
Now I see the problem: you are multi-brained, while little old me only has the one.
Now now, we're just fragile females. We can't be worryin' ourselves with men issues.
Economy recovering? No wai not with them stupid dems and Obama in charge...o wait...
See, these naysayers have this Big Bang theory for economic recovery. It should go from disaster to spectacular in 5 months. This slow move towards success is just piddly stuff: it won't add up.
So said the Hare to the Tortoise. By "Hare" I mean...ah well, you know. :p
One month of job improvement still does not equal "millions of jobs". It is all politics folks. It is easy to make promises for things that can't be measured.
http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/is-the-stimulus-stimulating-jobs-we-may-never-know-for-sure-520One month of job improvement still does not equal "millions of jobs". It is all politics folks. It is easy to make promises for things that can't be measured.
Its easy to call "game over - you lose" after one quarter of play (or six months into a 18-24 month program)...but its not objective.
Ok, could you please document the number of jobs created that were "shovel ready" since the Stimulus Bill was approved?
Ok, could you please document the number of jobs created that were "shovel ready" since the Stimulus Bill was approved?
Why,...the game is not over...its not even half time yet.
Objective people withhold judgement until a full picture is available.
And even in the short time to-date, the portions of the program to assist state/local governments and to extend unemployment benefits have had a significant impact.
Because they promised to kick start the economy with "Shovel Ready" jobs.
And they defined it in this way:
The Committee’s Rebuild America proposal establishes aggressive, “shovel-ready” deadlines for the use of the economic recovery funds. These deadlines include a 90-day, use-it-or-lose-it requirement for a percentage of the funds. This aggressive mandate will produce a “quick hit” that will jump-start the economy and create a substantial number of new construction jobs by June.
http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Full%20Committee/Stimulus/shovel%20ready%20projects.pdf
But yet, the jobless rate remains above 9%, and climbing.
Only ideologues and idiots would expect any program to turn the economy around on a dime.
Only ideologues and idiots would expect any program to turn the economy around on a dime.
This is what The Administration promised, as quoted in their own words. So you think the Obama administration is filled up with "ideologues and idiots"?
Nope...I think they misjudged the extent of the economic downtown and are facing the political consequences from the the ideologues and the idiots who were looking for any excuse to proclaim the program a failure before giving it a chance to fully kick-in.
It is comical how many Republican governors have complained about the program while at the same time handing out checks for projects.
As defined by their short term goal of, "jump-start the economy and create a substantial number of new construction jobs by June", why yes, they have completely failed. To the tune of over 2 million job losses since Jan 09.
It is comical how many Republican governors have complained about the program while at the same time handing out checks for projects.
Money greases all politics. Another reason for the failure.
Well,
here's one example of change.
American Express and Discover will no longer bill customers who exceed their credit limits, according to company spokespeople. The creditors aren't eliminating the fees because they care about their customers. No, they're providing what American Banker calls "the first concrete examples of how a new law will restrict issuers' abilities to turn a profit." The new CARD Act that Congress passed in May requires consumers to opt-in before they can exceed their credit limits. Since overlimit fees, which can reach $39, aren't very profitable for creditors, they decided to ditch the fees altogether.
Before anyone comes to the defense of the credit card industry, there are two points to be made here. The law merely states that customers have to opt-in. This simply means that like in any normal business relationship, the customer must agree to a service that will cost him or her money. In other words the customer should be able to decide up front whether to have a card denied on each occasion when they are over their limit or be hit with a $39 charge each time, even if they make individual small purchases.
The second is that
credit card companies have been lowering credit card limits without adequately informing customers. This means that even customers who diligently track their purchases may be surprised. At at possible $39 for each transaction, it could be a very large surprise.
The law does not prohibit the practice, it merely states that the customer must explicitly agree to the feature.
I am more concerned that they are unilaterally removing an individuals access to previously available credit without notification. Although it should change now it says volumes about the shady business they run.
The credit card "bill of rights" while it could have done more was applauded by nearly all consumer organizations.
[INDENT]"This is probably the strongest piece of consumer legislation to pass Congress in a decade," said Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America.
"That's a big win," said Ed Mierzwinksi of US Public Interest Research Groups. "It gets rid of any 'gotcha" tricks."
"The bill picks up where the Fed's rules leave off, protecting all Americans from unjustified or excessive fees and stopping retroactive interest rate hikes that only bury struggling families in insurmountable debt..." said Lauren Saunders, Managing Attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.[/INDENT]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/33/establish-a-credit-card-bill-of-rights/They did good with that one.
They did good with that one.
Okay, who hacked Merc's account?
Take off that mask and show us who you really are!
Business as usual in D.C.
Firms with Obama ties profit from health push
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.
Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama's campaign, and Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work there.
The firms were hired by Americans for Stable Quality Care and its predecessor, Healthy Economy Now. Each was formed by a coalition of interests with big stakes in health care policy, including the drug maker lobby PhRMA, the American Medical Association, the Service Employees International Union and Families USA, which calls itself "The Voice for Health Care Consumers."
Their ads press for changes in health care policy. Healthy Economy Now made one of the same arguments that Obama does: that health care costs are delaying the country's economic recovery and that changes are needed if the economy is to rebound.
There is no evidence that Axelrod directly profited from the group's ads. Axelrod took steps to separate himself from AKPD when he joined Obama's White House. AKPD owes him $2 million from his stock sale and will make preset payments over four years, starting with $350,000 on Dec. 31, according to Axelrod's personal financial disclosure report.
A larger issue is a network of relationships and overlapping interests that resembles some seen in past administrations and could prove a problem as Obama tries to win the public over on health care and fulfill his promise to change the way Washington works, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group.
"Even if these are obvious bedfellows and kind of standard PR maneuvers, it still stands to undercut Obama's credibility," Krumholz said. "The potential takeaway from the public is 'friends in cahoots to engineer a grass roots result.'"
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that Axelrod has had no communications with Healthy Economy Now or with Americans for Stable Quality Care, and his payments aren't affected by the ad contracts. Axelrod's son, a salaried AKPD employee, doesn't work with either coalition "or stand to benefit from that work," LaBolt said.
"David Axelrod has fully complied with the toughest-ever ethics rules for administration officials, including divesting from AKPD before the administration began," LaBolt said.
Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president, said GMMB and AKPD were the only two firms working on the $24 million in ads. He declined to reveal how much each was paid beyond saying that each received a small percentage of the total. The coalition's campaign team decided to hire the two firms, he said.
"In a perfect world, it's a distraction we don't need right now, but these are very gifted consultants who have done very good work," Johnson said. "And it's also important to remember that at the end of the day, the coalition partners determine the message."
Healthy Economy Now spokesman Jeremy Van Ess said the two firms were hired because "they are the best at what they do. Period." The coalition didn't seek approval or direction on any of its activities from the White House, said Van Ess, a partner in a consulting firm that has worked on Democratic Senate election activities and a former speechwriter for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
AKPD and GMMB both proudly proclaim their connections to Obama on their Web sites.
AKPD has a full page on Axelrod that includes pictures of Obama. In one photo, Obama hugs Plouffe on election night.
"We are deeply honored to have been part of Barack Obama's historic campaign to change America and the world," GMMB says on its Web site. GMMB's partners include Jim Margolis, a senior strategist for Obama's presidential campaign.
Both GMMB and AKPD also have worked for Democrats this year. The Democratic National Committee paid AKPD at least $106,000 for polling, media production, communication consulting and travel costs from February through April. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid GMMB roughly $75,000 from February through June for ads. And GMMB took in at least $9,000 this year from Senate leader Reid's political action committee for communications consulting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_consultantsHmm... an article about how nothing bad was done, but it could look bad if somebody wrote an article about how it could look bad, while taking care to point out that nothing bad was done. How meta.
Hmm... an article about how nothing bad was done, but it could look bad if somebody wrote an article about how it could look bad, while taking care to point out that nothing bad was done. How meta.
Bwaaahaaahaaaa! :thumbsup:
And really, how could we ever get enough of these kinds of articles? I was just saying to myself today, "Self, how could you get your hands on hundreds of irrelevant articles on a daily basis?" There just aren't enough pointless meandering partisan articles around these parts.
Yea, I agree, sort of like when the VP left a company that he was on the board of directors and that company directly profited from their government contract. :lol:
Really, that's old news. Shouldn't we forgive Cheney for Halliburton by now? ;)
Well Obama is doing a live interview with some conservative radio talkshow host in the White House. Pretty impressive. I would give Obama two thumbs up on that one.
Pretty funny.
Ben Smith
August 19, 2009
'We are God's partners in matters of life and death'
A reader points out that President Obama's call with the rabbis today — as recorded in Rabbi Jack Moline's and other clerics' Twitter feeds — freights health care reform with a great deal of religious meaning, and veers into the blend of policy and faith that outraged liberals in the last administration.
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."
The president ended the call by wishing the rabbis "shanah tovah," or happy new year — in reference to the High Holidays a month from now.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/We_are_Gods_partners_in_matters_of_life_and_death.html?showall
The sound of silence.
I'd say he is making room in the middle for religious moderates. The GOP used the right edge effectively to get their crusade in the Middle East. Obama is trying to make the middle comfortable for people who think religion is useful for something other than getting people amped up to kill. There are a lot of spiritual people in this country who've turned away from organized religion in part because of its marriage to the GOP regardless of the other policies it promotes based solely on an expressed opposition to abortion. Obama is doing a very smart thing. It may be cynical but at least his motive is in line with the beliefs of the target audience. Bushes hijacking of the nation's pulpits was brilliantly done. Franco would have been proud.
The move of the population away from organized religion began long before Bush came on the scene. Maybe more people moved away when the GOP expressed their overwhelming belief in faith based programs to assist in the issues of the charity. I can't recall anything other than a few sound bites that proclaimed faith to pursue the WOT. But given that many people were religious it sounds like a logical thing to do when you are about to go into armed conflict. I never heard any of the rally cries when I was on active duty at that time which ever invoked some kind of use of organized religion to "amp up" the troops. Maybe you had a different experience when you were serving at the time, or someone in your family, or even a close friend. I never heard it. The problem people have with organized religion in this country has very little to do with some fantasy that it was highjacked by the GOP. Seems to me that Obama and his reverend’s sound bite of “GOD DAMM AMERICA” Wright did more to move people away from organized religion than Bush did in 8 years.
Further, I would state that there have been three widespread expose's of hardcore religious infiltration of the military. 1) The Air Force Academy. 2) A bunch of high ranking generals involved in a quasi-military religious organization. 3) A recent article in Harpers that summarized some of the previous as well as some investigative reporting. I only heard about the last one because my brother, a hard core Obama worshiper, sent me the mag. It really was a pretty interesting read. Most of it was quite believable. The problem is I really don't know anyone who ever felt the way the investigator tried to portray members on active duty and their religious affiliation. I never heard much about religion. Even in the military it remains a pretty personal thing. It is not like there are a bunch of Jesus Freaks running around invoking GOD/Lord/Jesus on the way to battle. But when you deploy you tend to get close to God, in whatever sense that means to you, or spiritual. Funny the way the possibility of death will do that to you. Anyway, I also spent a fair amount of time around people of the 05-09 level on a fairly regular basis and I just don't ever recall hearing someone invoke GOD or something else as a motivation for impending military operations, other than the usual prayer by a Chaplin (mostly non-denominational). Maybe Reg Joe, Caphowdy, or some others with military experience during the Bush years could share and confirm or deny similar experiences. I am just one person with one experience, although it was an intense one for the last 9 years of my service. So I would be interested to hear what others have to say on the issue. I just never saw religion being invoked or high jacked to pursue activities in TWOT, Iraq or Afgan deployment activities. Every time I read something about it or a comment I am more convinced that it is another wedge that the liberal-left has used to solidify Bush Hate when really it was a non-issue.
On another note about the liberal press, why did they hide the guys race? I never even new the guy carrying was black until I saw a pic on the web but yet it was talked about for days on end.
Daily Gut: Does MSNBC Want a Race War?
by Greg Gutfeld
So on Tuesday, we did a segment on this black dude who showed up in Arizona where Barack Obama was speaking – with an assault weapon and a pistol strapped to his shoulder. We all pretty much agreed, that despite his actions being legal, it was still idiotic. There are many things in life that are legal, but totally nuts if done at the wrong time. For example, when I shower I’m completely naked – no law against that. However, try showing up nude at a Jonas Brothers lunch box signing – that’s another story (I blame it on the Ambien).
But this leads me to MSNBC, where on Tuesday Contessa Brewer – someone I’d like to see in a shower - filed a report about health care protesters showing up armed. In it, she used tape of that same black man carrying an assault rifle and said “there are questions about whether this has racial overtones….white people showing up with guns.”
Of course, like I said – the guy was black. But you never would have known. Because MSNBC has strategically edited the tape, so the race of the armed dude wasn’t revealed. You just assumed he was white, thanks to Contessa.
Take a look at the tape from the MSNBC segment:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2009/08/20/daily-gut-does-msnbc-want-a-race-war/The move of the population away from organized religion began long before Bush came on the scene.
Definitely.
Maybe more people moved away when the GOP expressed their overwhelming belief in faith based programs to assist in the issues of the charity.
I think the outrage there was more out of the Democrats anti-religion corner but subsidizing religious organizations regardless of mission is going to be controversial. Since the opposition was so loud Obama probably needs to reposition his party as less anti-religion.
I can't recall anything other than a few sound bites that proclaimed faith to pursue the WOT. But given that many people were religious it sounds like a logical thing to do when you are about to go into armed conflict. I never heard any of the rally cries when I was on active duty at that time which ever invoked some kind of use of organized religion to "amp up" the troops. Maybe you had a different experience when you were serving at the time, or someone in your family, or even a close friend. I never heard it.
I meant amp up the civilian population to support a war of choice.
..."this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." The problem people have with organized religion in this country has very little to do with some fantasy that it was highjacked by the GOP.
Everyone who has left a church has their own reasons. Mine had to due mostly with perceived close-mindedness, sharp movement away from Vatican II, adherence to dogma over reason, covering up clergy abuse, putting the Church before ethics, denial of the legitimacy of other religions, and miss-use of the pulpit to organize for the GOP. My Catholic diocese is fully in the pocket of the Republican Party with the bishop forcing the priests to read his political tracts and threatened denial of communion to Biden.
Seems to me that Obama and his reverend’s sound bite of “GOD DAMM AMERICA” Wright did more to move people away from organized religion than Bush did in 8 years.
I never saw that having an impact but then I never attended his particular church or denomination.
Definitely. I think the outrage there was more out of the Democrats anti-religion corner but subsidizing religious organizations regardless of mission is going to be controversial. Since the opposition was so loud Obama probably needs to reposition his party as less anti-religion.
Definately. But it does not explain the silence on the part of those who are memebers of their "anti-religion corner". The outcry of those radical elements was huge. It just sounds like ANOTHER example of the double standard and pass given to Obama.
I meant amp up the civilian population to support a war of choice. ..."this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile."
Possible. I never saw it that way, but like you (if I read your comments correctly) I am not all that connected to organized religion in any way. I just don't ever recall large groups of people invoking religion in the same way that Bush stated it. He said it. I never heard it repeated.
Everyone who has left a church has their own reasons. Mine had to due mostly with perceived close-mindedness, sharp movement away from Vatican II, adherence to dogma over reason, covering up clergy abuse, putting the Church before ethics, denial of the legitimacy of other religions, and miss-use of the pulpit to organize for the GOP.
I agree 100%.
My Catholic diocese is fully in the pocket of the Republican Party with the bishop forcing the priests to read his political tracts and threatened denial of communion to Biden.
I couldn't respond, I haven't been but to a few weddings and funerals in the last 20 years.
.., I haven't been but to a few weddings and funerals in the last 20 years.
That is my plan for the next twenty. :)
I meant amp up the civilian population to support a war of choice. ..."this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile."
So he said it in dog-whistle language, and you're the dog. The rest of us didn't hear it, so it didn't happen for us.
I recall them being apologetic for the word crusade.
Seems to me that Obama and his reverend’s sound bite of “GOD DAMM AMERICA” Wright did more to move people away from organized religion than Bush did in 8 years.
The people you're listening to are speaking in dog-whistle language, and the rest of us can't hear it. Why on earth would 10 seconds of one preacher's message give anyone cause to question their religious affiliation? If they abandon it for Rev. Wright, the message was surely not very important or meaningful for them in the first place. Whomever fed you this particular line of bullshit, stop paying attention to them.
So he said it in dog-whistle language, and you're the dog. The rest of us didn't hear it, so it didn't happen for us.
They had you with 24 hour cable news. Different whistles for different dogs.
The people you're listening to are speaking in dog-whistle language, and the rest of us can't hear it. Why on earth would 10 seconds of one preacher's message give anyone cause to question their religious affiliation? If they abandon it for Rev. Wright, the message was surely not very important or meaningful for them in the first place. Whomever fed you this particular line of bullshit, stop paying attention to them.
Well I guess Obama is full of shit. Maybe I should pay less attention to him. He clearly severed his ties to the church because of this politically damaging statement.
He severed ties to one church, not the church.
If a fact needs spinning, it is probably false on its face.
Then why'd you bring it up, Merc?
Then why'd you bring it up, Merc?
Gutteral response as an opposit extreme view of those who believe there is something bigger to it, like those who believe there is a religious element to Warrior Ethics.
Further, I would state that there have been three widespread expose's of hardcore religious infiltration of the military. 1) The Air Force Academy. 2) A bunch of high ranking generals involved in a quasi-military religious organization. 3) A recent article in Harpers that summarized some of the previous as well as some investigative reporting. I only heard about the last one because my brother, a hard core Obama worshiper, sent me the mag. It really was a pretty interesting read. Most of it was quite believable. The problem is I really don't know anyone who ever felt the way the investigator tried to portray members on active duty and their religious affiliation. I never heard much about religion. Even in the military it remains a pretty personal thing. It is not like there are a bunch of Jesus Freaks running around invoking GOD/Lord/Jesus on the way to battle. But when you deploy you tend to get close to God, in whatever sense that means to you, or spiritual. Funny the way the possibility of death will do that to you. Anyway, I also spent a fair amount of time around people of the 05-09 level on a fairly regular basis and I just don't ever recall hearing someone invoke GOD or something else as a motivation for impending military operations, other than the usual prayer by a Chaplin (mostly non-denominational). Maybe Reg Joe, Caphowdy, or some others with military experience during the Bush years could share and confirm or deny similar experiences. I am just one person with one experience, although it was an intense one for the last 9 years of my service. So I would be interested to hear what others have to say on the issue. I just never saw religion being invoked or high jacked to pursue activities in TWOT, Iraq or Afgan deployment activities. Every time I read something about it or a comment I am more convinced that it is another wedge that the liberal-left has used to solidify Bush Hate when really it was a non-issue.
OK, not the military necessarily, but have you heard the news about Blackwater and Eric Prince? Apparently he sees himself as some big crusader, like, in the original sense of the word.
"...The affidavits also claim that Mr Prince smuggled weapons into Iraq and that he “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe...”
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14291547On another note about the liberal press, why did they hide the guys race? I never even new the guy carrying was black until I saw a pic on the web but yet it was talked about for days on end.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2009/08/20/daily-gut-does-msnbc-want-a-race-war/
humph. Well, I didn't see that particular segment, but I do watch MSNBC all the time, and on the shows I watch, they most certainly DID show the guy's face and his race. Still, I agree that a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven.
I do watch MSNBC all the time,
Biased as all get out information isn't really information.
I agree that a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven.
Bullshit - only among the uninformed/ignorant. Stop being such a patsy to the extremists.
I didn't say MSNBC is ALL I watch, just that I watch it a lot. I also watch other news sources, and read different news magazines. I even watch FOX sometimes when I can stomach it.
And I am not being a patsy to anyone, I am calling it like I see it.
oh, and I disagree that MSNBC is biased.
Still, I agree that a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven.
Bullshit -
only among the uninformed/ignorant.
You can't have it both ways.
Well monkey - maybe the people you hang around are racists and biased based upon something as insignificant as another persons color, but not in my world.
Stop promoting that partisan bullshit, and yes, it's BULLSHIT.
Why is it, when its the other side, its always partisan bullshit, but when its your own side, its the truth?
lol - ask yourself that question. Perhaps it will allow for some enlightenment.
Well monkey - maybe the people you hang around are racists and biased based upon something as insignificant as another persons color, but not in my world.
Stop promoting that partisan bullshit, and yes, it's BULLSHIT.
There isn't a lot of anger or animosity among the people I hang around, so I'm not sure where you're coming from there.
But if "a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven" "among the uninformed/ignorant", then the premise that "a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven" isn't bullshit.
I think the problem here is that "only among the uninformed and ignorant" could mean "only among X% of the population" where the value of X could be higher than most of us would like to admit.
That's a pretty big "only" group, by quite a lot of estimates.
I'm not surprised.
I'm not going to say that MSNBC is unbiased, just that they are more credible than Fox. I'm still trying to find left wing nutjobs that MSNBC has given a platform to on par with Ann Coulter's access to Fox.
I watch Morning Joe on MSNBC with a former moderate Republican Congressman as host frequently flanked by Pat Buchanan a conservative Republican/Independent.
When Barney Frank gets to host a show on Fox with Al Gore as a guest, I'll declare them less biased.
There isn't a lot of anger or animosity among the people I hang around, so I'm not sure where you're coming from there.
But[SIZE="7"] if[/SIZE]
Rich.
When the lefty NY Times publishes conservative voices for its opinions columns, it tries hard to get the most solid thinkers it can. David Brooks, and now, Ross Douthat. That's credibility. Putting Pat Buchanan on as your token conservative means you're actually harder left, and less credible. You've chosen a voice that is A) not well representative of conservativism, B) often deeply anti-Semitic/racist and C) easily dismissed.
lol - ask yourself that question. Perhaps it will allow for some enlightenment.
I've never made the claims you do about partisan bullshit.
That's fine. From my perspective, it is very easy to see.
There isn't a lot of anger or animosity among the people I hang around, so I'm not sure where you're coming from there.
But[SIZE=7] if[/SIZE]
You already conceded that "if" when you said a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven
among the uninformed/ignorant
You already conceded that "if" when you said a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven
Incorrect, I never said that. I initially disagreed with her statement and still do. Sorry. Again, for the record - I disagree with that premise except perhaps,
among the uninformed/ignorant
Then you don't disagree with the statement.
Again, the statement is bullshit unless you are uninformed and/or ignorant.
If the statement does apply to uninformed/ignorant people, as you have conceded, and said uninformed/ignorant people exist, which your concession implies, then the statement is true.
Wait--he only implied that uninformed/ignorant "exist" (based on your interpretation of his post). Maybe they don't, and then he wins.
Either way, we're still stuck with an idiot for a president. I have a feeling nobody will win at this game.
That's because we are all just pawns in the game. Cannon fodder, if you will.
But if "a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven" "among the uninformed/ignorant", then the premise that "a LOT of the anger out there IS because we have a black man as president, and a lot of the animosity IS race driven" isn't bullshit.
Sounds like bullshit to me. I did hear a a black woman on CNN make a very emotional statement supporting this notion that all this opposition to Obama is race driven. All she could offer to support her statements were some very loose associations and connections which bordered on conspiracy theory and really discredited her. CNN gave her a pass and never once challanged her statements. So far no one can prove any racial connection between opposition to Obama's policies. So until that happens it is all Bullshit. Talk about fear mongering among the supporters of Obama to get people to support them. Wow, sounds just like what the Republickins did to get people to support the WOT.:rolleyes:
And the study sheet the Obama Administration put out for school use pending Obama's upcoming speech was astonishingly personality-cultish for the United States. It is more what would be expected for Cuba, Albania, or Ingushetiya. Obama's people thought this would be a good idea. Well, when half your "special advisors" are communists, this is the sort of thing you have to expect.
And that lunatic Radar thought Obama was "the more libertarian candidate." Dear God, what ineptitude and imperception. Radar voted not his wisdom, but his wildly anti-Republican prejudices. It's a dumb thing to vote with your limbic system.
FACT CHECK: Biden ignores problems with stimulus
Biden noted 192 airports targeted for improvements with stimulus money, but made no reference to the investigation launched after a federal watchdog raised concerns about how the projects were selected.
Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel said last month he will examine the Federal Aviation Administration's process for selecting programs for the $1.1 billion in grant money. His announcement came after his office discovered that the Obama administration used stimulus money to pay for 50 airport projects that didn't meet the grant criteria and approved projects at four airports with a history of mismanaging federal grants.
In making the case that the recovery program was not just economically sound but also good policy, Biden noted that transportation money was replacing unsafe bridges.
"It is worthwhile to take some of those 5,000 bridges out there that are ready to collapse, follow what happened in the upper Midwest, and fix them," he said.
But most states are spending stimulus money on bridges that are already in good shape, another AP analysis found. Of the 2,476 bridges scheduled to receive stimulus money so far, nearly half have passed inspections with high marks, according to federal data. Those 1,123 sound bridges received such high inspection ratings that they normally would not qualify for federal bridge money, yet they will share in more than $1.2 billion in stimulus money, the AP analysis published in July found.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gII_eXwpVyrwITxM1gouPdCc--RgD9AGCLEG0Its Bush's fault - they're just tryin to clean up the mess.
Why of course it is...
"the Obama administration used stimulus money to pay for 50 airport projects that didn't meet the grant criteria and approved projects at four airports with a history of mismanaging federal grants."
This is so far out there as to contention over nothing that I don't understand how you could read this and not be saddened by the turn of events. There was a time when children were taught to have faith in the country, to at least respect the leader even if it's not the leader you hoped for. I said this last line to nudge Merc and classic. Come on guys, what did Obama say that would warrant such hatred? I have no idea, because the speech hasn't happened yet. It
seems to center around the importance of education, and staying in school, which
seems to be pretty routine as agenda. Your cohorts believe this is a partisan effort? To do what? To encourage kids to stay in school, by our President? Egads, that asshole!
Someone should be very ashamed.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.htmlThis is so far out there as to contention over nothing that I don't understand how you could read this and not be saddened by the turn of events. There was a time when children were taught to have faith in the country, to at least respect the leader even if it's not the leader you hoped for. I said this last line to nudge Merc and classic. Come on guys, what did Obama say that would warrant such hatred? I have no idea, because the speech hasn't happened yet. It seems to center around the importance of education, and staying in school, which seems to be pretty routine as agenda. Your cohorts believe this is a partisan effort? To do what? To encourage kids to stay in school, by our President? Egads, that asshole!
Someone should be very ashamed.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html
I have no problem with Obama speaking to school children. I do respect the right of parents or States Rights.
And the study sheet the Obama Administration put out for school use pending Obama's upcoming speech was astonishingly personality-cultish for the United States. It is more what would be expected for Cuba, Albania, or Ingushetiya. Obama's people thought this would be a good idea. Well, when half your "special advisors" are communists, this is the sort of thing you have to expect.
And that lunatic Radar thought Obama was "the more libertarian candidate." Dear God, what ineptitude and imperception. Radar voted not his wisdom, but his wildly anti-Republican prejudices. It's a dumb thing to vote with your limbic system.
All politicians build personality cults. For instance, Bush still holds you in his grasp even as his very unRepublican interventionist programs continue to kill American soldiers and yield little in the way of democratic self government. Both major parties are cult-like. People compromise their beliefs for the necessary group think that governing requires. It is both creepy and inevitable for successful government.
I also think it's quite distasteful to be bashng a former dwellar who isn't here any more. Hasn't been here for a heck of a long time. Not only is it distasteful, as he isn't around to mount a defence, but it's more than a little creepy as it shows a level of obsession that surprises me somewhat.
I must have missed something: what former dwellar?
I must have missed something: what former dwellar?
I believe it is ref to Radar in UG's comments.
All politicians build personality cults. For instance, Bush still holds you in his grasp even as his very unRepublican interventionist programs continue to kill American soldiers and yield little in the way of democratic self government. Both major parties are cult-like. People compromise their beliefs for the necessary group think that governing requires. It is both creepy and inevitable for successful government.
I agree with you but in principle, if you continue the policy and practice of the previous administration then they de facto become your responsibility and you have to assume responsibility for them. Otherwise you have the power to terminate them or at least make it well known that you are supporting them but want them to stop immediately.
I believe it is ref to Radar in UG's comments.
Radar's been around. He's hardly "former." Last log-in...today! :confused:
I agree with you but in principle, if you continue the policy and practice of the previous administration then they de facto become your responsibility and you have to assume responsibility for them. Otherwise you have the power to terminate them or at least make it well known that you are supporting them but want them to stop immediately.
True, he ran for the job knowing what he was facing.
I thougt he was no longer a member? Self-requested ban i thought.
Back to the non-story of Obama Obamanizing our school children:
Schoolchildren across the nation "will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president."
Truth-o-meter says: liar liar pants on fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/republican-party-florida/republican-party-florida-says-obama-will-indoctrin/[youtube]-CJYgubXghs[/youtube]
Did I hear the words Uncle Tom somewhere before?
This guy is a true abomination!
What Americans won't do to make a buck, huh.
Capitalism a it's best or worst?
I like how he uses Mack Daddy but "He" is a half breed? Whole thing doesn't make any sense. Propaganda at work again.
I said this last line to nudge Merc and classic. Come on guys, what did Obama say that would warrant such hatred?
Huh? What did I do now?
One of the great things about America is that you have the freedom to hate whoever you want.
Our schools are not broadcasting the speech. I think they got it right. Let the parents decide if they want their kids to watch it. It isn't up to the schools.
I don't see a problem with the President addressing school children about the importance of education. I'd have a serious problem if he was talking about policy, unless it was as part of a class on politics and citizenship and was primarily structural in nature.
When I was in third grade the President addressed school children about drug use. We not only were ushered out of class to watch it, three of us were interviewed about our opinion on his speech for the local evening news.
It isn't a problem. The problem is the right wingers fabricating bullshit lies, just to cause as much trouble as they possibly can. To create as many diversions as possible from the business at hand, by misinforming the gullible, racists, and people with selfish agendas.
Our schools are not broadcasting the speech. I think they got it right. Let the parents decide if they want their kids to watch it. It isn't up to the schools.
Well, it's up to the schools what they teach them in science class. It's up to the schools whether or not they run citizenship programmes. And it's up to the schools whether or not to show the kids videos on the progress of a bill through congress. Why shouldn't it be up to the schools whether or not the kids listen to a non-political message from their president about the importance of working hard in school and aiming high?
Obama is showing what's called leadership--- by addressing the school children.
Are you a "True American" if you refuse to let your child listen to the US President's Address?
Noted without comment:
This just in ... Obama is a leftist!
Posted: September 03, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
"Now I'm truly scared."
A friend wrote this after she watched Fox News' Glenn Beck's series on the "alarming number of far-left radicals the president is surrounded by" – referring to some of the president's special advisers and "czars." President Barack Obama, my friend tells me, is "a true left-winger."
So, now she knows.
She didn't know after the president signed the $800 billion so-called "stimulus program." She didn't know after government takeovers/bailouts of banks, insurance companies
and auto companies.
She didn't know after Obama campaigned in favor of protectionism by promising to unilaterally change free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, or after the inclusion of "Buy American" provisions in the "stimulus package."
She didn't know after Obama campaigned on government-run health care or after he said during the campaign that "if starting from scratch," he'd implement the Canadian single-payer system.
From
Larry Elder.
Some people are remarkably thick, and can prove it beyond doubt. This unnamed woman ought to move in with Radar's family. She and he would have so much to talk about.
I also think it's quite distasteful to be bashng a former dwellar who isn't here any more. Hasn't been here for a heck of a long time. Not only is it distasteful, as he isn't around to mount a defence, but it's more than a little creepy as it shows a level of obsession that surprises me somewhat.
In my case the one thing it shows is normal memory -- of a vivid impression to be sure, but normal in any case. The guy did say he voted for Obama on the grounds he thought Obama was the more libertarian candidate. Mistaking Obama for a libertarian... words just fail. So does Radar.
I understand Radar's situation is he's busy first with moving, then fixing up the new house. Not a lot of time to sit on his fatty acids and do the Seinfeldian yadda yadda in the Cellar just yet.
For instance, Bush still holds you in his grasp even as his very unRepublican interventionist programs continue to kill American soldiers and yield little in the way of democratic self government. Both major parties are cult-like.
Griff, I can recognize libertarian-like thinking and policymaking in Republicans even when you can't. Bush41 didn't, but Reagan did, as did Bush43. To how much effect, particularly inside the Beltway, there is plenty of room for debate. I'd imagine at least three thick books' worth.
I am no intellectual puppet, but you may be, as suggested by your "holds you in his grasp" blather. It's the kind of thing puppet people would say, no? I challenge you to show otherwise. For starters, interventionism against totalitarianism cannot be wrong, and you cannot show it to be so. Don't remain misled by white liberal guilt; democracy in its several flavors is really the only way for humans to live well vis-a-vis their governments. Anything less than democratic inescapably ends up being all about the oppression. Such things are quite the enemy of mankind. See if you can show otherwise. I don't think you can manage that one either; not and stay committed to liberty you can't.
You're a stimulating thinker, Griff, but you still manage to piss me off a lot, for somebody I've probably got a lot in common with.
Ahhh....dunno why I had scanned your reply and though it said Radar, I 'saw' rkzenrage lol.
Soz about that :P
I fear that my fears about a culture czar are being realized.
Thankfully, we still don't have a cabinet-level Secretary of Culture, but we do have Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, who, in a conference call last week, sought to rally the artworld troops behind President Obama's call for Americans to engage in public service.
It's a worthwhile objective, to be sure. But government exhortations for artists to join the United We Serve brigade makes me more than a little uneasy. Many, if not most, of our most important and influential artists and cultural institutions are impelled by self-driven creative imperatives, not external political ones. That's the way it SHOULD be.
As I commented when the controversy over Quincy Jones' call for a Culture Secretary briefly surfaced:
More government oversight will inevitably lead to more government interference and control.
During last week's conference call (on which I was a lurker, after a waiting period rendered nearly unendurable by our being a captive audience for three clunkers from Kenny G's "Greatest [or Worst] Hits" album), there was much talk of finding ways to "get the arts community engaged in a sustainable way" and "leveraging federal dollars" to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.
Americans for the Arts, whose president, Robert Lynch, played a leading role during the conference call, has launched a United We Serve arts website, where you can "share your story" on how "arts make change happen." Among the highlights: "The Ultimate Happy Hour at Gap, Inc." and the "United We Serve Arts Idea Kit."
This was the second such conference call: In a post on the Big Hollywood blog (excerpted yesterday by the Wall Street Journal), Patrick Courrielche, who reported that he was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to participate in the first telephone discussion on Aug. 10, came away fearing that the arts were at risk of "becoming a tool of the state."
Courrielche wrote:
It sounded, how should I phrase it...unusual that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me....
Throughout the conversation, my inner dialogue was firing away questions....Is this truly the role of the NEA? Is building a message distribution network, for matters other than increasing access to the arts and arts education, the role of the National Endowment for the Arts?
At the beginning of the second conference call, last Thursday, Modi informed us that "unfortunately our colleagues from NEA and NEH [the National Endowment for the Humanites]" were tied up in meetings and couldn't participate, as had been planned.
Could it be they were having second thoughts about commandeering their constituents for this political adventure? We can only hope so.
One of those who added personal comments to the webpage announcing Thursday's conference call said it best:
Am I the only one creeped out by this? The White House is asking the arts community to produce propaganda for its agenda---as if that was not already happening to an alarming level in a democracy....By saying this, am I gonna get on the "bad list" at the White House?
I'm "creeped out" too...even though, like many on the call, I supported and (with reservations) still support the agenda of the new President.
Link
I dunno what to make of this. Is it more fear-mongering from the right or an example of the current administration getting a little too involved for comfort?
I'm not familiar enough with either of these organizations to really know what it is they are supposed to do. I did find it an interesting read though and thought I'd share it.
Nothing new about the US government commissioning art. There's a good
exhibit going on at the Smithsonian American Art Museum where government sponsored art that was commissioned as part of the New Deal is showcased. It's some really good work. You might even recognize some of it.
Ahhhh but glatt - you missed the point - was that intentional?
Maybe I did miss the point. I thought the point was that the government was using artists to get a political message out. What did you think the point was?
That the Gov't was using them to get their message out.
Well they did that during the New Deal too, and it resulted in some nice art. Some of it was simple documentation of the work that the government was doing, but the message then was that the government was there to improve your life and that the New Deal was a good thing. Like this painting of a Binghamton underpass.
I like that one. Very understated, yet it still has a certain aura to it.
I'm missing the issue here.
But I havent seen anything that would suggest the intent is to use the arts to promote a political agenda...nor do I think it is about government funding of the arts, but rather to demonstrate- through encouraging artists to share specific examples of art, theater, music dance - and how the arts can play a positive role in the "community"...whether the "community" is local or national.
A continuation of the Bush Sr. and the arts component of the "thousand points of light", Clinton's role of the arts in the Community Service Corps and the same in GW Bush's USA Freedom Corps.
I don't know that there is an issue - that was my original point. She seemed to think there was and so did the other person who was "creeped out" by "it." I really didn't get what she was referring to. I shared the article, thats all.
Either way, its better than talking about non-existent death squads... :p
just cuz you can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Ahhh....dunno why I had scanned your reply and though it said Radar, I 'saw' rkzenrage lol.
Soz about that :P
Erm... that
would be awkward. Somehow. I think. If I go and dig through the posts of Nov '08, I can find the exact post, I'm sure.
I thought his speech was quite... Presidential. He spoke much better than Bush ever could. I am not sure it really changed anyone's mind about the issues at hand.
I heard a poll on the radio that showed a dramatic change - 67% supporting him. That won't last, but some amount of improvement probably will.
But I doubt he changed many congressional minds.
Sure enough, CNN did a flash poll showing that ObamaCare a 14-point gain among speech-watchers. Buried at the end of the story is the fact that the sample of speech-watchers in the poll was 45% Democratic and 18% Republican. For comparison, consider that the most recent Gallup survey of party ID among adults had 35% of Americans as Democrats and 28% as Republicans. A 14-point swing among a sample that skewed to the left is not surprising. Regular tracking polls are unlikely to show anything near it.
I think this is from a partisan site, but I only did a quick google search.
And it was a poll based on 427 Adults. :lol2:
Well that and ...
I noted that “the self-selected audience for the speech will likely skew in favor of Obama, something to remember if the establishment media does a poll of people who watched the speech.” There was nothing oracular about this prediction. As Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal noted before the speech: (1) instant response polls measure only speech-watchers; (2) the audience is usually skewed toward the President’s fans; (3) instant reactions tend to fade; and (4) some pollsters have reservations about instant reaction polls in general.
And it was a poll based on 427 Adults. :lol2:
I'm guessing that you are not familiar with surveys and statistics. For the given sample size the margin of error is ~4.5%. Acceptable for a quick poll.
Major surveys typically use a sample size of ~ 1000. However that only reduces the margin to ~3.2 percent.
Ohhh noooooo - Merc doesn't believe in polls - don't get that started again!
I'm guessing that you are not familiar with surveys and statistics. For the given sample size the margin of error is ~4.5%. Acceptable for a quick poll.
Major surveys typically use a sample size of ~ 1000. However that only reduces the margin to ~3.2 percent.
I am quite familar with the statistical strenght of and validity of polling. It is the weakest form of any statistical measure and means absolutely nothing because the majority are not measuring an adequate sample. There are numerous other weaknesses but I will spare you.
I am quite familar with the statistical strenght of and validity of polling. It is the weakest form of any statistical measure and means absolutely nothing because the majority are not measuring an adequate sample. There are numerous other weaknesses but I will spare you.
I see. You know better than the industry standards. Uh-huh.
lol - told ya that was coming - HAGGIS!
There are numerous other weaknesses but I will spare you.
If I want to dig any deeper into polling and statistics, I will walk down the hall and talk to any of the statistics doctorates we have here.
(If that allows any of you to guess where I work, be advised that I do not speak for the company I work for, and my opinions are my own.)
lol - told ya that was coming - HAGGIS!
You called it.
Perhaps it comes from Merc's years of professional experience working for political strategy consultants or private sector market research companies....where polling is a proven and effective tool among many such tools to gather and/or assess public opinion.
Oh wait...Merc has never worked in those fields, has he?
Perhaps it comes from Merc's years of professional experience working for political strategy consultants or private sector market research companies....where polling is a proven and effective tool among many such tools to gather and/or assess public opinion.
Oh wait...Merc has never worked in those fields, has he?
Nope, but I know how those who have want to convince others and the masses that they have validity which they do not. Some call it marketing, others call it push advertising or lobbying. But then again I don't deal with trying to manipulate the system for special interest groups either. I treat them all the same, just like shit.
Nope, but I know how those who have want to convince others and the masses that they have validity which they do not. Some call it marketing, others call it push advertising or lobbying. But then again I don't deal with trying to manipulate the system for special interest groups either. I treat them all the same, just like shit.
There is a huge difference between push polls (Karl Rove was an expert with those) and statistically sampled public opinion polls, with the questions validated for bias in advance, and accounted for in the results.
When you have experience with using valid public opinions polls created by professionals....and see the value....get back to me.
The only point I would concede is that with most of the media polls, they only share the numbers and not the pages of analysis that accompany those numbers and address the biases in both questions and respondents.
There is a huge difference between push polls (Karl Rove was an expert with those) and statistically sampled public opinion polls, with the questions validated for bias in advance, and accounted for in the results.
When you have experience with using valid public opinions polls created by professionals....and see the value....get back to me.
The only point I would concede is that with most of the media polls, they only share the numbers and not the pages of analysis that accompany those numbers and address the biases in both questions and respondents.
Anyone with a simplistic understanding of statistical measure understand the weakness of polling as having the weakest form of validity. Anyone can study the history of manipulation of media, advertising, or study any miriad of historical examples of the use of polling to sway public opinion and the underbelly of the beast is exposed. So you admit to being part of it, good on you for having the balls to admit that you are part of the BS lies. Congrats.
Anyone with a simplistic understanding of statistical measure understand the weakness of polling as having the weakest form of validity. Anyone can study the history of manipulation of media, advertising, or study any miriad of historical examples of the use of polling to sway public opinion and the underbelly of the beast is exposed. So you admit to being part of it, good on you for having the balls to admit that you are part of the BS lies. Congrats.
yep...I just have a simplistic understanding of political polling, having studied the subject, worked in the field and seen its value firsthand..but you are the man who knows better!
Congrats! I aspire to your greatness and your all encompassing knowledge!
I aspire to your greatness and your all encompassing knowledge!
I like that line
Congrats! I aspire to your greatness and your all encompassing knowledge!
Thank you.
Some types have been around forever. From the Book of Job:
"Oh yes. All wisdom will die with you." (Job speaking to some other know-it-all)
Some types have been around forever. From the Book of Job:
"Oh yes. All wisdom will die with you." (Job speaking to some other know-it-all)
I would never say I was a "know-it-all". About anything.
I thought his speech was quite... Presidential. He spoke much better than Bush ever could. I am not sure it really changed anyone's mind about the issues at hand.
:eek: I can't believe you actually said that! :eek:
Quote:
Sure enough, CNN did a flash poll showing that ObamaCare a 14-point gain among speech-watchers. Buried at the end of the story is the fact that the sample of speech-watchers in the poll was 45% Democratic and 18% Republican. For comparison, consider that the most recent Gallup survey of party ID among adults had 35% of Americans as Democrats and 28% as Republicans. A 14-point swing among a sample that skewed to the left is not surprising. Regular tracking polls are unlikely to show anything near it.
I think this is from a partisan site, but I only did a quick google search.
You think? the fact that they called it "ObamaCare" should have been a clue...
After reading the posts since the last time I time I was here, I stand by my assertion that a LOT of the negative stuff out there is coming from a place of racism. There are a lot of people in this country who are not comfortable having a black man in charge. And they are willing to start a fucking violent revolution and overthrow the government in order to prove it. Anyone who doesn't see it is IMO very naive.
It was reported on the news that Obama has had more death threats than any president, EVER, in the history of this country. That cannot just be a coincidence.
And the sad thing is, some politicians are fueling the flames with their rhetoric, legitimizing the nonsense. All the talk of seccesion, and death panels, and socialism, it is ridiculous coming from politicans. It seems that now it is OK for a politician to talk in such extremes to call the lunatics into play. I wonder how they would feel if the president was assassinated because of their legitimizing the whacko extremists?
http://www.truthout.org/091209E
"...Potok says that beyond the usual backlash against immigration, hate and militia groups have been reenergized by the economic crisis, the ascendancy of a progressive agenda on Capitol Hill, and the election of the first African American president. The day after Obama was elected, activity surged on hate sites across the Web and several prominent white supremacist groups saw a spike in membership requests.
Taken together, the factors amount to what experts call a "perfect storm" for extremism to blossom. Meanwhile, Potok says the barrier between the white nationalist movement and traditionally less racist elements of the radical right is beginning to recede, leading to more collaboration between the groups.
"In a sense there are distinct aspects of the radical right and the more nonracial part of the radical right, the patriot movement or militia movement, you couldn't fairly describe it as a white supremacist or white nationalist movement," said Potok. "Yet the militia movement as it is reemerging is more racialized than it used to be."
Potok says the radicalization of the health-care debate, characterized by widely exaggerated claims and attempts to paint the president as a socialist, is only making things worse.
"These kind of ideas are getting mainstreamed in many cases by people in positions of real authority," he said. "I think that mainstream politicians and cable news commentators have contributed in a really vile and shameful way."After reading the posts since the last time I time I was here, I stand by my assertion that a LOT of the negative stuff out there is coming from a place of racism. [/I]
Bull shit. I don't believe that one minute. Some? Sure. The majority? Hell no. It is about the issues. I think he is very presidential and doing a great job of representing the office. I just don't agree with many of his socialist ideals. I could care less if he was a Martian.
You think? the fact that they called it "ObamaCare" should have been a clue...
IT will for ever be known as ObamaCare. Forever, failure or success. So far I see nothing but complete failure in the plan.
There is a huge difference between push polls...
I never used the word polls.
After reading the posts since the last time I time I was here, I stand by my assertion that a LOT of the negative stuff out there is coming from a place of racism. There are a lot of people in this country who are not comfortable having a black man in charge. And they are willing to start a fucking violent revolution and overthrow the government in order to prove it. Anyone who doesn't see it is IMO very naive.
Then I guess I also have to stand by my thought when you were here before: you are fucking koolaid drinking imbecile. It is quite possible for a large number of Americans to have a variety of reasons (some valid, some pretty stupid) for disliking the President and/or his policies without racism being a major factor.
NPR did a race story this morning. There is a racial component but the ugly rhetoric is in line with what Clinton and Bush got. NPR mentioned the showing up armed at Presidential events thing which is a huge increase in the threatening posture but failed to mention that one of the best armed nutters was a black man. It is more party politics than race but both sides will use race to hold the creepy base. The part that to me seems most racially focused is the kooky citizenship nonsense.
Race is the most easy to grasp tool the politicians use to separate us from each other. Some people are more susceptible to the idiocy than others.
NPR did a race story this morning. There is a racial component but the ugly rhetoric is in line with what Clinton and Bush got. NPR mentioned the showing up armed at Presidential events thing which is a huge increase in the threatening posture but failed to mention that one of the best armed nutters was a black man. It is more party politics than race but both sides will use race to hold the creepy base. The part that to me seems most racially focused is the kooky citizenship nonsense.
A fair statement. The Race Card being thrown is nothing more than a Strawman by those who support the changes. Nice try, but that dog "Won't Hunt" (Bill Clinton).
Bull shit. I don't believe that one minute. Some? Sure. The majority? Hell know. It is about the issues. I think he is very presidential and doing a great job of representing the office. I just don't agree with many of his socialist ideals. I could care less if he was a Martian.
He is not a socialist. People throw that word around without any regard for what it really means.
The fact that so many people believe he isn't American (the birthers), or that he is Muslim, just proves that people will say and believe anything, no matter how much it is disproved. Do you honestly think people would be reacting the same way if Hillary had won? I doubt it. But all the ridiculous talk, by supposed "legitimate" people, is not helping. They should be debating what is actually IN THE BILLS they disagree with, instead of being completely disrespectful and spreading lies and fear and talking about secession and invoking the tenth ammendment, if they want to be taken seriously. Oh, and they should be telling people to STOP showing up with GUNS where the President is speaking.
In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former President Jimmy Carter said he has been extremely bothered by the heightened climate of racial and other hate speech since the election of President Barack Obama. Go to following link to watch.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/15/carter_claims_there_is_racist_tone_against_obama.htmlHe is not a socialist. People throw that word around without any regard for what it really means.
I know what it means, many of his policy proposals reflect it.
The fact that so many people believe he isn't American (the birthers), or that he is Muslim, just proves that people will say and believe anything, no matter how much it is disproved.
I don't believe any of that.
Do you honestly think people would be reacting the same way if Hillary had won? I doubt it.
No, and I could give a shit because that bitch lost and I am glad for that much. I would take Obama over her anyday.
But all the ridiculous talk, by supposed "legitimate" people, is not helping. They should be debating what is actually IN THE BILLS they disagree with,
Yea, that IS what I am trying to do.
instead of being completely disrespectful and spreading lies and fear and talking about secession and invoking the tenth ammendment, if they want to be taken seriously.
I could care less about that BS.
Oh, and they should be telling people to STOP showing up with GUNS where the President is speaking.
Yea, tell those black men to stop showing up with their guns.
In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, former President Jimmy Carter said he has been extremely bothered by the heightened climate of racial and other hate speech since the election of President Barack Obama.
I could give a shit about what Carter says about anything. I mean really. He is just supporting his base. Feeling bad for his ancestors who owned slaves. I have very little interest in much of what he has to say.
ftr, I did not say ALL OF IT was racially motivated, I said I thought A LOT OF IT was. I stand by that. If we had a white man doing the same things, I feel quite certain the temperament would not be as bad as it is.
My brother (the conservative one) has been sending me emails about all the bailouts Obama started. But most of the bailouts were started by Bush, something that is lost on many people who are crying about Obama's socialism. In addition, many of them are now claiming the recession is Obama's fault, even though it began BEFORE he was even elected! And this brother of mine is not stupid, even though it he is acting stupid by sending this crap out and thereby helping to facilitate the nonsense. I do believe he is racist, even though I don't believe he knows he is. He is a "polite" racist. He has racist tendencies, but he isn't aware of them.
In addition, Obama is doing exactly what he campaigned on. He campaigned on health care reform, green energy and education reform. He tied health care to the economy, as he should. He won by a huge majority. Because he won with such a large majority, I think he is caving in WAY too much to the right. He should be trying to get single payer, but instead, it looks like we might not even get a public option now. He is trying WAY too hard to please the people who will never vote with him, and who LOST. *sigh*
Then I guess I also have to stand by my thought when you were here before: you are fucking koolaid drinking imbecile. It is quite possible for a large number of Americans to have a variety of reasons (some valid, some pretty stupid) for disliking the President and/or his policies without racism being a major factor.
And you, sir, are a complete asshole.
ftr, I did not say ALL OF IT was racially motivated, I said I thought A LOT OF IT was. I stand by that.
More BS. Very little of it is. It is fearmongering by the Left to make associations that don't exist and to demonize the opposition.
My brother (the conservative one) has been sending me emails about all the bailouts Obama started. But most of the bailouts were started by Bush, something that is lost on many people who are crying about Obama's socialism. In addition, many of them are now claiming the recession is Obama's fault, even though it began BEFORE he was even elected! And this brother of mine is not stupid, even though it he is acting stupid by sending this crap out and thereby helping to facilitate the nonsense. I do believe he is racist, even though I don't believe he knows he is. He is a "polite" racist. He has racist tendencies, but he isn't aware of them.
Not important to the greater discussion. Sorry you think your brother is a racist for opposing Obama.
I know what it means, many of his policy proposals reflect it.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Not really, but whatever. We live in a quasi-socialist country. Health care should not be something that is "for profit" to the extent it is now.[/COLOR]
I don't believe any of that.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I didn't say YOU did, I was saying that many people in this country do, and that many of those people are fueling all of this crap.[/COLOR]
No, and I could give a shit because that bitch lost and I am glad for that much. I would take Obama over her anyday.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]At least you admit it's true. That should prove right there to you that some of the rhetoric is racist-oriented.[/COLOR]
Yea, that IS what I am trying to do.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Well right on then. Too bad legitimate people aren't.[/COLOR]
I could care less about that BS.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]The point is, a lot of people DO care about it, and they are causing a lot of concern and trouble. And all the politicians who are doing really need to stop.[/COLOR]
Yea, tell those black men to stop showing up with their guns.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I've only seen ONE black person at a rally with a gun. But ftr, they should be telling ALL PEOPLE to stop showing up with guns. You can't go to Disneyland with a gun, but you can go to a presidential speech with one? What the fuck is wrong with that picture?[/COLOR]
I could give a shit about what Carter says about anything. I mean really. He is just supporting his base. Feeling bad for his ancestors who owned slaves. I have very little interest in much of what he has to say.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Well, he is from the south, he was governor of Georgia, and he was president. He was around during the Civil Rights Movement. I think he knows racism when he sees it.[/COLOR]
More BS. Very little of it is. It is fearmongering by the Left to make associations that don't exist and to demonize the opposition.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]ummm, it isn't the left stirring up fear with death panels, and talk of the president not being legitimate because he wasn't born here (which of course we all know he is and he was), or talking about rationing healthcare, and secession. That is all coming from the whaco extremists on the right. The FEAR is coming from the right.[/COLOR]
Not important to the greater discussion. Sorry you think your brother is a racist for opposing Obama.
I don't think he's racist for opposing Obama, I think he's racist for other reasons. And as I said, I don't think he believes he is. But, he is.
Not really, but whatever. We live in a quasi-socialist country. Health care should not be something that is "for profit" to the extent it is now.
At least you admit to the socialist agenda. I will give you that much.
[quote]At least you admit it's true. That should prove right there to you that some of the rhetoric is racist-oriented.
It proves nothing of the sort.
I've only seen ONE black person at a rally with a gun. But ftr, they should be telling ALL PEOPLE to stop showing up with guns. You can't go to Disneyland with a gun, but you can go to a presidential speech with one? What the fuck is wrong with that picture?
But yet you want to make a big deal out of 2 incidents from all of his numerous speaking events. This ain't Disney Land.
Well, he is from the south, he was governor of Georgia, and he was president. He was around during the Civil Rights Movement. I think he knows racism when he sees it.
Sure, just like he knows Porn when he sees it. He is still a dick.
[QUOTE=sugarpop;595099]
But yet you want to make a big deal out of 2 incidents from all of his numerous speaking events. This ain't Disney Land.
I find it hard to believe that you think it is OK to go where the president, ANY PRESIDENT, is going to be while carrying a weapon. I can only imagine what would have happened if a liberal had tried to do that when Bush was president. Really. People were being arrested for their fucking T-SHIRTS when Bush was prez.
Sure, just like he knows Porn when he sees it. He is still a dick.
whateveh. So are you. (I still love you though. *smooch*)
you are fucking koolaid drinking imbecile. It is quite possible for a large number of Americans to have a variety of reasons (some valid, some pretty stupid) for disliking the President and/or his policies without racism being a major factor.
Here here! and to legitimatize the "Race Card" or to disregard any criticisms simply because of race is dishonest, disrespectful and pure partisan politics. Who is it that keeps bringing up race again? Oh thats right, the D's. and Rachael Maddow. :vomit:
Race is the most easy to grasp tool the politicians use to separate us from each other. Some people are more susceptible to the idiocy than others.
Example ... sugarpop
I find it hard to believe that you think it is OK to go where the president, ANY PRESIDENT, is going to be while carrying a weapon.
IS this something new? Were there changes in the laws? Did Obama or the house suddenly allow people to carry guns to Presidential events? ... whats that? no? Oh, then shut up.
After reading the posts since the last time I time I was here, I stand by my assertion that a LOT of the negative stuff out there is coming from a place of racism.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Friday that angry criticisms about his health care agenda are driven by an intense debate over the proper role of government — and not by racism.
"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are," Obama told CNN. "That's not the overriding issue here."
Time and again, Obama was asked about whether the tenor of the health care debate turned nasty because of undercurrents in racism. Former President Jimmy Carter raised the point prominently this week when he said the vitriol was racially motivated.
Not so, Obama said.
"Now there are some who are, setting aside the issue of race, actually I think are more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right," Obama said told ABC News. "And I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."
I knew sooner or later he would say something that wasn't completely obtuse.
IS this something new? Were there changes in the laws? Did Obama or the house suddenly allow people to carry guns to Presidential events? ... whats that? no? Oh, then shut up.
As far as I know, it IS something new. Just because there isn't a law against it doesn't make it less disturbing. Considering the range of modern handguns, having them that close is tempting fate.
I agree with Sugarpop that during the last administration there were crackdowns on protesters based on the signs/t-shirts they had with them. Why do we feel safe to put time and place restrictions on the First Amendment and have none on the Second Amendment? I we can have 'free speech' zones miles away from events, why can't we have 'open carry' zones out of gunshot? Noone ever got killed by being yelled at, but we've 3 attempts on presidents since Kennedy.
I knew sooner or later he would say something that wasn't completely obtuse.
Well, he also said Kanye West is a jackass. :lol2: I thought that was GREAT!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/obama-kanye-is-a-jackass_n_286623.htmlOh yeah.... I forgot about that one.
I like it that he's willing to criticize his supporters when they deserve it. I'm looking at the Republicans kissing Beck's and Limbaugh's asses when they step over the line. Kissing? It's more like licking.
It's funny that the coverage has moved to Beck since Limbaugh is not extreme enough anymore. If the progression moves any farther forward, the eventual GOP spokesperson will be covered in shit and speaking in tongues.
I agree with Sugarpop that during the last administration there were crackdowns on protesters based on the signs/t-shirts they had with them. Why do we feel safe to put time and place restrictions on the First Amendment and have none on the Second Amendment? I we can have 'free speech' zones miles away from events, why can't we have 'open carry' zones out of gunshot? Noone ever got killed by being yelled at, but we've 3 attempts on presidents since Kennedy.
Boy and those attempts were by who? The radical right? :headshake
I'm looking at the Republicans kissing Beck's and Limbaugh's asses when they step over the line.
It's funny that the coverage has moved to Beck since Limbaugh is not extreme enough anymore. .
Thats only the extreme right and that is certainly not most R's.
The coverage is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. I didn't realize you were that gullible.
Thats only the extreme right and that is certainly not most R's.
The coverage is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. I didn't realize you were that gullible.
Its how all the Republicans I know are. They're still dangerous and have influence, you can't dismiss them because "its only the extreme right." Because either it isn't, or they have a disproportional amount of pull.
Anti-Americanism: Alive and Well in the Age of Obama
Islamic countries distrust the United States under the leadership of President Obama about as much as they did under President George W. Bush. What's going on?
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/september/anti-americanism-alive-and-well-in-the-age-of-obamaAnti-Americanism: Alive and Well in the Age of Obama
Islamic countries distrust the United States under the leadership of President Obama about as much as they did under President George W. Bush. What's going on?
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/september/anti-americanism-alive-and-well-in-the-age-of-obama
Uh OH...a poll?
I posted the same Pew study
elsewhere.
The image of the US as a whole has not changed much (marginally more favorable) in Muslim countries in the last year. Perhaps the lack of change in the US favorability ratings as a whole (as opposed to the ratings of the president) is due, to some degree, to such things as deeply held resentments still lingering from the invasion/occupation of Iraq and the treatment of detainees, anti-Muslim signs during and after the campaign, and anti-Muslim rhetoric spewed on Beck/Limbaugh, etc. that are still a staple of some (not all) on the far right. But it probably stems more from the fact that across the US, the public has always (and will continue to) strongly support Israel's right to exist and live in peace with its neighbors.
What the AEI article failed to mention was the other poll that was part of the same Pew study....the perception and confidence of the US president as a world leader:
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Significantly higher confidence in Obama among the Muslim nations - Egypt (+31), Jordan (+24), Lebanon (+13), Palestinian Territories (+15), Pakistan (+6), Indonesia (+48)
Uh OH...a poll?
:lol:
:mock:
Uh OH...a poll?
You obviously failed to read to the end of the article, and hence the point of it. This is like shooting Redux Fish in a barrel.:rolleyes:
Opinion polls do not mean a hill of beans in cultures rendered incoherent by despotism, denial, rage, and irrational religion.The Pew Research Center for People and the Press, directed by Andrew Kohut, has led the research effort to prop up these pernicious myths: The trick is to employ polling methods oblivious to the cultural pathologies raging in Arab and Muslim societies. What does “public opinion” mean under Islamic regimes that outlaw political parties, control the media, underwrite hate speech in sermons and school textbooks, persecute religious minorities, and torture political dissidents? Pew researchers remain unburdened by these complicated realities.
The Pew Research Center, advised by no less a partisan than former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, continues to make the now incomprehensible claim that “the unilateralist U.S. foreign policy” of George Bush was the engine of anti-Americanism the world over. In a summary report of its work over the last eight years, Pew researchers concluded: “In the view of much of the world, the United States has played the role of bully in the school yard, throwing its weight around with little regard for others’ interests.” Of Pew’s 25 surveys conducted since 2001, America’s image problem was designated “the central, unmistakable finding.”
The actual unmistakable finding, confirmed by the resiliency of anti-Americanism in the era of Obama, is that opinion polls do not mean a hill of beans in cultures rendered incoherent by despotism, denial, rage, and irrational religion. Instead, such surveys merely allow partisans to use foreign narrators to voice their private grievances. These researchers surely realize that countless Arab and Muslim leaders are devoted to disseminating a perversely distorted image of the United States. Yet they carry on, blithely unconcerned that the abnormalities of Islamist societies—where the suicide bomber is a sanctified symbol of martyrdom—might represent an assault on the moral norms of the democratic West.
A more honest approach to polling could help us better understand America’s influence in the world. It might suggest how the ideals of equality, freedom, government by consent, religious liberty—the core doctrines of the American creed—pose a threat to despots and religious demagogues. That would require researchers, however, to suspend their agendas and begin asking tough, open-ended questions to more diverse audiences.
You obviously failed to read to the end of the article, and hence the point of it. This is like shooting Redux Fish in a barrel.:rolleyes:
I read it and recognize that the American Enterprise Institute has a neo-con agenda that runs counter to the Pew study...and that many AEI scholars and fellows had formal roles in the Bush administration, including guys like Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowicz (who were principle architects of Bush's Iraq policy) and others like Bush's UN ambassador John Bolton and Lynn Chaney.
AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy. More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow, and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include David Frum, Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Irving Kristol, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#cite_note-bush-speech-2
Is it any wonder that they might want to defend the Bush foreign policy (ie their own policy advice) and the Bush/Cheney legacy...right or wrong?
You made it clear in other discussions that you dont really care what others outside our border think about the US (
"not one fucking bit") I think its important as long as it does not adversely impact the policy making process and the US national interests.
Again, we have different perspectives. I can accept that without making it personal. Can you?
I read it and recognize that the American Enterprise Institute has a neo-con agenda that runs counter to the Pew study...and that many AEI scholars and fellows had formal roles in the Bush administration, including guys like Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowicz (who were principle architects of Bush's Iraq policy) and others like Bush's UN ambassador John Bolton and Lynn Chaney.
Does any of that change the fact that Pew is not a un-biased source?
Does any of that change the fact that Pew is not a un-biased source?
Neither is the American Enterprise Institute...so whats your point?
The issue for me is whether the perceptions of the US as a nation and the president as a world leader matters beyond our borders.
IMO, we should recognize that there is a negative perception and acknowledge it in our foreign policy as long as it doesnt hurt our national interests or national security.
On the other hand, according to another post of yours, it doesn't matter...
"Not one fucking bit."
Different perspectives...*shrug*...thats life. You wont change my opinion and I wont change yours.
The issue for me is whether the perceptions of the US outside of our borders matters.
And as long as policy makers continue to worry about that, it hurts our national interests or national security.
On the other hand, according to another post of yours, it doesn't matter... "Not one fucking bit."
Different perspectives...*shrug*...thats life. You wont change my opinion and I wont change yours.
God damm right about that.
Neither is the American Enterprise Institute...so whats your point?
It invalidates any point that one were to make that Pew published accurate data concerning perceptions from overseas. They are false studies and poor soruces of statistical measure, further reinforced by their bias.
And as long as policy makers continue to worry about that, it hurts our national interests or national security.
As I said, our foreign policy should recognize it and acknowledge it
as long as it does not hurt our national interests or national security.
It might even help. We dont live in a vacuum.
As I said, our foreign policy should recognize it and acknowledge as long as it does not hurt our national interests or national security.
It might even help. We dont live in a vacuum.
It should be a low priority. I doubt the Chinese, Russians, Indian's, Iranians, North Koreans, Israeli's, or Germans really care if we like them or not when they set international policy.
It should be a low priority. I doubt the Chinese, Russians, Indian's, Iranians, North Koreans, Israeli's, or Germans really care if we like them or not when they set international policy.
When John Bolton (AEI fellow) says "bomb Iran now", I dont think that is in our best interest. Sitting down with Iran (along with the other interested parties) one time makes more sense to me.
When Lynn Cheney (AEI fellow) said "we didnt torture or abuse detainees", I dont think that is in our best interest. Ending the policy of "enhanced interrogations" makes more sense to me.
When John Bolton (AEI fellow) says "bomb Iran now", I dont think that is in our best interest.
Neither do I.
Sitting down with Iran (along with the other interested parties) one first makes more sense to me.
Not when they are killing US troops in Iraq. No way.
When Lynn Cheney (AWI fellow) said "we didnt torture detainees", I dont think that is in our best interest.
I don't think what Lynn Cheney or any Cheney says is important.
Ending the policy of "enhanced interrogations" makes more sense to me.
I don't that has been adequately defined. That is Liberal speak.
Not when they are killing US troops in Iraq. No way.
It is very much like Nixon going to China at the same time as the Chinese were supporting the North Vietnamese and killing US troops.
You negotiate with adversaries, not friends.
I don't think what Lynn Cheney or any Cheney says is important
It is only important in the sense that it is seen and heard around the world, feeding negative perceptions.
I don't that has been adequately defined. That is Liberal speak.
It is US law and international treaty obligations...and again, it feeds those negative perceptions.
:lol:
I was just reading some quotes from Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, and Obama the man himself.
They are just to numerous to post.
I can just say that I hope nothing ever happens to Obama because Biden is a frightening replacement. :D
It is very much like Nixon going to China at the same time as the Chinese were supporting the North Vietnamese and killing US troops.
Support that all you want. It is still wrong and if he does he will risk re-election.
You negotiate with adversaries, not friends.
Really? I thought that Israel was our friend, at least that is what they and the Jewish Lobby tell us.
It is only important in the sense that it is seen and heard around the world, feeding negative perceptions.
Damm, then you should be worried about what Biden has said in the last year or so.
It is US law and international treaty obligations...and again, it feeds those negative perceptions.
I have always said that the US population never had what it took to finish The WOT, if you don't fight them on their terms at a time of your choosing you will lose. I am not really concerned with those negative perceptions if they serve our well being and safety in the long run. Effective international policy is not conducted worrying about what your adversaries or others think about you.
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -- Joe Biden
Here is Michelle on wealth redistribution:
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." -- Michelle Obama
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008
Its how all the Republicans I know are. They're still dangerous and have influence, you can't dismiss them because "its only the extreme right." Because either it isn't, or they have a disproportional amount of pull.
You need to get some new friends.
Uh OH...a poll?
Here is the non-partisan opinion
We had expected this sort of turnaround and are bouyed by it, and it's part of the reason we voted for O. However, the story is weak at this time, and in order for the results of this to be a realistic comparison between the two presidencies, we need to wait at least 7 more years, probably longer.
We notice that Presidential favorable/unfavorable rates almost universally go down during a Presidency, and we should expect a similar result here as world events occur. For example, had the poll been taken this week, the number for Poland would be cut in half.
I agree with Sugarpop that during the last administration there were crackdowns on protesters based on the signs/t-shirts they had with them.
In the interest of fairness, let's remember that Clinton started the free speech zone. Both parties hate opposing discourse. That Obama put up with armed nuts at or near his events (I have no idea how close they got to the President) shows a willingness to allow dissent at a level that can act as a safety valve. That is good politics.
Here is the non-partisan opinion
We had expected this sort of turnaround and are bouyed by it, and it's part of the reason we voted for O. However, the story is weak at this time, and in order for the results of this to be a realistic comparison between the two presidencies, we need to wait at least 7 more years, probably longer.
We notice that Presidential favorable/unfavorable rates almost universally go down during a Presidency, and we should expect a similar result here as world events occur. For example, had the poll been taken this week, the number for Poland would be cut in half.
Sure....all of that is true. Much like it is far too soon to claim Obama, or any particular ongoing program, is a failure after 9 months.
Pew conducts its Global Attitudes survey ever couple of years to examine changing attitudes over time, so this was not something out of the blue.
Putting the Bush-Obama comparisons aside, the Pew poll simply reinforced what was widely known from other polls and other measures, that at the end of the Bush presidency, perceptions of the US and confidence in our president as a world leader were at the lowest point in our lifetime....there is no place to go but up.
There are better, more serious measures of the impact of foreign policy decisions and actions on world perceptions....like US intel.
The best example might be the 2006 NIE that concluded, among other things, that the Iraq actions - invasion/occupation/prisoner abuses - became a "cause celebre" for terrorist movements around the world and that wide-spread anti-US sentiments among Muslims, particularly after the invasion/occupation and both in Western Europe and in Muslim countries, was a breeding ground for terrorists exploitation.
The world was on our side on Sept 12, 2001 and in a matter of one year with the decision to invade Iraq, we began to loose that good will and it only got worse and worse as more actions were revealed....not just as a result of US policy, but also the harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric that still is highly visible among some (small) segments of the US population as well.
Oh, and I thought the Poles and Czechs were pretty much split down the middle on having US missile defense systems in their backyard...but leaning more to not having it.
Sure....all of that is true.
The world was on our side on Sept 12, 2001 and in a matter of one year with the decision to invade Iraq, we began to loose that good will and it only got worse and worse as more actions were revealed....[SIZE="4"]not just as a result of US policy, [/SIZE]~snip~
just so that lil tidbit of a disclaimer doesn't get lost.
just so that lil tidbit of a disclaimer doesn't get lost.
Right.....as I said, it was also the
[SIZE="4"]harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric[/SIZE] (and the disparaging ot the Muslim religion as a whole) that followed 9/11 and has continued unabated among a (small) segment of the extreme right....a particular turn off for moderate Muslims around the world.
Right.....as I said, it was also the harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric (and the disparaging ot the Muslim religion as a whole) that followed 9/11 and has continued unabated among a [SIZE="4"](small)[/SIZE] segment of the extreme right....a particular turn off for moderate Muslims around the world.
Got it. Keep painting the entirety of EITHER party with that BIG brush you got there.
Got it. Keep painting the entirety of EITHER party with that BIG brush you got there.
WTF...what entirety? What part of
SMALL segment dont you get?
How do you think it looks to moderate Muslims around the world when a member of Congress calls the first Muslim elected to Congress "un-American" for using the Koran at his swearing-in (Thomas Jefferson's Koran, btw)
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/01/03/zing-ellison-to-use-thomas-jeffersons-koran-at-private-swearing-in/
(read some of the comments at the bottom).
Or would it help if I post some of the nasty anti-Muslim signs at the Tea Parties or anti-Muslim comments made on the air by Beck/Limbaugh?
How do you think it looks to moderate Muslims around the world
The ones who are Pandagon readers must be livid.
Lemme see here - in order . . .
I get the "small" part just fine - whats the big deal if its such a "small" part of the extreme end of a party? Why did you bother to even mention it?
I don't think about it. It isn't on MY list of importance really. Kinda like when one member says that the president is stupid, a liar, or whatever. A moderate muslim would know that.
No it wouldn't help - it wouldn't make a difference at all actually. And using more extremists like Beck/Limbaugh just further widens the brush you use to paint anyone who disagrees with you as an extremist. Are you jealous of them or something?
The ones who are Pandagon readers must be livid.
It was actually reported in the Washington Post :3eye:
Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300075_pf.html
A threat to American values?
Seriously, you dont think that gets circulated around the world and just might leave a bad impression of the US among moderate Muslims?
How about the 1600 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims after 9/11...as reported by the FBI?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/11/26/MN224441.DTL
No bad impression of the US among moderate Muslims around the world?
Your take on it Dux, is informed by a melting pot culture in which getting along with others is a critical value.
Meanwhile, most Muslim countries don't think that way. Most of them have a deep tradition of highly inflammatory rhetoric. It's not uncommon for a small slight to be met with "I will kill you and your entire family." It's not uncommon for millions to line the streets with the rallying cry "Death to America". This happens even in moderate countries such as Lebanon.
So how do you think moderate Americans feel about Lebanon when millions - not just the occasional political fart-bag - gather in the streets to chant Death to America?
Exactly. They could give a shit. Sometimes they vacation there.
Your take on it Dux, is informed by a melting pot culture in which getting along with others is a critical value.
Meanwhile, most Muslim countries don't think that way. Most of them have a deep tradition of highly inflammatory rhetoric. It's not uncommon for a small slight to be met with "I will kill you and your entire family." It's not uncommon for millions to line the streets with the rallying cry "Death to America". This happens even in moderate countries such as Lebanon.
So how do you think moderate Americans feel about Lebanon when millions gather in the streets to chant Death to America?
Exactly. They could give a shit. Sometimes they vacation there.
You are excusing the rhetoric in the US because "they" do in their own country and its part of their culture?
Ok...but, IMO, words and signs and acts matter...particularly because, unlike more homogeneous countries, the US values itself on its melting pot and welcoming those who might be "different"
I am not "excusing the rhetoric" (why do you always move the discussion around?), I am explaining to you why a moderate Muslim wouldn't even notice a blip on the map.
Let's put it another way. Post-9/11, no Muslims were killed. One person was killed, but the poor man was a Sikh.
So, in America, fanatics of a religious group can
destroy several city blocks and it results in one death.
Meanwhile, a Danish newspaper can
print some cartoons, and
This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, all together), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Muslim leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats.
I think the moderate Muslims understand.
I am not "excusing the rhetoric" (why do you always move the discussion around?), I am explaining to you why a moderate Muslim wouldn't even notice a blip on the map.
Let's put it another way. Post-9/11, no Muslims were killed. One person was killed, but the poor man was a Sikh.
So, in America, fanatics of a religious group can destroy several city blocks and it results in one death.
Meanwhile, a Danish newspaper can print some cartoons, and
Sorry if you thought I was "moving the discussion around"
The issue was about anti-Muslim rhetoric, signs and acts
in the US...not in Muslim nations or Denmark....
as contributing to the low perception of the US among the citizenry (not the govts) of Muslim countries...along with recent US policies (ie invading Iraq) and the historical support of Israel in the US.
I think the moderate Muslims understand.
Perhaps.
Young, exploitable Muslims...perhaps not so much.
Yes and I'm explaining to you why anti-Muslim rhetoric is not a factor, why that's a fantasy. Moderate Muslims can see that anti-Muslim rhetoric is lower in America than almost any country in the world. That includes all of Europe.
The NIE from several years ago that assessed the trends in global terrorism, identified "four underlying factors that are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement:
[INDENT](1)Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq “jihad;”
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
[/INDENT]
IMO, those words, signs and acts further fuel that pervasive anti-US sentiment that already exists, particularly among the young.
So you don't think American Muslims are affected by congressmen and media types bashing Muslims?
As also noted in the NIE:
[INDENT]We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit...[/INDENT]
Every time a member of Congress makes a derogatory comment about the Koran or suggests we should bomb Muslim holy sites...and anti-Muslim signs at town hall meetings..or rhetoric spewed on the radio....are exploited and make their way across the internet.
No.
There is a great deal more anti-Atheist sentiment in America than anti-Muslim sentiment. Atheists don't seem very anti-American.
And, if you're worried that there was a tiny minority of anti-Muslim sentiment at the moment that a Muslim was sworn in, you're busy not noticing that a Muslim was elected and sworn in. If you're worried about anti-Obamaites calling him a Muslim and then being anti-Muslim at tea parties, you're busy not noticing that he was called that last year... and then elected President.
No.
There is a great deal more anti-Atheist sentiment in America than anti-Muslim sentiment. Atheists don't seem very anti-American.
Anti-Atheist sentiments are not used as recruiting propaganda around the world, where those doing the recruiting have no interest in portraying the "positive" side of a Muslim being elected to Congress.
Every time a member of Congress makes a derogatory comment about the Koran or suggests we should bomb Muslim holy sites...and anti-Muslim signs at town hall meetings..or rhetoric spewed on the radio....are exploited and make their way across the internet.
It would be very convincing to show us a piece of this very prevalent propaganda from moderate Muslims, perhaps exploiting those very searchable statements. Since it's on the Internet, all we need is a link or three.
It would be very convincing to show us a piece of this very prevalent propaganda from moderate Muslims, perhaps exploiting those very searchable statements. Since it's on the Internet, all we need is a link or three.
The propaganda is not from moderate Muslims and I dont speak/read Arabic so I cant provide links.
I simply agree with US intelligence assessments that terrorism is being fueled in part by anti-American sentiments and that the Internet is a tool for propagandizing and recruiting....and, IMO, these remarks, signs, etc. add fuel to the fire.
I dont think a congressman's deragtory remark about the Koran has as much impact as photos from Abu Grhbab, but nonetheless, it is one more piece of recruiting propaganda spread across Muslim countries....and neither has helped restore the US image.
a particular turn off for moderate Muslims around the world
20 posts later...
The propaganda is not from moderate Muslims
This stuff seems trivial, and I know many Dwellars hate our discussion, but I also know that the next time you hear this narrative, you'll know in your heart that it's weak cheese. weeeeak
The non-moderates don't need quotes from congressmen.
They can just make shit up, and repeat it as their gospel... and they do.
We can't have this discussion in the Pandagon comments sections, and we can't have this discussion with the repulsive Freepers. We can only have it here.
The moderate Muslims know that, but when the mainstream media says something that jibs with what the extremists are ranting, it has to make them wonder if there's more the media isn't saying.
Or would it help if I post some of the nasty anti-Muslim signs at the Tea Parties or anti-Muslim comments made on the air by Beck/Limbaugh?
Extremists like you continue to make the same mistake that Beck or Limbaugh in someway represent conservative political values. You are like a little kid who keeps sticking his hand in the pen of a rabid dog and getting bit.
Your take on it Dux, is informed by a melting pot culture in which getting along with others is a critical value.
Meanwhile, most Muslim countries don't think that way. Most of them have a deep tradition of highly inflammatory rhetoric. It's not uncommon for a small slight to be met with "I will kill you and your entire family." It's not uncommon for millions to line the streets with the rallying cry "Death to America". This happens even in moderate countries such as Lebanon.
So how do you think moderate Americans feel about Lebanon when millions - not just the occasional political fart-bag - gather in the streets to chant Death to America?
Exactly. They could give a shit. Sometimes they vacation there.
You mean sort of like when one guy makes a cartoon critical of Muslims?
Remember this one?
As also noted in the NIE:
[INDENT]We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit...[/INDENT]
Every time a member of Congress makes a derogatory comment about the Koran or suggests we should bomb Muslim holy sites...and anti-Muslim signs at town hall meetings..or rhetoric spewed on the radio....are exploited and make their way across the internet.
[sarc]OOOOOOOOOooooooo.... BogaBoga! Heaven forbid we say anything critical of any group that happens to be Muslim, least we may offend. [/sarc]
But yet radical liberals stand up every day and bash Christians in the US or anyone who wants to profess their faith in a public forum, even if they are a politician.
The moderate Muslims know that, but when the mainstream media says something that jibs with what the extremists are ranting, it has to make them wonder if there's more the media isn't saying.
IMHO this is the key to the discussion. And it happens whether the extremists are liberal-lefty's, tighty-righty's, or anti-Muslimists, the mainstream media pics it up, finds the extreme reaction to the anti-thesis of the view professed and then runs with it. Bruce wins the common sense award.
20 posts later...
This stuff seems trivial, and I know many Dwellars hate our discussion, but I also know that the next time you hear this narrative, you'll know in your heart that it's weak cheese. weeeeak
The non-moderates don't need quotes from congressmen. They can just make shit up, and repeat it as their gospel... and they do.
We can't have this discussion in the Pandagon comments sections, and we can't have this discussion with the repulsive Freepers. We can only have it here.
Why make shit up when it is given to you on a silver platter by members of Congress or America's top radio infotainer. So much easier to verify then made up crap.
Now I am done and Merc can call me more names, if it makes him feel better. ;)
Why make shit up when it is given to you on a silver platter by members of Congress or America's top radio infotainer. So much easier to verify then made up crap.
Now I am done and Merc can call me more names, if it makes him feel better. ;)
Democratic Shrill. ;)
This is a cool interactive map which shows the associations of Obama and people on capitol hill and in his new administration. Pretty neat.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a23bf7b4-e65f-11dd-8e4f-0000779fd2ac.html
Wtf are "genuine liberals"?
You can always tell a genuine liberal from a fake. Just check the stitching.
:P
Welcome to the Cellar Idemosaka.
I thought you had to bite them or something.
No, wait, genuine liberals are the ones that are more afraid of you than you are of them.
They're the ones who are genuine.
yeh - genuine - not the tree huggers . . . :bolt:
...I resume that remark.....
The children shall chant songs of praise my comrades!
Elementary School Students Taught Pro-Obama Songs
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5335819.shtmlWTF?
Yep. The end is near.
Wow - after hearing that - fuggit.
You ain't seen nothin' yet.
The children shall chant songs of praise my comrades!
Elementary School Students Taught Pro-Obama Songs
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5335819.shtml
One teacher in one elementary school in one state does something incredibly stupid.....and it goes viral on the conservative blogs.
The teacher should be reprimanded...the bloggers should chill.
So it turns out that the "incident" occurred in February as part of a little medley to celebrate Black History Month..fresh off of the inauguration of the nation's first black president.
The controversy grows out of a school assembly during Black History Month in February, when gripes about the freshly inaugurated president were still mostly hushed.
That month, a group of smiley and fidgety students at B. Bernice Young School sang a medley of two short songs praising the president.
The first song begins, "Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama/He said that all must lend a hand/To make this country strong again."
The second one was set to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and included the refrain, "Hooray, Mr. President."
While the performance is seven months old, the outrage is new and came about because of the discovery of a YouTube video.
It's been fodder for conservative opinion leaders such as columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin and Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1252068.html
I take back calling the teacher incredibly stupid or suggesting a reprimand.
Next February, if you dare to acknowledge Black History Month in a school assembly, just dont have kids sing about Obama...and be careful how you even include Obama's name when discussing the achievements of African-Americans or it will be twisted into "indoctrination." Stick to George Washington Carver....kids love peanut butter!
The bloggers attempting to make this anything bigger should still get a life.
Say what you want. It was inappropriate in any context. The Left-wing nuts would have had a meltdown if kiddies were singing praises of Bush in a similar manner on Presidents day.
Say what you want. It was inappropriate in any context. The Left-wing nuts would have had a meltdown if kiddies were singing praises of Bush in a similar manner on Presidents day.
Or during white history month.
Say what you want. It was inappropriate in any context. The Left-wing nuts would have had a meltdown if kiddies were singing praises of Bush in a similar manner on Presidents day.
So since you are having a meltdown about the Obama song thing, does that mean you are admitting that you are a right wing NUT?
Or during white history month.
ZZzzzzzzing
Or during white history month.
K-12 history books are pretty celebratory of white history.
So since you are having a meltdown about the Obama song thing, does that mean you are admitting that you are a right wing NUT?
:p
Or during white history month.
I thought that was every month. :yelsick:
Except January, February, March, September, October and November.
Arrrrrrrr
Whut about April?
There is currently a commission in Texas to make recommendations on social studies curriculum. Several commission members evidently want to remove Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall from the curriculum.
Civil rights leaders César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall – whose names appear on schools, libraries, streets and parks across the U.S. – are given too much attention in Texas social studies classes, conservatives advising the state on curriculum standards say.
"To have César Chávez listed next to Ben Franklin" – as in the current standards – "is ludicrous," wrote evangelical minister Peter Marshall, one of six experts advising the state as it develops new curriculum standards for social studies classes and textbooks. David Barton, president of Aledo-based WallBuilders, said in his review that Chávez, a Hispanic labor leader, "lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others."
Marshall also questioned whether Thurgood Marshall, who argued the landmark case that resulted in school desegregation and was the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice, should be presented to Texas students as an important historical figure. He wrote that the late justice is "not a strong enough example" of such a figure.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-socialstudies_09tex.ART0.State.Edition1.4bfaaf7.html
But this cracked me up...although I think the intent was serious:
[INDENT]
Barton, a former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, said that because the U.S. is a republic rather than a democracy, the proper adjective for identifying U.S. values and processes should be "republican" rather than "democratic." That means social studies books should discuss "republican" values in the U.S., his report said.[/INDENT]
Evangelical minister and former vice-chairmen of the state Republican party...experts on education.....Go Texas!
Say what you want. It was inappropriate in any context. The Left-wing nuts would have had a meltdown if kiddies were singing praises of Bush in a similar manner on Presidents day.
Flashback to the 2006 White House easter egg roll:
[INDENT]At the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, children from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.
To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:
Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/17/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/
[/INDENT]
I dont recall a meltdown on the left as a result of kiddies singing the praises of FEMA and Bush...immediately following the little ditty or seven months after the fact.
That's
nothing... if the country drifts into worse times, ALL the children will be taught to sing, or at least that will be our hope. We will demand children embrace such civic values.
"'I promise as a good American citizen to do my part to help the NRA*',
one hundred thousand young people chanted on Boston Commons in 1933. '
I will help President Roosevelt bring back good times.'"
-
from Generations: the history of America's future, 1584 to 2069
[SIZE=1]* Not today's National Rifle Association, but 1933's National Recovery Administration.[/SIZE]
I still dont know whether to laugh or shudder at how this kind of pot stirring from the wing nuts takes on a life of its own:
[INDENT]"This is indoctrination. This should horrify the American people. And you can separate yourself from it all you want, you can say "Well that is not the Democrats that are doing it, that's not Barack Obama." You know what let me tell you something, how many, how many, how many not just signs of smoke, how many fires must we have before we have to say OK wait a minute."
~ Glenn Beck
""I'm so outraged and stunned by its content...see the indoctrination of our nation's greatest treasure -- our children.....this is the type of propaganda you would see in Stalin’s Russia or Kim Jong Il’s North Korea. I never thought the day would come when I’d see it here in America." ~ Michael Steele
"This video makes me mad…Mao would be proud.” ~ Sean Hannity
[/INDENT]
OK...I gotta just laugh...particularly at all the Mercs of the message boards who jumped on this like flies on shit.
Barton, a former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party, said that because the U.S. is a republic rather than a democracy
I see a teaching moment here. "Why yes children, the United States is a Republic, not a true democracy. In a Republic we elect individuals to make decisions for us instead of making them for ourselves. That's why assholes like Mr. Barton were able to change your textbooks."
I see a teaching moment here. "Why yes children, the United States is a Republic, not a true democracy. In a Republic we elect individuals to make decisions for us instead of making them for ourselves. That's why assholes like Mr. Barton were able to change your textbooks."
Haggis!
What does haggis mean here? I keep seeing it posted everywhere.
It's a recent joke, substitution for "ha ha." Shawnee123 was trying to text the word "haha" to her friend and her cellphone decided she must be wanting to type the word "haggis."
What does haggis mean here? I keep seeing it posted everywhere.
I'm not gonna re-read it, but I believe this thread is the explanation/start.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20515Clod has it right...don't know what actual thread it started in. mtp hit a thread that started shortly after...but not where it started. I remember Ali asking "why would it fill in the word haggis?" and it all just kind of fell into place.
I can't find that link, but I love that haggis has lasted. :)
Long Live Haggis!
I have a picture of haggis around here somewhere...my husband ordered it at a Scottish restaurant we have in Fort Collins. It was actually quite good.
Link
Thats just effed up.
I agree. They left off a lot of shit that fuckers trying to slide by us. I guess they ran out of space.
Roger Ebert comments on "The anger of the festering fringe".
Obama is a Muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Obama was a terrorist. Obama will destroy Medicare. Obama will kill your grandmother. Obama is a racist. Obama wants atheism taught in the schools. Obama wants us to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants.
These beliefs are held by various segments of our population. They are absurd. Any intelligent person can see they are absurd. It is not my purpose here to debate them, because such debates are futile. With the zealous True Believers there is no debating. They feed upon loops within loops of paranoid surmises, inventions which are passed along as fact.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/10/the_anger_of_the_festering_fri.htmlAny intelligent person can see they are absurd.
Ah, there's the rub...
lol - and there are just as many of those on the "other side" who believe he is the virtual messiah who will heal all trouble in our world. They are all equally nuts. Having a rational conversation with either group is pointless.
I think it's your side who says the "other" side has deemed him a messiah. If you say you like the guy, and hope this works out for the best of our country, you get "YOU ARE a nutty crazy person who thinks he's the second coming blah blah blah..."
lol - and there are just as many of those on the "other side" who believe he is the virtual messiah who will heal all trouble in our world. They are all equally nuts. Having a rational conversation with either group is pointless.
Agreed. And that's a real problem. These posts of "why hasn't he fixed all the problems of the world in nine months" are ridiculous.
Agreed. And that's a real problem. These posts of "why hasn't he fixed all the problems of the world in nine months" are ridiculous.
And counterproductive. Of course, that means nothing when weighed against the possibility of a smug "I told you so."
Don't let the extremists get you down Shaw. They simply get the most attention because they increase ratings.
There are so many more people who are actually rational and simply have differing ideas or philosophies.
Heh, I don't let them get me down. I just look at them, say 'pffft what a stupid dumbass', and go about my business.
I've never been under the delusion that I wasn't always surrounded by a lot of morons.
At the end, Obama will have done one very good thing for the Republic that will keep its thinking more within the libertarian ambit: his programs will have shown a new generation of Americans that socialism doesn't and can't work, and he will have inoculated the United States against its blandishments. Apparently, the herd-sheeple will have to have their noses rubbed in it to appreciate the rottenness.
Those of us who appreciate liberty and small government, of course, already voted against Obama, owing to our clarity of vision, and will take the next opportunity to do so again. By then we can wake the echoes with the call, "Had Enough?"
This country has a long way to go yet under the umbrella of an Obamanation.
But at least he has beaten Bush on his number of days golfing in the first 9 months! That has to be a record. :D
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.htmlAt the end, Obama will have done one very good thing for the Republic that will keep its thinking more within the libertarian ambit: his programs will have shown a new generation of Americans that socialism doesn't and can't work, and he will have inoculated the United States against its blandishments. Apparently, the herd-sheeple will have to have their noses rubbed in it to appreciate the rottenness.
Those of us who appreciate liberty and small government, of course, already voted against Obama, owing to our clarity of vision, and will take the next opportunity to do so again. By then we can wake the echoes with the call, "Had Enough?"
UG...the extremist libertarian positions you espouse (as well as the ignorant "socialism" rheotric) have always been representative of a small minority of voters.
We'll not see a significant number of Libertarians in elective office any time soon.
The Republican party, however, has a bigger problem.
The party is commited to remaining ideologically pure....even if it is a death wish since the country is so ideologically diverse.
An upcoming NY election for an open seat in the House is only the most recent example...where the Democrat has a good chance of winning a seat that has been Republican for 100 years, because the Republican candidate is "not conservative enough" for the purists and a true ideologue entered the race and is now splitting the vote on the right.
But it goes back to the 06 and 08 elections when Democrats won 50+ House seats, mostly in historically republican distrcts, by recruiting and running moderates, while the Republican ideological test required that they run the most conservative. Most of those new 50+ "Blue Dog" Democrats are fiscal moderates, bordering on fiscal conservatives.
As a result, the Democratic party has become a big tent party, which presents opportunities as well as challenges....and it means those on the far left will have to chose to be either more accommodating and flexible or risk losing that majority status.
What the Democrats have in their favor is that as long as this is the face of the Republican party....
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
... Republicans will never attract the swing centrist voters. Limbaugh, Beck, Palin are great for the base, but a losing face for a party that wants to govern.
Unlike the riff on the right between social conservatives/fiscal conservatives/die hard libertairians, the Democrats keep expanding their tent... in 06, for example (after electing moderate Democratic Senators in AR, CO, NH, PA, VA, WY - most are either fiscal moderates and/or pro-gun or anti-choice - not your "typical" liberals) the Democratic caucus in the Senate chose a Majority Leader (Harry Reid) who is pro-gun and anti-choice. He would not have been my choice.. but there is that flexibility that is required.
I can't imagine a scenario where a pro-choice, pro gun control Senator could become a leader of the Republican party....Limbaugh, et al would not allow it.
With the country as divided as it is, I think the Democrats have maxed out or close to it. In 2010, I expect the Democrats will lose some of those House seats they won in 06 and 08 and one or two Senate seats......unless the Republican "ideological pure" death wish continues.
The Republican party has some major "rebranding" to do if they want to regain majority status anytime soon....and I dont see how they can do that without taking on the wingnuts in their midst.
It's all fun and games, til we kick Reid out of office.
Yes boys and girls, they are bullshitting you...
And we will be checking back in to see about those 3.5million jobs they promised to create...
Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands
Oct 29, 6:35 AM (ET)
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.
The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.
The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.
For example:
- A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.
- A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.
- A Florida child care center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees.
There's no evidence the White House sought to inflate job numbers in the report. But administration officials seized on the 30,000 figure as evidence that the stimulus program was on its way toward fulfilling the president's promise of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.
The reporting problem could be magnified Friday when a much larger round of reports is expected to show hundreds of thousands of jobs repairing public housing, building schools, repaving highways and keeping teachers on local payrolls.
The White House says it is aware there are problems. In an interview, Ed DeSeve, an Obama adviser helping to oversee the stimulus program, said agencies have been working with businesses that received the money to correct mistakes. Other errors discovered by the public also will be corrected, he said.
"If there's an error that was made, let's get it fixed," DeSeve said.
The White House released a statement early Thursday that it said laid out the "real facts" about how jobs were counted in the stimulus data distributed two weeks ago. It said that had been a test run of a small subset of data that had been subjected only to three days of reviews, that it had already corrected "virtually all" the mistakes identified by the AP and that the discovery of mistakes "does not provide a statistically significant indication of the quality of the full reporting that will come on Friday."
The data partially reviewed by the AP for errors included all the data presently available, representing all known federal contracts awarded to businesses under the stimulus program. The figures being released Friday include different categories of stimulus spending by state governments, housing authorities, nonprofit groups and other organizations.
As of early Thursday, on its recovery.org Web site, the government was still citing 30,383 as the actual number of jobs linked so far to stimulus spending, despite the mistakes the White House has now acknowledged and said were being corrected.
continues:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.htmlI agree that Obama over-promised on jobs....although the reports are still far from complete, much of the funds have yet to be committed and an 18 month+ time-span as envisioned in the legislation will provide more realistic measures.
But the economy is no longer on the brink as it was in Jan....the 3rd quarter GDP saw the greatest growth in 2 years.....by nearly every measure, the worst of the recession is behind us, with the exception of jobs...always the last indicator to recover.
We have no idea what would have happened w/o the stimulus program, the TARP program, etc.
IMO, it would have been bad public policy to take that risk and I certainly did not see any better alternative, including doing nothing.
Well if I owned a business, and I fired a bunch of people and my bottom line improved, my numbers would reflect that. Still there were 500,000 new jobless claims last month. Tell those 500,000 people who just lost more jobs the economy is improving. One months growth is no measure of the overall health of the economy. It is smoke and mirrors by the Obama Administration that things are on the mend. Nothing more, nothing less. And given the minor investigation by the AP into their numbers, they have a lot to explain.
Well if I owned a business, and I fired a bunch of people and my bottom line improved, my numbers would reflect that. Still there were 500,000 new jobless claims last month. Tell those 500,000 people who just lost more jobs the economy is improving. One months growth is no measure of the overall health of the economy. It is smoke and mirrors by the Obama Administration that things are on the mend. Nothing more, nothing less. And given the minor investigation by the AP into their numbers, they have a lot to explain.
Unemployment claims are at a 9 month low. Every economic indicator shows improvement since January with most improvements coming after the stimulus was enacted... except jobs...always the last to turn around.
So what would you have done differently in terms of public policy?
We have no idea what would have happened w/o the stimulus program, the TARP program, etc.
IMO, it would have been bad public policy to take that risk and I certainly did not see any better alternative, including doing nothing.
I am not in complete disagreement. What needs to asked is did we get what we paid for and has this opened a period of unbridled spending by the party in power to "fix" things that are broken?
Unemployment claims are at a 9 month low.
So what would you have done differently in terms of public policy?
I would have considered letting more of the businesses fail. Take a look at GMAC, they are back at the trough asking for more.
I would have considered letting more of the businesses fail. Take a look at GMAC, they are back at the trough asking for more.
Creating a ripple down effect of even more unemployment from all the affected ancillary industries?
And yet, that was not the biggest piece of the stimulus program.
Creating a ripple down effect of even more unemployment from all the affected ancillary industries?
And yet, that was not the biggest piece of the stimulus program.
Well that is the point. We had the unemployment anyway. Who's to say it might not have been more profound up front but then end up with a healthier system in the long run. Instead we have created a welfare system for big corps. Now the "to big to fail" continues to feed the monster combined with more government involvement in how business is being conducted in private industry.
I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.
- Edward Gibbon
Wish I had listened to this one a loooooong time ago.
"There are a lot of lies going around.... and half of them are true."
- Winston Churchill
WASHINGTON – Many communities hit hardest by job losses, those built around dying factories and mills, have been slowest to see relief from President Obama's stimulus plan.
The manufacturing industry has shed hundreds of thousands of jobs during the recession as plants have closed or scaled back. Places such as the southwest Missouri city of Lamar, tucked amid endless fields of winter wheat and soybeans, have seen the cornerstones of their economies disappear, leaving a gap that even billions in roadwork and government aid cannot fill.
Lamar began feeling the recession ahead of the rest of the country, when the furniture-maker O'Sullivan Industries closed its doors in mid-2007, immediately leaving 700 workers unemployed and turning its factory into a million-square-foot vacancy.
That began what city manager Lynn Calton calls "a slow death." Stores folded. A 50-year-old car dealership went under. One in 10 jobs disappeared last year. Everyone suffered, from the downtown florist to the dentist who cleaned the factory workers' teeth.
Even Mayor Keith Divine filed for unemployment when his furniture store went out of business. He now sells carpet and mattresses and says he hasn't seen evidence of the 640,000 jobs saved or created nationwide thanks to the $787 billion stimulus.
For the Obama administration, Lamar is as much a problem of expectations as it is of policy. For all the items contained in the stimulus, from tax cuts to road work to new schools, nothing could quickly replace what factory towns like Lamar had lost.
That's why the White House says it's unfair to judge the stimulus by the unemployment rate because no amount of stimulus was going to keep Lamar's unemployment rate from approaching 12 percent.
Nationwide, only 2,500 of the 640,000 stimulus jobs announced Friday were in the manufacturing industry, and many of those appear to be mislabeled. Teachers were the biggest winners because states used federal aid to fill budget gaps, then credited the money with avoiding layoffs —even if no such layoffs were planned.
"We haven't seen any improvements in our town," said Gary Macklem, the mayor of Croswell, Mich., a small city in a county built on farming and factories, where unemployment has hovered just below 20 percent all year. "We lost two factories and the other factories are hanging by a shoe string."
Link
There is no way that paint & rumblestrips can help these places. A far more comprehensive plan was needed to stimulate these industries.
....There is no way that paint & rumblestrips can help these places. A far more comprehensive plan was needed to stimulate these industries.
I dont think it was ever the intent of the stimulus program to save dying factories that cant compete in the global economy...but to stimulate the replacing of those jobs and retooling of those industries with jobs in new technologies and growth industries...but that takes more than 6 months.
The short-term "shovel ready" paint and rumble strip jobs, as well as the public sector jobs (police, teachers, etc) that may have been saved accomplished much of what was expected...to keep people employed and to keep money flowing in the economy.
Teachers or painters or rumble strip layers who are employed are likely to spend money that they would not spend if unemployed.....which helped keep other people employed and helped keep the economy from tanking completely. Many (most?) economists have said that the stimulus program (and the TARP) contributed to ending the recession. How much it contributed is subject to differences of opinion.
More than half of the stimulus "jobs" funds is to start the process of restructuring the economy with jobs in alternative energy, technology (eg building a broadband infrastructure) and other emerging or growth industries. And most of these funds are still in the process of being awarded. That is why it was envisioned as a 18-24 month economic stimulus program.
IMO, that is comprehensive....a mix of quick fixes and longer-term (but still with a sense of urgency) economic restructuring.
How else would you have made it more comprehensive?
added:
For the record, I dont think it was a great plan. ;)
I do think it was a necessary plan and didnt hear any better options.
I personally don't have a better plan. That's one reason why I'm not an elected official. I hear about these police and teachers that were kept on through the implementation of the stimulus money, but now thats gone and the states are going to have to come up with more revenue to maintain their employ. Where is that money coming from. Did this just "stop the bleeding' for awhile?
I personally don't have a better plan. That's one reason why I'm not an elected official.
The problem is that those elected officials who can offer alternatives have not. IMO, it is the belief of many of those that it is a better political strategy to just say "NO" rather than to offer substantive policy alternatives.
I hear about these police and teachers that were kept on through the implementation of the stimulus money, but now thats gone and the states are going to have to come up with more revenue to maintain their employ. Where is that money coming from. Did this just "stop the bleeding' for awhile?
Right. The state stabilization funds in the stimulus bill is a short-term fix. The intent is to "stop the bleeding" while the economy was tanking and states budgets were facing shortfalls not previously experienced in any recent years.
The hope is that with a more stable economy again..and an economy now showing positive GDP growth again (for the first time in 2 years) ...state budget revenues will also stabilize and grow.
The hope is that ...
Ahhh - Hope. Well lets all "hope" that hope gets answered.
Hope, borne of some kind of fucking action, is better than the speedy spiral into the deep dark abyss. Jebus H Cripes.
Man you conservatives are crotchety pessimistics. Where's that thread?
I wasn't mocking m'dear. Now stop it. Was just thinking what could happen if that "hope" of recovery or whatever doesn't happen.
Well don't think that! The power of positive thinking! Or something.
just what makes that little old ant
think he can move a rubber tree plant?
everyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant
but he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
high apple pie in the sky hopes
Everybody sing!
:lol:
/snidepessimist/Ohhh I get it now.
We can just hope the problems away. /snidepessimist/ (insert smilie here)
btw - Shouldn't that be in the SHOUT SHOUT thread?
and I sang that in my head as I read it - very funny shaw :)
It always reminds me of Laverne and Shirley. Haggis!
Actually, hope and fear are the two main forces at play in the economy.
If we hope that it will get better, we will spend money, hoping we will get some more later, and the movement of that money is economic activity. Things get better (if everyone is doing this).
If we fear that thigns will get worse, we hoard money, and the stationariness of that money is economic stagnation, and things will get worse.
These are self-fulfilling expectations. Hope is in fact the cure.
This is what The Man meant when he declared "We have nothing to fear but fear itself!"
Actually, hope and fear are the two main forces at play in the economy.
If we hope that it will get better, we will spend money, hoping we will get some more later, and the movement of that money is economic activity. Things get better (if everyone is doing this).
If we fear that thigns will get worse, we hoard money, and the stationariness of that money is economic stagnation, and things will get worse.
These are self-fulfilling expectations. Hope is in fact the cure.
This is what The Man meant when he declared "We have nothing to fear but fear itself!"
Yes. Living in fear got old. I'll take hope.
Funny that there are actually people on this planet who make me look like an optimist.
Great article, Bruce.
Two weeks after that, Obama signed the stimulus bill — a $787 billion [COLOR="Sienna"]accomplishment[/COLOR].
Ten days after that, Obama formally [COLOR="Sienna"]announced[/COLOR] America's withdrawal from Iraq.
In June, Obama reset the tone of our relations with the entire Arab world with [COLOR="Sienna"]a single speech[/COLOR]...
Also in June, Obama unveiled the "Cash for Clunkers" program, a "socialist" giveaway that reanimated the corpse of our car industry
Wait ... what? Not so fast -
He signed the stimulus bill. ok, not sure how successful it is yet though. The jobs "saved or created" is a pretty fuzzy issue. Time will tell what type of accomplishment this actually was after the states have to start paying without the federal money.
Announced the withdrawal from Iraq. Not exactly the timeframe he promised pre-election, but good nonetheless.
Yup - :rolleyes:
Ford did well, but the other two that took the bailout money...
Link
specifically this part - "After receiving $12.5 billion in two TARP capital injections, GMAC now seeks several billion dollars more. This would actually be the fourth bailout if you count the $900 million equity interest Treasury received when it converted a loan to GM into a GMAC investment.
No, sorry, this would be the fifth bailout if you count the $7.4 billion in FDIC-guaranteed debt that GMAC has been allowed to issue to obtain dirt-cheap financing. Should we count GMAC's use of the government's Term Asset-backed Lending Facility (TALF) as bailout number six? And did we mention that GMAC can also gather cheap capital via FDIC-insured deposits through its ownership of Ally Bank?
Despite all of this assistance, GMAC is back at the trough seeking more help to finance purchases from Obama Motors. That's because, unlike every other big TARP recipient that failed its government "stress test" and was ordered to raise more capital, GMAC could find no takers in the private market. No one seems to want to own GMAC's equity, and investors aren't too enthused about the company's bonds, either."
Not fear or pessimism. Simple facts. Hope is a very powerful force, so much so that it can also be blinding.
.....Not fear or pessimism. Simple facts. Hope is a very powerful force, so much so that it can also be blinding.
I should have more correctly said it is my "expectation" rather than "hope" that the economy will rebound (
#948) ...and, with the exception of jobs, every indicator would suggest that rebounding has begun.
The question is how much of that is attributable to ARRA and TARP. To discount it completely as as disingenuous as giving those programs all the credit for ending the recession.
As to "simple facts"...IMO, it is simplistic to look at selected facts in a vacuum and that can be blinding as well, particularly if one looks with a predisposed opinion.
In the case of GM, what would have happened w/o the bailout? We can start with at least another 1/2 million jobs lost...then add the negative trickle down effect.
Would those jobs really be lost? How many other profitable automakers would have hired at least some of those workers? How many properly run companies would have bought or leased some of the facilities? There are as many unknowns there as there are knowns.
You cannot state that another 500,000 jobs would be lost and leave it at that. That too is as simplistic as my statement. Take into account the BILLIONS that company was given as a bailout and how much potential good that could have done as well as helped innovation in other areas. Not that anyone suggested that or it would have happened, but there were other options. Heck we still don't know if those jobs aren't going to be lost anyway. We may have just thrown away billions and just prolonged the problem. GM still sucks and so does Chrysler.
Would those jobs really be lost? How many other profitable automakers would have hired at least some of those workers? How many properly run companies would have bought or leased some of the facilities? There are as many unknowns there as there are knowns.
You cannot state that another 500,000 jobs would be lost and leave it at that. That too is as simplistic as my statement. Take into account the BILLIONS that company was given as a bailout and how much potential good that could have done as well as helped innovation in other areas. Not that anyone suggested that or it would have happened, but there were other options. Heck we still don't know if those jobs aren't going to be lost anyway. We may have just thrown away billions and just prolonged the problem. GM still sucks and so does Chrysler.
Granted the 1/2 million job loss is an estimate, but probably a conservative estimate.
Who would hire those workers? Ford has increased profits by CUTTING expenses....not by significantly increasing production or output.
I guess they could move to Tennessee or Alabama and work for Honda or Toyota (even if both were also temporarily cutting US production). Of course, they couldnt sell their house in Detroit because of the depressed housing market.
And, then with the overall decreased output of a significantly smaller US auto industry...that means other companies/factories producing auto parts would produce less and as a result face layoffs....and more trickle down, dealerships closing across the country if you reduce the Big Three to the Big One.
As to those empty factories? What company could buy or lease without credit?
And much the same applies to TARP and the bank/financial institutions bail-out.
Without the TARP bank bail outs, credit dries up completely because remaining banks can only leverage so much credit.
What that would have meant is that tens of thousands of small businesses or businesses looking to start-up, just maintain existing operations, or expand would have lost access to existing and/or new lines of credit....to pay employees, buy inventory, etc.
More jobs lost.
IMO, the risk to the economy was too great to do nothing. Perhaps you were willing to take the risk (
would those jobs really be lost? .....who knows if those jobs wouldnt be lost anyway?), but I am sure glad we didnt. Its not that I like it, but rather that I thought it was necessary to stabilize what at the time was a very fragile economy.
There are no guarantees, but I still havent seen a better alternative. "Who knows" and "What if" certainly dont offer more or better assurances of economic stability and recovery.
Here is an interesting piece on where OUR stimulus money is going.
In a letter Thursday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) urged the department not to use any federal stimulus money to support a $1.5 billion wind project in Texas, unless the project relies on U.S.-built turbines and other components. The project -- which involves a Chinese manufacturer of wind turbines, Shenyang Power Group -- calls for the installation of 240 Chinese-made wind turbines across 36,000 acres in West Texas, in a partnership with Cielo Wind Power LP of Austin, Texas.
"The purpose of the Recovery Act was to jump-start the economy to create and save jobs—American jobs," Mr. Schumer wrote in his letter to Dr. Chu. Mr. Schumer added that he fears most of the jobs created by the project will be in China. "American taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance those Chinese jobs," he wrote.
Shortly after Mr. Schumer released his letter, Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) said in an interview that he intended to send a similar letter to the Obama administration. "We have a stimulus bill, and we seem to be oblivious as to whether we're stimulating our economy or China's", Mr. Sherman said.
However ...
The U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a private-equity firm involved in the 600-megawatt Texas project, said last week that the partnership would seek tax credits and support from the federal stimulus package. The company said the project should create 300 U.S. construction jobs and 30 permanent maintenance jobs. The project also would support 800 jobs in China at a new factory built by Shenyang Power.
Then again...
"This is just the beginning," Lu Jinxiang, chief executive of A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd., which controls Shenyang, said in an interview last week. He said that the "the U.S. is an ideal target" for his sector.
Link
I'd like more of this money to go toward building and expanding the factories here in the US. I'm sure that would also lead to more innovation and greater competition.
The project also would support 800 jobs in China at a new factory built by Shenyang Power.
Great job at over sight Dems. Really great. Not.
Who said it was the D's fault? I think part of this was the concessions that the Chinese made. There is more to this.
They are in charge of the taxpayers dollars in this "stimulus" economy. How about that great job with CIT Group? We lost 2.3 billion dollars of tax payers money in that deal.
Here is an interesting piece on where OUR stimulus money is going.
However ...
Then again...
Link
I'd like more of this money to go toward building and expanding the factories here in the US. I'm sure that would also lead to more innovation and greater competition.
There has been NO stimulus funds committed to this project. From the WSJ story:
In a letter Thursday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) urged the department not to use any federal stimulus money to support a $1.5 billion wind project in Texas....
Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) said in an interview that he intended to send a similar letter to the Obama administration....
Great job at over sight Dems. Really great. Not.
Democrats, as well as Republicans have opposed providng stimulus funds.
This is a private-joint venture between US and Chinese companies.
From The Economist.
KAL's cartoon
Oct 29th 2009
Why won't Obama give you a job?
The White House thinks the stimulus is working, and it doesn't want you on its payroll
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009
To hear President Obama tell it, he's been busy creating jobs since taking office. The $787 billion stimulus package, he said last winter, would "save or create 3.5 million jobs." The White House is touting reports from recipients of stimulus funds asserting that they have created or saved 640,000 jobs so far.
Yet the national unemployment rate has now hit 10.2 percent, helping explain why Republicans won the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey last week, just a year after the party's 2008 drubbing. And Obama declared Friday that more action is needed.
"History tells us that job growth always lags behind economic growth, which is why we have to continue to pursue measures that will create new jobs," he said. "And I can promise you that I won't let up until the Americans who want to find work can find work."
It was a strong vow, but it raises a question: Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job?
Since taking office, the Obama administration has studiously avoided paying people to go to work, which could be accomplished by subsidizing workers' private-sector employment or by creating new government-paid jobs. There are programs in a handful of states that financially compensate employees who cut their hours to prevent broader layoffs at their companies -- an approach that costs relatively little, since it results in lower payouts of unemployment benefits, and that has helped Germany keep unemployment under 8 percent despite the deep slowdown there. But the Obama administration has so far opted not to expand this initiative. And aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.
Instead Obama's team has taken a more indirect approach, a prudence that critics on the left say is misplaced. If you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, why not do it with conviction? Engaging in more forthright job creation could invite some political pitfalls (such as those constant accusations of socialism), but is double-digit unemployment any less a political risk?
The administration is "scared of [any plans] seeming like old-fashioned make-work, but that's what it is: You're giving [people] jobs because they have nothing left to do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think thank. "Giving people a shot at a job has to be worth a little bad publicity . . . but as in a lot of areas, they proved more cautious."
White House officials express confidence in the steps taken, saying the stimulus is spending money and creating jobs ahead of schedule, and forestalling far higher unemployment. They say they opted against direct jobs programs not for political reasons but because they thought such efforts would not produce long-term value. And they have not pushed the private-sector job-sharing idea -- being promoted by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) -- because they want to build real demand for workers, not just spread work among more people.
"I think we got the Recovery Act right," Larry Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, said in an interview. "The primary objective of our policy is having more work done, more product produced and more people earning more income. It may be desirable to have a given amount of work shared among more people. But that's not as desirable as expanding the total amount of work."
Two-thirds of the stimulus went toward tax cuts, fiscal aid to states, and expanded unemployment benefits and food stamps. These efforts helped cushion the recession's blow, saved public jobs and, by injecting demand into the economy, bolstered employment indirectly. On Thursday, Congress buttressed these efforts with an extension of unemployment benefits and an expansion of the tax credit for homebuyers.
The remaining third of the stimulus, however, was expected to be the real jobs generator: $250 billion for infrastructure -- roads, transit, water treatment -- and for investments in energy efficiency, broadband access and other areas. But it is becoming clear that much of that spending is not producing many new jobs. Highway funds have put repaving crews to work, but $6.5 billion flowing to states and cities for energy projects has only just arrived and has created virtually no private-sector jobs yet.
The jobs impact is also paltry so far for the $3 billion in National Science Foundation grants and the $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health. And much of the $19 billion for health information technology will not be spent until 2011.
continues:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601900.htmlAnd another view.
. . .the Obama administration claimed 640,000 jobs were "saved or created" with $159 billion of the "stimulus," many "news" outlets blithely "reported" this. Do you know that comes to $250,000 per job?! And the administration claimed half the jobs were teachers. How many teachers make $250,000 per year?
There are folks out there who... aren't as good at journalism as
Jayson Blair. And another view.
. . .the Obama administration claimed 640,000 jobs were "saved or created" with $159 billion of the "stimulus," many "news" outlets blithely "reported" this. Do you know that comes to $250,000 per job?! And the administration claimed half the jobs were teachers. How many teachers make $250,000 per year?
There are folks out there who... aren't as good at journalism as Jayson Blair.
A simplistic view for ideological simpletons who dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the concept that work provides value well above and beyond just dividing dollars spent by jobs created.
Great job at over sight Dems. Really great. Not.
For 7 years the pubes couldn't oversee the trillions being poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you speak up? Fail.
For 7 years the pubes couldn't oversee the trillions being poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you speak up? Fail.
Nope, win. I wasn't here 7 years ago.
Nope, win. I wasn't here 7 years ago.
You're six? :eek:
A simplistic view for ideological simpletons who dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the concept that work provides value well above and beyond just dividing dollars spent by jobs created.
One ends up just wondering why the 250K per capita shouldn't simply be transferred to each of those capita -- if, say, you wanted to buy some votes.
And Redux, how does it not leave you vulnerable to being charged a simpleton yourself when you leave out the apostrophe? Tw's appalling copyediting is already enough for one site without additions from you.
No, simplistic is expecting the public sector to increase the wealth or to be a jobs agency. That simply never happens -- government is part of the administrative overhead, not the wealth engine. Economists understand this, Democrats presently ignore it. Dumb.
P.S.: Anyone else think Mister Jobless in the pic looks an awful lot like a rear view of Michael Moore? UG
....
No, simplistic is expecting the public sector to increase the wealth or to be a jobs agency. That simply never happens -- government is part of the administrative overhead, not the wealth engine. Economists understand this, Democrats presently ignore it. Dumb....
Rewriting history again, UG?
It was Democratic programs from the New Deal and labor legislation of the 30s that ended the depression; the post-WWII programs that invested in education, built the nation's current infrastructure, underwrote the infant technology and bio-med industries, funded the aerospace industry; the civil rights legislation of the 60s that was instrumental in the creation of a Black middle class.....all of which not only created more personal wealth, but fueled the economic engine of which you speak.
Economists understood this.
Republicans and Libertarians are still in denial.
Rewriting history again, UG?
It was Democratic programs .......the civil rights legislation of the 60s that was instrumental in the creation of a Black middle class.....all of which not only created more personal wealth, but fueled the economic engine of which you speak.
Rewriting history again, Redux?
A common attempt by Demoncrats to rewrite history while they ignore the facts of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's:
(To long to post here)
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html
snip
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.
Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia
Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt's order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that "no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time." Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.htmlEDITORIAL
Stimulus dishonesty
Job numbers keep proving to be exaggerated
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 12:43 a.m.
First it was The Associated Press refuting the Obama administration’s claims for jobs saved or created nationwide by February’s $787 billion economic stimulus measure. Then it was The Sacramento Bee refuting the claims that state agencies had made for California. Then it was the Chicago Tribune refuting the claims that state agencies had made for Illinois.
The errors were not of a minor or technical nature. They were egregious.
AP reported that “some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times.” The Bee reported that California State University said “the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees” – more than half its statewide work force. The Tribune reported that Illinois education officials grossly inflated job-saved numbers, sometimes saying school districts had saved more jobs than their total number of employees.
This is a scandal and should be treated as such. It’s not government as usual. Instead, it appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas.
With U.S. unemployment now topping 10 percent, the Obama administration is struggling more than ever to fashion credible counterarguments to the assertion made by this editorial page and many pundits and economists that the massive stimulus measure was a poorly thought-out pork fest that wouldn’t work. What’s the easiest way to defend the stimulus? Make up claims about its glorious results.
Politics also appears to be driving state agencies in their willingness to prop up this bogus narrative. It helps them make the case that they should get even more borrowed money from the federal government that they never will have to repay.
continues:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/11/stimulus-dishonesty/Rewriting history again, Redux?
A common attempt by Demoncrats to rewrite history while they ignore the facts of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's:
(To long to post here)
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html
snip
I agree the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had bi-partisan support, with majorities of both parties supporting the legislation, and Southern Democrats voting against it.
However, it would never have happened w/o a Democrat (LBJ) in the White House.
Eisenhower had the opportunity to lead such an initiative and chose not to do so and did little or nothing to address the issue. This was after Truman desegregated the military, the first step towards more comprehensive civil rights.
I would add that with the most recent reauthorization of the act in 1990, every vote against it was Republican.
I agree the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had bi-partisan support, with majorities of both parties supporting the legislation, and Southern Democrats voting against it.
However, it would never have happened w/o a Democrat (LBJ) in the White House.
Eisenhower had the opportunity to lead such an initiative and chose not to do so.
I would add that with the most recent reauthorization of the act in 1990, every vote against it was Republican.
All I am pointing out is that you can't rewrite history and you should be careful to draw to many comparisons between the Democratic party of old and the Democratic party of the last two decades.
FDR was a racist. The list of racist Dems is long and solid.
...FDR was a racist. The list of racist Dems is long and solid.
But not a long and solid as the 'pubics. Their's is as long and solid as the turd I dump after a 3 day food fest without fiber.
But not a long and solid as the 'pubics. There's is as long and solid as the turd I dump after a 3 day food fest without fiber.
Maybe you should change your name to Scatvet.
A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes.
1933 through the 1960's
And then the south went repubican, and the rolls reversed. Now they oppose affirmative action and they categorize welfare recipients as "welfare queens".
A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas a[SIZE="4"] minority of[/SIZE] Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Every civil rights bill since the 30s has had the support of the
majority of Democrats, and through the 60s, a majority of Republicans as well.
Since the late 60s, it is a completely different picture.
Fixed that for you.
Every civil rights bill since the 30s has had the support of the minority of Democrats, and through the 60s, a majority of Republicans as well.
Since the late 60s, it is a completely different picture.
No you didn't fix anything. You can't rewrite history.
No you didn't fix anything. You can't rewrite history.
Every civil rights bill has been introduced by a Democrat and has had the support of a majority of Democrats.
What part of that don't you understand?
History shows that Democrats fought to expand slavery, were the source of the KKK, fought to prevent freedom of slaves as well as fought the passage of the 13th Amendment and 15th Amendment.
They fought against the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks.
The KKK became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to lynch and terrorize Republicans-black and white. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws and fought every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Shamefully, Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Strange how history is hard to change....
Every civil rights bill since the 30s has had the support of the minority of Democrats
You can change the words...you can't change the numbers....Democrats introduced and 2/3 of Democrats in Congress supported the first civil rights act.
The 1964 act:
[INDENT]153 Democrats (63%) for and 91 against in the House.....7 southern Democrats voted for it and zero southern Republicans voted for it.....94% of northern Democrats voted for it as opposed to 85% of northern Republicans.
46 Democrats (69%) for and 21 against in the Senate....1 southern Democrat voted for it and zero southern Republicans voted for it....98% of northern Democrats voted for it as opposed to 84% of northern Republicans.
Majority of Democrats in both cases.[/INDENT]
What part of 2/3 in your fuzzy math does not equal a majority?
History shows that Democrats fought to expand slavery,....
And history shows that all the southern framers of the Constitution were slave-owners.
So what? Both parties have checkered pasts. Do you really believe the Republican party of today resembles the Republican party of Lincoln?
Your straw man has little meaning in terms of 20th century movements that helped establish the Black middle class.
You can change the words...you can't change the numbers....
Your right, it has to do with percentages of Dems and percentages of Repbs and as those numbers changed over the years from 1866 to present, there were periods where the majority of one over the other was in issue, not the actual numbers.
So what? Both parties have checkered pasts. Do you really believe the Republican party of today resembles the Republican party of Lincoln?
Never said it did. I was not talking about the Republickins. Just the party in power and disputing your points that the Dems have historically lead the way on any of the issues you made to UG. You were wrong.
Rewriting history again, UG?
It was Democratic programs from the New Deal and labor legislation of the 30s that ended the depression; the post-WWII programs that invested in education, built the nation's current infrastructure, underwrote the infant technology and bio-med industries, funded the aerospace industry; the civil rights legislation of the 60s that was instrumental in the creation of a Black middle class.....all of which not only created more personal wealth, but fueled the economic engine of which you speak.
Never said it did. I was not talking about the Republickins. Just the party in power and disputing your points that the Dems have historically lead the way on any of the issues you made to UG. You were wrong.
Democrats introduced and led the fight for the New Deal programs (cut unemployment in half and nearly doubled the GDP in the first two years), the Taft-Hartley Act, the GI Bill, the Interstate Highway System (under a Republican president), significant federal funding of the very early tech industry, the creation of the US space program, and yes, the Civil Rights Act.
All of these heavily funded federal Democratic programs (the Taft-Hartley and Civil Rights Act the least in terms of federal funding, but significant in terms of jobs) created job opportunities and contributed to personal economic growth for a burgeoning middle class and fueled the economic engine of the country.
Democrats introduced and led the fight for the New Deal programs, the Taft-Hartley Act, the GI Bill, the Interstate Highway System (under a Republican president), significant federal funding of the very early tech industry, the creation of the US space program, and yes, the Civil Rights Act.
All of these contributed to personal economic opportunities for a growing middle class and fueled the economic engine of the country.
Yes, bipartisan efforts of both Dems and Repubs contributed to personal economic opportunities for a growing middle class and fueled the economic engine of the country. Not just a single party.
Yes, bipartisan efforts of both Dems and Repubs contributed to personal economic opportunities for a growing middle class and fueled the economic engine of the country. Not just a single party.
One party has to lead in order to implement change....it doesnt happen in a vacuum.
These are all programs that UG and many Republicans and Libertarians now criticize as "big government" and "tax and spend"...the fact is, those programs made a difference to, and had a positive impact on, millions of Americans.
One party has to lead in order to implement change....it doesnt happen on its own.
Another historical falsehood. You really drink the koolaid don't you.
Another historical falsehood. You really drink the koolaid don't you.
If you say....your're the man! :thumb:
Its pointless to take this any further.
"One party has to lead in order to implement change" :lol2:
"One party has to lead in order to implement change" :lol2:
Right.
Change is self-motivated...it just happens without any stimulation or leadership.
:shock:
Right.
Change is self-motivated...it just happens without any stimulation or leadership.
You want cheese with that?
Now I understand how we got into the Iraq War.
It just sorta happened on its own.
Now I understand how we got into the Iraq War.
It just sorta happened on its own.
Wow! Really? Tell me about that. I haven't heard about it.
Simply put . . .
It's Bush's fault
Wow! Really? Tell me about that. I haven't heard about it.
The way I figure it was that Buddy, the Bush WH dog found a scrap of paper on the floor of the Oval Office one night....snuck out and raced down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol and dropped it into the bill hopper when no one was looking (helpful illustration):
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Once in the hopper, the innocuous scrap of paper transformed itself into a resolution to invade Iraq....and hopped out of the hopper, snuck onto the private underground train system for members of Congress and made its way to the appropriate Committee rooms.
Whereupon, it marked itself up, made its way to the floor of the House and voted electronically for itself....then scurried across the rotunda and made its way to the floor of the Senate and passed itself by unanimous consent of one.
Bush and the Republican leaders of Congress had nothing to do with it. :headshake
Oooops.
The Bush dog was Barney, not Buddy.
The little rascal still should have been impeached for that escapade..despite that innocent "who me?" look!
The White House job lie string continues to be pulled...
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.
The Globe’s finding is based on the federal government’s just-released accounts of stimulus spending at the end of October. It lists the nearly $4 billion in stimulus awards made to an array of Massachusetts government agencies, universities, hospitals, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations, and notes how many jobs each created or saved.
But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.
One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’ Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.
In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually - subsidies for affordable housing, for example - was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.
“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. “It’s hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.’’
The federal stimulus report for Massachusetts has so many errors, missing data, or estimates instead of actual job counts that it may be impossible to accurately tally how many people have been employed by the massive infusion of federal money. Massachusetts is expected to receive an estimated $1 billion more in stimulus contracts, grants, and loans.
continues:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/11/stimulus_fund_job_benefits_exaggerated_review_finds/The article also says they "saved" many more jobs though.
I dunno about this saved vs. created business.
I doubt anyone could dispute the "saved" angle, although it would be hard pressed to measure it compared to the oft measured monthly job "loss" reports which are measured. And if you are one of the millions who have lost jobs this year I am not sure it would carry much weight if you were still unemployed. I am more surprised they would try to get away with such a ruse after all the BS from the last Admin. As if no one would be looking.
Just one more indication that the Democratic Party thinks we're only as smart as they are. Or perhaps are less so.
No thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the majority party.
Unemployment remains above 10%, what a legacy.
Legacy's are not judged after nine months....or Bush's legacy would have been as a post-9//11 "healer and uniter" who brought the country together at a time of national crisis.
The legacy didnt quite turn out that way.
Legacy's are not judged after nine months....or Bush's legacy would have been as a post-9//11 "healer and uniter" who brought the country together at a time of national crisis.
The legacy didnt quite turn out that way.
Damm right about that! :lol2:
More big brother government.
Federal oversight of subways proposed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402459_pf.html
At what cost to the public? Is there any evidence to suggest that oversight will significantly reduce accidents?
Is there any evidence to suggest that oversight will significantly reduce accidents?
How would one expect to collect that evidence, without first doing some oversight?
I am guessing, but in most transportation accidents the Fed Transportation and Safety Administration usually investigate. I would think they would have a pretty good trail. Why not strenghten the existing systems rather than have the Federal Government get involved at much greater cost. To what end?
Well for one thing we can create more boards and committees. Oh and we can appoint more Czars. Job creation baby.
Yea, make government bigger! and then when it gets really big we can lay them off. What a plan.
Dear God, vote these people out of office. Not only are they betraying the public trust, they can't even lie well enough to escape detection for more than about twenty minutes. Malicious and incompetent.
While there are flashes of occasional shrewdness or potential shrewdness on the foreign-policy front, that's a mighty few bright spots in a record of just-ain't-got-it that will exceed the Clintons. Whom I also did not vote for. I am consistently wise, and Redux continues to have nothing real to believe in, or base his values upon.
I agree with all of that, UG, only you're 14 months late in posting it. :p
Obama won no concessions from China on points at issue
BEIJING — President Barack Obama on Wednesday wraps up a three-day visit to China that's left him keenly aware of the limits of his administration's leverage over this economic powerhouse on issues from currency exchange rates to human rights.
Obama has little leverage over China , in part because the U.S. depends on the Chinese to finance the U.S. government's growing debt, and because of the perception in China , which for years was an economic nonentity, that the U.S. is troubled and China is ascendant.
Administration officials said that the China stop, part of a four-nation Asia tour that will conclude Thursday in South Korea , was a success because it laid the groundwork for a more focused U.S.- China alliance to tackle everything from global warming to nuclear weapons containment.
China gave no evident ground on the points at issue, however.
n two areas in which the United States wants to shift China's positions — valuation of the Chinese currency and the Chinese government's censorship practices and human rights abuses — no advances were announced, however.
The U.S. is the world's largest economy; China's the world's most populous nation, with the third largest gross domestic product. China has helped keep the American economy afloat through the recession. Its huge trade surplus with the United States — and the $800 billion worth of American government debt that it holds — is economically unsustainable and leaves the U.S. dependent on Beijing's financial favor, however.
Obama has called for China to stop undervaluing its currency and adopt a more market-based standard as one way to begin reducing the trade imbalance.
Other aspects of Obama's visit also were sobering. Even as he arrived Sunday night, human rights organizations reported that the Chinese government was rounding up and arresting dissidents to ensure that they couldn't reach out to the U.S.
The following day, Hu allowed Obama's town-hall meeting, the first such event for a Western leader in China , to air on local television in Shanghai — but not nationally.
Hu didn't agree to any news conferences at which reporters could ask questions.
There were no chants of "O-ba-ma!" at the town hall meeting. Instead, 400 students selected by authorities at their universities awaited his arrival in silence, sitting rigidly and displaying little emotion.
Link
Good luck with that plan. You've got as good a chance of that happening as asking the opposing team not to play their star players. Why would China do that when it is clearly NOT in their best interest?
Obama won no concessions from China on points at issue
Link
Good luck with that plan. You've got as good a chance of that happening as asking the opposing team not to play their star players. Why would China do that when it is clearly NOT in their best interest?
Wasn't that just about what Bush did? Did you expect different results? Did he get different results?
AKA Cover Your Ass...
(CNN) -- The government Web site Recovery.gov is fixing errors that appeared to show hundreds of millions of stimulus dollars were spent in nonexistent congressional districts, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board said Wednesday.
The errors {lies}, first reported by ABC News, were seen on Recovery.gov summary pages breaking down how many stimulus dollars were received in each state's congressional districts.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/stimulus.district.errors/First they kill some poor sod now they hit someone else....
http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/abqnewseeker-mainmenu-39/17073-breaking-biden-escort-involved-in-wreck.html
Watch out for Biden's Motorcade. It is deadly.
Or you could go hunting with Cheney, your choice.
WTF is up with these incompetent VP's?
I didn't realize Joe was driving... oh wait he wasn't. Maybe someone else was shooting for Cheney as well... that is how he handled Vietnam.
If he cared TW might insert some witty new statements about problems being traceable to the top and how the 70HP engine... oh nevermind.
Wasn't that just about what Bush did? Did you expect different results? Did he get different results?
You tell me. Did he act as though China was our new buddy and kiss their ass? I'm not sure I remember that part.
You tell me. Did he act as though China was our new buddy and kiss their ass? I'm not sure I remember that part.
Yes. And got no results re dollar vs yuan valuation.
Maybe Obama could ty vomiting on Hu. Worked for Bush I.
Griff ... bwahahahaha ... zing!!
Its their party and they can cry if they want to....but it makes me smile :)
Tea Partiers turn on each other
After emerging out of nowhere over the summer as a seemingly potent and growing political force, the tea party movement has become so rife with internal feuding over philosophy, strategy and money that some supporters fear it will disintegrate before realizing its full potential....
...“These groups don’t play as well together as they should,” said Kevin Jackson, a St. Louis-based conservative author and activist who has spoken at dozens of tea party-type rallies and is traveling across the South with a convoy sponsored by the national Tea Party Patriots group.
“They’re fractured at the organization level, I think mainly because there are a lot of people who have not had managerial experience who all of a sudden are thrust into the limelight and become intoxicated with it. And when a potential rift comes up, instead of handling it and maybe agreeing to disagree, they splinter and go off on their own....
...Many of their members also belong to national conservative groups, including FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity and Grassfire, while the local groups often affiliate formally or informally with loose-knit umbrella organizations, including the Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Nation.
The organizational chaos — combined with a widening apathy at the edges of the movement — has produced a growing consensus among local, state and national tea party leaders that in order for the movement to evolve from the loose conglomeration of fired-up activists who mobilized this summer to register their dissatisfaction with Obama and Congress at town hall protests and marches across the country into a sustainable block with the power to shape the GOP and swing elections, it will require the emergence of a national leader, group or structure.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29744.html
hmmmm....require a national leader or group or structure? What a surprise.
IMO, the tea bags are turning into
Sweet and providing instant gratification....but artificial to the core and no staying power.
Dissonance amongst the Tea Punks! :lol:
California Was Among States With Record Unemployment
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- California, Delaware, South Carolina and Florida registered record rates of unemployment in October as weakness in the labor market stretches from coast to coast and limits the economic recovery.
Joblessness rose in 29 U.S. states last month compared with 22 in September, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Michigan had the highest jobless rate at 15.1 percent, followed by Nevada at 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.9 percent.
The national rate last month reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, weighing on consumer spending that accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Nov. 17 that joblessness “likely will decline only slowly,” a reason policy makers will keep interest rates near zero to ensure growth is sustained.
“We’ve had a surprisingly sharp jump in the jobless rate,” said Richard DeKaser, president of Woodley Park Research in Washington. “Businesses have truly been doing an extraordinary job of wringing out productivity from the labor force.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQsHAD0w1egEThe danger of prolonged low interest rates is that many people/firms will take loans, then when interest rates eventually rise, some will be unable to repay those loans, triggering a new wave of bankruptcies, which was how we got into this mess in the first place. It is a very tricky balancing act. Wearing a blindfold.
I am really beginning to think that all this talk of recovery is false and when the money runs out and the Congress stops throwing cash at all these programs we may be worse off than before. Jobless rate sure reflects it.
I remember a graph of post war crashes from a US History class years ago. I'll search the net... of course we are not even close to ending our present engagements. Go us.
I remember a graph of post war crashes from a US History class years ago. I'll search the net... of course we are not even close to ending our present engagements. Go us.
I'm trying to figure out how much of the money spent on the war is creating jobs here. Mercenaries like Blackwater (Xe) don't really represent the US workforce, and a lot of the work by Cheney's old firm (KBR-Haliburton) involves subcontracters overseas which they overcharge for. This is one reason why there are a number of
electrocution cases in Iraq.
In previous wars, at least most of the money was spent in the US. Now services, components, and equipment are as likely as not to be from sources outside the US.
Take a look at Griff's graph.
Firstly, note that it gives job losses as an absolute value. Since there are more people in jobs now compared to 1950, losing a million jobs is a smaller percentage now than previously. I'd like to see an adjusted graph of that (but not enough to go and look for one).
I also notice that if you trace the recessions in their chronological order, after the first cluster of five recessions which lasted 18-23 months, they get progressively longer: 28, 32 and 47 months. The present one is shaping up to be a doozie. Is the trend strong enough to support a general hypothesis? Are US recessions getting longer? If so, why would that be?
This Krauthammer article probably belongs here.
Sign this petition.
Why would anyone sign a petition for the president to release his birth certificate when he already did during the campaign and it was a legitimate, authentic, certified, signed, sealed, and verified copy of his actual birth certificate?
Only a nutjob or an insane person is stupid enough to believe he was born in another country. Only jackasses like Orly Taitz or Phil Berg are that dumb.
Why would anyone sign a petition for the president to release his birth certificate when he already did during the campaign?
Then do it again - its the department of redundancy dept - one of the largest in our Gov't. Shouldn't take a petition anyway. Personally I would hope it would shut up a bunch of them once and for all.
That doesn't work on idealogues with the memory of a goldfish and the attention span of a toddler.
Though it does work well enough on everybody else, leaving the cranks to be encysted in their isolation. Works for me [shrug].
'A Lot Like Jimmy Carter'
An end to diplomacy is also taking shape in Washington's policy toward Tehran. It is now up to Iran, Obama said, to convince the world that its nuclear power is peaceful. While in Asia, Obama mentioned "consequences" unless it followed his advice. This puts the president, in his tenth month in office, where Bush began -- with threats. "Time is running out," Obama said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers.
There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama's advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. "Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead," Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: "This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter."
Link
Good gracious, please tell me that we aren't going
there again.
There are T-shirts that say "Welcome Back, Carter" advertised on The Drudge Report.
Barack Obama’s Top Ten Foreign Policy Follies
This has hardly been a stellar year for the projection of American global power. Weakness, rather than strength, has been the hallmark of US foreign policy under Barack Obama, from the Iranian nuclear crisis to dithering over the war in Afghanistan. Instead of strong American leadership, the White House has all too often offered humiliating apologies for America’s past and embarrassing gaffes.
Here is a list of the ten biggest foreign policy follies of Barack Obama’s first year in office. I’ve tried to make the list inclusive of all corners of the world, ranging from Tehran to Tokyo to Khartoum, and frankly could easily have expanded it to a top 20 or even top 30 list. There are plenty to choose from, including some of the most cringe worthy moments in modern American history.
Link
Some of the comments at the end of this are amazing. I don't agree with all of what is said, but I was more than a little surprised at this mans perspective nonetheless.
That list is tiresome carping. There has been no actual foreign policy test as yet. If one of the worst ten things O could do is mess up gift-giving he will be in the same boat as most families tomorrow.
.... he will be in the same boat as most families tomorrow.
:lol:
I specifically voted for a lot of stuff on that list.
Declaring America's middle class is "under assault," President Barack Obama unveiled plans Monday to help hurting families pay their bills, save for retirement and care for their kids and aging parents. His comments previewed Wednesday's State of the Union Address.
Obama's proposals won't create jobs, but he said they could "re-establish some of the security that's slipped away."
Among the president's economic ideas:
• Nearly doubling the tax credit that families making under $85,000 can receive for child care costs, with some help for families earning up to $115,000, too.
• Capping the size of periodic federal college loan repayments at 10 percent of borrowers' discretionary income to make payments more affordable.
• Increasing by $1.6 billion the money pumped into a federal fund to help working parents pay for child care, covering an estimated 235,000 additional children.
• Requiring employers who don't offer 401(k) retirement plans to offer direct-deposit IRAs for their employees, with exemptions for the smallest firms.
• Spending more than $100 million to help people care for their elderly parents and get support for themselves as well.
The White House maintained that its imperative still is to create jobs. Unemployment remains in double digits, and the economy is the public's top concern. Yet Obama said that squeezed families need help in other ways, too: paying for child care, helping out aging parents, saving for retirement, paying off college debt.
Less clear was how much the programs would cost or where the money would come from.
Officials deferred comment until the release of the budget.
Obama, whose poll numbers are off, is trying to sharpen his economic message in a way that shows people he is on their side. White House officials say they know people have been turned off by the long, messy fight for health insurance reform. Plus, there's a perception that families have gotten far less help than big banks.
Link
I like the ideas, but it would be nice to know how we are gonna pay for stuff before we pend money we don't have. Doncha think?
"more than $100 million to help people care for their elderly parents"
Let's see... divide that by 300 million Americans, and it works out to 33 cents per person. Even though not every American will be caring for an elderly parent, I don't see this money going very far. What are they gonna do, print some informational pamphlets?
"more than $100 million to help people care for their elderly parents"
Let's see... divide that by 300 million Americans, and it works out to 33 cents per person. Even though not every American will be caring for an elderly parent, I don't see this money going very far. What are they gonna do, print some informational pamphlets?
.33 cents each? That much? Hell, that should cover it.
It goes further if you only give it to people that need it.
Capping the size of periodic federal college loan repayments at 10 percent of borrowers' discretionary income to make payments more affordable.
Discretionary income, wtf? :eyebrow:
.33 cents each? That much? Hell, that should cover it.
Way more than that. It will be 33 cents each, not a third of a cent each. :p
None of those things will help me.
"more than $100 million to help people care for their elderly parents"
Let's see... divide that by 300 million Americans, and it works out to 33 cents per person. Even though not every American will be caring for an elderly parent, I don't see this money going very far. What are they gonna do, print some informational pamphlets?
W/O knowing the details, I would guess it is for matching grants for programs like Meals on Wheels, etc.
Or even better, programs to support congregate living for seniors. Think of having the Golden Girls live in your neighborhood, but they cant because of local housing/zoning codes. Time to start addressing those needs in anticipation of the soon to be senior baby boomers.
Or even better, programs to support congregate living for seniors.
OH hell, I couldn't resist.
Ole Teddy is rolling in his fucking grave. Good on him. I wonder if he is dizzy yet?
Ok. So the latest gimmick is for Obama to offer breaks on Capital Gains Taxes to small businesses. A capital gains tax is a tax charged on the profit made on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. How many Small businesses do you know of that have income from the sales of stocks, bonds, precious metals and properties. The majority of small businesses are S-corps, LLC's, PC's. Most of this income is taxed as personal income with some benefits from being incorporated. This is not going to do squat to help the majority of small businesses. Once again he is blowing smoke up our collective skirts in the guise of reconciliation.
In fact, the bigger pieces of the proposal are a $5,000 tax credit for each new hire along with reimbursement of Social Security payroll taxes for businesses that increase wages or hours for existing workers (both capped to ensure that funds go to small businesses) ...and using $30 billion from money repaid to the TARP fund to help community banks offer small-business loans through incentives to those banks to borrow money from the Treasury at a reduced dividend rate.
If you don't like these ideas, got a better one?
Put the over spent money from TARP back into deficit reduction where it belongs and stop coming up with plans to tax income. It is a backhanded benefit. Small business will be hurt by any plans to raise taxes on personal income over $200k. A $5000 tax credit for one year will not offset the costs for insurance and payroll over the course of one year. But the point here Obama is trying to sell this Capital Gains reduction as some grand handout to small business and it is total bullshit.
Put the over spent money from TARP back into deficit reduction where it belongs and stop coming up with plans to tax income. It is a backhanded benefit. Small business will be hurt by any plans to raise taxes on personal income over $200k. A $5000 tax credit for one year will not offset the costs for insurance and payroll over the course of one year. But the point here Obama is trying to sell this Capital Gains reduction as some grand handout to small business and it is total bullshit.
So your only plan is to let the tax cuts to the top bracket extend beyond the original expiration date in the law (the end of 2010)...How did those 01 and 03 tax cuts (at a cost of over $1 trillion) help the economy?
And to put the TARP funds to deficit reduction rather than job creation....how does that create jobs?
I guess I could rehire my wife and kids. Take the $5000 tax break for each of them and fire them at the end of the year when the break goes away.
So your only plan is to let the tax cuts to the top bracket extend beyond the original expiration date in the law (the end of 2010)...How did those 01 and 03 tax cuts (at a cost of over $1 trillion) help the economy?
It keeps the money where it belongs, in the hands of those who earned it and out of the hands of Big Government who will waste it on things that will not work to create jobs or attempt to do them inefficiently as the last Stimulus Package did. Your guys tried to tempt us with that smoke screen once already telling us that you are going to make jobs. You failed. You don't deserve more of my money to fail again.
So you really dont have a plan or anything constructive to offer....other than dont tax the rich even though the law under which those tax cuts were enacted mandate that they expire in 2010....and dont attempt to create jobs, since your economic expertise says that wont work.
More of the same... if is counter to your opinion......it fails.
... as a matter of fact all you ever say is everybody else is wrong.
Its OK...didnt expect anything different.
So you really dont have a plan or anything constructive to offer.
Oh. Maybe you need to re-read my post. Leave the tax breaks in place where money earned stays with those who know best what to do with them. Stop lying to the American public about what you are doing with our money and how your Kabuki Theater plans are going to do something they will not.
To date you and your party have not offered anything constructive to fix the situation we are in. Ok, wait. You did significantly increase the Debt Ceiling so you could spend more and drive the economy down more. You told us that you were going to make more jobs and you didn't. The electorate is on to you.
Oh. Maybe you need to re-read my post. Leave the tax breaks in place where money earned stays with those who know best what to do with them...
And how well did that work out?
How did those 01 and 03 tax cuts weighted heavily to the top bracket, at a cost of over $1 trillion, contribute to middle class economic security, as promised?
BTW, numerous economists, including the lead economist at Heritage and other conservative economists have acknowledged that the stimulus plan has contributed to the GDP growth in 09...the first real growth in nearly three years. The consensus among economists across the political spectrum have agreed.
And how well did that work out? How did those 01 and 03 tax cuts, at a cost of over $1 trillion, contribute to middle class economic security, as promised?
Better yet, how did it fail?
Unemployment rate 2001 =4.7
Unemployment rate 2003 =6.0
Unemployment rate 2006 =4.6
Unemployment rate 2010 =10
BTW, numerous economists, including the lead economist at Heritage and other conservative economists, have agreed that the stimulus plan has contributed to the GDP growth this year...the first growth in more than three years. The consensus among economists across the political spectrum have agreed.
And numerous economists have also said that the blip at the end of the year was not sustainable and artificially reflected tax dollars that were poured into the failed Stimulus Package of Feb 2009. No one has said that the growth in GDP noted in one or two months of this year is refective of long term economic outlook. But they all have said it is artificial.
Hey..,Economists across the spectrum understand that employment is the last to recovery from a severe recession.
You start with growing the economy...and that has occurred for the first time in 2 years, as a result, in part, of the stimulus program.
And you still have offered nothing better and still cant explain how those 01 and 03 tax cuts at a cost of $1 trillion helped the middle class?
And this is your plan? You don't see a difference????
Even with Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues in 2007 were at the average as a percentage of GDP, 18.5 percent, going back to 1960. The deficit was just 1.2 percent of GDP, historically on the low side. Accumulated federal debt was 36 percent of GDP.
Obama proposes that the federal government spend over 25 percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a historical average of around 20.5 percent. He justifies this as necessary to continue to fight the recession.
Obama, however, projects that the recession will be fully over in 2011 and robust growth under way. Yet he proposes that federal spending continue to be nearly 24 percent of GDP through 2020.
In other words, rather than wind down the additional recession spending after recovery, Obama is proposing that it simply become a new, higher base.
After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it would grow to 77 percent by 2020.
If Obama were to recommend a path to return spending to its historical share of economic output, in 2020 the deficit would be just $255 billion, about what the federal government spends each year on large capital projects, and just 1 percent of GDP. In other words, not a problem. And federal spending would have still increased by more than 4 percent a year since 2008.
Instead, Obama recommends a 2020 deficit of over $1 trillion and a troubling 4.2 percent of GDP.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/03/obamas_deficits_arent_bushs_fault_100150.htmlYou start with growing the economy...and that has occurred for the first time in 2 years, as a result, in part, of the stimulus program.
You fail to recognize that most of the economists say it is an artifical recovery boistered by unsustainable spending.
And you still have offered nothing better and still cant explain how those 01 and 03 tax cuts at a cost of $1 trillion helped the middle class?
And you can't show where they hurt. We had more than half of the rate of unemployment at that time and people were doing fine. Anything to keep hard earned money out of the government coffers and in the pockets of those who earn it, who can make jobs with it, and put it directly back into the economy is a better plan than giving it to your party to spend whorishly on plans that have not to date and will not work. Well other than to raise our national debt.
You fail to recognize that most of the economists say it is an artifical recovery boistered by unsustainable spending..
In fact, only the most conservative, supply side economists say that.
Many economists across the spectrum see the value of the stimulus plan, but disagree on the finer points.
So, in the end, your plan is more tax cuts and deficit reduction...and that, somehow, will create jobs.
Those 01 and 03 tax cuts failed to stimulate any economic growth and contributed $1 trillion to the debt.
You want more of the same and I want a different approach and I am willing to give it time to work, given that it was envisioned as a two year plan and that it has already contributed to economic growth.
*shrug* We'll just agree to disagree.
Trillion dollar deficits are not a solution to our financial well being as a nation. The debt has nearly doubled since Jan of 09.
In fact, only the most conservative, supply side economists say that.
Many economists across the spectrum see the value of the stimulus plan, but disagree on the finer points.
So, in the end, your plan is more tax cuts and deficit reduction...and that, somehow, will create jobs.
Those 01 and 03 tax cuts failed to stimulate any economic growth and contributed $1 trillion to the debt.
You want more of the same and I want a different approach and I am willing to give it time to work, given that it was envisioned as a two year plan and that it has already contributed to economic growth.
*shrug* We'll just agree to disagree.
But yet you still fail to note that the economists say the economic growth is artificial and only reflects the billions that we have poured into debt spending? Why do you ignore this fact and pretend like everything is ok? Your plan is not working.
Better yet, how did it fail?
Looking at that, Clinton apparently had the best plan.
2009 9.3%
2008 08BM 5.8%
2007 08BM 4.6%
2006 08BM 4.6%
2005 08BM 5.1%
2004 5.5%
2003 6.0%
2002 5.8%
2001 4.7%
2000 4.0%
1999 4.2%
1998 4.5%
1997 4.9%
1996 5.4%
1995 5.6%
1994 6.1%
1993 6.9%
1992 7.5%
1991 6.8%
1990 5.6%
1989 5.3%
1988 5.5%
1987 6.2%
1986 7.0%
1985 7.2%
1984 7.5%
1983 9.6%
1982 9.7%
1981 7.6%
1980 7.1%
http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm#annl
Although, the 2008 data is skewed because of the benchmark thing (08BM). If you look at the monthly data, in same link, the rise of unemployment under Obama was a pretty steady transition from Bush so logically its not valid to say that the rise in unemployment is Obama's fault, as it has steadied out in the past three months. You can't blame the parachute if you open it twenty feet from the ground.
Trillion dollar deficits are not a solution to our financial well being as a nation. The debt has nearly doubled since Jan of 09.
I agree..but something had to be done or the economy would have tanked even more, leading to potentially the worst depression in 75 years....very few dispute that fact....and objective observers understand that correcting a failing economy cannot happen overnight..or even in one year.
And all the critics still havent offered a better plan.
If you look at the monthly data, in same link, the rise of unemployment under Obama was a pretty steady transition from Bush so logically its not valid to say that the unemployment is Obama's fault. You can't blame the parachute if you open it twenty feet from the ground.
Granted. What I have said is that it is not working. And to pretend like this administration has no responsibility is equally incorrect.
Granted. What I have said is that it is not working. And to pretend like this administration has no responsibility is equally incorrect.
I think it is worth a shot to provide $5,000 tax credit to small businesses for each new hire and using money repaid to the TARP fund to help community banks offer small-business loans through incentives to those banks.
But you have already declared this a failure.
We're not gonna agree...surprise.
That is because any small business owner knows this is not going to make a difference in the long run. What is to prevent them from taking on a few people to get the tax break and then when it runs out just let them go as in the example I gave you?
Granted. What I have said is that it is not working. And to pretend like this administration has no responsibility is equally incorrect.
First, I'm not making the assumption that our current admin has no responsibility. I was only responding to your skewed statistics. Obama's policies has not lived up to its hype, big surprise there, but unemployment rates have not drastically increased under his administration either. Whether they would be higher or lower under someone else I do not know.
But seriously, just make an Excel scatter graph from the past 12 months, the rise of unemployment rates under Obama isn't nearly as dramatic as the rise when Obama was just coming into office.
That is because any small business owner knows this is not going to make a difference in the long run. What is to prevent them from taking on a few people to get the tax break and then when it runs out just let them go as in the example I gave you?
I've read alot of positive feedback to the proposal from small businesses as well as skepticism from others. Generalizing doesnt really work.
And if some want to scam the system (any system) as you suggested, they will, while others will use it more constructively.
That is because any small business owner knows this is not going to make a difference in the long run. What is to prevent them from taking on a few people to get the tax break and then when it runs out just let them go as in the example I gave you?
Because it costs more than $5000 to employ someone. They won't gain money by doing that unless they actually have profitable work for that employee to do.
Some companies may not be able to continue that employment without the extra $5000, but some will. And even for the ones who can't, they will have employed someone for the duration of the stimulus, and the person will hopefully be in the job market in a better economy. This is a job stimulus bill, after all, designed to boost the job market while the economy recovers.
Because it costs more than $5000 to employ someone. They won't gain money by doing that unless they actually have profitable work for that employee to do.
Some companies may not be able to continue that employment without the extra $5000, but some will. And even for the ones who can't, they will have employed someone for the duration of the stimulus, and the person will hopefully be in the job market in a better economy. This is a job stimulus bill, after all, designed to boost the job market while the economy recovers.
IMHO if it is not sustainable for more than one year it is a total waste of taxpayer dollars and only preventing a more meaningful recovery.
How does putting people to work, even if it's only for a year for some of them, prevent a more meaningful recovery?
Because in one year they will be right back where they were again and we will have spent all that money for a non-fix. Looking at the larger issue here.
They won't be back where they were. Some of the people won't be fired, and even the ones who are will have had a year's worth of employment; a year's worth of income; a year off of the unemployment rolls; and a year's worth of participation in the economy.
It is to be hoped that the $5000 will buy more than that for as many as possible, but it's a good deal even if that's all it buys.
And how is any other recovery prevented by this?
So where are Merc and Classic?
They are always the first to post economic and jobs reports as soon as they are released by the govt.
But they missed the report last week on the 5.7 percent annual growth rate in the fourth quarter (of 09), the fastest pace since 2003 and the report today on the unemployment rate for Jan dropping to 9.7%. Small incremental improvements...but who can argue that they are not moving in the right direction?
Perhaps they are at the
National Tea Party Convention where all the fun is. :)
The opening speaker at the first National Tea Party Convention called President Obama a "committed Socialist ideologue" who was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."
The bitching about socialism and fascism... the Nazi signs and rhetoric...the calls for the end to multi-cutluralism and the return of a literacy test for voting...the threats to take back the govt (by force, if necessary) or secede.
And the best is yet to come... tomorrow's general session on "“Correlations between the current Administration and Marxist Dictators of Latin America”...followed by Palin's $100,000 speech at the closing banquet. :D
...followed by Palin's $100,000 speech at the closing banquet. :D
She needs the
money.
Records show that Sarah Palin hasn't paid any property taxes on cabins that have been built on two backcountry plots partially owned by the former Alaska governor.
How come all the tea-baggin' women are those fat pasty grub-worm looking things, with thin lips and prominent sagging jowls? Is it inbreeding?
So where are Merc and Classic?
They are always the first to post economic and jobs reports as soon as they are released by the govt.
False. I don't thin that I've ever posted one, but lemme see what I can find real fast for you. . .
Real Unemployment Rate at 16.77%
We Need Jobs!
WASHINGTON - February 5 - Americans for Democratic Action’s National Director, Michael J. Wilson, made the following statement about today’s unemployment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
“The real unemployment rate released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 16.7% -- a full 7 points higher than the officially reported rate.
“We are beginning to see signs of an economic recovery. Even though we know that jobs are a lagging indicator, we know that is of little comfort to the millions who have remained jobless for week after week after week.
“In addition, as we enter African American History Month, the 24.3% African American unemployment rate means that nearly one in four African Americans is jobless. The Congress and the President need to work together to make sure that the Great Recession’s contribution to history is ending the disparate impact joblessness has on the African American community.
Former Joint Economic Committee Economist and ADA partner Paul Manchester, said the following:
“The unemployment rate fell from 10.0% in December to 9.7% in January. The number of unemployed also fell, from 15.27 million to 14.84 million, which is also good news.
However, the average length of unemployment increased, from 29.1 weeks to 30.2 weeks, a record.
The increase in the duration of unemployment more than offsets the drop in the number of unemployed, so the Manchester Index continued to rise, from 444.3 million weeks to 448.1 million weeks of joblessness. However, it should be noted that this is the smallest increase the last 12 months.”
Link
Happy now?
False. I don't thin that I've ever posted one, but lemme see what I can find real fast for you. . .
Link
Happy now?
SO what was the real unemployment rate before Obama took office.
Or doesnt that matter if you start using that figure now.
And happy to see you and offer my perspective on your negativism.
[INDENT]
"Always with the negative vibes MerClassic, always with the negative vibes."[/INDENT]
I apologize if I am wrong about you posting the monthly econ/job news reports...maybe that is just Merc...but you and he both post so many "interesting" and negative links, its hard to keep track. And more often than not, you post those links w/o offering an opinion and rarely, if ever, offering a solution of your own.
And, to your credit, you dont make constant references to Socialism and Nazis. :thumb:
Relax...Lighten up. (sound familiar) :)
:lol: So I bet this Nazi is eating her words now...
Pelosi: Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?
August 1, 2003
Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' announcement that 470,000 people abandoned their job searches in July and that 3.2 million private sector jobs have been lost since President Bush took office:
“The fact is that President Bush’s misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since President Bush took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover. And today we learned that in July nearly half a million people gave up looking for a job.
“Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families. While Democrats are fighting for opportunity, jobs, and economic security for working families, Republicans continue to focus on helping those who need help the least.
“According to today’s survey, while the national unemployment rate dropped slightly, it still stands at a near record high. In addition, the unemployment rate for African Americans was still over 11 percent in July, and the unemployment rate for Hispanics was 8.2 percent in July.
“It is time for President Bush and the Republicans to get to work for all Americans, not just the elite few.”
Nancy Pelosi.
And today we learned that in July nearly half a million people gave up looking for a job.
How is this determined? Just wondering...
I think they measure the people who go off unemployment without having a job. Which is hardly the same as giving up looking. And they don't measure people who were never on unemployment, or who took freelance work, etc.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Compares Job Losses Under Presidents Obama and Bush
:lol2:
So how should we go about stabilizing and then correcting the worst economic trends in 60+ years?
From 2000-2009: job growth was essentially zero, economic output (as measured by GDP) saw the lowest growth in any decade, and for the first time, household net worth decreased.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Or is it just a laughing matter?
WASHINGTON – It's a bipartisan jobs bill that would hand President Barack Obama a badly needed political victory and placate Republicans with tax cuts at the same time. But it has a problem: It won't create many jobs.
Even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers — would work only on the margins.
As for the bill's effectiveness, tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.
"We're skeptical that it's going to be a big job creator," said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that's hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we're skeptical."
Rick Klahsen, a tax expert at the accounting firm RSM McGladrey, said his clients need to see business pick up before they can hire more workers.
"If demand were increased, they are saying it will take care of itself because I will then have the motivation to go out and hire new employees," Klahsen said.
The bipartisan Senate plan would exempt businesses from paying a 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the wages of new employees, as long as the workers have been unemployed at least 60 days. The tax break would run through the end of the year.
A company could save a maximum of $6,621 if it hired an unemployed worker after the bill is enacted and paid that worker at least $106,800 — the maximum amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes — by the end of the year. The company could get an additional $1,000 on its 2011 tax return if it kept the new worker for at least a full year.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that reducing Social Security taxes for companies that add workers would be among the most efficient ways for the government to create jobs. However, in showing how difficult it is to create jobs through tax policy, CBO estimates that such a tax break would generate only eight to 18 full-time jobs per $1 million in tax breaks.
The Senate proposal, which is more narrow than the one analyzed by CBO, is estimated to cost about $10 billion. That would add 80,000 to 180,000 jobs over the course of a year. The U.S. economy, meanwhile, has lost 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession.
Nonetheless, supporters say it is cheaper, simpler and less vulnerable to abuse than Obama's plan, which would give a $5,000 tax credit for each new worker that employers hire and cost $33 billion.
Link
Another partisan AP article.
Even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers — would work only on the margins.
As I stated earlier, smoke and mirrors to make everyone feel better, sort of like he is doing something for small business. When in fact he is not. Although I am tempted to hire my family members to get a tax break.
Have they been out of work long enough?
Oh, hell yea. Easily qualified. :)
So will every cocksucker that's just looking for ways to scam the system, and siphon off help that would really help boost the economy.
I guess if you feel using a legal means to hire someone to get a tax break makes one a 'cocksucker'. If it is a balance between taxes being raised to screw a small minority and trying to get a little bit back from a legal way to hire someone, why not? That is how the system works. How is that a scam of the system?
If you want to attack people who "siphon off help that would really help boost the economy" you are looking in the wrong places.
So will every [COLOR="Red"]congressperson[/COLOR] that's just looking for ways to scam the system, and siphon off help that would really help boost the economy.
fixed that for ya.
Hey Now Here is Job Creation For Ya! [/taxpayersdollarswasted]
POLK COUNTY (Bay News 9) -- The Polk County school district is giving away iPods to some parents.
The school district is using the device to reward parents of children with disabilities who fill out a 10-minute online survey. The district wants to know how well it's connecting with the parents and how to get parents involved in their children's education.
The district is spending about $350,000 in federal stimulus money for the iPods.
The district has more than 10,000 students with disabilities.
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2010/2/10/581592.html
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse....
PROMISES, PROMISES: Jobs bill won't add many jobs
WASHINGTON – It's a bipartisan jobs bill that would hand President Barack Obama a badly needed political victory and placate Republicans with tax cuts at the same time. But it has a problem: It won't create many jobs.
Even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers — would work only on the margins.
As for the bill's effectiveness, tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_bi_ge/us_what_jobs_11Hey Now Here is Job Creation For Ya! [/taxpayersdollarswasted]
Because NO ONE would have predicted this would happen in isolated instances!!!
PROMISES, PROMISES: Jobs bill won't add many jobs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_bi_ge/us_what_jobs_11
I agree. This bi-partisan compromise bill dilutes the potential positive impact of a real jobs bill and is far from the best solution.
So Merc, what do
you stand for? I mean something other than a
"good outrage and removing Nazis from Congress"
Just wondering if you have anything positive to contribute? ;)
Can I get an I-Pod?
Made in China.
Why of course, along with everything else in this nation.
Can I play Devil's Advocate for a minute and suggest that actually, if a small bribe is what it takes to get parents involved with their kids' school, then it very well may be worth it? Parents are far more important than teachers when it comes to churning out educated and well-adjusted citizens, and no amount of school funding is going to be able to counteract a poor district full of bad parents. But bad parents also tend to be shallow and bribe-able, and if you can convince the parents that the schools are on their side, that could maybe change a lot of the underlying attitude.
The Polk County School District on Thursday rescinded its plan to give away free iPod Nanos worth $150 each to parents of children with disabilities after being told by the state Department of Education that funds set aside for the plan cannot be used in that manner.
The district had set aside up to $350,000 of federal money to give iPods to parents of the district's 10,500 students with disabilities. To receive the iPod, parents would have to complete a 10-minute state survey online.
"The Florida Department of Education instructed district staff yesterday that the funds are to directly flow to students and not indirectly through parents," the district said in a news release. "The funds previously flagged to purchase the iPods will now be used to support classroom instruction and curriculum."
Link
Well so much for that idea.
Can I play Devil's Advocate for a minute and suggest that actually, if a small bribe is what it takes to get parents involved with their kids' school, then it very well may be worth it? Parents are far more important than teachers when it comes to churning out educated and well-adjusted citizens, and no amount of school funding is going to be able to counteract a poor district full of bad parents. But bad parents also tend to be shallow and bribe-able, and if you can convince the parents that the schools are on their side, that could maybe change a lot of the underlying attitude.
It would only work to an extent and then they would be looking for the next handout to do what they have a responsiblity to do all along. It is the nature of creating a welfare state. It only breeds more dependency.
Sure, it's not a magic fix. But from the school's perspective, they're only dealing with these students (and by extension, their parents) for twelve years. It's already too late to fix the parents, to be perfectly honest.* But there's still a chance that if you can finagle good behavior out of the parents for even a short time, it might coincide with that window of time when you still have a chance to help the kid.
*It's important to realize that in low-income areas, many of the kids in the special ed programs are there specifically because their parents used drugs/alcohol while pregnant, and/or emotionally abuse them. Certainly not all of the kids with disabilities fit this bill, but as a general rule, the worst of the worst parents are going to end up with kids in the program.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. I just don't think free I-pods are the fix. It is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. I would rather see them give the kids money for good grades.
Feds push for tracking cell phones
the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.htmlFeds push for tracking cell phones
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
As long as they're not tracking calls to foreign terrorists, I guess it's OK.:greenface
Yea, where is the liberal outcry? I thought this was a big deal.
It's mentioned in the article.
Fun pie chart there, Pie.
Here is a take on
your Obama Cabinetmember at work. I figure Olberman's part of the Obamanation.
Lies, Lies, and more Kabuki Theater from Obamy.
Today the jobless rate was estimated at 9.6%, that totally biased news program, NPR, stated they continue to underestimate and not count those who have stopped looking (they interviewed a number of these people) and those who are in part time jobs because that is all they can get. The estimate actually is around 16%, btw, 36,000 more people lost their jobs last month...
Lies, Lies, and more Kabuki Theater from Obamy.
Today the jobless rate was estimated at 9.6%, that totally biased news program, NPR, stated they continue to underestimate and not count those who have stopped looking (they interviewed a number of these people) and those who are in part time jobs because that is all they can get. The estimate actually is around 16%, btw, 36,000 more people lost their jobs last month...
The unemployment rate announced today is the "official" rate that has been used for years....the U3 rate.
It considers three factors: 1) those who were not employed during the reference period, 2) those who were available for work at that time and 3) they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the reference period.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
The U6 rate, which is reported as well, has never been the "official" rate, but for political reasons, those on the right want to start using that rate now. What a surprise.
So now its
"lies, lies and kabuki theater" to use the same official rate as previous administrations?
There's a partisan opinion if I ever heard one. :lol:
The unemployment rate announced today is the "official" rate that has been used for years....the U3 rate.
...
The U6 rate, which is reported as well, has never been the "official" rate, but for political reasons, those on the right want to start using that rate now. What a surprise.
...
This bears repeating. While the U6 is more honest, the U3 is what they report and should be used to keep references apples to apples.
...So now its "lies, lies and kabuki theater" to use the same official rate as previous administrations?
...
In Merc's case, it's bukkake theater.:stickpoke
In Merc's case, it's bukkake theater.:stickpoke
Is that your fantasy for your face?
The unemployment rate announced today is the "official" rate that has been used for years....the U3 rate.
It considers three factors: 1) those who were not employed during the reference period, 2) those who were available for work at that time and 3) they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the reference period.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
The U6 rate, which is reported as well, has never been the "official" rate, but for political reasons, those on the right want to start using that rate now. What a surprise.
So now its "lies, lies and kabuki theater" to use the same official rate as previous administrations?
There's a partisan opinion if I ever heard one. :lol:
Tell it to the newly 36,000 unemployed last month. :lol: Oh, so funny right? Where are the jobs?
CBO: $10 trillion jump in debt under Obama budget
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If President Obama's 2011 budget were put into effect as proposed, the U.S. federal government would add an estimated $9.8 trillion to the country's accrued debt over the next decade, according to a preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.
Of that amount, an estimated $5.6 trillion will be in interest alone.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/news/economy/cbo_obama_budget/index.htm?hpt=T2Tell it to the newly 36,000 unemployed last month. :lol: Oh, so funny right? Where are the jobs?
The fact remains you were just spewing your usual rhetoric of "lies and more lies by Obama" and once again, you were wrong.
No one likes the job losses except perhaps those who take glee in wanting Obama to fail.
The number of jobs lost has gotten smaller in each of the last 6-8 months.....that is how you turn the economy around...one month at a time...not with a magic bean that goes from losing 779,000 jobs last January (when Obama took office) to the latest numbers.
In fact, with the exception of a few monthly blips, the last two months have had the smallest number of monthly jobs lost in nearly two years.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth
IMO, that is a good trend and attributable in part to the stimulus program, but we'll never know what the jobs lost would have been w/o the stimulus.
The fact remains...
No one likes...
In fact...
IMO...
Where are the facts? What Gov't body has published data to support your comments? IMO??? Really? Your opinion? Means shit.
HOLD IT!!!!! Hold it!!! This is crazy! Why ridicule such a brilliant political commentator? This person is a genius! Everything based on fact from reliable sources and nothing ever based on fallible opinion! I admit it, I am wrong and redux is right! All hail redux! [COLOR="White"]fuck stick[/COLOR]
CBO: $10 trillion jump in debt under Obama budget
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/05/news/economy/cbo_obama_budget/index.htm?hpt=T2
When you like what the CBO reports, you cite it....when you dont, you call it partisan propaganda and a tool of the White House.
:lol:
You cant have it both ways, dude.
I agree the projected debt is not sustainable...but short term deficits in times of deep recession have proven successful in the past.....unless you have a better way to turn the economy around more quickly.
I would certainly hope the 01 and 03 tax cuts for the top bracket are left to expire at the end of this year, as proposed in the original laws.....saving at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
Where are the facts? What Gov't body has published data to support your comments? IMO??? Really? Your opinion? Means shit.
HOLD IT!!!!! Hold it!!! This is crazy! Why ridicule such a brilliant political commentator? This person is a genius! Everything based on fact from reliable sources and nothing ever based on fallible opinion! I admit it, I am wrong and redux is right! All hail redux! [COLOR="White"]fuck stick[/COLOR]
The BLS data is as factual as any you can find ...or, at the very least, if you dont trust govt data, was compiled the same way as previous administrations.....so Merc's suggestion that Obama was lying when using the same official standard (U-3) as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... was simply wrong. That is a fact.
The rest was my opinion...which is no shittier than yours or Mercs.
The BLS data is as factual as any you can find ...or, at the very least, if you dont trust govt data, was compiled the same way as previous administrations.....so Merc's suggestion that Obama was lying when using the same official standard (U-3) as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan... was simply wrong. That is a fact.
The rest was my opinion...which is no shittier than yours or Mercs.
Merc who? No idea what you are talking about.
[COLOR="White"]I don't read this forum. I just like baiting stupid assholes. You are making this way too easy! PS. Merc must be really cool to get you going like this![/COLOR]
You've been drinking again, haven't you.
You've been drinking again, haven't you.
xoB you know me so well. ;)
Actually, I was in a wanker of a mood. Long hours at work trying to avoid the unemployment line (yes I read other forums in the cellar!) and blah blah blah...<2 hours later - the redux method> just finally decided to called it like I saw it.
Nothing personal against anyone who would use a moniker that is synonymous with airplane glue (which explains A LOT!). :devil: Damn, I just can't help myself!
Yeah, I know... it's your mother's fault.
Yeah, I know... it's your mother's fault.
Dude...nothing gets by you! :notworthy
So how many members of the current Obama Administration use to work for or were directly involved in the investment banking giant Goldman Sachs?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187920845670844.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollectionSo how many members of the current Obama Administration use to work for or were directly involved in the investment banking giant Goldman Sachs?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187920845670844.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection
A bit of recent history:
In 2004, at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses—including Goldman Sachs, then headed by Paulson—the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission agreed unanimously to release the major investment houses from the net capital rule, the requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure. The complaint put forth by the investment banks was of increasingly onerous regulatory requirements—in this case, not U.S. regulator oversight, but European Union regulation of the foreign operations of US investment groups. In the immediate lead-up to the decision, EU regulators also acceded to US pressure, and agreed not to scrutinize foreign firms' reserve holdings if the SEC agreed to do so instead. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, however, put the parent holding company of each of the big American brokerages beyond SEC oversight. In order for the agreement to go ahead, the investment banks lobbied for a decision that would allow "voluntary" inspection of their parent and subsidiary holdings by the SEC.
During this repeal of the net capital rule, SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson agreed to the establishment of a risk management office that would monitor signs of future problems. This office was eventually dismantled by Chairman Christopher Cox, after discussions with Paulson. According to the New York Times, "While other financial regulatory agencies criticized a blueprint by Treasury Secretary Mr. Paulson proposing to reduce their stature — and that of the S.E.C. — Mr. Cox did not challenge the plan, leaving it to three former Democratic and Republican commission chairmen to complain that the blueprint would neuter the agency."[12]
The Paulson above was Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs thought 2006 at which time he became
Bush's Sec. of Treasury (no relation to John Paulson/Paulson Hedge Fund)
And was instrumental in one of his first act's as Treasury Sec., along with Chris Cox, Bush's SEC Chairman, of gutting SEC's regulatory oversight of the "net capital rule"
Securities fraud charges against Goldman Sachs are just the beginning of steppped up SEC (and DoJ) investigations of the fraudlent practices of the 2000s, when there was virtually no oversight.
It seems to me to be a good thing that the SEC doing its job rather than gutting and ignoring its oversight responsibilities.
Thats all for now. :)
From those partisans over at ABC....
Another Lobbyist Headed Into Obama Administration
27 Jan 09
Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration, a recent lobbyist for investment banking giant Goldman Sachs is in line to serve as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Obama administration sources insists that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is "unflappable" and that there's "no daylight" between him and President Barack Obama on how to handle AIG or the broader financial crisis, March 18, 2009.
(Reuters/Getty Images)Mark Patterson was a registered lobbyist for Goldman until April 11, 2008, according to public filings.
Patterson first began lobbying for Goldman Sachs in 2005, after working as policy director for then-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. According to publicly filed lobbying disclosure records, he worked on issues related to the banking committee, climate change and carbon trading and immigration reform, among others.
Patterson's lobbying was first noted by the National Journal magazine.
Patterson is one of over a dozen recent lobbyists in line for important posts in the Obama administration, despite a presidential order severely restricting the role of lobbyists in his administration, the magazine reported.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898&page=1From those partisans at Rolling Stone mag...
Obama's Big Sellout
The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print
Read it and weep....
So Paulson (Goldman Sachs -- > Treasury Sec) and Bush's SEC Chairman gutting the net capital rule in 2006 was not a bad thing...but the Obama SEC investigating and filing fraud charges is a step in the wrong direction?
:lol2:
No connections here people just put your blinders on... :lol2:
Dianna Farrell:
Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst
Stephen Friedman:
Obama Administration: Chairman, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005-)
Gary Gensler:
Obama Administration: Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance
Robert Hormats:
Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group
Philip Murphy:
Obama Administration: Ambassador to Germany
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Head of Goldman Sachs, Frankfurt
Mark Patterson:
Obama Administration: Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Lobbyist 2005-2008; Vice President for Government Relations
John Thain:
Obama Administration: Advisor to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner
Former Goldman Sachs Title: President and Chief Operating Officer (1999-2003)
Henry Paulson:
Bush II Administration: Secretary, Treasury 2006 - 2009
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Chairman and CEO (1998-2006)
Neel Kashkari:
Bush II Administration: Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, Treasury (2008 – 2009)
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice President, San Francisco; led Information Technology Security Investment Banking Practice
Reuben Jeffery III:
Bush II Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department (2007 –2009)
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Managing Partner Paris until 2002 Security Investment Banking Practice
Robert Steel:
Bush II Administration: Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Treasury, (2006 – 2008)
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman – 2004
Steve Shafran:
Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson 2008
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Private equity business in Asia until 2000
Edward C. Forst:
Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson 2008
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Co-head of Goldman’s investment management business
Dan Jester:
Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson 2008
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Deputy CFO
Kendrick R. Wilson III:
Bush II Administration: Advisor on setting up TARP to Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson 2008
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Chairman of Goldman’s financial institutions groups
Joshua Bolten:
Bush II Administration: White House Chief of Staff (2006 – 2009)
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Executive Director, Legal & Government Affairs (1994-99)
Gary Gensler:
Bush II Administration: Undersecretary, Treasury (1999-2001) and Assistant Secretary, Treasury (1997-1999)
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance
Robert Rubin:
Bush II Administration: Secretary, Treasury 1995-1999
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman (1987-90)
Robert Zoellick:
Bush II Administration: United States Trade Representative (2001-2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005-2006), World Bank President (2007 -)
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, International (2006-07)
William C Dudley:
NY Federal Reserve: Current President/CEO
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and managing director – 2007
Stephen Friedman:
NY Federal Reserve: Former Chairman of the Board – 2009
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005-)
Other Noteworthy Appointees:
Edward Liddy:
Current Title: AIG CEO
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005-)
Duncan Niederauer:
Current Title: Chair/CEO NYSE
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Managing Director – 2007
Malcolm Turnbull:
Current Title: Federal Leader, Liberal Party, Australia
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner (1998-2001)
Mark Carney:
Current Title: Governor, Bank of Canada
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Managing Director Goldman Sachs Canada until 2003
David Watson:
Current Title: Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Chief European economist
Romano Prodi:
Current Title: Prime Minister of Italy (1996-1998 and 2006-2008) and President of the European Commission (1999-2004)
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Paid adviser/consultant 1990 – 1993
Mario Draghi:
Current Title: Governor of the Bank of Italy (2006- )
Former Goldman Sachs Title: European Deputy Chairman/Partner until 2006
Massimo Tononi:
Current Title: Italian Deputy Treasury Chief (2006-2008)
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner 2004 - 2006
http://the-classic-liberal.com/white-goldman-sachs-house/
Oh, and then there is this...
Goldman Sachs’ White House ties run deep
http://blog.littlesis.org/2009/07/20/goldman-sachs-white-house-ties-run-deep/Now that health insurance has been addressed, then why is the finance industry to next target of reform and regulation? Why do so many 'insiders' want to, for example, expose outright fraud in Goldman Sachs?
So many posts complete ignored the news.
"Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!"
Really, where the fuck are they?
I think the shovels are firmly embedded in someone's ass. I won't say whose ass.
"Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!"
Really, where the fuck are they?
Afghanistan? Iraq? Ask Bush. He spent all the surplus money that Clinton had earmarked for jobs. Or ask all the wealthy people who got tax cuts - maybe it's up their asses.
MY chair feels suddenly uncomfortable. I think Shaw thought I was a hobo.
Afghanistan? Iraq? Ask Bush. He spent all the surplus money that Clinton had earmarked for jobs. Or ask all the wealthy people who got tax cuts - maybe it's up their asses.
Drop in the bucket compared to the latest Demoncratic spending spree... nice try.
Drop in the bucket compared to the latest Demoncratic spending spree... .
Prove it.
:turd:
Do you're own research, get back to me when you have something of substance to contribute. :flipbird:
Unemployment challenges Obama's economic narrative
WASHINGTON – Even as he touts his efforts to put more Americans to work, President Barack Obama faces a public increasingly skeptical of his ability to bring jobs back to Main Street.
During stops in Iowa, Illinois and Missouri, Obama will try to convince voters that his economic policies are working, despite an unemployment rate that's expected to remain at painfully high levels for months if not years.
Those voters - many of them crucial independents - will be key to Obama's re-election prospects in 2012. And his fellow Democrats, facing a tough political climate in the November, need their support even sooner.
"The bottom line is that the Democrats are almost certain to be campaigning in economic circumstances that will not be politically favorable," said William Galston, a former domestic policy aide in Bill Clinton's White House and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
The latest economic forecasts do show signs of progress: The nation added jobs at the fastest pace in three years last month; the manufacturing industry is growing at a steady pace; and new claims for jobless benefits have declined.
But the unemployment rate - it may be the most recognizable economic indicator - has held steady at 9.7 percent for the past three months, and 15 million Americans remain out of work. By the White House's own estimates, as well as those of many independent economists, that rate isn't expected to fluctuate more than a few tenths of a percent through the end of 2010.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100427/ap_on_re_us/us_obamaPresident Barack Obama, known for his lectures to others on civility, saw fit to use the obscene and derogatory term “tea-baggers” in a book interview with author Jonathan Alter.
Below is an excerpt from Alter’s new book The Promise: President Obama, Year One, to be released May 18:
“Obama said that the unanimous House vote against the Recovery Act ‘set the tenor for the whole year’: ‘That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.’ For Obama this was the greatest surprise of 2009.”
http://biggovernment.com/johara/2010/05/05/the-president-gets-dirty/Funny, I have heard this complaint from somewhere in the past...
KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks (Update1)
May 6 (Bloomberg) -- KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.
The Army announced its decision yesterday only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/kbr-to-get-no-bid-army-work-as-u-s-alleges-kickbacks-update1-.htmlThere was some rich irony at the White House today -- President Obama signed the Press Freedom Act, and then promptly refused to take any questions.
The new law expands the State Department's annual human rights reports to include a description of press freedoms in each country. It seemed a good opportunity to showcase press freedom in this country.
Recall that last Friday the president refused to take any questions after delivering his angry statement on the oil spill in the Rose Garden. And he has not held a prime-time White House news conference in many months, despite much pleading from pundits and members of the media.
So after he signed the bill, and as the press "wranglers" began aggressively herding us out of the room, I asked if he still has confidence in BP. He ignored the question so I tried this: "In the interest of press freedom, would you take a couple questions on BP?"
That did elicit a smile, and he told me I was free to ask questions. Someone else shouted, "Will you answer them?"
He said he's not holding a press conference today as we were escorted out the door.
Link
Any questions?
Prove it.
If you're not going to look at, say, the OMB's budget projections, inflationary deficits and all, Spexx, you're living in Childish Land. You
could actually become informed, you know.
Disbelief because you're putting all your trust in princes isn't going to help you. Instead, it could make your retirement plan worthless. If you can't see proof here, well, how bad do you want to
live through that proof?
Visualization of the $100 million cuts planned by the Obamanation.
http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/The Demoncrats continue to fail the nation...
Private employers did little hiring last month, undermining hopes that the economic recovery was gathering pace and helping send U.S. stocks down more than 3% on the day.
.The Labor Department said Friday that 431,000 jobs were added in May. But the vast majority were temporary workers hired by the government to conduct the 2010 Census. Private-sector employment rose by only 41,000, the smallest monthly increase since January. Without faster private-sector job growth, the U.S. faces a bumpy recovery restrained by households with little income to spend.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704764404575286921361095484.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollectionThere'll be few new jobs created until the conservative repubican fat cats get fat again. Then they may think about throwing a bone to the unemployed. The government can do very little about it.
Obama now wants to spend Another! 50 Billion Dollars on JOB Creation. WTF did they do with the last two bill spending Billions of our taxpayer dollars with the promise of "millions of shovel ready jobs" followed by a "Jobs Bill"?
These whores are spending our future to bankruptcy....
Obama now wants to spend Another! 50 Billion Dollars on JOB Creation. WTF did they do with the last two bill spending Billions of our taxpayer dollars with the promise of "millions of shovel ready jobs" followed by a "Jobs Bill"?
These whores are spending our future to bankruptcy....
Actually, the $50 billion is to save teachers, police and firefighters from being laid off. It has nothing to do with creating jobs. They need to save union jobs. I have no problem with helping law & fire enforcement. With unemployment at record levels, there has been a rise in crime all over the nation. But we should not be bailing out the teachers union. We hear so much about the unions needing a bailout but they managed to spend $10 million opposing Blanche Lincoln in the Democrat primary.
Actually, the $50 billion is to save teachers, police and firefighters from being laid off. It has nothing to do with creating jobs. They need to save union jobs. I have no problem with helping law & fire enforcement. With unemployment at record levels, there has been a rise in crime all over the nation. But we should not be bailing out the teachers union. We hear so much about the unions needing a bailout but they managed to spend $10 million opposing Blanche Lincoln in the Democrat primary.
Both violent crime and property crime were down nationwide in 2009 for the third straight year.
And, the FOP endorsed McCain.
I guess you think preventing teacher lay-offs is a union issue, rather than an education issue. I would disagree and the alternative to temporary federal funding is higher state/local taxes.
But we should not be bailing out the teachers union. We hear so much about the unions needing a bailout but they managed to spend $10 million opposing Blanche Lincoln in the Democrat primary.
Unions are what the most naive discuss when told how to think by their political handlers. It is 100% about keeping the important (productive) people employed. You should have been asking these questions when relevant - when George Jr said Mission Accomplished would only cost $2billion. Well, it cost $1trillion. Today is when we pay that bill. That means every American is expected to have a lower standard of living. Or did George Jr forget to mention that part?
Stop with the union nonsense. It is about all workers who must now suffer because wacko extremists 'fixed' our economy with miracle tax cuts. Vietnam in 1968 and 1970 got paid for by destruction on the American standards of living in 1975 and 1979 - when the bills started coming due. Deja Vue. Or did you forget to learn the lessons from history? Ask how much taxes must increase to pay for 'corporate welfare', tax cuts for the rich, finance games, and Masson Accomplished in 2003.
It is not a question of how much some workforce should be paid or punished. It is 100% a question of how much your standard of living must degrade for the myths and lies by government in 2003. Unions did not create the real problem. We did by listening to overt liars in 2003. And then have so much contempt for ourselves as to relect the scumbags in 2004.
There is no way around it. It is only a question of how much more we must pay for these essential services.
Protecting the Obama brand
An interesting analysis by Salon.
Two stories about President Obama this weekend pushed my growing unease with his recent moves into full-blown anxiety. They come on the heels of Tim Dickinson's devastating Rolling Stone piece laying out concrete problems with Obama's response to the BP oil spill – from delays in cleaning up the Minerals Management Service, distrusting scientists who correctly reported the spill was much bigger than BP said, and waiting more than a week to declare the crisis "an Oil Spill of National Significance," which corralled new services. Maybe the most damning section of Dickinson's piece comes when he quotes the president proudly announcing he'd reversed his stand against offshore oil drilling. "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," the president said. "They are technologically very advanced." Dickenson notes: "Eighteen days later, on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the Deepwater Horizon rig went off like a bomb."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/06/13/after_obama/index.htmlAn interesting analysis by Salon.
TheMercenary, with a long history of promoting wacko extremist political agendas, conveniently forgets to include facts.
BP said the leak was only 1000 barrels per day. And refused to release video that would easily deny that reality. It took orders directly from Obama to force BP to release that video. Then BP said it was only 5000 barrels per day. Now BP is denying they said that. BP repeatedly kept saying there was no reason to measure the size of this leak because (their own memos imply) they feared anyone might understand how big this leak really was.
So this was all Obama's fault. We know this only because wacko extremists say so?
The leak was always somewhere between one million and three million gallons every day. We know this only because Obama had to step in and order BP to release video and other facts.
And still BP's refusal to release information is all Obama's fault - because wacko extremists say so.
We also know government has nothing to avert the damage - because government should not have such tools. We also know that when wacko extremists were running government, the MMS people - whose job was to make surge BP, et al had those tools - were going to industry paid-for sexting parties. Parties that any MBA and party boy president would approve of. $20,000 parties that were 'business as usual' in a government that fixed FEMA, SEC, FDIC, financial oversight, GM, AIG. Who would not even prosecute Enron until the State of Oklahoma force it using overt embarrassment.
But somehow this is all Obama's fault - because a wacko extremist says it is so.
At what point do wacko extremist apologize to everyone for inventing lies and myths - constantly? Oh. That is also Obama's fault.
We should expect massive damage from LA to southern FL because that was a foregone conclusion a month ago. Anyone who thinks booms or skimmers will avert the damage is lying to themselves. Time to avert this damage was many years ago when government regulation was so routinely subverted everywhere that even MMS employees enjoyed sexting parties and other $20,000 benefits.
Early review of the Presidential Address
[YOUTUBE]ttBNp1oIye8[/YOUTUBE]
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama's Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:
Olbermann: "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."
Matthews compared Obama to Carter.
Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."
Matthews: "No direction."
Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."
Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."
Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."
Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."
Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."
Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."
Wow! The big guy got hammered by MSNBC and from of all people Chris Matthews.
Just minutes after President Obama spoke to the nation about the oil spill, the reviews are coming in - and, predictably, they fall along party lines. Democrats say the president hit the right notes in his first Oval Office address; Republicans say he was way off base.
A sample:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "President Obama presented a path to energy independence in his speech tonight that strengthens our economy and protects our environment. He made a compelling case that America cannot delay our pursuit of a national clean energy strategy that makes us more competitive globally."
Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.: "This could be a historic leadership moment. President Obama used his first-ever Oval Office address to call for the passage of comprehensive energy and climate legislation. There can be no doubt that the president is rolling up his sleeves to ensure we establish a market mechanism to tackle carbon pollution, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs each year, strengthen energy independence and improve the quality of the air we breathe. We will continue working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to pass comprehensive reform this summer."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: "Manipulating this tragic, national crisis for selfish political gain not only demonstrates President Obama's inability to aptly lead our nation out of a disaster, but also reveals the appallingly arrogant political calculus of this White House. Exploiting the tragedy in the Gulf to try to ram through a devastating job-killing national energy tax is more of the same Chicago-style politics that has the president's approval ratings plummeting to an all-time low."
SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
"The president should spend more time focusing on cleaning up and containing the oil spill and less time trying to pass a national energy tax that will drive jobs overseas looking for cheap energy."
"Last June, the House passed a bill to create clean energy jobs here in America, protect consumers, reduce pollution and help free us from our dangerous dependence on dirty foreign fuels while ensuring our national security. Moving forward, we must complete this legislation and invest in a clean energy future founded on American innovation and the skill of our workers."
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER JOHN BOEHNER:
"President Obama should not exploit this crisis to impose a job-killing national energy tax on struggling families and small businesses. Both parties should be working together to craft responsible solutions in response to this disaster. There's nothing responsible or reasonable about a national energy tax that will raise energy costs and destroy more American jobs."
SENATOR DAVID VITTER, LOUISIANA REPUBLICAN:
Vitter said the president was still falling short "when it comes to te military chain of command type" and the sense of urgency that Lousianians want to see from federal agency. "I was also disappointed that the president did not address (lifting the offshore drilling) moratorium and my suggestion that we conduct rigorous immediate safety inspections in lieu of the blanket moratorium that is already starting to impact our reeling coastal economy. I have organized a meeting with Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar tomorrow with other Gulf state members of Congress to push for inspections over the current moratorium."
SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU, LOUISIANA DEMOCRAT:
"I firmly believe that BP should establish an escrow account to compensate all individuals, businesses and communities in the Gulf Coast who have suffered damages because of this spill. But, it must be done in a way that ensures BP remains viable enough to pay every penny of what they owe to those who have been affected by this horrific spill and tragedy."
CONGRESSMAN DOC HASTINGS, REPUBLICAN
"There is an ongoing crisis in the Gulf and the priorities of the Administration should be simple: stop the leak and cleanup the oil. Such a devastating crisis shouldn't be used as leverage to push a cap-and-trade national energy tax that will send energy prices through the roof and send American jobs overseas."
SENATOR TOM CARPER, DELAWARE DEMOCRAT
"I welcome the President's call for Congress to pass clean energy and clean air legislation this year. If there is anysilver-lining that we can take from this devastating spill, I hope that it will be a wake-up call for America to get serious about pursuing clean, renewable sources of energy right here at home."
I'm amazed at the comments from the D's - not one really even mentioned the spill except Landrieu from LA. Pathetic.
Salon and Rolling Stone are wacko extremist now? Man, I must have missed a few issues...
Imagine that. Any news source as in depth and many of the RS articles achieve are now the enemy.
In the bit about the current crisis the Obama Administration is totally fucked...
They dropped the ball big time.
Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."
Only because telling the American people that his plan is to crash the economy and start over again re-, ...uh, I mean green - would not sell to the vast majority of the electorate.
I really don't get that Slang. Explain to me why he, or any American politician would want to do that.
The premise that he wants to destroy it seems more than far-fetched to me.
The premise that he wants to destroy it seems more than far-fetched to me.
Yes, it sure does. What in the world was I thinking? ...destroy the capitalist system to reboot in O's fundamentally transformed America.
I really need some professional help.
Destroy it? I doubt he can really do it. But he sure is trying hard to reshape it in his own image.
An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama:
June 22, 2010
Dear President Obama:
You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy - and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.
You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientist and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals and want Israel eradicated.
You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.
With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,
Jon Voight
I think this is the first actor of any significance to really speak out against the president. At least he has the balls to do so.
Interesting conflation of "Israeli" and "Jewish". It's not like the Prime Minister of Israel is the Jewish Pope.
This is also an interesting formulation: "You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today." It simultaneously associates the Commandments and law, while avoiding making an actual (false) claim that law is based on them.
Not where I was headed, but now that you mention it - that is interesting.
At least he has the balls to do so.
But not a foreskin.
Feds wasted millions in utilities program for poor
MIAMI — A federal program designed to help impoverished families heat and cool their homes wasted more than $100 million paying the electric bills of thousands of applicants who were dead, in prison or living in million-dollar mansions, according to a government investigation.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spent $5 billion through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in 2009, doling out money to states with little oversight of the program. Some states don't verify applicants' identifies or income. For example, the program helped pay the electric bill of a woman who lives in a $2 million home in a wealthy Chicago suburb and drives a Mercedes, according to the yet-to-be released report obtained by The Associated Press.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gx5yIc9T4UTzCTmusin2EAy7RewwD9GMCFIO3Obama faces growing credibility crisis
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama. “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
In private, informal advisors to Mr Obama are almost as negative. According to one, the US public’s loss of confidence in Mr Obama’s leadership is a factor above and beyond their dissatisfaction over the state of the real economy, which continues to slow as last year’s $787bn stimulus starts to run dry. The adviser, who asked to remain anonymous, said the public did not know what Mr Obama really believed. Examples include his lukewarm support last year for a public option in the healthcare bill and his equally lukewarm support today for a Senate bill that would extend unemployment insurance and aid state governments to keep teachers in their jobs.
In both cases, Mr Obama has offered only token, negotiable, support. “I never thought I would say this, but even I’m unsure what President Obama really believes,” says the adviser. “Instead of outsourcing decisions to Congress, he should spell out his bottom line. That is what leaders are for.”
Next week, Mr Obama is likely to sign a historic Wall Street re-regulation bill into law. Earlier this year he did the same for healthcare. But polls show the public either does not care, or even opposes these otherwise big reforms. “The longer this goes on, the more it looks like Obama wasted his first year on healthcare,” said the outside adviser. “It’s still the economy, stupid.”
Link
I've been saying for a long time. Get people employed and you can do pretty much whatever you want. Did Obama miss that message? Should have learned from the W administration.
Get people employed and you can do pretty much whatever you want.
But the two charts seem to indicate that his approval has gone down as more people became employed...
Not really - It looks like it went up slightly at the same time in the slight spike in employment. I think its "dishonest" that the units are so small - That same info on graphs with larger units would look quite different - especially thr unemployment graph.
That chart on the right is the unemployment rate--the spike is more unemployed people, not more employed people.
I stand corrected - I read it wrong.
[SIZE="1"](reminder to self - never question the brain of the clodfobble)[/SIZE]
The phenomenon still makes no sense to me though, unless it's just coincidence. I guess it's like, when I'm unemployed I like the guy who's big on social programs, but as soon as I find a job I'm all, "No you can't tax me for social programs, bitch!"
Exactly. Except for thinking people. ;)
A bleaker outlook for economy into 2011
WASHINGTON — The U.S. economic recovery will remain slow deep into next year, held back by shoppers reluctant to spend and employers hesitant to hire, according to an Associated Press survey of leading economists.
The latest quarterly AP Economy Survey shows economists have turned gloomier in the past three months. They foresee weaker growth and higher unemployment than they did before. As a result, the economists think the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates near zero until at least next spring.
Yet despite their expectation of slower growth, a majority of the 42 economists surveyed believe the recovery remains on track, raising hopes that the economy can avoid falling back into a "double-dip" recession.
The AP survey compiles forecasts of leading private, corporate and academic economists on a range of indicators, including employment, consumer spending and inflation. Among their forecasts:
_ Economic growth the rest of this year and early next year will weaken, to less than 3 percent. From January through May, the economy grew at roughly a 3.5 percent pace.
_ The unemployment rate will be no lower at the end of the year than it is now — 9.5 percent. A majority think it will be 2015 or later before the rate falls to a historically normal 5 percent
That's why growth of less than 3 percent is forecast into 2011. And weak growth helps explain why unemployment is likely to stay high. It takes about 3 percent growth just to create enough jobs to keep pace with the population increase.
At the same time, state budget shortfalls have emerged as a major threat in the economists' view. State and local governments cut their spending in the first three months of this year at a 3.8 percent pace. That was the biggest cutback since the second quarter of 1981, just before the economy entered a severe recession.
Then for the good news ...
Nearly two-thirds of the economists view the states' budget crises as a significant or severe threat to the rebound.
Despite such risks, 55 percent of the economists described the recovery as "on track" as of the middle of the year. The rest said it was "faltering."
"There's a risk that the loss of momentum will snowball and feed on itself, but I think in the end the recovery will stay on track," predicted another survey participant, James O'Sullivan, global chief economist at MF Global.
Ass PressA bleaker outlook for economy into 2011
Imagine that... the Dems are bankrupting this country.:earth:
Yeh well we collectively are "this country"
Reactionary Affliction -- a philosophical treatise of sorts, the kind of thing you find on bright boys' blogs.
Ohio and Indiana have more member of the KKK than the South.
Pretty funny...
Robert Gibbs says leftwing critics of Obama 'ought to be drug tested'
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama's critics on the left are 'crazy' - and then tries to apologise
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/10/robert-gibbs-crazy-liberal-critics-obamaPretty funny...
Robert Gibbs says leftwing critics of Obama 'ought to be drug tested'
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama's critics on the left are 'crazy' - and then tries to apologise
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/10/robert-gibbs-crazy-liberal-critics-obama
When the WHPressSec speaks,
I get the image of someone buried up to their neck on a beach at the high tide mark,
with an incoming tide and a sand storm blowing out to sea.
Did you always feel that way [COLOR="Orange"]Lamp[/COLOR], or is it just towards this particular one? Please en[COLOR="Orange"]light[/COLOR]en us.
When the WHPressSec speaks,
I get the image of someone buried up to their neck on a beach at the high tide mark,
with an incoming tide and a sand storm blowing out to sea.
I think more of a Muppet.
Oh, I am certainly on the liberal side of almost everything,
but I don't know if that translates into sand or seawater.
I think the surprise here was the vehemence of Gibbs remark,
maybe he even surprised himself, and it was certainly beyond
what we "crazy" lefties would have expected.
But I'm not particularly worked up about this episode because
it's just the natural time-progression of each administration's perspective on the press.
(Remember Nixon's final: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more...")
Oh, I am certainly on the liberal side of almost everything
Oh yea. Me too. :D
But really, the whole WH press conferences have become a big joke.
I guess this fits here. Apparently, the misdirection crowd has successfully convinced
18% of Americans that Obama is a Muslim. ( I think he's a cryto-Catholic myself since most of his schooling in Indonesia was Catholic. ;)) Apparently the Manhattan mosque thing is costing him the support of people who would never support him.
lol @ griff - Yeh those who hate him hate him more? So what?
All this is doing is pushing the two extremes further apart.
The 8/28 rally at the Washington Mall may mark the beginning of the end for the Obama régime.
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Navy"]Beck / Sharpton[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]2012 [/COLOR][/SIZE]
But Griff, what about Sarah? Secretary of state?
[YOUTUBE]zbyFeFhUTmI[/YOUTUBE]
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Navy"]Beck / Sharpton[/COLOR] [COLOR="Red"]2012 [/COLOR][/SIZE]
I snuck it there, Pico, sorry. :D
lol...I hate when that happens.
Although Muttley would snigger at a lot of those NON -answers to specific questions. Take away their talking points and they don't know squat.
The 8/28 rally at the Washington Mall may mark the beginning of the end for the Obama régime.
Well I guess it was a pretty good turn out for ole Beck. The election results should be interesting.
President Obama Reacts to August Jobs Numbers, Doesn't Mention Net Job Loss of 54K
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/09/president-obama-reacts-to-august-jobs-numbers-doesnt-mention-net-job-loss-of-54k.html
Look out for that great big elephant in the room. At the current rate of re-employment it will take over 6 years to get relief. Anyone ready to wait that long? I'm not.
President Obama Reacts to August Jobs Numbers, Doesn't Mention Net Job Loss of 54K
Look out for that great big elephant in the room. At the current rate of re-employment it will take over 6 years to get relief. Anyone ready to wait that long? I'm not.
Merc, you have miraculously been made Uber-President...
What is your first decision to create jobs ?
Is Obama anesthetizing people while Merc's thinking up his answer? This could get ugly...
No need for Merc to be the only one to answer...
No need for anyone to get ugly...
I believe a genuine discussion could be a good thing.
Merc, you have miraculously been made Uber-President...
What is your first decision to create jobs ?
Well if were king I would have line item veto and scratch each and every single pork barrel item from every spending bill for the 4 years of my reign, regardless of party affiliation. Pork stops now (you know, sort of like Pelosi promised in 2006 and Obama promised in 2008). A true stop gap spending belt tightening. We have to balance our check book they should have to balance the governments. I never would have lied to the electorate and told them that the boondoggle spending bill was going to create "millions of shovel ready jobs". I would have saved all that money and put it back into the economy. I would never have passed that boondoggle healthcare bill, that money would go back into the economy. I would not inact the new taxes by rolling back the Bush tax cuts, I would change the whole system to a Fair Tax. No more free lunch. SOME 47% of the nation paid no federal income taxes! (tax policy center). (
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html ) Allow business, large and small, any opportunity to grow to stimulate job creation. Business makes jobs, government does not do a good job of making jobs. Until we wake up and see that government is not the answer to job grown we are going to muddle along mired down in stagnation. Government threw all that money at the banking system, right? And what did they do with it? They held onto it, and they are still holding onto it. Now they are trying to inact a bill to get them to lend it. It is crazy. Poke through the Stimulus bill and see how many jobs were directly created from each dollar, one figure I read was it cost the government aprox $220,000 per job created. Hell that money could have allowed a small business to add 10 employee's in some cases, if the number is accurate. Look at the housing bailout. What if they allowed all of the middleman companies to fail and just set up a program which evaluated every person who was in default and just paid off the loan for those who qualify? It would have been cheaper than the approach they took. If a person could save their house they might have been able to keep their job or at least make it quite a while without one. The rest would go to bankruptcy court and take their licks, get ready to find an small apartment within your means. Now the question is, did we just delay the inevitable? Have we really hit bottom yet? I don't know. But unchecked spending and growing deficit spending is not the answer IMHO. I certainly don't have the answers or I would be King! I no longer trust this government to fix what is broken.
Not much by way of program notes today ... and that would be because I'm taking a very well deserved extended Labor Day weekend. Buy I do want to set myself up for a good dose of "I told you so" that I might be able to cash in next week.
Two things happen this morning. First ... jobless numbers come out from Washington, and they aren't going to make Democrats happy. The people of this country are coming to realize more and more that Barack Obama is a jobs-killing president. That is what we should expect from a president who holds the private sector in disdain and who worships the god of government.
The second thing that happens is The Community Organizer coming forth to tell us what the job numbers mean. We will learn from The Chosen One that the blame really should be placed on the Republicans because, after all, they're the ones who are blocking his latest effort at a "jobs bill." So ... let's look at Obama's jobs bill.
There's $30 billion or so to loan to small businesses. Big deal. Small banks are sitting on $1 trillion in excess reserves right now ... money that could be loaned to small businesses if it were not for two things: (1) The small businesses aren't particularly to obligate themselves for any loans right now when there is so much uncertainty --- tax hikes, ObamaCare, tax and cap, card check - in their future. (2) The banks aren't all that sure about the future of these small businesses either with Obama running the show ... so they're not all that anxious to lend.
Obama will also tell us the Republicans are blocking tax cuts for small businesses. Only one problem here .. the tax cut he's talking about is a capital gains tax cut. Most small businesses - the businesses we depend on for new jobs - don't pay capital gains taxes.
Obama might use his "Republican blockade" line again. What do you call it when the Democrats absolutely refuse to allow the Republicans to offer any amendments to the bill? That's not a blockade?
Boortz.
Business as usual in Congress I see....
WOW Merc ! That's one heck of a "first decision" !
Let me pull out just one part of all that because I think I'm in complete agreement...
From what I've read and heard, the underlying road block to creating jobs right away is the part about banks having been bailed out in 2009 because that they had stopped providing credit to businesses. When businesses can't get loans to meet their needs, they can't keep up with inventories, payrolls, etc., and so employees lose their jobs.
In a nutshell, if banks were not sitting on those huge cash reserves and were not involved in using Federal Reserve Bank loans for "their own investment purposes", but instead were doing what banks are supposed to do (lend $) then the downward spiral might be reversed.
So, if the King would step aside and allow me to become Uber-President,
My one first decision would be to break apart the "banking activities" from the "investment activities".
That is, force a return of banks to what they used to be, and support them via the FDIC.
The FDIC should not be used to help with management's poor investment decisions.
The was a single law passed that allowed banks to get into the stock market, but I don't remember the name or year. But I think that was the beginning of all this mess.
Whatever that law was, the first thing would be to repeal that law.
Federal Reserve Bank funds should be used only for "lending/credit/monetary policies ".
Only stock-holder should funds be used for "the private investment" activities.
That is, make the stock holders take the risks and profits that come from short term management decisions.
If I could further direct the lending activities of banks, I would set first priorities at freeing credit (loans) to big, BIG, corporations because they can re-hire thousands of employees quickly, whereas starting up or re-starting thousands of small businesses is a much longer term project. After all, it was the big BIG corporations that laid off thousands of workers at a single crack, causes the chain reaction of thousands of people losing income, losing homes, etc.
Once I accomplished all that, I would resign from Uber-President and take nap.
Sorry for the long winded response, but unless we stimulate numerous portions of the economy at once nothing is going to work. Big Government throwing money at the problem has not and does not work. We must end the cycle of dependence on government for everyone's personal shortcomings and failures in life.
It is a big frigging mess. And the last 18 months have proven the current Administration, and the last 3 and 1/2 years of this Congress, have failed to fix what ails us.
Eh, I just want to get off the grid and further circle my wagons.
The talk of job creation is a bit of an administration smoke screen imho. Other goals are being packaged under the jobs heading. It makes sense to do so, I suppose. Moving to a less coal driven and updated national electric grid makes sense and is a nice twofer but will be more of a long-term boon than a short-term jobs deal. Of course if they focused on real short term jobs creation they' be criticized for that, since the complaining is largely partisan. *shrug*
Merc....your first action, a line-item veto, might work in your kingdom but is unconstitutional in the US, at least the versions attempted since the Reagan days.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "allow businesses to grow" (cutting regs? which ones?) or "putting money back into the economy" (more tax cuts that cut more revenue from the Treasury?) That would create more debt.
IMO, the stimulus package was misdirected at an attempt to build broader consensus. Nearly two thirds were not really intended as stimulus (small personal tax cuts, funding for UI extension, COBRA assistance, etc). I would have separated those programs and put much more funding into short-term job creation with the understanding that creating jobs with govt funding leads to a growing economy that creates additional jobs.
And I agree with lamplighter about the banks. W/o the TARP program (most of which has been repaid), manyy more banks would have failed and credit would have tightened even more, causing more small businesses to fail.
There is a growing consensus among economists that the stimulus and TARP prevented the economy from tanking even more:
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs
The economy has stabilized as a result of several actions - TARP, ARRA, Fed policy .It is growing, but at a slower rate than anyone would like.
Is the stimulus program a failure? IMO, only in the sense that it did not go far enough.
But in any case, opinions are probably driven more by politics than economics.
That is why I said if I were King.
The stimulus was a failure and a boondoggle of spending. Unemployment still at 9.6% after months of lies.
(CBS) With many polls indicating the Republicans may win back control of the House of Representatives (and possibly the Senate as well) in the upcoming mid-term elections, Jim VandeHei, the executive editor of Politico, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the Obama administration is in a horrible position.
"Does the White House understand this?" asked guest host Harry Smith. "Do you feel any sense of panic or concern" on the part of the administration?
"They get it. There's panic. There's concern," VandeHei said. "The reality for this administration stinks, politically and practically, when it comes to the economy. You're not going to be able to change that 9.6-percent unemployment figure. You can't get anything from Congress in the next couple of months."
CBS Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes said the Democrats are distancing themselves from President Obama.
"Not only are they running away from President Obama, they're running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they're a Democrat in their campaign ads," Cordes said.
Smith asked his guests to try to identify the source of the discontent: "From your experience on the Hill, have you heard any Democrats in private conversations say, 'You know what? We went down the wrong road. We went after health care. We went after so many other things on the Obama agenda as opposed to, in the end of the day, it's all about creating jobs?'"
"Not only have we heard that, but we've been hearing it for months," said Cordes. "We heard it during the health care debate that dragged on for a year when the economy was so bad; they focused on health care and they focused on financial regulation.
"Americans don't feel the impact of those pieces of legislation yet," she said. "There's a lot of frustration on Capitol Hill among Democrats who feel like the President led them down this path. They didn't all necessarily want to deal with health care. This was on the president's agenda, and then they felt like he kind of hung them out to dry."
"Not a single Democrat has run an ad in support of the health care bill since April," VandeHei noted.
Cordes pointed out that Democrats are very unhappy about Mr. Obama's speech last week, only the second Oval Office prime time address in his presidency.
"What does he talk about? Not the economy, but Iraq," Cordes said. "And they say, 'No, we need to own the economy. If you’re going to use the power of your office to give a speech like that, talk about the economy."
CBS
I found thin more than surprising. I hadn't thought the situation near this drastic.
Everyone made Obama's comments yesterday in Milwaukee sound like he was being a dick...really?
And people think the media has a liberal bias...pshaw! It has a sensational bias. But no one listens to me...that's alright...fuck all of you. ;)
President Obama Reacts to August Jobs Numbers, Doesn't Mention Net Job Loss of 54K
You don't like it when he counts census jobs, then you don't like it when he doesn't count them as losses.
Typical cock sucking conservative.
To damm funny!!! What a tool.
Oval Office rug gets history wrong
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090305100.html
Not actually wrong; King was paraphrasing Parker- King said the quote on the rug, and Parker didn't.
You don't like it when he counts census jobs, then you don't like it when he doesn't count them as losses.
Typical cock sucking conservative.
He counted them as a positive and didn't as a negative. Is that what you are saying? If so, then yeh thats pretty crappy. Either count them for both or neither.
He counted them as a positive and didn't as a negative. Is that what you are saying? If so, then yeh thats pretty crappy. Either count them for both or neither.
As I recall, he counted them both times, noting that the recent unemployment numbers look worse because of the temporary census workers.
but that is not what you just posted.
Typical cock sucking politician.
fixed that for ya.
but that is not what you just posted.
You're right.
Restatement:
The conservative cocksuckers put a negative spin on the overly-positive effect that the temporary census jobs had on the unemployment figures when they were created, then they put a negative spin on the overly-negative effect that the temporary census jobs had on the unemployment figures when they were disolved.
much more better.
And ...
The Liberal cocksuckers put a overtly-positive spin on the effect that the temporary census jobs had on the unemployment figures when they were created, then they put a overly-positive spin on the effect that the temporary census jobs had on the unemployment figures when they were dissolved.
The Liberal cocksuckers
Liberal Tit Suckers. Get it right.
You're right.
Restatement:
The conservative cocksuckers
The Liberal cocksuckers
Liberal Tit Suckers. Get it right.
I got it right.
Arrrh, for 20 years the liberals they suck the tit... then they suck just one little cock, I swear no bigger than this, and they're called the big cocksuckers. Arrrh!
I got it right.
Arrrh, for 20 years the liberals they suck the tit... then they suck just one little cock, I swear no bigger than this, and they're called the big cocksuckers. Arrrh!
:lol:
Underwear.
Plato was of the opinion that the only acceptable leader was one who hated the position; anyone who enjoyed it wasn't suited for the role.
cocksucking, titsucking....why are these insults? both sound good to me!
MTV screening Obama's audience for views, looks
Here is the email:
[SIZE="1"]Seeking—Audience Members: males & females, 18+.
To apply, email [email]townhallaudience@mtvnmix.com[/email] and put “Town Hall” in the subject line.
To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name,
phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are interested in or passionate about.
Also, provide a recent photo and short description of your political views. Submission deadline: Oct. 14. No pay.[/SIZE]
Kelly McAndrew, a spokeswoman for Viacom, which owns MTV, said the screening was aimed at attracting a diverse audience.
"We’re just trying to get the broadest, most diverse audience possible," she said, denying that either Republicans or ugly people would be screened out. "We want to have divergent points of view – we’re not looking for a single-view audience."
"We’re going to have a very diverse looking audience," McAndrew said. "We want gender diversity, we want ethnicity diversity, we want religious diversity, we want political view diversity. We want diversity of all kinds."
Yeh - like MTV is reaching anyone over 20? Srsly. :eyebrow:
link Interesting critique on D'Souza:
The Real Roots Of Obama's Rage.
Briefly, he thinks they are really Bill Ayers. And it helps to affirm my opinion that Bill Ayers is a damned slug, spending an entire life as consumed by rage as -- as -- as tw in a snit.
Interesting critique on D'Souza: The Real Roots Of Obama's Rage.
Briefly, he thinks they are really Bill Ayers. And it helps to affirm my opinion that Bill Ayers is a damned slug, spending an entire life as consumed by rage as -- as -- as tw in a snit.
I was talking to someone about this book the other day. It has some interesting theories as to why Obama thinks the way he does, but I am not sure it is nothing more than arm-chair psychology when it comes to the conclusions. Still, there may be some truth to it.
It's secret rage, just like he's a secret Muslim, you see?
Or he's a secret teabagger. :haha:
He secretly rages about bagging Muslim tea.
Obama's Lost Magic
Two years on from his historic election victory, US President Barack Obama is trying to recover his lost magic as defeat for the Democrats looms in the midterm elections. But he is no longer the man he used to be, and his window of opportunity has passed.
He wants everything to be as it was before. He wants it to be as innocent and passionate, as honest and boundless. He wants it to be as full of promises and the conviction that everything is possible in the Land of Opportunity. Because, as he told his supporters back then, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." It was a rallying cry so powerful and romantic it sounded like a line from a good song.
Today, Barack Obama is the first black president of the United States. Back then, in 2008, he was probably the best election campaigner of all time. And now he is on the campaign trail again. This fall he is speaking in Philadelphia, Chicago and Columbus, Ohio, spreading the message that "they" (the Republicans and their donors) want to rob "us" (open-minded, young Americans) of our future.
At the Crossroads
It is like a grown-up going back to the places of his youth: the public swimming pool where he learned to swim, the intersection where he had his first kiss. It's a sentimental journey, and at the same time an admission that youth doesn't last forever.
There are crossroads in every life, decisive moments. Afterwards, what was reality until a moment ago is just a memory, and the present has changed. The politician who once embodied a brave new alternative with his iconic slogan "Yes, we can" would probably love to be able to preserve his triumph as it was and hang on to the ease of those early, naive years. But that's not possible. Political careers succeed or fail - but they do not stop.
continues here
I just finished reading this and thought it was a very insightful piece from a perspective outside the confines of the USA.
I think it was way off base in it's assessment of the country in general terms. Insightful only of his assessment of the current state of the political nation but to call the NYT as the only source of rational thought, please....
Only the major newspapers still provide intelligent analysis, by people like the New York Times' insightful and levelheaded columnist David Brooks.
or statements like:
They are the descendants of immigrants, and proud of it, and they oppose immigration.
What utter BS...
He clearly does not understand the US.
I was referring to the perception from the outside looking in. Accuracy was not part of that. I was thinking of it in terms of what we here in America think when we look at other countries.
Are our views as skewed, if you will, as theirs?
Oh and welcome back ya prick. How ya feeling?
First good day. Thanks for asking.
You know, the more I read the article the more I realized that this guy who wrote the bit know less about us than he think he does. He obviously never lived here. I would be more interested in having our EU participants read it and hear their take on it. But alas I am not holding my breath...
(Washington) President Barack Obama has confided his plans to become a registered Republican some time before the end of the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress. Speaking to his inner circle, he lamented failing to bring the two major parties together. One of his confidants reported Obama saying, "It's really just one party anyway and clearly the Republicans have the confidence of the people. I can finish my original mission much easier within the GOP." Sources wouldn't elaborate on what that mission is.
Obama clearly signaled his intentions through two recent tactical moves. He relented on ending the Bush-era tax breaks for the top 1% of income earners. The 3% reduction in the top rate accounts for over $1.0 trillion in lost revenues. Prior to the 2010 midterm elections, Obama hinted that he opposed a renewal of the tax breaks. It looked like the president might win this one with speculation that the tax breaks would likely die due to the post midterm atmosphere.
more hereIt just doesn't get any better than this, Obamy in his own words.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/Great article.
Backdoor Big Government
Americans sent a small-government message in November, but Obama isn’t listening.
http://city-journal.com/2011/21_1_snd-big-government.htmlIt's always encouraging when the ACLU and the government are on the same side.
It's always encouraging when the ACLU and the government are on the same side.
I don't think so....
“It is one thing to share the ACLU’s disrespect for the rule of law but it is quite another to collude with the organization on a prosecutorial strategy against the State of Arizona. Frankly, these new documents show it is hard to tell where the ACLU ends and the Justice Department begins,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama Justice Department is supposed to be an independent, nonpartisan law enforcement agency. Many Americans will be disturbed, though maybe not surprised, to find that Eric Holder’s Justice Department is colluding with one of the most leftist organizations in the nation. We know whose ‘side’ this Justice Department in on when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws."
But hey Eric Holder and the Justice Department have made no bones about the fact that they are a racist organization.
Members of the commission issued what should be regarded as a stinging indictment of AG Holder and the Justice Department in one paragraph of a news release issued today about the investigation trying to answer the question of whether DOJ practiced race-neutral enforcement of the law:
Although such testimony supported the need for thorough investigation, DOJ continued to withhold relevant documents and preclude relevant officials and supervisors from testifying. The Commission was thus limited in its ability to complete a final report. As a result, the Commission has issued an interim report that describes the evidence that has been collected up to this point and the lack of cooperation by the Department of Justice.
In a separate paragraph, appearing on page iii of the interim report addressed to President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), Commission members highlighted the dilemma they face as a result of the DOJ’s obstruction:
The Commission, by a separate 5-2 vote breaking down along the same lines, found that although its statute authorizes the Commission to subpoena witnesses and written material and requires federal agencies to cooperate fully with its investigations, its authority to seek legal recourse when the Attorney General refuses to enforce Commission subpoenas, as has occurred repeatedly during this investigation, is unclear.
http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/01/28/commission-report-doj-stifled-investigation-into-new-black-panther-party-and-voter-intimidation-charges/Well, the beat goes on....
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=3751
It just doesn't get any better than this, Obamy in his own words.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/
Great article.
Backdoor Big Government
Americans sent a small-government message in November, but Obama isn’t listening.
http://city-journal.com/2011/21_1_snd-big-government.html
ACLU and Eric Holder in Bed together.... Imagine that.
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/documents-reveal-collusion
http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/01/28/commission-report-doj-stifled-investigation-into-new-black-panther-party-and-voter-intimidation-charges/
so mercy, I looked through these links, and thought of your comments in a different thread... I have a question for you. Do you consider these examples of news or commentary?
All commentary. Esp if from a Blog.
But what is important to remember that it also includes news. And if you are careful it is pretty easy to extract the news bits that is being commented on and how it is presented. Let me show an example....
Last link....
News:
Attorney General Eric Holder and others within the U.S. Department of Justice prevented members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from conducting a complete and thorough investigation of the department’s decision to drop charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for their 2008 election day actions in Philadelphia.
Commentary:
Members of the commission issued what should be regarded as a stinging indictment of AG Holder and the Justice Department in one paragraph of a news release issued today about the investigation trying to answer the question of whether DOJ practiced race-neutral enforcement of the law:
News:
Although such testimony supported the need for thorough investigation, DOJ continued to withhold relevant documents and preclude relevant officials and supervisors from testifying. The Commission was thus limited in its ability to complete a final report. As a result, the Commission has issued an interim report that describes the evidence that has been collected up to this point and the lack of cooperation by the Department of Justice.
In a separate paragraph, appearing on page iii of the interim report addressed to President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), Commission members highlighted the dilemma they face as a result of the DOJ’s obstruction:
The Commission, by a separate 5-2 vote breaking down along the same lines, found that although its statute authorizes the Commission to subpoena witnesses and written material and requires federal agencies to cooperate fully with its investigations, its authority to seek legal recourse when the Attorney General refuses to enforce Commission subpoenas, as has occurred repeatedly during this investigation, is unclear.
Commentary: Black
News: Red
[COLOR="Red"]Video of the Nov. 4, 2008, incident that triggered public outcry[/COLOR] is clear to any objective viewer: [COLOR="red"]Billy club-carrying members of the New Black Panther Party were intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place.[/COLOR]
It will be interesting to see whether any state-run media outlets report AG Holder’s obstruction of justice and apparent racist enforcement of the law.
Pretty easy...
Another perspective:
As voter-intimidation exercises go, it wasn’t much. In 2008, a lone white voter reported he had encountered two black men dressed all in black, one carrying a nightstick, at his Philadelphia polling place in a predominantly black neighborhood. The armed man was escorted away by police, and no one reported the incident to the local district attorney. But the incident was caught on camera, making it great fodder for cable news because political campaigns were actively scouting for voter-intimidation cases they could use against opponents.
Several months after the 2008 Election Day incident (and 13 days before President Obama was sworn in) the Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against the NBPP under the Voting Rights Act, alleging voter intimidation. In May 2009, Justice—now led by Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama's appointee—successfully obtained an injunction against King Samir Shabazz, the man who carried the nightstick, then dropped the suit, Fox News reported. A spokeswoman at Justice says a career attorney made the call, which was then affirmed by an appointee, because "the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims against the other defendants in the case. A federal judge determined that the relief requested by the Department was appropriate."
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/the-new-black-panther-party-is-the-new-acorn0.html
Voter intimidation cases are exceedingly hard to prove which is why there have so few in the 40+ years of the Voting Rights Act.
To have any chance of success, at the very least, there was be claims by voters that they were intimidated and at least some evidence to support it. This case had neither, which perhaps explains why the DoJ took the option of a civil injunction against the one guy rather than commit resources to a case they felt they could not win.
One final thought or question for The Mercinary:
Why is this case any different than the circumstances at a Arizona polling place where an avowed anti-immigrant Minuteman was at a poll place in 2006 armed with a 9mm Glock and questioning Hispanic voters to determine if they spoke English? The Bush DoJ chose not to pursue it.
[SIZE="2"]IMO, it is a stretch to describe as factual that [COLOR="Red"]"billy club carrying members of the New Black Panther Party were intimidating voters"[/COLOR] given that no voters filed any complaint about voter intimation.
As to the US Civil Rights Commission, the conservative Vice Chair would disagree with the assessment in your links:[/SIZE]
A scholar whom President George W. Bush appointed as vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Abigail Thernstrom has a reputation as a tough conservative critic of affirmative action and politically correct positions on race.
But when it comes to the investigation that the Republican-dominated commission is now conducting into the Justice Department’s handling of an alleged incident of voter intimidation involving the New Black Panther Party — a controversy that has consumed conservative media in recent months — Thernstrom has made a dramatic break from her usual allies.
“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.
“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO....
...Three Republican poll monitors filed complaints of intimidation — itself a federal crime — but no voters attested to being turned away. The Justice Department, while Bush was still president, investigated the incident and later, after Obama took office, decided that "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" the claims against the party and against a second, unarmed man, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said....
...And other conservatives have weighed in on her side.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html
A column from the Vice Chair herself in the conservative National Review:
Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation — the charge — are very high.
In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far — after months of hearings, testimony and investigation — no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case....
...There are plenty of grounds on which to sharply criticize the attorney general — his handling of terrorism questions, just for starters — but this particular overblown attack threatens to undermine the credibility of his conservative critics
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243408/new-black-panther-case-br-conservative-dissent-abigail-thernstrom
IMO, the Commission "investigation" is partisan political theater conducted by the conservative majority. Much like the investigation of voter intimidation in Florida in 2000 conducted by the liberal majority on the Commission at the time.
As a critic of political theater on both sides, I would give this one a :lame: - highly partisan, boring and predictable.
Well investigated and stated F&B. (welcome)
One final thought or question for The Merc[COLOR="Red"]e[/COLOR]nary:
Why is this case any different than the circumstances at a Arizona polling place where an avowed anti-immigrant Minuteman was at a poll place in 2006 armed with a 9mm Glock and questioning Hispanic voters to determine if they spoke English? The Bush DoJ chose not to pursue it.
Never heard of it....
[QUOTE=Fair&Balanced;710610][SIZE="2"]IMO, it is a stretch to describe as factual that [COLOR="Red"]"billy club carrying members of the New Black Panther Party were intimidating voters"[/COLOR] given that no voters filed any complaint about voter intimation.[quote]DOJ didn't think so at the time. But hey, we have a racist DOJ now so I guess anything is possible.
[SIZE="2"]IMO, the Commission "investigation" is partisan political theater conducted by the conservative majority. Much like the investigation of voter intimidation in Florida in 2000 conducted by the liberal majority on the Commission at the time.
I would give this one a :lame: - highly partisan, boring and predictable.
Right out of the Media Matters website.
Well investigated and stated F&B. (welcome)
Thanks.
I'll be browsing around the place when I have more time.[SIZE="2"][/SIZE]
Never heard of it....
Here is an article from the Tucson paper:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2006/11/07/31837-anti-immigrant-activists-accused-of-voter-harassment/
So whats the difference?
In Philly, you have a Black man, affiliated with the New Black Panther Party, carrying a billy club at a predominately Black polling station but not approaching anyone directly.
In Tucson, you have a White man, affiliated with the Minutemen, carrying a gun at a predominately Hispanic polling station and questioning voters to determine if they spoke English.
I have issues with both of the groups (NBP Party and Minutemen) and their actions but in neither case did the acts reach the level of voter intimidation, but if I had to chose, getting in the face of voters and questioning them comes closer to intimidation.
How's that Hopey Changey thing working out for ya?
Job Growth Grinds to a Halt
The U.S. economy slammed into a wall in August, failing to add any jobs for the first time in nearly a year and ratcheting up pressure on President Barack Obama to find a way to kick-start the sputtering recovery.
Underscoring the political problem posed by the dearth of hiring, Mr. Obama on Friday asked the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw an air-quality proposal that Republicans and business groups said could kill thousands of jobs and cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576546220157206548.html
[YOUTUBE]UC36sb5YI9A&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
SO how did that work out fer ya???? :lol:
those fucking greedy capitalist blood sucking corporations!! they have record amounts of money and they're just hoarding it. I hope the fucking choke on their gold. spend any of that money on hiring people--no fucking way. just keep it, keep piling it up.
Soon though, your customer base will erode to the point where your accumulation of will slow, then stop, then you'll cry to the government that you're being crippled by all those regulations. mother fucking liars.
Fuck you.
Why you find the truth funny is a mystery to me.
The government shed some 17,000 jobs last month, "stimulus" money soaked up by businesses. Held by them in record amounts. I'll say it again -- corporations, "Fuck you".
Why you find the truth funny is a mystery to me.
The government shed some 17,000 jobs last month, "stimulus" money soaked up by businesses. Held by them in record amounts. I'll say it again -- corporations, "Fuck you".
And I will repeat it as well, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama have destroyed this nation. Anyone but Obama in 2012. Fuck all of them.
The first Seven Lies....
[YOUTUBE]UErR7i2onW0[/YOUTUBE]
And I will repeat it as well, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama have destroyed this nation. Anyone but Obama in 2012. Fuck all of them.
yeah, 'cause everything was fucking peachy before Obama came in.
ah, merc has the answers. merc can fix society. merc has no beam in his eye to cloud his vision. If we would only listen to merc - we would be healed..
thus endeth merc's lesson and every lesson he ever gave unto us, the unclean masses: just do what merc says to do and all will be sunshine up your ass. :D
also - the more I read merc's posts the more I am convinced he is a fourteen year old boy. there really is no other explanation for his shrieking hostilities and hysterical fears.
What she said.
Nope. But it sure the fuck has gone done hill since. And fast.
Anyone but Obamy in 2012!:D
Nope. But it sure the fuck has gone done hill since. And fast.
Anyone but Obamy in 2012!:D
Even if Obama was as bad as you say he is, at least half of the republican potentials I've seen so far are such utter dingbats that they would almost certainly be even more harmful.
Given that there is a realistic chances of Obama losing, I really really hope the republicans can come up with someone better. Please.
Even if Obama was as bad as you say he is, at least half of the republican potentials I've seen so far are such utter dingbats that they would almost certainly be even more harmful.
McCain was a moderate. Nominated mostly by moderate Republicans and independents. Therefore the wackos needed to subvert McCain. Even threatened him in his own State during his Senate reelection. Moderates inside the Republican party have little power due to wackos told by Limbaugh, et al how to vote.
Even Boehner had to repeatedly withdraw from his compromises with Obama due to these wackos. Specifically defined is Cantor - a wacko favorite - who literally undid every compromise. Because of the wacko attitude - 'my way or the highway'.
Those outside of America have little idea how wacko dumb these extremists are even in public conversations. Propaganda promoted by political handlers is that powerful TheMercenary demonstrates what is found especially in venues where education (and therefore intelligence) is lowest.
All America allies should be quite concerned. The wackos created massive debts. Then are told to blame Obama. They are so dumb as to believe what they are told. To ignore what is obvious. America’s financial disasters are created by wacko extremists in the Republican party who believe,
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”America’s financial disasters are created by wacko extremists in BOTH parties
ftfy
As any honest moderate would know.
McCain was a moderate. Nominated mostly by moderate Republicans and independents. Therefore the wackos needed to subvert McCain. Even threatened him in his own State during his Senate reelection. Moderates inside the Republican party have little power due to wackos told by Limbaugh, et al how to vote.
Even Boehner had to repeatedly withdraw from his compromises with Obama due to these wackos. Specifically defined is Cantor - a wacko favorite - who literally undid every compromise. Because of the wacko attitude - 'my way or the highway'.
Those outside of America have little idea how wacko dumb these extremists are even in public conversations. Propaganda promoted by political handlers is that powerful TheMercenary demonstrates what is found especially in venues where education (and therefore intelligence) is lowest.
All America allies should be quite concerned. The wackos created massive debts. Then are told to blame Obama. They are so dumb as to believe what they are told. To ignore what is obvious. America’s financial disasters are created by wacko extremists in the Republican party who believe, “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”
I'd pay a lot more attention to your political writings if you didn't use the word "wacko" in every sentence. It's a one-note song and hurts my head.
If it weren't for that, I'd agree with most of what you write on this subject.
Totally agree with that Stormie.
Even if Obama was as bad as you say he is, at least half of the republican potentials I've seen so far are such utter dingbats that they would almost certainly be even more harmful.
Given that there is a realistic chances of Obama losing, I really really hope the republicans can come up with someone better. Please.
Couldn't give a shit. I would support Obamy being re-elected as long as they lose the majority in the Senate. Otherwise, Anyone but Obama 2012!! :D
I really really hope the republicans can come up with someone, anyone. Please.
ftfy
yeah, 'cause everything was fucking peachy before Obama came in.
We liked it. When we turn Obama out, we'll have more to like again.
Politically, though, this will make you sad, Dana, as another socialist leader gets the sack.
There's a whole lotta peachy we're getting static about instead of just getting it. The Democratic Party has fallen a long way since JFK. We'll prosper better when they are sidelined, and the Machine Radicals shipped back to Chicago -- and hopefully kept from office there also. We're annoyed because we have better values than this non-capitalist that got elected with no help from yours truly.
*chuckles*
Another socialist leader?
To quote Jon Stewart:
'You haven't got a fucking clue what socialism is have you?'
We liked it. When we turn Obama out, we'll have more to like again.
Politically, though, this will make you sad, Dana, as another socialist leader gets the sack.
There's a whole lotta peachy we're getting static about instead of just getting it. The Democratic Party has fallen a long way since JFK. We'll prosper better when they are sidelined, and the Machine Radicals shipped back to Chicago -- and hopefully kept from office there also. We're annoyed because we have better values than this non-capitalist that got elected with no help from yours truly.
Look, man.
This is a perfect example of telling a lie. President Obama, my President, *YOUR* President is a capitalist, not a socialist. Your remarks like this are subject to the same political speech reality check I described recently when I revealed Michele Bachmann's crap.
When I hear something like this I ask myself, "why is this person telling this lie?"
They're clumsy. This is bad.
You're not clumsy, I don't think you're stupid (though you hold fast to some stupid positions). I don't think this applies in this case.
They're pandering. This is worse.
You're not pandering since you're not running for office, but there's a complimentary category of political proselytizing, and you do it all the time. This qualifies, but only incidentally since we're not being asked to do something, you're only indirectly supporting your position by portraying your opponent negatively. This negative campaigning is successful, but vile and foul and leaves a permanent stain on those who persist in it. Not to mention the damage to our society, which is significant.
They're uninformed. This is worse still.
I'm undecided here, you may be uninformed but I doubt it. I think you know what socialism is, I think you know what you were saying, and you said it anyway.
They believe. This is the worst.
Again, I am undecided, but don't think this is the case. I think you know better.
Which brings us to the new category:
They lie. This is just as bad as belief, but with extra-crunchy evil craven malice. Smears like this pollute our conversation. You are responsible for this toxic spill, though the clean up work falls to others, like me, like DanaC. Inevitably, there will be traces of this poison left behind as some will remember the association. You, sir, should be ashamed of your behavior.
I don't want my leaders *or my fellow members of the electorate* to be clumsy, or pandering or uninformed or worst of all, true believers of false ideas. I will not tolerate lying and the destruction it causes. I deserve better and so do you. I demand better. And so should you.
Thanks BigV. You have much more energy than I do.
*applauds*
Bloody hell. Well said.
Y'know, there are plenty of sensible and coherent arguments against socialism, without having to reinterpret it in order to smash it down.
To be fair though, there's been something of a reinterpretation on the left as well. I call myself a 'socialist' but that doesn't mean I believe in a fully communal society. I believe in a mixed economy. At no point during the history of trade and markets has there ever been any evidence to suggest that the free market, or the people and businesses that operate within it, can be relied upon to act entirely in ways that add to, rather than detract from, the common good. There have to be controls. There is also absolutely no evidence throughout that time that left to its own devices the market acts as an equaliser of opportunity, or that all of a civilised society's needs can be filtered through the free market.
Even Adam Smith believed that where the market failed to adequately meet the needs of the nation the government had a duty to step in. Particularly with regards education. These days, most nations include basic healthcare alongside education as a necessity that cannot be trusted entirely to the market.
Really, the main difference between a modern 'socialist' and the right, is where we all draw the lines. Frankly, if you don't believe there should be any lines, then you're not dealing with political or economic realities.
But even on those definitions, the notion that Barack Obama and Warren Buffett are socialists is laughable to anybody with an ounce of political insight.
the notion that Barack Obama and Warren Buffett are socialists is laughable to anybody with an ounce of political insight.
like that part :)
What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.
So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.
An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero. But to his son, the elder Obama represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anticolonialism. Obama Sr. grew up during Africa's struggle to be free of European rule, and he was one of the early generation of Africans chosen to study in America and then to shape his country's future.
I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country's independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.
Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama's acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, "The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races."
Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909--72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana's first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.
Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"
As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."
Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.
While the senior Obama called for Africa to free itself from the neocolonial influence of Europe and specifically Britain, he knew when he came to America in 1959 that the global balance of power was shifting. Even then, he recognized what has become a new tenet of anticolonialist ideology: Today's neocolonial leader is not Europe but America. As the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said--who was one of Obama's teachers at Columbia University--wrote in Culture and Imperialism, "The United States has replaced the earlier great empires and is the dominant outside force."
From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world.
It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.
For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.
Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America? Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of the world's energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have less and the former colonized countries to have more. More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize, and therefore reduce, America's carbon consumption. Both as a U.S. Senator and in his speech, as President, to the United Nations, Obama has proposed that the West massively subsidize energy production in the developing world.
Rejecting the socialist formula, Obama has shown no intention to nationalize the investment banks or the health sector. Rather, he seeks to decolonize these institutions, and this means bringing them under the government's leash. That's why Obama retains the right to refuse bailout paybacks--so that he can maintain his control. For Obama, health insurance companies on their own are oppressive racketeers, but once they submitted to federal oversight he was happy to do business with them. He even promised them expanded business as a result of his law forcing every American to buy health insurance.
If Obama shares his father's anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more. The anticolonialist believes that since the rich have prospered at the expense of others, their wealth doesn't really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just. Recall what Obama Sr. said in his 1965 paper: There is no tax rate too high, and even a 100% rate is justified under certain circumstances.
In his own writings Obama stresses the centrality of his father not only to his beliefs and values but to his very identity. He calls his memoir "the record of a personal, interior journey--a boy's search for his father and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American." And again, "It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." Even though his father was absent for virtually all his life, Obama writes, "My father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!"
The climax of Obama's narrative is when he goes to Kenya and weeps at his father's grave. It is riveting: "When my tears were finally spent," he writes, "I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America--the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago--all of it was connected with this small piece of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my father's pain."
In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that "I sat at my father's grave and spoke to him through Africa's red soil." In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father's spirit. Obama takes on his father's struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.'s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.'s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son's objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father's struggle becomes the son's birthright.
Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.
But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html D'Souza says that the socialist label doesn't entirely fit Obama. The case is much worse. Obama is not merely a social democrat in multicultural clothes. He is, according to D'Souza, a follower of his African father's anti-colonial ideology, which D'Souza describes as containing "noticeable strains of Marxism and socialism," but essentially signifying hostility to European civilization and to its neo-colonial spawn, the United States of America. In this view, American power is essentially racist. Overall, Western civilization did not achieve anything special, except to enrich itself by looting and enslaving Africans and Asians and native Americans. According to D'Souza, Obama's anti-colonial ideology sees the United States as a racial despotism, built on the denial of human rights, extreme exploitation and minority extirpation. If D'Souza is right, then we have in the White House someone who is much more dangerous than a socialist. If D'Souza is right, we have a man in the White House who is animated by hatred of the very thing entrusted to his care. "It may seem shocking to suggest that this is Obama's core ideology," says D'Souza. "I am saying nothing more than what Obama himself says: that his father's dream has become his dream. It is a dream that, as president, he is imposing with a vengeance on America and the world."
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/a-tiger-in-the-darkSo, is Mr. Obama trying to form The Socialist Republic of America? Or are the accusations mainly a political weapon, meant to stick Obama with a label that is poison to many voters and thus make him a one-term president?
As is often the case in politics, the answer is in the eye of the beholder. Some people feel genuinely certain that Obama aims to make America into a workers' paradise – a land where government-appointed pay czars tell Wall Street tycoons how much they can make and where the feds take large ownership positions in companies like General Motors (GM) and insurance giant American International Group (AIG). Even if Obama is not a card-carrying Socialist, they say, he displays a disdain of the private sector.
"You start with his apparent acceptance that there are major segments of the US economy for which it is reasonable for the US government to own or manage," says Michael Johns, Heritage Foundation policy analyst, "tea party" movement leader, and former speechwriter for President Bush. "Look at the auto industry, mortgage industry, the health-care industry to some extent, and, obviously, banking."
Others just as assuredly refute the idea that government involvement in failing industries defines a president as socialist – or that wealth is being redistributed from the Forbes 500 richest Americans to the nation's "Joe the plumbers."
What Mr. Johns, Mr. Gingrich, and others brandishing the "socialist" s-word are really complaining of is a return to the policies of John Maynard Keynes, the English economist who advocated vigorous government involvement in the economy, from regulation to pump priming, says labor historian Peter Rachleff of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn.
"Socialism suggests getting rid of capitalism altogether," says Dr. Rachleff. "Mr. Obama is not within a million miles of an ideology like that."
For what it's worth, socialists deny that Obama is one of them – and even seem a bit insulted by the suggestion.
"I have been making a living telling people Obama is not a socialist," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America. "It's frustrating to see people using our brand to criticize programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working."
Adds Billy Wharton,co-chair of the Socialist Party USA: "I am not even sure he's a liberal. I call him a hedge fund Democrat."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0701/Is-Obama-a-socialist-What-does-the-evidence-sayObama Africa, America sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vitae tellus dui. Mauris iaculis mi ac magna aliquet a tempor magna mattis. Cras a sem accumsan massa posuere blandit. Cras posuere nisi ut nibh malesuada id aliquet nisi feugiat. Vestibulum ornare eros a enim imperdiet et ultrices purus lobortis. Nunc in metus est, et lacinia nulla. Suspendisse Socialist potenti. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aliquam Africa pellentesque arcu nec scelerisque. Duis fermentum dui massa. Vivamus laoreet volutpat magna, id ultricies quam suscipit ullamcorper. Sed varius scelerisque aliquam. Mauris faucibus Socialist est non augue rhoncus bibendum. Duis euismod America interdum Obama sed volutpat. Vivamus pellentesque commodo lectus vitae euismod.
Suspendisse elit Africa, dapibus ut commodo quis, faucibus id orci. Ut tellus risus, faucibus eget mattis quis, ultricies sit amet velit. Pellentesque nec America Africa. Aliquam dictum blandit erat eu consectetur. Fusce tincidunt, nisl at luctus porta, Obama mauris lacinia Socialist odio, sit amet dignissim velit turpis sit amet arcu. Vestibulum fermentum erat at erat lobortis ornare. Sed aliquet, tellus ac pulvinar America dignissim, lacus nunc venenatis arcu, sed tincidunt arcu odio id Obama. Aenean semper laoreet odio tincidunt interdum. Donec sit amet turpis dui.
Vestibulum ante Africa primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Etiam pulvinar, tellus quis dignissim rhoncus, tortor magna volutpat neque, id feugiat nulla lectus sit amet lacus. Obama vitae sem America at Socialist dui aliquet eleifend at ac magna. Pellentesque interdum quam viverra Africa adipiscing ac iaculis tortor rhoncus. Praesent non lectus nec lacus sodales lobortis eget at nulla. Curabitur odio arcu, adipiscing in auctor rhoncus, vehicula sed Africa. Integer eu purus lacus, at cursus erat. Donec sodales erat Socialist odio. Maecenas augue massa, elementum id commodo lobortis, consectetur sit amet orci. Aenean consectetur, neque quis rutrum tincidunt, nulla Africa mollis tellus, sit amet porttitor lectus sem sed turpis. Sed fermentum mi vel metus porttitor quis pulvinar felis ornare. Integer vel enim risus, eget tempor Obama. Duis non orci nec neque consectetur dignissim.
Mauris eget America nulla Socialist ligula, at sodales elit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis sit amet Africa sed Obama euismod feugiat quis et tellus. Proin sodales auctor metus, in iaculis felis scelerisque vitae. Donec porttitor dapibus nisl sed pellentesque. Vivamus laoreet gravida quam at porttitor. Etiam lacus augue, rhoncus congue rhoncus sed, fringilla sed Obama. Mauris sit amet magna massa, a suscipit neque.
Obama non America non Obama vehicula placerat. Vivamus ut sem sit amet dui elementum condimentum. Morbi est augue, vestibulum sit amet scelerisque vitae, dapibus vitae Africa. Obama congue eleifend ligula, pellentesque Africa massa mattis sed. Aenean vulputate mollis tortor, sed America Socialist suscipit eros vestibulum non. Quisque id condimentum eros. Ut et massa ligula. Sed congue condimentum diam, non vulputate massa posuere nec. Pellentesque dui Obama, tincidunt at malesuada quis, bibendum in eros. Duis adipiscing adipiscing augue sed facilisis.
In nec felis nisl, ut gravida risus. Praesent sollicitudin pulvinar Obama ac convallis. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis elit massa, commodo id venenatis Socialist volutpat, tincidunt et augue. Aliquam posuere iaculis neque ut accumsan. Suspendisse interdum laoreet Africa molestie hendrerit. Obama Africa Africa sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce vel eros ac odio iaculis ullamcorper. Obama pellentesque viverra enim. Maecenas sit amet cursus tortor. Vivamus at risus odio.
Pellentesque eget felis ac elit viverra Socialist dapibus sit amet quis augue. Nunc volutpat mauris id sem tincidunt eu mollis justo accumsan. Duis lectus neque, porta eu tincidunt nec, hendrerit quis felis. Morbi placerat odio et leo commodo porttitor. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Nam tristique America vehicula orci sodales fringilla. Nam vestibulum purus eget metus condimentum imperdiet. Nunc vitae ante massa. Donec a ornare ante. Sed nec odio quam, et commodo massa.
Integer eu dui vitae massa semper aliquam vitae at Obama. Morbi lobortis tellus quis velit suscipit tincidunt. Nulla laoreet sollicitudin metus id imperdiet. Curabitur fringilla sollicitudin ante, sodales tincidunt enim semper quis. Vestibulum et metus in enim interdum elementum. Curabitur posuere nisi nulla. Etiam eu ullamcorper lectus. Quisque sed enim lectus, eu porta turpis. Nulla facilisi.
Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Phasellus massa velit, suscipit ut pharetra id, ornare at diam. Suspendisse rutrum consectetur aliquam. Suspendisse potenti. Obama id dui et lectus malesuada imperdiet. Duis mi purus, feugiat ut condimentum at, consequat eget magna. Quisque neque Obama, cursus id lobortis quis, rutrum non lectus. Nulla ac arcu ut mauris lobortis tincidunt et et enim.
Donec nec nunc vitae America vehicula iaculis vel in orci. Duis eget volutpat Obama. Donec eget turpis vitae nulla molestie hendrerit. Vestibulum congue pellentesque enim, id adipiscing Obama eleifend ac. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Obama at erat nec
*nods knowingly, pensively even*
Yes, V...I see what you're saying.
;)
I like this TOTALLY RAD SCIENTIFIC JARGON:
"Socialism suggests getting rid of capitalism altogether," says Dr. Rachleff. "Mr. Obama is not within a million miles of an ideology like that."
Not within a MILLION miles? Not a MILLION? Wow. How about within a THOUSAND miles, Doctor Nonsensical Hyperbole? Huh? A thousand?
So, is Mr. Obama trying to form The Socialist Republic of America?
mercy, what is your answer to this question?
mercy, what is your answer to this question?
Oh at times I believed it. Not so much anymore. I see policy proposals as having parity with socialist thinking, take over and control of big business, telling CEO's what they can or cannot make. But in reality it is more likely that it is:
...a return to the policies of John Maynard Keynes, the English economist who advocated vigorous government involvement in the economy, from regulation to pump priming....
Either way, I want him to be a one term president.
Obama Africa, America sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vitae tellus dui. Mauris iaculis mi ac magna aliquet a tempor magna mattis. Cras a sem accumsan massa posuere blandit. Cras posuere nisi ut nibh malesuada id aliquet nisi feugiat. Vestibulum ornare eros a enim imperdiet et ultrices purus lobortis. Nunc in metus est, et lacinia nulla. Suspendisse Socialist potenti. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aliquam Africa pellentesque arcu nec scelerisque. Duis fermentum dui massa. Vivamus laoreet volutpat magna, id ultricies quam suscipit ullamcorper. Sed varius scelerisque aliquam. Mauris faucibus Socialist est non augue rhoncus bibendum. Duis euismod America interdum Obama sed volutpat. Vivamus pellentesque commodo lectus vitae euismod.
Suspendisse elit Africa, dapibus ut commodo quis, faucibus id orci. Ut tellus risus, faucibus eget mattis quis, ultricies sit amet velit. Pellentesque nec America Africa. Aliquam dictum blandit erat eu consectetur. Fusce tincidunt, nisl at luctus porta, Obama mauris lacinia Socialist odio, sit amet dignissim velit turpis sit amet arcu. Vestibulum fermentum erat at erat lobortis ornare. Sed aliquet, tellus ac pulvinar America dignissim, lacus nunc venenatis arcu, sed tincidunt arcu odio id Obama. Aenean semper laoreet odio tincidunt interdum. Donec sit amet turpis dui.
Vestibulum ante Africa primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Etiam pulvinar, tellus quis dignissim rhoncus, tortor magna volutpat neque, id feugiat nulla lectus sit amet lacus. Obama vitae sem America at Socialist dui aliquet eleifend at ac magna. Pellentesque interdum quam viverra Africa adipiscing ac iaculis tortor rhoncus. Praesent non lectus nec lacus sodales lobortis eget at nulla. Curabitur odio arcu, adipiscing in auctor rhoncus, vehicula sed Africa. Integer eu purus lacus, at cursus erat. Donec sodales erat Socialist odio. Maecenas augue massa, elementum id commodo lobortis, consectetur sit amet orci. Aenean consectetur, neque quis rutrum tincidunt, nulla Africa mollis tellus, sit amet porttitor lectus sem sed turpis. Sed fermentum mi vel metus porttitor quis pulvinar felis ornare. Integer vel enim risus, eget tempor Obama. Duis non orci nec neque consectetur dignissim.
Mauris eget America nulla Socialist ligula, at sodales elit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis sit amet Africa sed Obama euismod feugiat quis et tellus. Proin sodales auctor metus, in iaculis felis scelerisque vitae. Donec porttitor dapibus nisl sed pellentesque. Vivamus laoreet gravida quam at porttitor. Etiam lacus augue, rhoncus congue rhoncus sed, fringilla sed Obama. Mauris sit amet magna massa, a suscipit neque.
Obama non America non Obama vehicula placerat. Vivamus ut sem sit amet dui elementum condimentum. Morbi est augue, vestibulum sit amet scelerisque vitae, dapibus vitae Africa. Obama congue eleifend ligula, pellentesque Africa massa mattis sed. Aenean vulputate mollis tortor, sed America Socialist suscipit eros vestibulum non. Quisque id condimentum eros. Ut et massa ligula. Sed congue condimentum diam, non vulputate massa posuere nec. Pellentesque dui Obama, tincidunt at malesuada quis, bibendum in eros. Duis adipiscing adipiscing augue sed facilisis.
In nec felis nisl, ut gravida risus. Praesent sollicitudin pulvinar Obama ac convallis. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis elit massa, commodo id venenatis Socialist volutpat, tincidunt et augue. Aliquam posuere iaculis neque ut accumsan. Suspendisse interdum laoreet Africa molestie hendrerit. Obama Africa Africa sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce vel eros ac odio iaculis ullamcorper. Obama pellentesque viverra enim. Maecenas sit amet cursus tortor. Vivamus at risus odio.
Pellentesque eget felis ac elit viverra Socialist dapibus sit amet quis augue. Nunc volutpat mauris id sem tincidunt eu mollis justo accumsan. Duis lectus neque, porta eu tincidunt nec, hendrerit quis felis. Morbi placerat odio et leo commodo porttitor. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Nam tristique America vehicula orci sodales fringilla. Nam vestibulum purus eget metus condimentum imperdiet. Nunc vitae ante massa. Donec a ornare ante. Sed nec odio quam, et commodo massa.
Integer eu dui vitae massa semper aliquam vitae at Obama. Morbi lobortis tellus quis velit suscipit tincidunt. Nulla laoreet sollicitudin metus id imperdiet. Curabitur fringilla sollicitudin ante, sodales tincidunt enim semper quis. Vestibulum et metus in enim interdum elementum. Curabitur posuere nisi nulla. Etiam eu ullamcorper lectus. Quisque sed enim lectus, eu porta turpis. Nulla facilisi.
Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Phasellus massa velit, suscipit ut pharetra id, ornare at diam. Suspendisse rutrum consectetur aliquam. Suspendisse potenti. Obama id dui et lectus malesuada imperdiet. Duis mi purus, feugiat ut condimentum at, consequat eget magna. Quisque neque Obama, cursus id lobortis quis, rutrum non lectus. Nulla ac arcu ut mauris lobortis tincidunt et et enim.
Donec nec nunc vitae America vehicula iaculis vel in orci. Duis eget volutpat Obama. Donec eget turpis vitae nulla molestie hendrerit. Vestibulum congue pellentesque enim, id adipiscing Obama eleifend ac. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Obama at erat nec
How "cute". Big V knows how to use a auto translator on the web...
Not cute. Not at all.
I'm just doing exactly what you were doing, posting large blocks of content that I don't believe, with no link to my source and no original input of my own. Go look at
post #1313. You post this .. this .. what is it? It's just filler, right? Not representative of your opinion, not traceable to anywhere... I could have just reposted your picture of the hand dryer with your handle 'shopped in over "your President".
Not cute. Not at all.
What? You didn't like my comment?
I'm just doing exactly what you were doing, posting large blocks of content that I don't believe, with no link to my source
The link was in the second post if you took the time to look but obviously you did not.... :rolleyes:
You post this .. this .. what is it? It's just filler, right? Not representative of your opinion, not traceable to anywhere...
Traceable by the link posted if you cared to look...
I could have just reposted your picture of the hand dryer with your handle 'shopped in over "your President".
You could of, and it would have been fitting for Obama and the hot air he has been spewing onto the airwaves since he has tried for the third time to re-invent his failed stimulus program while demonizing the "Billionaires" who make more than 200k a year, or the Owners of Private Jet Companies, which must make up such a huge part of the population who is not paying taxes, or maybe it is the "Teachers, fireman, policeman, or 'Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!'', then again, maybe not.... Anyone but Obama in 2012.
Obama Africa, America sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vitae tellus dui. Mauris iaculis mi ac magna aliquet a tempor magna mattis. Cras a sem accumsan massa posuere blandit. Cras posuere nisi ut nibh malesuada id aliquet nisi feugiat. Vestibulum ornare eros a enim imperdiet et ultrices purus lobortis. Nunc in metus est, et lacinia nulla. Suspendisse Socialist potenti. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aliquam Africa pellentesque arcu nec scelerisque. Duis fermentum dui massa. Vivamus laoreet volutpat magna, id ultricies quam suscipit ullamcorper. Sed varius scelerisque aliquam. Mauris faucibus Socialist est non augue rhoncus bibendum. Duis euismod America interdum Obama sed volutpat. Vivamus pellentesque commodo lectus vitae euismod.
Suspendisse elit Africa, dapibus ut commodo quis, faucibus id orci. Ut tellus risus, faucibus eget mattis quis, ultricies sit amet velit. Pellentesque nec America Africa. Aliquam dictum blandit erat eu consectetur. Fusce tincidunt, nisl at luctus porta, Obama mauris lacinia Socialist odio, sit amet dignissim velit turpis sit amet arcu. Vestibulum fermentum erat at erat lobortis ornare. Sed aliquet, tellus ac pulvinar America dignissim, lacus nunc venenatis arcu, sed tincidunt arcu odio id Obama. Aenean semper laoreet odio tincidunt interdum. Donec sit amet turpis dui.
Vestibulum ante Africa primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Etiam pulvinar, tellus quis dignissim rhoncus, tortor magna volutpat neque, id feugiat nulla lectus sit amet lacus. Obama vitae sem America at Socialist dui aliquet eleifend at ac magna. Pellentesque interdum quam viverra Africa adipiscing ac iaculis tortor rhoncus. Praesent non lectus nec lacus sodales lobortis eget at nulla. Curabitur odio arcu, adipiscing in auctor rhoncus, vehicula sed Africa. Integer eu purus lacus, at cursus erat. Donec sodales erat Socialist odio. Maecenas augue massa, elementum id commodo lobortis, consectetur sit amet orci. Aenean consectetur, neque quis rutrum tincidunt, nulla Africa mollis tellus, sit amet porttitor lectus sem sed turpis. Sed fermentum mi vel metus porttitor quis pulvinar felis ornare. Integer vel enim risus, eget tempor Obama. Duis non orci nec neque consectetur dignissim.
Mauris eget America nulla Socialist ligula, at sodales elit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis sit amet Africa sed Obama euismod feugiat quis et tellus. Proin sodales auctor metus, in iaculis felis scelerisque vitae. Donec porttitor dapibus nisl sed pellentesque. Vivamus laoreet gravida quam at porttitor. Etiam lacus augue, rhoncus congue rhoncus sed, fringilla sed Obama. Mauris sit amet magna massa, a suscipit neque.
Obama non America non Obama vehicula placerat. Vivamus ut sem sit amet dui elementum condimentum. Morbi est augue, vestibulum sit amet scelerisque vitae, dapibus vitae Africa. Obama congue eleifend ligula, pellentesque Africa massa mattis sed. Aenean vulputate mollis tortor, sed America Socialist suscipit eros vestibulum non. Quisque id condimentum eros. Ut et massa ligula. Sed congue condimentum diam, non vulputate massa posuere nec. Pellentesque dui Obama, tincidunt at malesuada quis, bibendum in eros. Duis adipiscing adipiscing augue sed facilisis.
In nec felis nisl, ut gravida risus. Praesent sollicitudin pulvinar Obama ac convallis. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis elit massa, commodo id venenatis Socialist volutpat, tincidunt et augue. Aliquam posuere iaculis neque ut accumsan. Suspendisse interdum laoreet Africa molestie hendrerit. Obama Africa Africa sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce vel eros ac odio iaculis ullamcorper. Obama pellentesque viverra enim. Maecenas sit amet cursus tortor. Vivamus at risus odio.
Pellentesque eget felis ac elit viverra Socialist dapibus sit amet quis augue. Nunc volutpat mauris id sem tincidunt eu mollis justo accumsan. Duis lectus neque, porta eu tincidunt nec, hendrerit quis felis. Morbi placerat odio et leo commodo porttitor. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Nam tristique America vehicula orci sodales fringilla. Nam vestibulum purus eget metus condimentum imperdiet. Nunc vitae ante massa. Donec a ornare ante. Sed nec odio quam, et commodo massa.
Integer eu dui vitae massa semper aliquam vitae at Obama. Morbi lobortis tellus quis velit suscipit tincidunt. Nulla laoreet sollicitudin metus id imperdiet. Curabitur fringilla sollicitudin ante, sodales tincidunt enim semper quis. Vestibulum et metus in enim interdum elementum. Curabitur posuere nisi nulla. Etiam eu ullamcorper lectus. Quisque sed enim lectus, eu porta turpis. Nulla facilisi.
Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Phasellus massa velit, suscipit ut pharetra id, ornare at diam. Suspendisse rutrum consectetur aliquam. Suspendisse potenti. Obama id dui et lectus malesuada imperdiet. Duis mi purus, feugiat ut condimentum at, consequat eget magna. Quisque neque Obama, cursus id lobortis quis, rutrum non lectus. Nulla ac arcu ut mauris lobortis tincidunt et et enim.
Donec nec nunc vitae America vehicula iaculis vel in orci. Duis eget volutpat Obama. Donec eget turpis vitae nulla molestie hendrerit. Vestibulum congue pellentesque enim, id adipiscing Obama eleifend ac. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Obama at erat nec
:lol2:
You have captured perfectly Merc's tendency to post huge blocks of cut and paste with no formatting, and no personal comment, making the post both uninviting to attempt to read and impossible if you do try.
I especially liked the part where you said "Suspendisse Socialist potenti." So true. Ad astra per asperum!
Obama non America non Obama vehicula placerat. Vivamus ut sem sit amet dui elementum condimentum. Morbi est augue, vestibulum sit amet scelerisque vitae, dapibus vitae Africa. Obama congue eleifend ligula, pellentesque Africa massa mattis sed. Aenean vulputate mollis tortor, sed America Socialist suscipit eros vestibulum non.
Are you outta your frikkin mind.
That was proven repeatedly false through factcheck, politico, PMSNBC, ABC, CBS, CBO, tw, NBC, CNN, FAUX and a host of others.
There was a presidential speech, a special congressional investigation and even the FDA, CIA and OSHA looked into it repeatedly. Sheesh! I guess now you'll start telling us that Obama is a Kenyan again.
(shakes head in disgust)
@ Merc Damnant quodnon intelligunt. :p:
What? You didn't like my comment?
what comment? thirty paragraphs, a couple links. there was no comment. You said nothing. what you posted I can get from google news.
Dinesh D'Sousa's anti-colonialism piece is a year old turd. The only reason it doesn't smell is that it's too old, and it's dried out and sitting on the sidewalk where people have avoided stepping in it and spreading the mess. D'Sousa took his pet theory and expanded it into book size. Along the way he misrepresented many Obama views.
Many conservative pundits rejected the whole thing.
But UT, if the rhetoric supports someone's warped views, they'll pick the turd up off the sidewalk and polish it, then proceed to spread it around as "proof" of their position.
"I'm right!! See, this shiny turd proves it!"
Dinesh D'Sousa's anti-colonialism piece is a year old turd. The only reason it doesn't smell is that it's too old, and it's dried out and sitting on the sidewalk where people have avoided stepping in it and spreading the mess. D'Sousa took his pet theory and expanded it into book size. Along the way he misrepresented many Obama views. Many conservative pundits rejected the whole thing.
I thought his book had some cogent points.... To dismiss it en-mass is foolish.
:lol2:
You have captured perfectly Merc's tendency to post huge blocks of cut and paste with no formatting, and no personal comment, making the post both uninviting to attempt to read and impossible if you do try.
I especially liked the part where you said "Suspendisse Socialist potenti." So true. Ad astra per asperum!
:dedhorse: "Now, I have lost all patience with you. You wouldn't read any material that doesn't support your agenda if your life depended on it."
what comment? thirty paragraphs, a couple links. there was no comment. You said nothing. what you posted I can get from google news.
So you don't have the capacity to comment on the post? Why in the world should I respond to any link you post? Really. Come on now BV, you hold your self out to be a polished turd here, why should I comment on anything you post when your mind is already made up about what I think and believe? Your bias is self evident. :lol:
My mind is not made up about what you believe. My mind is a blank slate about what you believe; that is exactly my point. You posted hundreds of words with ZERO words of your own about your opinion. How can I know what you believe if you don't say what you believe. You asked "what, you didn't like my comment?" and my reply was (after I went back and looked for your comment, and found none) what comment.
I'm still waiting.
My mind is not made up about what you believe. My mind is a blank slate about what you believe; that is exactly my point. You posted hundreds of words with ZERO words of your own about your opinion. How can I know what you believe if you don't say what you believe. You asked "what, you didn't like my comment?" and my reply was (after I went back and looked for your comment, and found none) what comment.
I'm still waiting.
I often post just to stimulate discussion about the post, not always to post what I believe 100%. Most people miss that, a few get it. Often what I post is not always some bible of my belief, but to get a reaction from those who have really radical views about the subject at hand, and in that angle I have been quite successful. I think D'Sousa's anti-colonialism comments to have some merit. Obama is a failure and his motivations are suspect. But I could not accept anything en mass as biblical truth.
So far your comments are at least entertaining, on most things I post as of recent.
A complete LIE! how can you fools vote for this scumbag?
[YOUTUBE]Fv4jnlkxOaw[/YOUTUBE]
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born: 4/4/36 Died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9 1/2 yrs old when it ended.
Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: January 2,1935 Died: 3/2/87 at the age of 52.
He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended. He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.
Bush told a much bigger lie.
Bush told a much bigger lie.
Really, what was that? What evidence do you have that he actually 'lied"?
lie:
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Bush told a much bigger lie.
Come on Dana, really. Please present your evidence for the world to see. So far no one has been able to prove that assertion. Not that is not true, because you obviously have information the rest of the world is not privy to, but really, tell me.... because if you can prove that Bush "lied" I will be on your side....
Waiting....
[YOUTUBE]K8E_zMLCRNg[/YOUTUBE]
:dedhorse: "Now, I have lost all patience with you. You wouldn't read any material that doesn't support your agenda if your life depended on it."
Took you a while to reply, didn't it. I assume you are implying that the pot is calling the kettle black. Believe it or not, I do read the cut and pastes you post when they are not a 1,000 words long and actually have paragraph breaks.
Then I check the link (if you give one) and the material is written by someone like "The Coalition to Disband the Evil Socialist Tea Party." :rolleyes:
Meanwhile you refuse to read the information put out by the non partisan outfits like the Congressional Budget Office (damn Commies!), and when you do read a sentence or two, you think their report is evidence against Obama.
Obama must be one incredibly powerful man. Every bad thing, no matter how large or how small, that happens anywhere in the world is due to Obama.
To misquote Monster, "If it rains in Ann Arbor, it must be Obama's fault."
Oh, I did like the cricket.
A complete LIE! how can you fools vote for this scumbag?
[YOUTUBE]Fv4jnlkxOaw[/YOUTUBE]
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born: 4/4/36 Died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9 1/2 yrs old when it ended.
Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: January 2,1935 Died: 3/2/87 at the age of 52.
He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended. He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.
Snopes says no lie.
The facts you post above are true and correct. Let me ask you this though, why would you list Lolo Soetoro? Who is he? He's not Barack Obama's father, you name his father in the previous sentence. It's my guess that you listed him because he was a man in Barack Obama's life that served in the role of father. One man of a few who served in that role, including Stanley Dunham, Barack Obama's grandfather, who was the man in his life when Obama was about ten years old. His father "figure".
I have a father. I have a stepfather. I frequently refer to each one as my "father", and I've never had a youtube callout for lying. But I'll make one if you'll post it and call me a liar. I would be HONORED to be in the same company as Barack Obama.
Is this the best you can do? I think you're merely uninformed mercy, and not clumsy, pandering, proselytizing, believing or lying. A repentable sin of political speech.
Come on Dana, really. Please present your evidence for the world to see. So far no one has been able to prove that assertion. Not that is not true, because you obviously have information the rest of the world is not privy to, but really, tell me.... because if you can prove that Bush "lied" I will be on your side....
Waiting....
What do you mean, 'on my side'? I don't have a side.
I don't have proof that Bush lied. There's plenty of compelling evidence to suggest that he did. Plenty of evidence to suggest Blair did too. But clearly, I am not personally privy to the kinds of information streams that could answer to that. That doesn't mean he didn't lie.
Why the 'waiting' by the way? I live in England, you numpty, I'd gone to bed.
Clearly, given that I am an ordinary British citizen posting from Yorkshire and with no access to secret government documents of any kind, I am unable to offer 'proof'. But... plenty of people have made excellent cases for Bush having at best chosen to be deliberately blind to any facts that might get in the way of his invasding Iraq, and at worst knowingly stated falsehoods in the run up to that invasion.
Here's an interesting piece from George Mason University's
History News Network, 2003. Before you say it, yes, I realise this is an opinion piece. But, the considerations the writer set out for his students are compelling in my opinion.
Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?
When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.
As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses -- including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.
On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the president of the United States? My answer was that they should give the president the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.
First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the president for his own review and possible revision.
Second, I explained that -- at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton -- statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.
Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the president's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the president had. For example, on Jan. 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing,"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
In addition, others in the administration were similarly quick to back the president up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMD -- and even went so far as to claim he knew"where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there were any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would say:"I have been advised," or"our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.
And here, is the list o statements made during the period in question:
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002:
"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his"nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Full article at
http://hnn.us/articles/1506.htmlNow. Taking all that into account, if we then look at the statements made by two prominent CIA advisors to the President who insist that their attempts to draw his attention to inconsistencies in the reports and their own intelligence which suggested that in fact there was no WMD programme in Iraq, what we see is President navigating the facts in a knowingly dishonest fashion, whilst always retaining the politically important 'plausible deniability'.
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.
Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam's WMD programs. "The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons," one of the former CIA officers told me.
On the eve of Sabri's appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam's case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a "cutout" who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was "excited" about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri's information was at odds with "our best source." That source was code-named "Curveball," later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer.
The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. "Tenet told me he briefed the president personally," said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush's response was to call the information "the same old thing." Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. "The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."
The CIA officers assigned to Sabri still argued within the agency that his information must be taken seriously, but instead the administration preferred to rely on Curveball. Drumheller learned from the German intelligence service that held Curveball that it considered him and his claims about WMD to be highly unreliable. But the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) insisted that Curveball was credible because what he said was supposedly congruent with available public information.
For two months, Drumheller fought against the use of Curveball, raising the red flag that he was likely a fraud, as he turned out to be. "Oh, my! I hope that's not true," said Deputy Director McLaughlin, according to Drumheller's book "On the Brink," published in 2006. When Curveball's information was put into Bush's Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, McLaughlin and Tenet allowed it to pass into the speech. "From three Iraqi defectors," Bush declared, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs ... Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them." In fact, there was only one Iraqi source -- Curveball -- and there were no labs.
When the mobile weapons labs were inserted into the draft of Powell's United Nations speech, Drumheller strongly objected again and believed that the error had been removed. He was shocked watching Powell's speech. "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," Powell announced. Without the reference to the mobile weapons labs, there was no image of a threat.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index.htmlPlausible deniability is not good enough when it comes to casus belli.
But hey, you have fun painting Obama as a liar and a cheat.
No one died when Obama lied. :)
But yeah, I think Obama's smarter than to spew easily discounted lies. I *know* he's an evil socialist and all, that's he's threatening our comfy lives, our security, but he's not stupid. :rolleyes:
...Mr. Obama is a man of *mediocre intelligence who promotes *mediocre ideas.
At best: he's simply, currently, the shiniest, most visible, cog of the bunch.
The 'real' threat is not Mr. Obama but the inertia he (knowingly? unknowingly?) serves: the bureaucratic, cultural, inertia that's been in play since before the first proto-human climbed down out of the tree and said, "This here ground is good!" (and then was promptly set upon by all the other, more timid, proto-humans for daring to think and do for him- or her-self).
Mr. Obama (along with any other 'leader' you care to name) is simply a vehicle for, and tool in, the only real war, that being the war between the **'WE' and the 'I'.
*The status quo, convention, cog-thinking, 'society' and 'community' over 'civilization', the reduction of 'one' to simple resource for 'many'.
**All others are mere echoes, shadows, of this essential conflict which can be summed up in this question, 'Who owns 'me'?'
A leader leads. Unless I'm a puppy, I don't have my very own designated leader. Our leader is to lead 'us' not 'me' or 'I' because, let's face it (and as hard as it is to believe) I'm NOT the only person on the face of the earth.
There is something approaching seven billion individuals on the Earth and not a 'WE' or 'US' anywhere to be found (except in the heads of folks who 'want' to be part of something bigger).
I'm not interested in being a component of 'WE', so, I don't need to be led.
I understand lots of folks 'do' want (or need) to be led...great and fine...*just leave me out of it.
*Which, of course, is a clear violation of how cogism works.
Cogism demands the participation of every last man, woman, and child.
Deviancy is discouraged and punished.
Though it has little to do with President Obama, where do you place "society" on the scale from seven billion individuals and cogism, henry quirk?
Ants have *societies; human individuals (should, I think) engage in *civilization.
Don't know that I answered your question (directly, anyway).
*shrug*
*each one servicing all others.
**the on-going, ill-defined, result of at least two individuals agreeing not to steal from one another, not to hurt/rape one another, not to kill one another, so that each can go and do something other than (constantly and overtly) self-defending al the time.
WE will accomplish more than Henry Quirk singularly will.
@Dani: If you haven't already seen it, the PBS Frontline story
Top Secret America (Premiere Date: 09/06/2011 -
video|
transcript) may help you further sort things out.
Here's an excerpt:
"
RICHARD CLARKE, White House Terrorism Advisor, 1998-01: So in the past, covert action was done by CIA. The President had to approve covert action and notify the Congress. Now a lot of what looks like the same sort of thing, covert action, is done by JSOC. Now they say when they do it, it’s not covert action. It’s a military operation. So the president does not by law have to approve every operation and the intelligence committees are not notified.
NARRATOR: Then in Afghanistan, a story circulated that Rumsfeld wanted to use JSOC forces on a new battlefield, Iraq.
GARY SCHROEN, CIA, 1970-02: You could see changes being made in the U.S. military staffing in Afghanistan, that the Green Beret units, the 5th Special Forces group for the most part were being pulled out to refit and get ready for Iraq. And it was clear that the kind of guys that I think a lot of us believed were essential U.S. military personnel with special operations capabilities were being pulled away.
MICHAEL SCHEUER, Former CIA Officer: By 2002 in the springtime, it was almost taken for granted that we were going to go to war with Iraq.
NARRATOR: The president needed a convincing reason for war with Saddam Hussein. George Tenet and the CIA said they had no evidence Saddam had helped al Qaeda, but Secretary Rumsfeld did. A secret unit at the Pentagon claimed it had found a connection.
MELVIN GOODMAN, Fmr. CIA Officer: They needed an office that would produce the intelligence that the CIA wouldn’t produce. Rumsfeld said, “I can solve your problem,” and they created the Office of Special Plans.
DANIEL BENJAMIN, Nat’l Security Council, 1994-99: So they’re going to do their own analysis. They’re going to show what the CIA’s been missing all along about the true relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.
NARRATOR: They worked in a vault deep inside the Pentagon. They had what is known as “all source clearances”─ total access to intelligence information.
F. MICHAEL MALOOF, Defense Dept., 1982-04: I went into the system, our classified system, to see what did we know about terrorist groups and their relationships, as well as their connection, associations with not only al Qaeda, but also with state sponsors.
NARRATOR: The information was rarely vetted. Instead, it moved up the chain of command to the office of the vice president.
MELVIN GOODMAN: And this became material that was then used, sort of in white paper-like fashion, to be leaked to journalists or to create links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
NARRATOR: It was delivered to the American public and the world.
Vice Pres. DICK CHENEY: New information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq on the one hand and the al Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years.
NARRATOR: And they began relying on a new phrase, “weapons of mass destruction.”
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, National Security Adviser: ─nuclear weapons, but we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
COLIN POWELL, Secretary of State: Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.
NEWSCASTER: A rapid series of 40 explosions lit up Baghdad in the early morning hours.
NEWSCASTER: Military officials have been using the term “shock and awe” to describe the assault on Iraq.
NARRATOR: By the spring of 2003, the U.S. had attacked Iraq."
The very fact that we are STILL :repuke: discussing this 8 years on, means that it is a question upon which intelligent people can disagree.
@ Dana - that was some nice research there. I was espescially interested in Sabri's role. I had heard of him, but was only vaguely aware of his contribution to the Great Lie about Iraq.
If the US had been a less powerful country, there is not a doubt in my mind that Bush, not to mention his chief generals and cabinet members would have been tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague. And then there was the torture, but I digress.
I mostly respond to Merc's posts because they give me an excuse to spend some time researching the current political scene and I REALLY want him to answer my question about how he squares his own ethics with the dismantling of the social safety net here in the US.
I imagine he will respond to your excellent research by calling you the worst expletive in his vocabulary - a blank, blank LIBERAL! :eek: And of course, Obama as a leader rivals only Adolf Hitler in his misgovernment of the US. :rolleyes:
It's God Damn fools.
God Damn's convention is to alway be capitalized.
Don't know why I can't be a God Damn Fool. At least it 'feels' like a real title, something I could wear on a sash or have embroidered onto a jacket or (NOOOOOOOOOO) get a tattoo of.
:lol:
‎
Solyndra
"The DOE pushed the loans through. At the time, it was seen as a great use of stimulus funds. The funds would help build the factories, creating construction jobs, and would then lead to more jobs within the factory itself. It was a perfect photo opportunity.
Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, warned Solyndra had not been properly vetted. “For months, we have been investigating how and why nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money was committed to this financially troubled company” he said.
There has been some talk that the loan was related to President Obama’s relationship with philanthropist George Kaiser, who is also a major investor in Solyndra. Kaiser raised money for Obama’s election."
Link
Some video coverage from ABC
here
This could be rather damaging to the "different than the last guy" or the "transparent" administration. The timing isn't so good either. I wonder if this is simply one bad deal of many or if there is a trend. It seems there are a couple other solar companies who received stimulus money which failed a well.
I applaud the administration for investing in renewable energies, but this instance looks more like a payback to a major campaign contributor.
‎snip--
this instance looks more like a payback to a major campaign contributor.
Is this your smoking gun?
The primary investors in Solyndra were funds tied to a major Obama fundraising bundler, Tulsa oilman George Kaiser.
Pretty thin evidence so far for a claim of quid pro quo. Did you read about chain of events that have to happen for the government to realize a loss? It is not a foregone conclusion. Or, are you suggesting that Obama directs loan guarantees to campaign contributors, regardless of the success of those contributors' business successes or not? Payback, really?
Smoking gun? Please, don't insult me. I'm not looking for a smoking gun.
Did you read about chain of events that have to happen for the government to realize a loss?
Did you read that the loans were restructures so the private investors get repaid first? AFTER they admin knew this company was going under?
Did you read where their price point was $3.00 when their actual cost was $6.00? Who the heck would invest in that business model?
are you suggesting that Obama directs loan guarantees to campaign contributors, regardless of the success of those contributors' business successes or not?
Read the facts, watch the reportS and draw your own conclusions. From what I read, it appears to be a very real
possibility that his agenda overrode the reality that this company was not a good viable investment from the very beginning.
Payback, really?
Do you really think that paybacks are an unusual part of Gov't? Are you so idealistic that you cannot believe that could possibly happen? Why? Because he is on your team? Because that would make him no better than the R's you so despise?
Seems like the emails
suggest there may be something more to it. It's only day 2 ...
So, I got curious about what all the excitement was about and Googled Kaiser. It would appear that he does indeed own a 35% share in the failed company. Kaiser is also like one of the 400 richest people in the country. His views seem to be fairly liberal despite this fact (take THAT, Merc!). Kaiser has indeed been a big supporter of both Obama and the Democratic Party. I have to say that this looks suspicious to me. Just one more example of a billionaire buying himself some influence.
However, according to Forbes, Kaiser’s heart seems to be in the right place:
Kaiser’s focus remains on early intervention in the cycle of poverty. Giving through his Tulsa-based foundation provides services that include early childhood education, pre-natal health care, public health, in-home parenting, and secondary education, as well as more generalized safety net services that deal with the symptoms of poverty. More recent initiatives have focused on women's incarceration, secondary schools, and reserving land to create an arts and entertainment district in Tulsa. The biggest payout may be yet to come: Kaiser has said he plans to increase his gifts "until I die with one dollar left, assuming I can get the timing just right."
Then I did some more research and discovered that the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame had invested 10%. Not as much as Kaiser, but still… Wal-Mart has traditionally been a big contributor to the Conservative cause, including the Tea Party. In the last election, Wal-Mart sent contributions the Democrat’s way. However the majority of their largess still went to right wing candidates.
So maybe Obama was playing a little game of “Gotcha!” with Wal-Mart. I imagine that if I had the patience to do the research, I could make as good a case for this as the one for Obama paying off Kaiser with a federal plum.
Here’s what Wal Mart Watch.org had to say about the Walton family and their company. I have no idea how valid their statements are, but it certainly does add some spice to the mix. Reminds me of the old “Spy vs. Spy” in Mad Magazine:
Other big backers included Madrone Partners, a venture capital firm affiliated with the Walton family of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., with an 11 percent stake, and U.S. Venture Partners at 10.19 percent, CNN Money reported.
The Wal Mart PAC and Walton family spent nearly twice as much on Republican candidates and leadership PACs in the Senate compared to those of Democrats. In the Senate races, 35% of contributions went to Democrats and 63% went to Republicans…
While the company may have convinced some in recent years that its political contributions are nonpartisan, the Wal Mart PAC and Walton family have clearly continued to support conservative candidates whose ideologies and votes on key issues are not on the side of Wal Mart’s core customers (or associates) at all.
http://walmartwatch.org/files/2011/06/WW-Political-Giving_0602.pdf
The more of this stuff I read, the more cynical I become. When are Americans going to wake up to the fact that we are a democracy in name only? The governance of this country would be better described as a plutocracy.
I spent a little time on this as well. Here is what I found. From a rather partisan site, but the info corroborated what I saw elsewhere and was neatly organized.
The Waltons lean to being Republicans. S. Robson Walton himself seems to have given almost exclusively to Republicans over the years but made a notable exception in 2008 to none other than Barack Obama. Here is Walton's record of giving.
Furthermore, it turns out that Madrone and officials of Madrone have been donors to Obama and his Inaugural.
For instance, Greg Penner (an executive of Madrone and a former executive of Walmart, but not a family member) gave to Max Baucus, one of the most powerful Democratic Senators and the Chairman of the committee responsible for drafting taxes and working on the budget. The vast majority of the other giving by Penner has been to Republicans.
Politics make strange bedfellows, and none stranger than when crony capitalism rears its ugly head. The Waltons are known to be astute investors, and while Solyndra is one of their losers, their investment in Barack Obama seems to be paying off.
What partisan hyperbolic types forget to mention: nine of every ten innovative investments fail. One big one failed. So politics take cheapshots rather than look for the rare solution that actually succeeds.
Find the exception. Then hype it excessively using 'brainwashing by soundbyte' logic. Most investments in truly innovative technologies fail. Why do so many of those partisan sites forget the numbers? A political agenda. Subjective reasoning could even prove Saddam had WMDs. Rush Limbaugh selective reasoning is alive and well.
partisan hyperbolic type
see post 1363
As if tw believes in things that sensible and well-advised people believe in anyway, as singularly incapable of politics as he is. He seems pointedly not to consider that the photovoltaic technology used by Solyndra is not anything radical nor too new. I don't think we can lay its failure at that door.
But, to the advancing of the discussion:
Did 'W' Squander 9/11 Unity?
But, to the advancing of the discussion: Did 'W' Squander 9/11 Unity?
I think we all squandered it in the intensity of the Iraqi run up. We're paying for that now. Had Bush focused on Afghanistan and made sure everyone had skin in the game (raised taxes and instituted military [strike]slavery[/strike] draft) we may not have gotten to the point where nutters across the spectrum could dictate to moderates, who want only to live in a fair stable society, how our country is to be run.
I believe there is a solid connection between the idea of "squandered" and the advice of "Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed."
The focus to the citizens of the nation was "business as usual" with the emphasis on business. It was not a call to focus out attention and energy and resources on a war effort, but to maintain a (what was an unsustainable) economic trajectory. Since we hadn't yet run out of bigger fools, this worked for a while longer.
Yeah. He did squander our unity.
More and more of this is showing up in more and more of the media. It makes "O in 2012" writers less and less and less credible as thinkers.
It's also been pointed out that such unity would have been in any case transitory. My unity with W's kind of ideas was of course not squandered, but then too I am not prejudiced against Republicans like some thoughtless people are.
More and more of this is showing up in more and more of the media.
Sorry, but if you think more and more of that kind of thing is showing up in the media, then you are sadly mistaken. There are more extremist blogs out now, as they appear to have finally figured out how to use a computer.
If there were more and more and more of the really thoughtful people and less and less and less of the mindless sheep-thinkers we'd have more and more and more wealth and more and more security and more and more dog-fearing real citizens would have more and more freedom to exercise their abilities of which they have more and more of. Consequently, there would be less and less of the losers and less and less of the stupid and less and less of the lesser types who more and more threaten to turn this country into more and more of a socialist regime and less and less of a moral upstanding land where more and more of the decent folks can live in less and less fear of the lesser among us.
Is that it?
Yep, that's it in a nut's hell.
UG, you're wrong. There is not more of anything like what you linked to in sane, reasonable conversations. If this is typical of the kind of material you expose yourself to, then it could be true, but you have sadly confused cause and effect. This is the "kool-aid" people talk about. Stop putting it into your system. Dilute it with more, much more of (practically any) other stuff. I listen to Fox radio programming regularly and I do hear talk like this "Why is Obama destroying the economy?!" and other ridiculous crap like that.
You can talk yourself into believing, and this is a great way to do it. I think you are already well along this path. But you will have to travel this path to delusion alone, I will only watch you from an increasing distance as you fade into irrelevancy. Your intellect will be missed, but not the ill you bent it toward.
Took you a while to reply, didn't it.
Yea, I work long hours days at a time. I don't come here everyday.
Plausible deniability is not good enough when it comes to casus belli.
But hey, you have fun painting Obama as a liar and a cheat.
Bottom line... no proof Bush lied about the run up to Iraq. If anyone were to blame I would put more blame on Cheney for many of the problems....
speaking of bottom lines--the clip you posted where you claim Obama lied, I'm still waiting for your response. Well?
[YOUTUBE]K8E_zMLCRNg[/YOUTUBE]
Anyone but Obama in 2012...
[YOUTUBE]8EL5Atp_vF0[/YOUTUBE]
President Zero.... I like it. That is his new name. :D
Oops, Obama touts his jobs plan today at an Ohio bridge that won't qualify
You know all those rusting bridges that President Obama wants to spend billions more dollars repairing to allegedly stimulate the economy?
He's headed out to one today which he's described as a "bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that's on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America." It is on a busy trucking route, spanning the Ohio River between Covington, Ky., and Cincinnati.
It's the Brent Spence Bridge. It doesn't really need repairs. It's got decades of good life left in its steel spans. It's just overloaded. The bridge was built to handle 85,000 cars and trucks a day, which seemed like a lot back during construction in the Nixon era.
Today, the bridge sort of handles more than 150,000 vehicles a day with frequent jam-ups.
So, plans are not to repair or replace the Brent Spence Bridge. But to build another bridge nearby to ease the loads.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-plan-brent-spence-bridge-cincinnati.htmlSeems like a new bridge is needed. Whats the issue?
IT'S NOT THAT BRIDGE HE'S LYING!!!!!!
Who wrote that article, some 5th grader from Kentucky?
Today, the bridge sort of handles more than 150,000 vehicles a day with frequent jam-ups.
and
So, plans are not to repair or replace the Brent Spence Bridge. But to build another bridge nearby to ease the loads.
The bridge
sort of handles 20,000 Alien Aircraft a day, also, and 154 Weinermobiles.
I start sentences with conjunctions in informal writing, and I know it's casual. I'm not trying to write professionally.
Any moron can be a 'journalist' these days.
Seems like a new bridge is needed. Whats the issue?
Actually what they need is another bridge. The bridge is fine.
Who wrote that article, some 5th grader from Kentucky?
Consider where it was written. :)
:)
I know the Brent Spence bridge. I've driven on the Brent Spence bridge. You, other bridge in need of repairs, are no Brent Spence bridge. :lol:
Actually what they need is another bridge. The bridge is fine.
...and from your link:
So, plans are not to repair or replace the Brent Spence Bridge.
But to build another bridge nearby to ease the loads.
Again.. whats your issue?
No doubt, but at what price?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, that’s just a coincidence. (Laughter.) Purely accidental that that happened. (Laughter.) But part of the reason I came here is because Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, those are the two most powerful Republicans in government.
They can either kill this jobs bill, or they can help pass this jobs bill. (Applause.) And I know these men care about their states. They care about businesses; they care about workers here.
I can’t imagine that the Speaker wants to represent a state where nearly one in four bridges are classified as substandard -- one in four. I know that when Senator McConnell visited the closed bridge in Kentucky, he said that, “Roads and bridges are not partisan in Washington.” That’s great.
I know that Paul Ryan, the Republican in charge of the budget process, recently said that "you can’t deny that infrastructure does creates jobs." That's what he said.
Well, if that’s the case, there’s no reason for Republicans in Congress to stand in the way of more construction projects. There’s no reason to stand in the way of more jobs.
Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell, help us rebuild this bridge. (Applause.) Help us rebuild America. Help us put construction workers back to work. (Applause.) Pass this bill.
President Zero should be better informed...
And again.....
New gaffe: Obama hails America's historic building of 'the Intercontinental Railroad'
That's what the president of the United States flat-out said Thursday during what was supposed to be a photo op to sell his jobs plan next to an allegedly deteriorating highway bridge.
A railroad between continents? A railroad from, say, New York City all the way across the Atlantic to France? Now, THAT would be a bridge!
It's yet another humorous gaffe by the Harvard graduate, overlooked by most media for whatever reason. Like Obama saying Abraham-Come-Lately Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party. Or Navy corpseman. Or the Austrian language. Fifty-seven states. The president of Canada. Etc.
If you talk as much as this guy likes to talk instead of governing, if you believe you are a Real Good Talker as much as this guy does, you're gonna blow a few lines. But this many?
No doubt, we'll see a collection of Obama's Best Bombs on 'Saturday Night Live' this weekend, one right after the other. No doubt.
Like I said, President Zero should be better informed... I thought we did away with this stuff when Bush left office.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-gaffe-jobs-act-speech-brent-spence-bridge-ohio.htmlNo doubt, but at what price?
The same price. Or lower, due to economy of scale. And we'll get more value than we pay for. We'll get a sense of community, of comradery, of friendship. We rule!
Seems like a new bridge is needed. Whats the issue?
I bet we could pick one up for them cheap, sort of like SF did, from CHINA!
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/09/liberal-san-francisco-buys-new-bridge-from-china.html"The same price. Or lower, due to economy of scale."
Talking in terms of 'gold': I'm sure you're right...however: I wasn't talking 'price' in that sense.
The price I ask about is the price to one's 'self'.
For many, it seems, 'self' is an easy commodity to trade away.
For a few, 'self' is the first, best, property.
Gold is easy...'self' is not.
*shrug*
#
"...a sense of community, of comradery, of friendship."
All: very nice...mind the price, though!
#
"We rule!"
Yes, unfortunately, 'WE' does.
The price I ask about is the price to one's 'self'.
For many, it seems, 'self' is an easy commodity to trade away.
For a few, 'self' is the first, best, property.
Are you saying that one's self is less when one gives? When one shares, cooperates, unites? I'll bet you've never been in a satisfying marriage or domestic relationship, have you?
"Are you saying that one's self is less when one gives?"
Giving is voluntary: there's much value in giving (and in the discretion employed about 'what' to give and 'who' to give to).
The dissolving of boundaries demanded by 'WE' is another matter entirely.
#
"I'll bet you've never been in a satisfying marriage or domestic relationship, have you?"
A wholly irrelevant and undeserved assessment masquerading as a question.
Thanks for that…remind me to return the favor someday.
Thats effed up Merc, but a different issue entirely.
Again, whats your issue with building a needed new bridge?
Thats effed up Merc, but a different issue entirely.
Again, whats your issue with building a needed new bridge?
Dude! Read my lips...
Obama stood in front of a bridge and claimed some bullshit position on his continually failed plan of "shovel Ready Jobs" about how he wants to fix and repair a bridge that does not and will not qualify for the funds, he should just shoot himself in the foot, no one who is in the "Know" says his plan will do what he says it will do, all the while railing on "Millionaires and Billionaires" but really taxing people who make more than 200k, so he is fomenting class warfare to pander to his base. This God Damm Fool is duping the electorate to get them to vote for him, nothing more, nothing less. The guy is nothing more than a scumbag politician no different from anyone else, Republickin or Demoncrat. He is not a God. He is not the Messiah. He is attempting to be re-elected. He is President Zero....
Yes, unfortunately, 'WE' does.
Well actually not true.
A Republic, not a Democracy. (THANK frigging God!)
200k is 8X the average income. Not Uber-rich, but still wealthy.
Its all a matter of perspective.
Absolutely....
So far, as I have asked this question numerous time on this forum, define "Wealth"... Zippy the Pin Head finally stepped up to the plate and stated, "Anyone who makes more than me", which confirms my feelings... it is nothing short of Class Warfare.
OK - you tell me. What is your $$$ for someone to be considered wealthy?
Personally, I think raising the income tax on them will be far less effective than raising the capital gains tax. THAT is where the Uber-rich derive their wealth. Additionally, I would adjust the alternative minimum wage. Increasing both the minimum income adn the percentage. No more free rides.
Define "class warfare"... (other than as a Repubican bullet item)
See what you did now Lamp - you scared him off.
Oooops... that was not intended.
Giving is voluntary: there's much value in giving (and in the discretion employed about 'what' to give and 'who' to give to).
The dissolving of boundaries demanded by 'WE' is another matter entirely.
In my definition of "we", "we" is totally voluntary. If you are a citizen of the USA, you are a part of a "we". There is no I in USA. You are part of a communtiy that takes care of each other, or at least should. My taxes go to help those in need from the fires in Texas, floods and hurricaine in the northeast, earthquake in the mid Atlantic, mudslides in California. I pay taxes voluntarily. I hope that if I am in need, my fellow citizens will be just as generous. My taxes also go to plenty of programs that I don't like, but maybe you do. And I pay those taxes voluntarily, as well. That's what a community, a society, a
relationship is all about.
A wholly irrelevant and undeserved assessment masquerading as a question.
Thanks for that…remind me to return the favor someday.
I apologize if I offended you, but I believe that when "self" is as important to someone as it appears to be to you, you can't allow a partner to be satisfied or fulfilled, and so cannot have a true "marriage". Your "self" will always drive those people away.
OK - you tell me. What is your $$$ for someone to be considered wealthy?
Personally, I think raising the income tax on them will be far less effective than raising the capital gains tax. THAT is where the Uber-rich derive their wealth. Additionally, I would adjust the alternative minimum wage. Increasing both the minimum income adn the percentage. No more free rides.
Waiting for those who rail against it to define it. I can assure you that unlike President Zero I don't think people who make over 250K millionaires and billionaires...
"Millionaire" is a measure of wealth, not income. Plenty of people making over $250K have over $1 million net worth.
But that's beside the point. The proposed millionaire tax is on income over $1 million. If someone with enough income over $1 million per year to care about the tax isn't a millionaire, then taxes aren't their problem.
"Millionaire" is a measure of wealth, not income. Plenty of people making over $250K have over $1 million net worth.
But that's beside the point. The proposed millionaire tax is on income over $1 million. If someone with enough income over $1 million per year to care about the tax isn't a millionaire, then taxes aren't their problem.
President Zero uses the term "the wealthy" at every chance he gets...
"A millionaire (originally and sometimes still millionnaire[1]) is an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million units of currency." wiki.
"Millionaire" is a measure of wealth, not income. Plenty of people making over $250K have over $1 million net worth.
How many? Does that include those who make over $1 million? Maybe that's what Zero is doing, guessing there are plenty of people who make over $250k are actually closet millionaires.
are you being deliberately dumb about this? If so, you're doing a remarkable job of it.
I'm tired of giving your crap the time of day when you act this way. When you just call names and holler making outrageous and unhelpful statements... I'm done trying to have a serious dialog when only one of us is serious. Get back to me when you grow up.
Just how long do you expect to live?
KIDDING. I KID. I got no dog in this race, and even if I did he'd probably maul somebody.
;)
are you being deliberately dumb about this? If so, you're doing a remarkable job of it.
I'm tired of giving your crap the time of day when you act this way. When you just call names and holler making outrageous and unhelpful statements... I'm done trying to have a serious dialog when only one of us is serious. Get back to me when you grow up.
Ask HM those questions, I was only answering his comments.
And you obviously have a problem with that.
Why should I have a serious dialog with a person, you, who thinks they know everything already and need not look at what other people post to support their positions? You mind is much more closed than you let yourself on to be...
Just how long do you expect to live?
KIDDING. I KID. I got no dog in this race, and even if I did he'd probably maul somebody.
;)
This long:
{-----------------------------------------------------------------> x 1 million pi + the speed of light to the 2 millionth power-------}
Ask HM those questions, I was only answering his comments.
And you obviously have a problem with that.
Why should I have a serious dialog with a person, you, who thinks they know everything already and need not look at what other people post to support their positions? You mind is much more closed than you let yourself on to be...
I conclude from this reply that you aren't being deliberately dumb on this subject, therefore, there must be some other explanation, like you really do not understand the difference between wealth and income. That's fine, fine, really, you have lots and lots of company.
As for what I obviously have a problem with... I have a problem attempting to have a serious conversation about a serious subject with someone, you, who regularly uses language that I left behind on the playground. president zero, republickins, demoncrats, etc ad nauseam. It's childish and disrespectful. Disrespectful to me because you are acting like this is the kind of language *I* use to think critically. I don't. And that is the part I have a problem with. I can't have a conversation with someone who persists in using that kind of language.
You're right, my mind is closed in this regard. I close my mind to the words of a child that is having a tantrum and says things that are clearly untrue, clearly emotionally saturated. If I didn't I'd be at risk of being drawn into an argument on those terms. What could be the best possible outcome of such an indulgence on my part? That you would actually persuade me that the Democrats are really demons? Or that Republicans lick pubes (I hear a long U sound when you use that way). Really? I mean, let's say we get into it and you WIN! What has been accomplished? Not a fucking thing. That's why I won't engage you until you start talking like a grown up. Or I lose my cool and start spouting playground insults.
As for why you should have a serious dialog with me, my answer is that by means of a serious dialog, each of us has a chance to learn something we didn't know before. Your idea that I think I already know everything would be very early on that list of things you could learn, if we only had a serious conversation. I wonder if you are referring to a recent set of posts and links from politifact discussing taxation. In that case, I did already know the things I posted about before I read the information at that link. What I read confirmed what I'd already said.
It is a measure of my open mindedness that I have let you throw so much trash in it. I'm closing my mind to more of your garbage.
Motto of the Cellar Politics Forum:
"I'm right and the rest of you are incredibly stupid."
That's what makes the "discussions" around here so compelling.
Eh? What?
[YOUTUBE]H1_QXkwBrt4[/YOUTUBE]
Interesting. I've seen that before. Let me ask you UT, do you think I've treated TheMercenary terribly?
I stopped watching at number 2.
'They' ARE idiots. ;)
(disclaimer: 'they' in no way refers to any individual or entity that you know of, and these views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Cellar. Content may not be duplicated without the express written consent of 'them')
well, then you tuned out before she said the third conclusion is that "they" are evil, then said this strong attachment to our sense of being "right" causes us to treat others terribly.
this is what I was asking about.
Afterward do we get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya?
'Cause I really need me some Kumbaya.
:p:
I posted it before. It references the forum motto "I'm right and the rest of you are incredibly stupid."
Do you think I've treated TheMercenary terribly?
I think it's probably a good approach, to not consider people's arguments on a matter when they don't approach it in an adult way.
Most people here do not approach the discussions in an adult way.
But, you know what? Some people ARE stupid.
Seriously. Why do you think they 'measure' intelligence?
And stupid people are easily swayed...so...
If some moron said "duhhhhh the world is flat" am I supposed to nod and politely tell them I disagree but it's just that we DIFFER not that the dumbass is WRONG. ;)
well, then you tuned out before she said the third conclusion is that "they" are evil, then said this strong attachment to our sense of being "right" causes us to treat others terribly.
this is what I was asking about.
I didn't watch yet.
If someone who endorses policies that are in direct conflict with my well-being, they
are evil. If those people achieve their goals, it will be to my detriment.
I posted it before. It references the forum motto "I'm right and the rest of you are incredibly stupid."
I think it's fair game to not consider people who don't approach discussions in an adult way.
I think that could apply to most people here.
Including you.
We're imperfect fucking assholes.
So what? Who isn't?
But at least we're not stupid.
I didn't watch yet.
If someone who endorses policies that are in direct conflict with my well-being, they are evil. If those people achieve their goals, it will be to my detriment.
Are they still evil if said policies are for the betterment of more than just you?
Isn't that what all conflict IS though?
You think it's harmful (probably to you) and I think it's beneficial in some way (probably for me).
Or vice versa.
I'm not opposed to conflict.
Conflict for the sport of conflict, even. But that should be restricted to sporting events, or sparring, or other forms of vigorous exercise. But conflict in the name of some greater purpose, political, social, economic, whatever, those kinds of conflict should be conducted within certain boundaries, preferably mutually agreed upon boundaries. This makes for fair fights. Now before I'm laughed off the stage for believing in, much less desiring fair fighting, I submit that we all have a concept of fairness. We usually notice it when our opponent has breached it, but we have it and we work with it. Think about it--you don't solve all your problems with summary executions, effective (and justifiable) though it may be. It is the method that I have recently objected to, not the objective.
I like learning. When I'm learning, I'm in conflict with my own ignorance, my own bad habits, maybe with other people who hold different positions from mine, and I have to try to overcome these opposing forces if I'm going to learn anything. I have standards though, which I explained earlier.
Conflict is not just ok, it is necessary. Without friction, we would get nowhere. But the end does not justify all means.
If some moron said "duhhhhh the world is flat" am I supposed to nod and politely tell them I disagree but it's just that we DIFFER not that the dumbass is WRONG. ;)
WHat!?!!? The world is not flat?!?!? Oh hell....:p:
Hmmmm.....
WASHINGTON (AP) -- To the dismay of consumer groups and the discomfort of Democrats, President Barack Obama wants Congress to make it easier for private debt collectors to call the cellphones of consumers delinquent on student loans and other billions owed the federal government.
The change "is expected to provide substantial increases in collections, particularly as an increasing share of households no longer have landlines and rely instead on cellphones," the administration wrote recently. The little-noticed recommendation would apply only to cases in which money is owed the government, and is tucked into the mammoth $3 trillion deficit-reduction plan the president submitted to Congress.
Despite the claim, the administration has not yet developed an estimate of how much the government would collect, and critics reject the logic behind the recommendation.
"Enabling robo-calls (to cellphones) is just going to lead to more harassment and abuse, and it's not going to help the government collect more money," said Lauren Saunders of the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. "People aren't paying their student loans because they can't find a job."
Whatever the impact on the budget deficit, the proposal has aligned the White House with the private debt collection industry - frequently the subject of consumer complaints - at a time when the economy is weak, unemployment is high and Obama is embarking on his campaign for re-election.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEBT_COLLECTORS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-04-06-36-08Man, that's really digging. I never answer automated calls of ANY kind. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a computer. If I can hang up on those calls from my land line, I can sure as hell hang up on them from my cell, too. I bet I'm not alone either. BFD :eyebrow:
I think people should own their debts and pay them off. I just don't think these organizations should be able to have and share my personal info, cell phone number, across the board and I don't think government should have to authority to do it.
Is this your smoking gun?
no, again not looking for one. Just a search for the truth.
MSNBC report via CNBC
“Nearly eight months into our investigation, documents provided to the Committee last Friday confirm those closest to the President — top advisors like Valerie Jarrett, Larry Summers, and Ron Klain — had direct involvement in the Solyndra mess,” said Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL), explaining the expansion of the document request. “In addition to the cast of West Wing characters with access to the Oval Office, documents reveal a startlingly cozy relationship between wealthy donors and the President’s confidantes, especially in matters related to Solyndra.”
Official in charge of energy loans resigns
Solyndra officials plead the 5th...
Another piece of the puzzle.
Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, worked as a partner at the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm when President Obama nominated her for her current job. The same firm now represents Solyndra Chief Executive Brian Harrison.
Haag must refrain from participating in any matter related to her former employer for two years, under a broad ethics pledge promulgated by Obama that applies to executive appointees.
Haag declined to comment on Solyndra on Wednesday.
The Department of Energy's clean energy loan program also triggered a recusal promise from Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a state court judge nominated by Obama for the federal bench in Northern California. Her husband, Matt Rogers, oversaw DOE's grant and loan program before returning to McKinsey & Company.
ReutersSolyndra loan supported by Obama fundraiser
A prominent 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser who held a key role in the Energy Department played an active part in Solyndra's $535 million loan guarantee despite conflict of interest concerns over his wife's work at a law firm that also represented the California solar company, according to internal Obama administration emails released Friday.
Link New Obama metric: “Jobs supported”
Old and busted: Jobs “saved or created.” New hotness: Jobs “supported.” In attempting to advance the argument for Barack Obama’s new jobs stimulus plan, the White House has decided to create a new term that has, er, even less meaning than their previous measure:
The American Jobs Act Will Support Nearly 400,000 Education Jobs—Preventing Layoffs and Allowing Thousands More to Be Hired or Rehired: The President’s plan will more than offset projected layoffs, providing support for nearly 400,000 education jobs—enough for states to avoid harmful layoffs and rehire tens of thousands of teachers who lost their jobs over the past three years.
How exactly did the White House come up with its new metric? Chuck Blahous gives us a detailed analysis of exactly how they crafted this measure to be, well, unmeasurable:
To start the process of estimating educator jobs at risk, the Administration refers to a June, 2011 paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a left-of-center think tank). This paper quantifies recent and projected shortfalls in state budgets.
The Administration then makes various assumptions about how the projected shortfalls would be filled. In effect, they assume first that shortfalls would be filled by a combination of tax increases and spending reductions, and then that spending cuts would be applied proportionally across all categories including education. As the Administration materials state, “These spending reduction numbers were then converted into estimates of educator jobs at risk based on estimates of average teacher compensation by state. These calculations implied that, if spending reductions had their full negative impact on education staffing, up to 280,000 educator jobs across the country would be at risk in the 2011-2012 school year.”
The Administration then points to $30 billion in spending contained in the proposed American Jobs Act. The purpose of this spending, as specified in the bill text, is to “prevent teacher layoffs and support the creation of additional jobs in public early childhood, elementary, and secondary education in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years.”
Does this give readers a sense of deja vu? The block grants in Porkulus also assumed that states would simply lay off teachers and first responders as a result of large-scale budget deficits in the throes of the Great Recession. That’s where jobs “saved and created” originated; Obama and his team meant public-sector employees in states and local governments. Only those organizations employ a lot more people than just teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; most states have vast bureaucracies that ended up getting “saved” thanks to the infusion of cash that allowed legislatures to put off tough decisions on the size and nature of government during the economic crisis.
hotair.com
Talk about Fear Mongering! Holy shit, someone needs to stuff a sock in that fools mouth....
"I think it would be hard to find anyone that doesn't agree," White House press secretary Carney said about Joe Biden's remark that rapes will increase if Congress does not pass Obama's latest stimulus bill.
Carney was asked about Vice President Joe Biden saying rapes and murders will rise if the president's jobs bill is not passed.
"I think everyone will agree with the equation that fewer police officers on the street has a direct effect on the crime rate. We saw this in the 1990's. I do know that any lawmaker up on Capitol Hill will contest that simple fact or any American who makes that assessment in their local communities. Would you want fewer or more law enforcement officers on the job? Do you think that having more officers on the job would have a positive impact on crime? That is the point that the President absolutely shares," Carney said.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/20/carney_obama_absolutely_agrees_that_without_jobs_bill_rapes_will_rise.htmlMaybe at some point a reporter will ask Carney why there are fewer police on the streets today and they’re seeking billions more when the sales pitch for the original stimulus was that billions of those dollars would put more cops on the job.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-28/politics/police.stimulus_1_officers-for-three-years-police-officers-law-enforcement?_s=PM%3APOLITICS
Oh, btw, they never paid for that and those jobs never materialized.
President Obama unveiled his new plan to “ensure students are able to commit to higher levels of federally backed student loans.”
Essentially, the president has just offered a college student bailout as the finial initiative of his “We Can’t Wait” economic plan.
Two key provisions offered in the plan (as pointed out by Business Insider):
People who hold both government-backed private sector student loans and direct loans issued by the government will be able to consolidate those debts in one government-backed loan, thereby lowering interest rates and reducing monthly payments. The administration estimates this will affect about 5.8 million people.
The plan will accelerate income-based payment programs already passed by Congress, which allow college graduates to cap their payments at 10 percent of their income, rather than the existing 15 percent cap. Under Obama’s executive rollout, the new cap, originally scheduled to take effect in 2014, will take effect in 2013 for an estimated 1.6 million students and recent graduates.
But will these provisions really come close to dealing with the nearly $1 trillion in outstanding college debt? Some reports say “not even close.”
Daniel Indiviglio of The Atlantic put together an interesting report that calculates the impact of the president’s proposals:
Consolidation: The first would clearly be the most significant [impact], because it is aimed at helping more student loan borrowers. How much would an interest rate reduction of up to 0.5 percent affect payments?
For the average borrower, the impact would be small. In 2011, Bachelor’s degree recipients graduating with debt had an average balance of $27,204, according to an analysis done by finaid.org, based on Department of Education data. That average has ballooned from just $17,646 over the past decade.
Using these values as the high and low bounds of average student debt over the last ten years, the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month. Clearly, this isn’t going to save the economy.
Payment Limits: . . . the government already has a program for borrowers to reduce their student loan payments to a ceiling of 15 percent of their income. At this time, just 450,000 borrowers are participating. Clearly, all of those participants would benefit from lowering the max payment to 10 percent. But how many others would?
Student loan balances have really only ballooned over the past decade. So this change would affect very few Americans over the age of 32. For the young adults who it may effect, we must remember that educational attainment has some correlation to income. Those with the most debt will have attended business school, medical school, or law school. Most of those people will also have higher incomes, making them ineligible.
Loan Forgiveness: Of all these parts of Obama’s executive order, the loan forgiveness aspect will have the least impact. By moving the timeline from 25 to 20 years, it could be significant in the long run — but it won’t be felt for decades. Remember, 82 percent of the current student loan debt outstanding was accrued in just the past decade. So it will be at least another 10 years before any of those borrowers have hit the 20-year mark in their student loan payments.
And outside of the fact that his proposals may have little to no economic impact, Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific capital points out that the initiative would actually cause “college tuition increases to not only continue but to accelerate,“ and that ”Obama would be turning higher education in to a third-party payer system (not too dissimilar from our current health care system – which is also characterized by outsized cost increases).”
But what does this mean to the average U.S. taxpayer? Schiff responds:
Under this new system, colleges might charge whatever they want because their customers simply turn the bill over to the U.S. taxpayer who has no say in the transaction. Under such a system what incentive would a kid have to live at home and go to a community college? Why not attend the most expensive university that taxpayer money will allow?
With all of these details taken into account, some have claimed that the introduction of this part of the president’s economic plan is little more than a shrewdly calculated attempt to “reach out to young, educated voters, a key constituency for Obama’s 2008 campaign who now form the core of the Occupy Wall Street movement.”
Link
Well thats a take on this plan I hadn't seen before.
Under this new system, colleges might charge whatever they want because their customers simply turn the bill over to the U.S. taxpayer who has no say in the transaction. Under such a system what incentive would a kid have to live at home and go to a community college? Why not attend the most expensive university that taxpayer money will allow?
Wow, this is some seriously reaching speculation. What do you debate professionals call this tactic?
I'm not surprised, from the link, the first thing I see are big giant ads for Glenn Beck touting Goldline International, said company under investigation for scamming people. Oh, and direct link to listen to Glenn Beck live. All Glenn, All the Time. ;)
http://gawker.com/5591413/glenn-becks-goldline-international-under-investigation
Here are some other facts (not speculation) from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators:
The administration indicated that the .5 percent interest rate reduction incentive for borrowers who consolidate their Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) and Direct Loans will only be offered to a limited pool of borrowers. The incentive will only be available to borrowers who received a federal loan since 2008 and also receive a federal loan in fiscal year (FY) 2012. Eligible borrowers will be notified by the Department and must consolidate between Jan. 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012 because the recent Budget Control Act eliminates the Department’s authority to provide borrower incentives After June 30, 2012. The administration encourages borrowers with FFEL and Direct Loans to wait until Jan. 1, 2012 to consolidate so can benefit from the incentive.
Regarding the more generous IBR terms, the administration says that the plan would not override the current IBR program, but would operate separately. The plan will be a topic at the upcoming loan-related negotiated rulemaking and will likely fall under the “early implementation” provision—meaning that the Department can enact it early. Many specific details are not yet available and will likely not be addressed until negotiated rulemaking and implementation.
Currently, nearly 6 million students have loans from both FFEL and DL servicers. The administration plans to offer repayment incentives for students with split servicers if they move all of their loans over to DL. Students would be able to receive up to a 0.5 percent reduction to the interest rate on some of their loans— .25 percent reduction on consolidated FFEL loans and an another .25 percent reduction on the entire consolidated FFEL and DL balance. The administration has referred to this initiative as a "special" consolidation where students will be able to keep the terms and conditions of their initial loans.
In 2010, Congress passed changes to the IBR program to limit monthly payments to 10 percent of discretionary income (down from the current 15 percent) and forgiving remaining debt after 20 years (down from the current 25 years). The Obama administration hopes to implement these changes, deemed the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) plan, two years ahead of schedule, beginning in 2012.
http://www.nasfaa.org/advocacy/News/Obama_Administration_Provides_Additional_Student_Loan_Plan_Details.aspx
I'm not arguing about whether or not it's a political move. I do not know. But I do know that the article posted is also a political move, from a blogger on an obviously conservative site. It's hardly an exposé about the failures of a plan that isn't even completely hammered out yet.
Thats the point of view the majority has taken. I found the article on FB late at night- didn't see the Beck ads. (sorry)
I guess its all a matter of perspective. If the numbers shake out to be like this part
.. the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month.
I'll lean toward the "political move" camp. I guess every little bit helps. shrug.
Well, sure. And student loans have been under fire for a long time. This is why schools are being required to take default management steps...some pretty difficult to administer. Ugh, are they a pain in the rumpus room.
Yet most of the really big abuses have been from proprietary schools, the very schools that the 'pubs will defend to their deaths.
I don't know the answers though. I'm just a pusher of the paper, in the most ethical and beneficial ways I can...what I can control, that is. ;)
Cost for college are ridiculous. Even with all the support that my kid has gotten, he'll come out owing more than my first mortgage - and he goes to a state school.
The real issue here is more the cost, secondary is how to pay for it.
Thats the point of view the majority has taken. I found the article on FB late at night- didn't see the Beck ads. (sorry)
I guess its all a matter of perspective. If the numbers shake out to be like this part
I'll lean toward the "political move" camp. I guess every little bit helps. shrug.
I'm pretty sure that is wrong. It came from an Atlantic article and someone pointed out the mathematical mistake in the comment section. It is heavily dependent on the person and can really help some people.
Not saying I favor the bill but the math is probably wrong.
For the average borrower, the impact would be small. In 2011, Bachelor’s degree recipients graduating with debt had an average balance of $27,204, according to an analysis done by finaid.org, based on Department of Education data.
I, for example, graduated with no debt. Thereby making the average debt of myself and several other people quite manageable.
Hence I said If
I wasn't attacking you. Just verifying that there probably are mistakes with the math.
Cost for college are ridiculous. Even with all the support that my kid has gotten, he'll come out owing more than my first mortgage - and he goes to a state school.
The real issue here is more the cost, secondary is how to pay for it.
I heard within the last 24 hours that in the last 30 years, higher education has increased 130%, but middle class income has been stagnant.
yup. With two in the middle of it... Its freakin ridiculous.
This is apparently the next bubble to burst.
Will we be bailing out the institutions of higher learning soon?
In the past 30 years, proprietary schools have increased...I don't know, tenfold? In most cases, very high tuition and credits that will never transfer.
Private schools have always been expensive. Community Colleges have always been cheaper. 4 year state schools have always fallen somewhere in the middle.
But beware of the latest Clown College, who will gladly take all your money, give you a subpar Clown education, and you won't be able to go on to your Clown Bachelors or Clown Masters without starting all over.
The proprietary schools will survive (Phoenix, etc) because they advertise.
(small print in ads: "Credits are not usually transferable")
(ads should read: "Credits are not usefully transferable")
Their target audience is the unhappy-employed and jobless.
But this audience doesn't realize they probably will never
earn enough to pay back their loans.
Proprietary schools should not be eligible for governmental student loans.
AGREED! WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
I think it's only recently those disclaimers have been there at all. I hear of commissions for enrollment which relies heavily on pushing loans so students can afford the tuition (forget any extra living expense money for transportation etc) and there have been all kinds of uncoverings of less than ethical practices...which really pisses me off because I am nothing if not ethical.
Ugh, but I better shut it. I don't need the NEXT CORPORATIONS TO GREED UP EVERYTHING jumping bad on me.
Agreed. The useless schools with useless degrees have found their niche as Lamp said.
The rest are still getting crazy. At least around here.
Note that the Comm College costs is based upon living and eating at home.
That brings me to the next insanity --- Books! They come to over $400 a freakin semester.
And when you sell them back - IF IF IF - they take them, you get about 25 cents on the dollar.
Many classes are only accepting new books. Its another racket of its own.
No doubt. And community colleges have stepped up to the plate, offering programs like PSEOP, and offering easily transferable associates degrees, modules, to defray costs before the student goes on to get their bachelor's at a 4 year.
There will always be players, but I think higher ed administrators have an obligation to the taxpayers to not just discourage and root out the players, but to NOT KNOWINGLY DANGLE FAKE CARROTS in the players' faces.
I have zero respect for anyone who does otherwise. I will not be working at Clown College.
Is it possible that part of the rise in college costs is the fact that everyone is expected to go to college now, even when they are not really suited for it, or they are getting a completely useless degree?
They'll charge whatever the market will bear.
The reality that more kid are going only adds to that. Additionally with all the loans the the gov't offers, it makes it easier to raise costs while at the same time people don't feel it till after the fact. Then you end up with so many kids who have degrees (See Clod's point) that the degree's value is vastly diminished. No prob - get a master's or a PhD... more debt .... Then reality hits as the bills come due.
Is it possible that part of the rise in college costs is the fact that everyone is expected to go to college now, even when they are not really suited for it, or they are getting a completely useless degree?
Wss ^
I find this really interesting. This is a real problem in the Uk now. Not in terms of rising college costs, though they are a factor for a different set of reasons, but but in terms of forcing large swathes of youngsters down a university route who could once have entered the field as apprentices or trainees with only college level (pre-bachelors), or school leaver level qualifications.
The last government had the brilliant idea of trying to tackle social inequality by channelling more people into university. Great. Sounds a good idea, in theory, that increasing educational opportunity for the lower economic communities in particular might assist in tackling generational poverty and lack of expectations. But then they got silly about it. They made their target that 50% of young adults would go to university. Fifty fucking per cent.
All the polytechnics became new universities, and all the colleges started investigating degree confirment relationships with universities, to increase access for hard to reach communities. Loads of new degree courses sprang up. Degrees in things that were once taught through doing the job alongside experienced colleagues.
A-level courses (pre-degree) began to reflect the new degree options, as pathways to those degrees were needed. Kids taking so-called 'soft' courses at this level would find when they came to university applications, that they were disadvantaged for all but the technical, or career specific degrees that those a-levels were designed to fill. Last couple of years universities have started being a bit more vocal about schools making pupils aware of this when they come to choose their subject paths.
The rush for everybody to go to university, meant a corresponding rush for everybody to get the right pre-degree qualifications, which upped the entry level expectations for starter level jobs generally.
Getting a-levels at the age of 17/18 used to mean something in the workplace. Many lower management or supervisory jobs required a couple of a-levels and a couple of years in-house experience. Goodluck getting anything like that now without having a bachelors degree under your belt.
And not just a bachelors either. With so many people getting degrees there are way more first class degrees around now. A Second Class degree used to be a respectable achievement. Even a 2:2 set you apart from the mainstream. Now a 1st class degree is pretty much expected for entry into a lot of professional fields.
The pressure on young people to follow an academic, or pseudo-academic route is tremendous. The current massive hike in fees may well stall that.
The last government had the brilliant idea of trying to tackle social inequality by channelling more people into university. Great. Sounds a good idea, in theory, that increasing educational opportunity for the lower economic communities in particular might assist in tackling generational poverty and lack of expectations. But then they got silly about it. They made their target that 50% of young adults would go to university. Fifty fucking per cent.
We have
68.1% and they're rioting in the streets over inequality. Meanwhile an HVAC guy came out here beginning of the summer, diagnosed and replaced a fan in an hour, and it cost $600.
Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be lawyers
Don't let 'em get papers and duh-grees and such
Make em get plumbing tools, drive an old truckI believe there were four critical factors that pushed the US down that road:
"Sputnik"and "Civil Rights" and "Viet Nam" and "Cancer"
Before the 60's and after WW II, the G.I. Bill made college accessible for all veterans.
With very exceptions this remains true even now.
Sputnik put an enormous amount of government $ into college and university systems
Not just for engineers, but for all the sciences and general education.
Before Civil Rights, the US had a long history of educational segregation.
The HBCU's were the only institutions available for most
black students.... all the most so for poor, black students.
Opening all colleges and universities set off the ugly debates
about "quotas" and "reverse discrimination" and "un-qualified"
students that continues to this day.
Viet Nam deferments and percent of non-whites "in country" were matters of life and death.
Cancer, like sputnik, changed the entire structure of government-funded research,
primarily in medical sciences (NIH), but for most other granting agencies and foundations.
The sum of these four is that the better (non-MacD) jobs now require paper credentials.
Unfortunately, the 4-yr and graduate degree have less meaning as evidence of learning.
They are the union-card necessary (but not sufficient) to get past the employer's receptionist.
The new WH Chief of Staff and Citigroup
Yesterday, the White House announced Daley’s departure — Daley will now co-chair Obama’s re-election campaign, which basically means raising huge amounts of money from his Wall Street friends — and unveiled his replacement as Chief of Staff: Jacob Lew. In 2010, Lew became head of the Office of Management and Budget when Peter Orszag left and then, a couple months later, accepted a multi-million dollar position as a high-level Citigroup official. Lew has spent many years in various government positions, but he has his own substantial ties to Citigroup. Here is what Lew was doing in 2008 at the time the financial crisis exploded, as detailed by an excellent Huffington Post report from last year:
[Lew] oversaw a Citigroup unit that profited off the housing collapse and financial crisis by investing in a hedge fund king who correctly predicted the eventual subprime meltdown and now finds himself involved in the center of the U.S. government’s fraud case against Goldman Sachs. . . .
t is his few years at Citi — in particular the one year he spent at its then-$54 billion proprietary trading, hedge fund and private equity unit — that’s likely to raise the most eyebrows in the coming weeks as Lew faces a Senate confirmation hearing.
Especially his unit’s investments in a hedge fund that bet on the housing market to collapse — a reality suffered by millions of American homeowners.
In particular, the Citigroup fund run by Lew, Citi’s Alternative Investments, invested heavily in the hedge fund of John Paulson, “who made billions off the deterioration of the housing industry by making bearish bets on securities tied to home mortgages — particularly subprime home mortgages.” One of Paulson’s largest bets at the time involved Goldman Sachs, which the SEC has now charged with “defrauding investors by creating and selling exotic securities tied to subprime home mortgages in 2007 without disclosing that they were handpicked by a hedge fund [Paulson] that was betting on them to fail.”
Link
Is this the change [I]you were looking for?
And "you" is ??? ,,,,,,,,,,,, Maybe it's Eric Cantor
The Huffington Post
Luke Johnson
Posted: 1/9/12
Jack Lew Biography: Meet The New White House Chief Of Staff
As the White House's budget director, Lew has received
praise for working with Republicans, even from one of Obama's harshest critics.
"No one was more prepared and more in tune with the numbers than Jack Lew,"
said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in a 2010 Politico profile
during the height of the debt ceiling fight last summer.
"He was always very polite and respectful in his tone and
someone who I can tell is very committed to his principles.'"
you = Lamplighter or any other poster.
Do
you have any thoughts on the actual post, the article or who he's chosen or would
you prefer to just turn it onto the other team?
My first (and only) reaction so far is that Obama still thinks he can negotiate with Cantor and that crowd. :sniff:
Of course we both know that's not going to happen... til after 2012 ;).
I actually have no opinion on Jacob Lew... never even heard of him before this appointment.
But apparently the ChiefofStaff is a close, personal working arrangement,
so as far as I'm concerned Obama, and any President, can have whoever he wants.
The "whoever" serves "at the pleasure of" so it's not like a judge, etc.
I think his post did answer it.
I'm surprised by your reply Lamp and yet not at all by yours Pico.
And you are predictable as well.
I thought his reply simply gave a sort of wry take on the new guy, seeing as how Canter likes him. You, however, decided to do your usual schtick and challenge it as being...you know I really don't know what you are getting at this time? But it came off as your usual type of attack. Why so edgy all the time anyway?
What am I getting at? Where is your outrage?
Yet another banker who profited from the 2008 financial crisis is empowered in the Obama administration...
This president railed AGAINST Wall Street and those upon it. Most people were behind him on that.
This president talked about prosecuting and holding accountable those responsible ... ... ...
He criticized the "other team" for their close ties and promised change.
Yet again, he has chosen to select someone for his "inner circle" who was knee deep in the Wall Street BS,
who personally profited in the hundreds of millions of dollar for himself, who was, at least,
partly responsible for what happened, traded in the securities which bet against the housing market,
was involved with those "big bad banks" and securities firms like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and . . . .
Please don't try to tell me you would react the same way if there was an (R) behind his name.
My reply to him was basically that Lamp has been far more open-minded in his assessments, unlike yours.
No attack.
My outrage is at the whole system, now, and Obama was the one that turned me. I became wary of Obama right before he got elected....it just didn't smell right. Like a panacea to smooth over the ridiculous Bush years. And his behavior so far hasn't done anything to change my mind.
The grifters have their greedy hands on the government and so all politicians at that level are bought and paid for. That's the reason no one is being held accountable for the collapse of 2008.
I only hope that the outrage that sparked OWS doesn't fade away like the outrage over the Iraq War. I would like to see the power of the people actually have some oomph to it for once (and not the made up groups like The Tea Party - that's just another example of the grifters gaming the system).
Fair enough. Thats the first time I've seen you post anything like that.
I apologize.
I have posted similar thought in the past, but mostly I stayed away from Obama posts. Mostly, I will get my dander up when liberal ideology is attacked. And I get really incensed whenever workers rights are threatened, because that is the big deal right now.
I only hope that the outrage that sparked OWS doesn't fade away like the outrage over the Iraq War. I would like to see the power of the people actually have some oomph to it for once (and not the made up groups like The Tea Party - that's just another example of the grifters gaming the system).
So as long as the people rise up in support of your liberal ideas and Union thugs you support it. But if large groups of people rise up and actually get people who support their view elected to office, without one civil disobedience event, without one single arrest of people who want change, you think they are "grifters gaming the system"? Thank God that is not the way our system works.
I have to admit, this morning when I heard that Obama denied the permit for the Keystone pipeline, I was shocked. I never in a million years though he would do that. Making that decision required a spine, and that's something I haven't seen much of from Obama.
Of course, he basically came right out and said he would approve it after the election, so he's still sort of sitting on the fence, but still.
I wasn't surprised that he denied it. Hes been getting A LOT of pressure about it.
I was surprised that he said he'd revisit it after the election though.
I thought he showed some backbone until he, almost immediately, flipped on it.
The decision to reject the Keystone project is really a decision to circumvent
the Republican attempt to tie Keystone to the extension of the payroll tax bill.
The two are not otherwise related.
National Post NEws
Jan 18, 2012
Obama rejects Keystone pipeline, open to alternative*route
The Obama administration on Wednesday denied a presidential permit
for construction of the $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline, ruling that a proper environmental review
could not be conducted before a 60-day deadline set by the U.S. Congress
to rule on the controversial oilsands project.
But Calgary-based TransCanada Corp., the company behind the 2,700-kilometre pipeline,
has been given the option of making a new application — and company officials confirmed
they will propose an alternative route for Keystone XL that avoids environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska.
National Post News
Dec 19,2011
Lorne Gunter: Obama’s pushback on Keystone is pure posturing
On Saturday, the U.S. Senate voted 89-10 to approve a bill
that
would extend payroll tax cuts for 160 million Americans by two months.
That’s not a surprise. Going into an election year, no politician or party
wants to be responsible for a very visible tax hike.
If the Senate had not approved the extension
— an economic stimulus measure important to President Barack Obama’s jobs creation strategy
– American workers would have seen a decrease of $100 to $150 a month on their paychecks beginning Jan 1.
But it was surprising that 49 of the 89 votes were from Democrats because,
attached to the tax-cut bill, was a rider urging Mr. Obama to make a decision
on the Keystone XL pipeline within the next 60 days.
Mr. Obama announced last month that he would put off until 2013 any decision
on the US$7-billion pipeline that will run from Alberta’s oil sands to American refineries
on the Texas Gulf Coast — until after next fall’s presidential and Congressional elections. <snip>
Gene Sperling, a senior economic adviser to Obama, told CNN that
“The experts at the State Department who are authorized
for our government to make that very serious and complex review made clear . . .[COLOR="DarkRed"]
that if they were only given 60 days to look at the alternative routes in Nebraska
and to do the serious environmental and health and safety reviews,
that would (not) be enough time, and would make it almost certainly impossible
for them to extend that permit.”[/COLOR]
.
Obama: I'll decide later.
Republicans: Decide now!
Obama: OK, I say no. But I may reverse it later.
Obama: u mad?
I just caught a clip of Obama giving a speech at Disneyworld (loosening foreign tourist restrictions to bring more dollars to the U.S.)
He said he was glad to see Mickey, that it's nice to see a world leader with bigger ears than his.
He's so adorable. ;)
Someone tell obama, no more excuses.
Someone tell obama, no more excuses.
If you attend the inauguration in Jan, 2013, you could tell him, in person. :rolleyes:
Does anyone but me think it's a bit ironic (maybe the wrong word) that
Carl Rove and a lot of Conservatives and Republicans are upset because
Chrysler is doing well as a result of the (Obama) stimulus.
They are even yelling at Clint Eastwood for his SuperBowl ad !
You'd think they would be pleased...
Grumpdy...grump...grump...grumps
They're not yelling at Clint to his FACE! Boo-yaaah!
:)
It's not the economy, stupid (you know I don't mean you and you know the reference) it's I WANT TO WIN OR I TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME. ;)
No, I think it is completely consistent behavior.
There are many people, and Karl Rove is a prominent figure among them, that want President Obama to be defeated. This is clear, and understandable, though I don't agree. TO THIS END, a success at Chrysler is unfortunate since it can not be used as effectively as a failure at Chrysler as a club to bludgeon the President's campaign. So, "crap, they're doing well and stole our ammo". Whatever.
This is symptomatic of the serious and troubling change in focus from what is best for the country to "I hate you" in our political attitudes.
It is symptomatic of the change in focus, and it's been coming along for some time.
I said this to our most vocal 'hater' early in Obama's presidency: you cannot tout yourself as any kind of "patriot" (no matter how well you know the words) and want our country to fail so you can say "I told you so."
IMHO, they should all be shot for treason. ;)
Not seeing any reasonable, viable moderate alternative being proposed by the GOP, it looks like an easy pick for Obama for me this year. Maybe if he gets his second term, Congress will get over the obstructionism and actually get something done.
I know a lot of hardcore conservatives. I am not doing this to piss them off.
That's just a happy bonus.:p:
Maybe if he gets his second term, Congress will get over the obstructionism and actually get something done.
Before I laugh in your face, define "something".
Does anyone but me think it's a bit ironic (maybe the wrong word) that
Carl Rove and a lot of Conservatives and Republicans are upset because
Chrysler is doing well as a result of the (Obama) stimulus.
They are even yelling at Clint Eastwood for his SuperBowl ad !
You'd think they would be pleased...
Grumpdy...grump...grump...grumps
I wasn't paying much attention but or and I feel like I totally misunderstood that commercial. When it was over I had two impressions. 1) I thought the tone was more appropriate to the beginning of a recession not the end. It felt super negative. 2) There was a flash of Obama when Eastwood said something about divisiveness? I was thinking, why do you hate America Clint?
The Obama Administration has finalized
the agreement with banks and
State's Attorneys General with regards to forgeries of documents relating to foreclosures.
It won't offer much ($1-2K) to families who were already forced into foreclosure,
but it may help those who are facing foreclosure or reductions in interest rates for others.
Importantly, the States Attorneys General have retained their rights
to investigate criminal activities, e.g., forgeries of documents.
One visible action has occurred...
The JD Journal
2/9/12
Missouri Jury Indicts First High-level Executive in Robo-Signing Case
A grand jury in Missouri has indicted on criminal charges
Georgia-based firm DocX and its founder and former president Lorraine O. Brown on forgery charges.
This is the first high-level prosecution and indictment in a robo-signing case.
DocX is a subsidiary of mortgage processor Lender Processing Services.
The Missouri jury has indicted DocX employees with forging signatures
on hundreds of real estate documents, some of which resulted in foreclosures.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]This is the first time that a senior level executive could end up in jail [/COLOR]over robo-signing
– a practice where the lender signs the documents, including foreclosure documents,
without bothering to read them or having a notary present.<snip>
Homeowners in Missouri may also benefit from this indictment.
For the homeowners whose documents are found to be robo-signed,
the relevant documents will be considered void.
.
136 counts of forgery in the preparation of documents used to evict financially strained borrowers from their homes.
Employees of DocX, a unit of Lender Processing Services of Jacksonville, Fla., executed and notarized millions of mortgage documents for big banks and loan servicers over the year
DocX could be fined up to $10,000 for each forgery conviction.
136 out of
millions...
nor do I see Lorraine as a "senior level executive" more like a large fish in a rather small pond.
Perhaps its a start. I hope so.
The Obama Administration has finalized the agreement with banks and
State's Attorneys General with regards to forgeries of documents relating to foreclosures.
It is something, but nowhere near enough.
I dunno what they could do, but this seems like a pittance relatively speaking.
Well, it's probably never going to be "enough".
With so many people already evicted/foreclosed there is no way to right that wrong.
Certainly 2K is do nothing except make them mad.
But, it has sounded to me as though the courts are completely clogged with cases,
and the banks were unwilling to do anything that might be an admission of wrong-doing.
Perhaps this agreement will be one less rock in the road.
Obama has called for some sort of additional $ legislation from the House,
but with the politics in there it just "ain't gonna happen" ... at least til after the election.
Heads need to roll. $100 Billion would be a much better start with NOTHING off the table.
Throw in a few real prosecutions and then we can talk.
Till then, this is little more than election year posturing.
Statement of National People's Action and The New Bottom Line on AG-Bank Mortgage Settlement Agreement
The mortgage fraud settlement being announced today is a tiny drop in a big bucket. It does not do justice for the millions of homeowners who lost their homes or hold the banks fully accountable for their crimes. For homeowners who were defrauded and lost their homes, $2,000 is too little, too late. It is a paltry down payment toward full relief for homeowners.
~snip~
This fight is not over. The Obama Administration needs to make sure that its task force goes the distance and
delivers at least $336 billion in principal reduction on underwater mortgages and $50 billion in restitution for affected homeowners.
From what I heard on ABC news, the vast majority of the money is going to CA.
If you attend the inauguration in Jan, 2013, you could tell him, in person. :rolleyes:
I would have congratulated him on his accomplishment. Today I would tell him to fuck off.
While running as a candidate, Obama railed against 527's and said that someone can't be against them one day and for them the next. (December 22, 2007)
Earlier this week the Obama campaign announced that the President will embrace the Super PAC Priorities USA that will be backing him.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/08/obama_in_2007_you_cant_be_against_outside_groups_and_then_for_them.htmlNot seeing any reasonable, viable moderate alternative being proposed by the GOP...
I don't see anyone I like but like most of my conservative friends we are all going to vote for the person who is the front runner for the GOP to ensure Obama's defeat.
I don't see anyone I like but like most of my conservative friends we are all going to vote for the person who is the front runner for the GOP to ensure Obama's defeat.
Isn't that how Hitler got elected?
:nuke:WARNING: Godwin's Law Alert WARNING:nuke:
Actually, I'm waiting for Santorum to start pulling out the pink triangles any day now.
Actually, I'm waiting for Santorum to start pulling out the pink triangles any day now.
If you stacked up all the sharks Santorum has jumped you'd have a free space program. Good bye Atlas V, hello shark ladder.
Isn't that how Hitler got elected?
:nuke:WARNING: Godwin's Law Alert WARNING:nuke:
Actually, I'm waiting for Santorum to start pulling out the pink triangles any day now.
I don't think that he was elected like that. But hey, I know people that would vote for him over Obama. :lol:
I know people that would vote for him over Obama.
For some strange reason, that doesn't really :eek: me.
Details are coming out on the Obama Administration's agreement with banks and
State's Attorneys General with regards to forgeries of documents relating to foreclosures...
This article puts for the idea that the nature of this agreement shifts the motivation
of banks from foreclosure/eviction over to mortage adjustments.
Below is a brief summary of the people who will be eligible for either $ payments
or re-adjustments of the conditions or principal of their mortages.
Northwest Herald (Illinois)
2/11/12
Our view: Mortgage pact will help
<snip>
Because of the complexities of the deal, it could be months before individuals know
for certain if they qualify and how. But generally, here’s who will be eligible to apply for relief:
• Anyone who lost their home between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2011,
and made mortgage payments through Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiGroup or Ally Bank (formerly GMAC).
• Anyone who owes more than their home is worth, who is 30 days or more behind
on mortgage payments, or anyone who is at risk of falling behind on mortgage payments
and who makes payments to one of those five servicers.
• Anyone who owes more than their home is worth, is current on
their mortgage, and makes payments to one of those five servicers.
Homeowners who lost their home will be entitled to direct payments of $2,000.
Homeowners who still have their home have various refinancing and mortgage
reduction options through their servicers.
Those who are behind on payments are asked to contact the servicer or state attorney general’s office.
Those who are current will be contacted by their servicer if they are eligible for refinancing.
Only current homeowners with mortgage rates above 5.25 percent who
have been current for the past 12 months are eligible to be contacted.
For more information, call 866-544-7151, visit[your state's attorney general]
or visit
www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com.
The Mortgage Deal: A Reality Check
The $26 billion settlement represents a "drop in the bucket" compared with the approximately $700 billion in negative equity
that Americans carry on their homes. "I think it will help somewhat, but the scale of the problem is so large that it won't do that much
to help the market," Khater says.
Newport says $20 billion of the total will have a marginally positive effect on the housing market. While the approximately $6 billion
going directly to people who've already lost their homes may be a help to them, "this money helps neither the economy nor current homeowners. It's just a transfer of purchasing power from Peter to Paul," Newport says.
Even the remaining $20 billion in refinancing help and help to at-risk homeowners will not kick in for another six to nine months,
Newport says. "This timeline diminishes the program's effectiveness, since borrowers in trouble need help today, not in three years,"
he says.
The bigger impact will come in freeing up the banks to go ahead with foreclosures,
The settlement "removes some of the uncertainty and the legal hurdles, and so will begin to flush some of these properties out of the system, and that's the good thing," Khater says.
"My current understanding is that the program is targeted towards salvageable loans," Newport says.
But the language suggests that help can go either toward those who are delinquent and at imminent risk of default
or those who are simply underwater. It seems likely that those who are simply underwater would get the bulk of that relief.
That may make good sense from a macroeconomic standpoint, since these are the loans more likely to be "saved,"
but it's no help to homeowners most desperately in need.
"My current understanding is that the program is targeted towards salvageable loans," Newport says.
Is it something - yes, but at best its barely a start.
This is a mere pittance of what people have lost. It will help approx 10% of those in need. The 2-3 year timetable is a farce.
I think this "deal" is more about election year posturing than anything else.
Even the remaining $20 billion in refinancing help and help to at-risk homeowners will not kick in for another six to nine months,
Newport says. "This timeline diminishes the program's effectiveness, since borrowers in trouble need help today, not in three years,"
he says.
Am I missing something?
Dunno - different parts apparently have different timetables.
Under the agreement, mortgage servicers will be required to set aside $20 billion toward financial relief for borrowers.
At least $10 billion will go toward reducing the principal on loans for nearly 1 million borrowers who are either delinquent or at risk of defaulting soon. Those borrowers are also considered "underwater" — they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.
At least $3 billion will go toward refinancing loans for borrowers who are current on their mortgages but are underwater. Borrowers who meet basic criteria will be eligible for the refinancing at current low interest rates.
Up to $7 billion will go toward other forms of relief, including forbearance of principal for unemployed borrowers, short sales and benefits for service members who must sell their home at a loss when they are forced to transfer locations.
The agreement requires the servicers to pay $5 billion in cash to the federal and state governments, and $1.5 billion of that amount will be used to pay up to $2,000 each to about 750,000 borrowers whose homes were sold or taken in foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2011, if they meet certain criteria. A settlement administrator will send claim forms to persons eligible for the cash payments.
Under the deal, mortgage servicers will face penalties if they don't fulfill these obligations within *three years, and they must meet 75 percent of their targets within two years. Loans owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are not covered by the settlement. All but one of the 50 states agreed to the deal.
**Oklahoma, the lone holdout, announced a separate deal with the five banks.
*Bold - That's the only three years I see.
**Bold - I wonder what deal Oklahoma cut for itself.
Pruitt struck his own $18.6 million settlement deal with the same five loan servicers. Pruitt and his staff say that the settlement will help underwater homeowners - those who owe more on their homes than they are worth - who were genuinely the victims of illegal, predatory lending practices. It will not reward home-owners who stopped paying their mortgages over those who continued to make payments even though they were underwater or those who might stop paying just to take advantage of the settlement agreement.
Pruitt said the settlement negotiated by the other 49 attorneys general had gone beyond the scope of state law and had turned into an effort by the Obama administration to restructure the lending industry.
However, a widely circulated blog by Foster Kamer of the New York Observer contended that the Oklahoma settlement agreement will not come close to covering all of the Oklahoma homeowners who are in foreclosure or under water, and that the average aid to victims will be considerably less than under the national settlement.
Details of both the national and Oklahoma settlement agreements are still vague, so it will be some time before the question of whether Oklahoma got a good deal is sorted out. But some other questions linger:
Was Pruitt's decision based on politics? His aides say no; but he did campaign for office on a platform of "pushing back" against Washington, D.C., and the Obama administration.
Would the five lenders have agreed to negotiate a separate settlement with a single state unless they thought it would be a better deal for them than the national settlement?
Finally, if negotiating a stand-alone settlement was such a good thing, why was Pruitt the only attorney general in the nation to do it?
Link"I Voted For Obama Because He is Black"
Barack Obama's politics meant nothing to Samuel L. Jackson because the "Pulp Fiction" star only voted for the president for one reason and one reason only ... because he's black.
In an interview with Ebony magazine, Jackson explained, "I voted for Barack because he was black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me."
Jackson then went on to drop the N-word several times when discussing Obama, telling the mag, "When it comes down to it, they wouldn't have elected a [bleep]. Because, what's a [bleep]? A [bleep] is scary. Obama ain't scary at all. [Bleeps] don't have beers at the White House.
[Bleeps]don't let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call [him] a liar.
A [bleep] would have stopped the meeting right there and said, ‘Who the [bleep] said that?'
I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, 'cuz he ain't gotta worry about getting re-elected."
Just a lil levity - bold mine.
Yes, levity. sarcasm, funny, humorous. The bold part was him joking around.
The Fact Checker
Jack Lew’s misleading claim about the Senate’s failure to pass a budget resolution
Instead, the former budget director twice choose to use highly misleading language that blamed Republicans for the failure of the Democratic leadership.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/jack-lews-misleading-claim-about-the-senates-failure-to-pass-a-budget-resolution/2012/02/12/gIQAs11z8Q_blog.html"I Voted For Obama Because He is Black"
Just a lil levity - bold mine.
I give him props for coming out and saying the obvious. He obviously was not alone.
I voted for him because he isn't a fat pasty bald republican.
View of the "Deal" from
The Economist
The administration and various attorney generals insist that the deal would not pre-empt future suits against the banks.
But a release from Wells Fargo notes that as part of the deal it has been released from numerous categories of claims. In sum, it appears the line on litigation has been drawn finely enough for the government to say it has preserved the rights of any aggrieved bank clients and for the banks to say the deal ends a sordid legal chapter.
Election year politicking or just business as usual?
Election year politicking or just business as usual?
Both, I would imagine, on one hand they don't want to appear giving in to the radicals who want everyone to get off scott free and on the other hand they are giving a small print break to the banks and lending institutions.
Federal funds flow to clean-energy firms with Obama administration ties
Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama.
Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.
Following an enduring Washington tradition, Wagle shifted from the private sector, where his firm hoped to profit from federal investments, to an insider’s seat in the administration’s $80 billion clean-energy investment program.
He was one of several players in venture capital, which was providing financial backing to start-up clean-tech companies, who moved into the Energy Department at a time when the agency was seeking outside expertise in the field. At the same time, their industry had a huge stake in decisions about which companies would receive government loans, grants and support.
During the next three years, the department provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle’s former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested, a Washington Post analysis found. Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.
Obama’s program to invest federal funds in start-up companies — and the failure of some of those companies — is becoming a rallying cry for opponents in the presidential race. Mitt Romney has promised to focus on Obama’s “record” as a “venture capitalist.” And in ads and speeches, conservative groups and the Republican candidates are zeroing in on the administration’s decision to extend $535 million to the now-shuttered solar firm Solyndra and billions of dollars more to clean-tech start-ups backed by the president’s political allies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/venture-capitalists-play-key-role-in-obamas-energy-department/2011/12/30/gIQA05raER_story.htmlSoon after President Barack Obama touted Westport Innovation’s liquefied natural gas-powered engines April 1 at a Maryland UPS facility, the company’s top individual investor made large contributions to Democrats.
Kevin G. Douglas, Westport’s largest individual shareholder, April 8 gave more than $30,000 to Obama and the Democratic National Committee, according to federal campaign filings.
In a lucky confluence of events, a bill, supported by the president, New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act, designed to subsidize the migration of American vehicles from gasoline and diesel to LNG-powered engines was filed April 6 in the House of Representatives. The bill is also known by the shorthand: Natural Gas Act.
The Natural Gas Act will create federal tax credits for natural gas vehicles, storage facilities and fueling stations for a five-year period.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49542The background for the agreement on foreclosure procedures is becoming apparent.
The first legal action was against the CEO of one company doing the "robo-signing"
Now the California and Nevada States' Attorney Generals have a basis for their involvement.
NY Times
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
February 15, 2012
Audit Uncovers Extensive Flaws in Foreclosures
<snip>
Commissioned by Phil Ting, the San Francisco assessor-recorder,
the report examined files of properties subject to foreclosure sales
in the county from January 2009 to November 2011.
About 84 percent of the files contained what appear to be clear violations of law,
it said, and fully two-thirds had at least four violations or irregularities.
<snip>
The report comes just days after the $26 billion settlement over foreclosure improprieties
between five major banks and 49 state attorneys general, including California’s.
Among other things, that settlement requires participating banks to reduce mortgage amounts
outstanding on a wide array of loans and provide $1.5 billion in reparations for borrowers
who were improperly removed from their homes.
But the precise terms of the states’ deal have not yet been disclosed.
As the San Francisco analysis points out, “the settlement does not resolve
most of the issues this report identifies nor immunizes lenders and servicers from a host of potential liabilities.”
[COLOR="DarkRed"]For example, it is a felony to knowingly file false documents with any public office in California.
In an interview late Tuesday, Mr. Ting said he would forward his findings and foreclosure files
to the attorney general’s office and to local law enforcement officials.[/COLOR]
Kamala D. Harris, the California attorney general, announced a joint investigation
into foreclosure abuses last December with the Nevada attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto.
The joint investigation spans both civil and criminal matters.<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Banks involved in buying and selling foreclosed properties appear to be aware of potential problems[/COLOR]
if gaps in the chain of title cloud a subsequent buyer’s ownership of the home.
Lou Pizante, a partner at Aequitas who worked on the audit, pointed to documents
that banks now require buyers to sign holding the institution harmless
if questions arise about the validity of the foreclosure sale.
“the settlement does not resolve most of the issues this report identifies nor
immunizes lenders and servicers from a host of potential liabilities.”
This is somewhat misleading. It depends upon the interpretation of the deal as I posted earlier.
banks now require buyers to sign holding the institution harmless
if questions arise about the validity of the foreclosure sale.
Gee really???
This is somewhat misleading. It depends upon the interpretation of the deal as I posted earlier.
Gee really???
Obviously it will be up to interpretations, but in the courts.
The point is that a civil contract can not nullify a law.
If the banks knew about a "gap" they can not "knowlingly" a file false document.
The bank is still responsible (culpable ?) even if the Buyer signed the document,
because the bank is the party creating the contract and knowingly filiing the false document.
Again, it's whether someone's glass is half full or half empty.
I'm quit happy to see such events unfolding... as opposed to what ?
Prosecuting them - years ago.
instead of cutting them a deal at less than 25 cents on the dollar (not including punitive damages/pain & suffering etc etc etc)
during an election season and taking their money/campaign contributions.
Breaking up the too big to fail BEFORE they fail.
Separating the investments from lending. . .(dreaming)
The real unemployment rate is 15%. Obama continues to lie to the people....
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/127xx/doc12757/02-16-Unemployment.pdfBullshit. He is doing what EVERY other Administration has done.
They all use the same method. Nothing new here.
Bullshit. He is doing what EVERY other Administration has done.
They all use the same method. Nothing new here.
Bullshit on you.
Obama changed the way they measured unemployment midstream to make themselves look better.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/os_legacy_unemployment_rate_now_meaningless.htmlI'm not even gonna bother with THAT link. Seriously?
C'mon, its only February. The R's haven't even chosen an opponent yet.
Chill... out.
I'm not even gonna bother with THAT link. Seriously?
C'mon, its only February. The R's haven't even chosen an opponent yet.
Chill... out.
You are the one that called it "Bullshit". At least defend your comment about the link.... GO!
CBO: Longest Period of High Unemployment Since Great Depression
CBO: U.S. enduring the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/16/cbo-longest-period-of-high-unemployment-since-great-depressionYou are the one that called it "Bullshit". At least defend your comment about the link.... GO!
The real unemployment rate is 15%. Obama continues to lie to the people....
That 15% is the U-6, every administration has used the U-3.
Although I personally believe the U-6is more accurate, it is less than dishonest to compare one with the other. Your link convieniently didn't share that inconvenient act. Therefore:
Bullshit. He is doing what EVERY other Administration has done.
They all use the same method. Nothing new here.
I made it this far before abandoning ship
We all know that Barack Obama's legacy will be that of a wide swath of destruction across the economy and in fact all of American life.
Bullshit I say again, extremist partisan Bullshit.
I am cool with your Take on it. I just don't agree. But it is far from "extremist partisan bullshit".
yup its Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy past extreme partisan BS.
Kinda like taking a grain of truth and stretching it beyond infinity.
finally. Damn man its like killing flies with a sledgehammer with you sometimes.
finally. Damn man its like killing flies with a sledgehammer with you sometimes.
Actually I just don't care to argue with you about it anymore. Don't miss read that as if I agree, I don't.
Should I have put a :rolleyes: on it for you?
I have no expectation of you ever changing your mind,
we've known each other too long for that.
Good enough for me.... what a fucking waste of time talking about this shit....
Can lead a horse to water ...
And I can shoot him and let him drown in his own fantasy of truth.... ;) Later.
OK From your link: We'll use the U-3 (Official)Unemployment Rate
Bush started with 4.0% and when he left it was 7.3% -------+3.1%
Obama started with 7.8% (yep it went up a full 1/2% in one month!)
and continued to rise for 10 months.
and it is currently 8.3% ----------------------------------------+0.5%
[COLOR="Red"]Bush's unemployment increase was 6x worse than Obama[/COLOR]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again from your link: We'll use the U-6 this time
Bush Start 7.1 --------- End 13.5 -----------------------------+6.4%
Obama Start 14.2 currently 15.1------------------------------+0.9%
And Again[COLOR="Red"]
Bush's unemployment increase was MORE THAN 6x worse than Obama[/COLOR]
Now I ask you ... What is YOUR point?
Bush isn't running for re-election. No need for him to cook the books. It was a non-issue during the time Bush was in office.
Over the last few days, I've heard on the news that:
consumer spending is up
the stock market is up
GDP is up
employment is up
exports are up
The only thing not up is middle class buting power.
I'm sure we will be able to powerfully bute any day now
Meanwhile let's pretend the President has next to no ability to affect job creation or even the economy. It's a scary place to be, since we really want them to, and most of them promise improvement, but let's just pretend.
I'd say they have next to no ability to affect those things in a positive way.
They can always drive the bus off the road and over the cliff. You know, they could always declare martial law, and institute a daytime curfew. That would instantly stop the economy. (Just to throw out a ridiculous example to make my point.)
I'm sure we will be able to powerfully bute any day now
Meanwhile let's pretend the President has next to no ability to affect job creation or even the economy. It's a scary place to be, since we really want them to, and most of them promise improvement, but let's just pretend.
Doesn't matter. A big part of the election will be the economy, for which the current president is always held responsible, whether he is or not.
Plus, progressives argue (and vice-versa for conservatives, just an example) that the president with congress has the power to help the markets by intervening to strengthen the working class through infrastructure and small-business spending, and can hold him responsible for making the deal with congress. Plus, I've heard it fairly legitimately argued that if Obama wanted to risk the blowback from people like Merc accusing him of issuing edicts and declaring himself king, he actually COULD issue a host of stimulative executive orders. I'll try to find the link after I shower explaining the precedent for executive power for each of the measures proposed.
the president with congress has the power to help the markets by intervening to strengthen the working class through infrastructure and small-business spending
That's what we like to think. In reality, the economy is more powerful than all that, because it includes
everything.
So often, well-intended and seemingly logical government measures wind up like pushing on a rope. The stimulus was like that. Hey let's have the government spend a huge amount, more than ever before, because economists tell us that government spending can take up the slack of less spending everywhere else.
And so they pushed that rope, but the economy failed to take up the slack. Why, well, that's a terrible and difficult question, because at the root of all economics is human behavior, and that's amazingly hard to predict.
intervening to strengthen the working class through infrastructure and small-business spending
All data shows that people, the economy, and the state of the nation improve when people are homeowners. Homeowners are stable, raise better families, are invested in their community, improve schools through local taxation, and have a future retirement plan in their home's equity.
So, let's have a government program to strengthen the working class by offering them mortgage deals!
Oops?! Well it was logical at the time.
I guess I misunderstood your argument. I assumed you meant that the president PERSONALLY couldn't do anything about it, not that government at all can't really do much about it. And that's really just a fundamental difference in beliefs, that it is hard to prove one way or the other because there's always a counterargument - because there's always a compromise. For example, I would say that it wasn't JUST the program to offer mortgage deals to the working class that "oops"ed, it was (more importantly, in my view) also a shortcoming on the financial side, with securitization and repackaging and all that fun stuff, that also encouraged banks to offer mortgages to people who REALLY couldn't afford it, etc.
So Fannie and Freddie supplied the wood, not the spark. The larger point is that Fannie and Freddie was government, intervening to strengthen the working class. And the economy said, well that outcome is going to be exactly the opposite of what was well-intended, because this is the economy, and everything's connected.
I see this all the time. How about college education. It works the same way. The government, with the best of intentions, announces that it will make available cheap money for people going to college. Thus several generations benefit from greater educations.
But over time, College, with all the best of intentions, finds a huge new market of people who can afford them, on top of the people who have enough to pay. Thus College increases its price by more than double the inflation rate. Now Government and all the people who can afford it are paying double (six figures at some places) for something with no additional worth.
Medicare part D. Government, with all the best of intentions, announces that they are going to pay for old people's drugs. The drug companies then double their prices to a marketplace that doesn't shop for value. Now Medicare has to pay even more and the drug companies get rich.
Grover Norquist controls the $ for all Republican re-election campaigns,
and for Republicans, re-election it is more important than anything.
His interview below has confirmed for me how the Republican hierarchy
views and actually intends to control the Presidency.
Thoughts about differences between Republican and Democratic presidents
first occurred to me when Ronald Regan slept through his term with a nice smile and movie-star personality.
George H.W.Bush was a single term President because he did not toe the Republican line on taxes.
But George W. Bush was exactly what the Republican hieracrchy wanted
... dumb but a "nice guy" who stayed in tow of Cheney and Rove.
Surprisingly, Norquist inadvertently complimented Obama, saying:
if Obama had “wanted to govern when he had 59 [or] 60 senators and
a solid majority in the House, that’s the time to have done whatever he thought was useful
and he did” a few of those things.
For instance, Norquist noted, the president pushed through Congress the health-care bill,
the Dodd-Frank banking bill, and the stimulus package.
Obama “did all those things,” Norquist said. “The things on his list of things to do, he did;
everything he talks about now is that which he didn’t do when he could have” done it,
given solid Democratic legislative majorities during the first two years of the Administration.
Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner
Richard Sincere
2/20/12
Grover Norquist surveys the 2012 political and legislative landscape
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, is a prominent conservative activist.
He informally heads up what is known as the “Leave Us Alone Coalition” and
works behind the scenes to promote conservative ideas in government.<snip>
Norquist pointed out that Obama’s State of the Union Address in January
“was a list of things he says he wanted to do,” but, he said,
Obama “was president for two years with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate
[and] he didn’t do any of those things.”
Rather than the State of the Union being “a list of things he considers high priorities,” it is,
Norquist explained, “a list of things he thinks it will be clever to talk about in his reelection campaign.
It’s not a list of things he actually wants to do” because otherwise “he would have done them.”<snip>
Looking forward to the presidential election, Norquist predicted that
the Republicans are going to nominate a candidate “whose job will be,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]if he gets elected, to sign the bills that Boehner and McConnell send him.[/COLOR]”<snip>
As a result of these political conditions, Norquist reiterated,
“we should have a Republican House and Senate in 2013.
The big fight now is [to] pick a Republican to get across the finish line
[COLOR="DarkRed"] and all we need him to do is sign the bills[/COLOR].”
Norquist emphasized that regardless of the Republican presidential nominee,
if he wins the election, he will need the cooperation – and the leadership –
of Congress to get any of his initiatives passed into law.<snip>
Using blunt language, he said that
“what we need is a Republican president to do what Obama did:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]get his butt elected and then sit there and look pretty and read the Teleprompter.”[/COLOR]
Good article, thanks for sharing. I do think Norquist lives in his own little world of understanding the process. I don't think Bush was that dumb and Obama certainly is not either.
Grover Norquist controls the $ for all Republican re-election campaigns,
You can't really believe that Lamp. That is a fantasy.
and for Republicans, re-election it is more important than anything.
Completely true for both parties. And it is going to get much worse before it ever gets better.
His interview below has confirmed for me how the Republican hierarchy
views and actually intends to control the Presidency.
Again, that is a stretch of the imagination.
Gosh Merc, I thought you were more attuned to the machinations of GOP politics.
Here's a link back to when the Republicans were, according to John Boehner,
going to come to agreement on the July, 2011 debt ceiling bill,
which included the lapse of the Bush Tax Cuts.
The press interviewed Norquist about the Norquist/ATR pledge,
and how he would respond if someone voted to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to lapse.
That link includes the "official ATR position statement",
and a recording of the interview in which Norquist says he
"... would denounce him as a tax raiser and a bad guy"
Within hours, Republicans got the message.
Boehner's agreement floundered, and he was embarrassed
time and again by the GOP sheep changing direction
and
reneging on Boehner's previous agreements.
It's baaaaaack ! - If anyone but the 1% cares
The US Dow-Jones opened at a psychological level of 13,055 - best since mid-2007.
As someone who looks for pro-liberty positions in candidates I figured Obama'd be a lock for improving our drug laws. The GOP preaches family values but jails young black men like crazy making sure nuclear families don't develop. Well Obama is apparently just a little worse than Bush.
Back when he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.
Nope.
He's a disappointment in many ways, but he can get away with it because the alternatives are so much worse.
This one is baffling, though. Is he afraid that drug warriors in the DOJ will accuse him of preventing them from enforcing a law that is on the books?
It's baaaaaack ! - If anyone but the 1% cares
The US Dow-Jones opened at a psychological level of 13,055 - best since mid-2007.
Well, all that bail out and stimulus money had to go somewhere. :right:
Well, all that bail out and stimulus money had to go somewhere. :right:
Grump ;)
I've heard the DJ index is a "6-month out predictor".
If so, this trend will not bode well for the GOB campaigns.
The GOP campaigners do not bode well for the GOP campaigns.
The GOP campaigners do not bode well for the GOP campaigns.
Preach.
Rick Santorum: Giving women the absolute freedom to do what he tells them.
Mitt Romney: Consistently sticking to an ever-changing position.
You know things are going badly for Santorum and Romney when Eric Cantor
endorses Romney, but then turns around and offers a jobs bill that Dems will support.
Some of the talking heads on TV now that are glumly acknowledging problems among the GOB candidates,
and suggesting it may be better to concentrate on Congressional elections to keep the House.
It's like wading a river with guicksand bottom, and trying to find a solid place to step before going under.
... suggesting it may be better to concentrate on Congressional elections to keep the House.
Nothing new here. Thats been said since Christie and McConnell declined to run.
Its always easier to be the incumbent.
1) No real primary.
2) Easier to use taxpayer money to campaign.
3) Name recognition/familiarity.
4) Typically far easier to raise campaign donations
and so on.
Also the fact that Obama's been pretty popular and successful, in some parts of the country. To some people, I mean.
I was speaking in general terms, not about him specifically.
Yeah, I know. I'm just saying, he's not only incumbent, he's at least fairly popular too.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).
I'm one of the uncommitted voters who put Obama in the White House. I would be a more natural GOP voter if they didn't fight culture wars and support corporations over individuals. Obama is still beatable if Mitt can change his message back to moderate governorship. If that happens and he loses the GOP will continue the culture war and be completely irrelevant unless someone can explain the reality of the situation to them. Maybe a huge Santorum loss would be best but having him that close with a partisan Supreme Court makes me damn nervous.
I got a whiff of dodgy stats when I noticed the figure they present ( -15) is based on comparing the
strongly approve and the
strongly disapprove. What about the moderates?
And then why base the data on that particular day? was it, perhaps, a bit of a statistical outlier?
Follow the links to the original source.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
Ignore the "Presidential approval index" which focuses on the extremists who aren't going to swing. Look at the two columns on the far right, total approve and total disapprove. Scroll back to look over the last couple of months.
Make your own interpretation.
My interpretation is hidden below:
[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]So far this year:
The difference has never been more than 45/55, and has often been within four points.
Disapprove has been higher most of the time, but not always.
over the year, this shows a moderate preponderance of disapproval.
[/COLOR]
ETA it's worth scrolling at high speed through his entire term.
Of course, the problem for the republican candidates is that people disapprove of
them even more.
The R's are in disarray and apparently have no cohesive anything right now.
I'm one of the uncommitted voters who put Obama in the White House.
I would be a more natural GOP voter if they didn't fight culture wars and support corporations over individuals.
Obama is still beatable if Mitt can change his message back to moderate governorship.
Dunno, I think too much damage may have already been done.
I'll bet there are tons of Obama commercials already prepared and ready to
run simply based upon his gaffes and statements from the last couple months.
Why for you now convert others' posts to pomes?
FWIW: In 2009, GM employed 12,600 in Ohio, Ford had about 7,000. Honda had 15,000
General Motors has signed a new contract to bring 760 new jobs to Ohio,
increase parts and welding assembly work in Ohio that currently is being done overseas,
and call back of most workers that had been laid off due to parts shortages.
Here are some of the items in the new contract:
What UAW members get under tentative contract with GM
* Bonuses - $5,000 in signing bonuses; $1,000 a year to cover rising inflation;
and up to $250 annually if workers hit quality improvement targets.
* Profit sharing - $1 in bonuses for every $1 million in GM North American
profits if the automaker earns at least $1.25 billion a year.
So $6 billion in GM profits would translate to $6,000 per worker in profit sharing.
* Jobs - 6,400 new jobs at plants in Spring Hill, Tenn., Wentzville, Mo.; and several Michigan plants.
In Ohio, Parma, Lordstown and Defiance plants could get new work.
* Wage increases - Entry-level workers would get about $3 an hour in raises over the life of the contract.
Workers receiving the higher wage would receive no increases.
* Buyouts - Skilled workers could get up to $75,000 to retire by March 31.
Non-skilled workers could get up to $10,000 to retire by then.
In 2009, GM employed 12,600 in Ohio, Ford had about 7,000. Honda had 15,000
What are the comparative numbers now?
GM will also pay bonuses of at least $182 million to white-collar workers
most of whom make more than $100,000 a year. They'll range from 8-14%.
That's in addition to the over 300 million in profit sharing they already had planned for factory workers.
Additionally there are some who are raising new questions about GM's new tax structure which was
altered as part of the bailout. No word yet on what their new effective rate is now.
GM will also pay bonuses of at least $182 million to white-collar workers
most of whom make more than $100,000 a year. They'll range from 8-14%.
That's in addition to the over 300 million in profit sharing they already had planned for factory workers.
The recent union contract makes it sound as though those 12.6K employees are/will be back to work.
Additionally there are some who are raising new questions about GM's new tax structure which was
altered as part of the bailout. No word yet on what their new effective rate is now.
The point of my post was that 12,600 direct employees of GM were working in Ohio in 2009,
and the employment multiplier effect added about 14,800 other jobs in the local communities.
That's nearly 30,000 jobs and almost as many families directly related to GM (only).
The recent GM -UAW contract sounds as if those 12,600 employees are/will be back to work,
along with 760 new jobs that are being brought back from overseas.
I'm not seeing a whole lot wrong with all that.
What point(s) are you making... just adding new information, or
- that white collar employees are/were making too much ?
- that GM can/should not to pay bonuses to white collar workers ?
- that the bailout of the automotive industry was wrong ?
- that GM should have gone bankrupt and all those jobs be lost ?
- that there is some sort of tax skullduggery going on ?
.
The point of my post was that 12,600 direct employees of GM were working in Ohio in 2009, and the employment multiplier effect added about 14,800 other jobs in the local communities.
That's nearly 30,000 jobs and almost as many families directly related to GM (only).
I didn't read that as jobs added TO the initial 12,600. My bad, apparently.
What point(s) are you making... just adding new information, or
- that white collar employees are/were making too much ?
- that GM can/should not to pay bonuses to white collar workers ?
- that the bailout of the automotive industry was wrong ?
- that GM should have gone bankrupt and all those jobs be lost ?
- that there is some sort of tax skullduggery going on ?
I do not know the answers. I am asking those same questions.
To your last point regarding the taxes, I just recently learned that their tax structure was altered in the bailout.
What effect it had, I do not know.
NSA whistle-blower: Obama “worse than Bush”
Thomas Drake, the whistle-blower whom the Obama administration tried and failed to prosecute for leaking information about waste, fraud and abuse at the National Security Agency, now works at an Apple store in Maryland. In an interview with Salon, Drake laughed about the time he confronted Attorney General Eric Holder at his store while Holder perused the gadgetry on display with his security detail around him. When Drake started asking Holder questions about his case, America’s chief law enforcement officer turned and fled the store.
But the humor drained away quickly from Drake’s thin and tired face as he recounted his ordeal since 2010 when federal prosecutors charged him with violating the Espionage Act for retaining classified information they believed he would pass on to then Baltimore Sun reporter Siobhan Gorman. While Drake never disclosed classified information, he did pass on unclassified information to Gorman revealing that the NSA had wasted billions of taxpayers’ dollars on Trailblazer, a contractor-heavy intelligence software program that failed to find terrorist threats in the tsunami of digital data the agency was sucking up globally — and sometimes unconstitutionally. While Trailblazer burned through cash, in the process enriching many NSA employees turned contractors, Drake found that another software program named ThinThread had already met the core requirements of a federal acquisition regulation that governed the proposed system at a sliver of the cost, all while protecting American civil liberties at the code level. The NSA leadership, however, had already bet their careers on Trailblazer. So Drake blew the whistle, first to Congress, then to the Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office, and finally, and fatefully, to Gorman.
Last June, the government’s case collapsed. On the eve of trial, all 10 counts were dropped. In a Kafkaesque turn of events, Drake actually helped the government find a misdemeanor to charge him with — exceeding authorized use of an NSA computer — so federal prosecutors could save face. Once facing 35 years behind bars, Drake pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to one year of probation and 240 hours of community service, what he sardonically calls “his penance.”
But his legal battles haven’t ended. Currently, Drake, along with the four other whistle-blowers he worked with to expose NSA waste, fraud and abuse, are fighting to get their property back that the FBI confiscated during its criminal investigations. Once a registered Republican and now a self-described “free-speech absolutist,” Drake describes the NSA as a rogue agency that operates in a black box that the public cannot penetrate.
In the New Yorker article, Jane Mayer quotes you as saying, “I actually had hopes for Obama.” What’s your opinion on the Obama administration’s stated support for whistle-blowers and, more generally, his counterterrorism record?
Worse than Bush. I have to say that. I actually voted for Obama. It’s all rhetoric for me now. As Americans we were hoodwinked. He’s expanding the secrecy regime far beyond what the Bush even intended, interestingly enough. I think Bush is probably like, “Whoa.”
Link Hiya Merc, you've been quiet lately ... working long shifts again?
Hiya Merc, you've been quiet lately ... working long shifts again?
Balls to the wall work, followed by guests from the UK for 10 days (day 5 now) and big Savannah Rugby Tournament this last weekend. Off to the Pink Floyd Experience with the UK guests tonight and back into a short work cycle this week, finishing up with the parade in Savannah on Sat. Guests leave Sunday then back to a balls to the wall work cycle. Life goes on. Thanks for asking.
In the
foreclosure agreement between the 5 big banks and the Federal and State governments,
there remained open the option for the governments to pursue additional penalties.
The first of these actions is being made public today...
Wall Street Journal
RUTH SIMON
3/12/12
Foreclosure Pact Alleges a Pattern of Malfeasance
U.S. and state officials accused five large U.S. banks of
overcharging and misleading borrowers in court documents filed Monday
as part of the $25 billion settlement of alleged foreclosure abuses.
The filing offered a detailed description of how the five banks allegedly
violated state and federal law. Officials spent more than a year investigating
foreclosure practices that began as a probe of "robo-signing,"
or employees approving documents without proper review.<snip>
In settling, the five banks—Ally Financial Inc., Bank of America Corp.,
Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co . and Wells Fargo & Co
—neither admitted nor denied guilt.
Under the agreement, the banks will provide principal relief and other
borrower assistance valued at $17 billion. In addition, roughly $5 billion
of the settlement will be paid in fines, while $3 billion will be used to help
refinancing for homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth.
The deal also includes new mortgage-servicing standards.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The issues laid out in the complaint go well beyond the allegations of robo-signing.
[/COLOR]Among other things, the complaint alleges that the five banks
charged borrowers excessive or improper fees, failed to properly apply
borrower loan payments and wrongfully denied borrowers loan modifications.
The banks also provided homeowners with "false or misleading information,"
failed to have appropriate staffing levels to meet the surge in troubled loans,
and overcharged and improperly foreclosed on members of the military, according to the complaint.
Banks also engaged in a "continuing abuse of the bankruptcy process"
and filed "false or fraudulent claims" for reimbursement from the
Federal Housing Administration's mortgage insurance program,
according to the court filing. The complaint singles out Countrywide Financial Corp.,
which was acquired by Bank of America in 2008, for faulty underwriting that has
cost the Federal Housing Administration "hundreds of millions of dollars in damages."
.
.
When do the prosecutions begin?
If you get tickets, save us a few seats...
Two weeks ago, it was the just the Dow-Jones.
Now it's more like "We're all baaaaaccccckkk"
Wall Street Journal
Chris Dieterich and Matt Jarzemsky,
3/15/12
US Stocks Higher After Solid Domestic Economic Data
--Stocks higher after firm economic data on U.S. labor market, manufacturing activity
--S&P 500 tops 1400 for the first time since June 2008
--Dow on pace for seventh straight gain
--New applications for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week
--New York, Philadelphia Fed banks report accelerated manufacturing activity in March
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Stocks rose in the U.S. on Thursday as the
Standard & Poor's 500-stock index topped 1400 for the first time in nearly four years
after firm readings on the country's jobs market and manufacturing activity.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 36 points, or 0.3%, to 13220, in afternoon trading.
The Dow industrials are on course for a seventh consecutive gain, the longest streak since an eight-session run ended in February.
The S&P 500 rose six points, or 0.5%, to 1402, rising above 1400 for the first time since June 2008.
The Nasdaq Composite gained 12 points, or 0.4%, to 3052.
Financial and industrial stocks advanced most on a percentage basis.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]In economic data, the number of U.S. workers filing new applications
for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week.
New claims are hovering around levels last seen four years ago.[/COLOR]
.
Great Unemployment rate info
here...Classic, I am truly sorry your glass is always half empty.
I do know what unemployment is...
Once, I went for 3 1/2 years until I realized that self-employment was to be my way out.
But it took a lot of work to even become self-employed.
Getting up and staying off my butt was more than a full time job.
Outlook is overwhelmingly important, and things are looking up in the US.
That's the reason for my postings on the DJ, etc.
I won't let the nay-sayers keep pounding on Obama as if there was no bottom.
I believe we bottomed out over a year ago, and next year will be much better.
So, I am hoping you too will soon find your way through to a "full glass"
You've completely missed my point, Lamp. Look at the numbers.
Are they improving? Is the U-6 better now than it was?
Is it changing more than the U-3?
Look at this presidency compared to the last one.
Look at the change in U-6 from 2008 to today - do the same for the last administration.
I just though it was a neat tool to use for factual comparison.
Classic, why are you trying to make that comparison ?
The US went through a major financial upheaval in 2008.
It happened to happen at the end of GWB's watch.
The recovery has happened to happen on Obama's watch.
It's not hard to understand that the U6 and U3 were relatively constant before 2008.
It's not hard to understand that the U6 and U3 went up after 2008.
Likewise, it's not hard to understand that the U6 and U3 takes quite a while to come down.
Maybe it's not as fast as some would want it to be..
But by the very definition of U6 and U3, it is what it is.
If your point is something else, please explain in more detail.
.
I wasn't looking at the rates themselves, I was looking at the percentage changes.
???
Sorry, I'm not getting it...
OK, I'll really try once more to see what you want me to see.
When I open your link and change the years to 1994 - 2012....
I see the U6 curve drop from 12% at a relatively smooth rate,
then in 2001, it bounces up from 7% up to 10%,
then gradually falls in 2005 - 2007, and then skyrockets in 2009.
Since 2010, the U6 seems to have dropped from 17% down to 15%.
The U3 follows the same shape, but the %'s are smaller... about half.
Other than an annoying musical ad about St Patricks Day sales, what else should I be seeing ?
The U-6 has fallen at a greater % than the U-3.
Based upon the economic situation from 2008, I believe this is a better indicator of the unemployment rate.
I'm certainly not seeing it here, but statistically things are apparently better.
NY Times
By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
Published: April 1, 2012
As Foreclosure Problems Persist, Fed Seeks More Fines
Federal regulators are poised to crack down on
eight financial firms [COLOR="DarkRed"]that are not part of the recent
government settlement[/COLOR] over home foreclosure practices
involving sloppy, inaccurate or forged documents.
Last week, a senior Federal Reserve official recommended fines for these additional firms,
raising questions about how deep foreclosure problems run through the banking industry.
<snip>
The eight firms cited by the Federal Reserve
— HSBC’s United States bank division, SunTrust Bank, MetLife, U.S. Bancorp,
PNC Financial Services, EverBank, OneWest and Goldman Sachs
— should be fined for “unsafe and unsound practices in their loan servicing and foreclosure processing,”
Suzanne G. Killian, a senior associate director of the Federal Reserve’s
Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, told lawmakers last month
in a House Oversight Committee hearing in Brooklyn.
<snip>
.
Still waiting on those prosecutions...
and the glass is still half empty
With respect to the prosecutions - its 3+ years later and still COMPLETELY empty.
General Motors has signed a new contract to bring 760 new jobs to Ohio, increase parts and welding assembly work in Ohio that currently is being done overseas, and call back of most workers that had been laid off due to parts shortages.
GM to build 2013 Cadillac XTS in China
General Motors Co. announced ~ that it will begin building its all-new 2013 Cadillac XTS sedan in China this year and later will bring the ELR luxury electric coupe in the country.
Ewanick said GM will build its brand in China and then Europe to grow the brand over the next decade.
Currently, only the Cadillac SLS, an extended length luxury sedan, is built in China. Cadillac imports the CTS, SRX crossover and Escalade from plants in the United States and Mexico.
From The Detroit News:
Over the next few years it appears as though MORE Cadillacs will be produced overseas, namely in China.
I guess we really don't have an employment problem here.
I am curious as to what the UAW thinks of this development.
Personally, I'm thrilled with them building more vehicles there and not here. :yelsick:
From The Detroit News: My impression is that the china-built GM cars are just FOR china/east-asia, not being imported back to the states, and that china makes importing cars into china difficult, as well as making their own knockoff versions in their own factories for a fraction of the price.
making their own knockoff versions in their own factories for a fraction of the price.
Thats another part of this which concerns me.
Well, they're going to do it either way - might as well give themselves a chance to compete right?
Thats the 'job creators' making jobs for the Chinese.
Thats the 'job creators' making jobs for the Chinese.
Yep :/
We Americans bailed them out and I would have preferred they create some of those jobs here.
A related piece from the economist ...
The upper end of the car market is still booming. BMW's Chinese sales rose by more than a third in the first quarter, compared with a year earlier. To capitalise on the apparently insatiable appetite for its cars, the German firm is launching a stretched version of its 3-series at the Beijing show. This is to appeal to the many buyers who want extra legroom in the back, since that's where they will be sitting, with their chauffeurs at the wheel.
Sport-utility vehicles are also selling like hot Chinese buns: if you can't afford a chauffeur, at least it's nice to drive a car with high seats so you can look down on other motorists. Sales of SUVs have gone up from about 350,000 five years ago to perhaps 2m this year (out of a total Chinese market for passenger cars of 15.5m) and look set to keep growing at more than double the rate of the overall market. That is why Ford launched three new SUV models at the Beijing show.
As described in a fascinating new book on the Chinese motor industry, “Designated Drivers”, by Greg Anderson, an industry expert, the central government is well aware of the growing need for the country's motor industry to be rationalised. Yet many of the smaller makers are owned or subsidised by city and provincial governments, and their main intention is not to make profits but to soak up local unemployment and avert social unrest—the one thing the Chinese authorities at all levels most dread. Their owners and bosses will do all they can to resist cutting back.
Selective bin Laden leaking
Earlier this week, an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled in favor of the government in a national security case (needless to say), when he denied a FOIA request to obtain all photos and videos taken during and after the raid in Pakistan that resulted in Osama bin Laden’s death. The DOJ responded to the lawsuit by arguing (needless to say) that the requested materials “are classified and are being withheld from the public to avoid inciting violence against Americans overseas and compromising secret systems and techniques used by the CIA and the military.” Among other things, disclosure of these materials would have helped resolve the seriously conflicting statements made by White House officials about what happened during the raid and what its actual goals and operating rules were.
But while the Obama administration has insisted to the court that all such materials are classified and cannot be disclosed without compromising crucial National Security secrets, the President’s aides have been continuously leaking information about the raid in order to create politically beneficial pictures of what happened. Last August, The New Yorker published what it purported to be a comprehensive account of the raid, based on mostly anonymous White House claims, that made Barack Obama look like a mix of Superman, Rambo and Clint Eastwood; The Washington Post called it “a fascinating, cinematic-like account of the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.” This week, Time Magazine has a cover story entitled “The Last Days of Osama bin Laden” based in part on “access to top decision makers in over 100 hours of interviews.”
We just saw this deceitful pattern this week when Obama officials — yet again — ran around anonymously boasting about all the Bad Guy Corpses the Commander-in-Chief has produced with his steely use of CIA drones, only to turn around and tell a court that it cannot possibly respond to the ACLU’s FOIA request about CIA drones because National Security prevents the U.S. Government even from confirming or denying the existence of that program. They simultaneously use secrecy as a sword and a shield: they ensure that they can make whatever claims they want about their behavior in order to glorify the President, while preventing all attempts to obtain the full and real story and, more important, to obtain adjudications about whether their conduct comports with the law.
There is one other point worth making here about all this. As part of the Obama administration’s unprecedented war against whistleblowers, Bradley Manning is currently being prosecuted not merely for leaking classified information, but also for “aiding the enemy” (Al Qaeda), which carries a term of life in prison. Yesterday, the judge presiding over his court-martial (needless to say) refused to dismiss this charge, concluding that any deliberate release of classified information that one knows will end up in Al Qaeda’s hands can constitute this crime. As the ACLU’s Ben Wizner points out, “the implications of the government’s argument are breathtaking” because it would convert any unauthorized leak into this extremely serious offense.
Wow: that sounds like it’s going to be some really hard-hitting investigative journalism there: they’re letting him into the Situation Room, where it all happened. So they can’t release documents in a court proceeding about the raid because it’s all just so Super Secret, but they can all sit around with Brian Williams and “relive the pivotal moments” about “one of the country’s greatest military missions.” NBC says that this mission “until now, has been shrouded in great secrecy.” Now that Election Season is upon us and it’s apparently acceptable to disclose the details, shouldn’t the court re-consider its ruling from this week: one based on the DOJ’s insistence that this mission was far too secret to allow disclosure? Also: will the national masturbatory ritual over this incident ever end?
An unusual way of looking at the unemployment rate.
Tells a different story from the numbers.
The BLS no longer considers as “unemployed” those workers without jobs who have not looked for work in the past year because they feel no jobs are available.
While the BLS was reporting seasonally adjusted unemployment in January 2012 at only 8.3 percent, it was also reporting U6 seasonally adjusted unemployment in January 2012 was 15.1 percent.
The only measure BLS reports to the public as the official monthly unemployment rate is the seasonally adjusted U3 number.
Williams wrote that the “headline numbers” BLS reported for January 2012 were statistically manipulated and “simply not believable.”
He calculates his “Official SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate” by adding back into to the BLS U6 numbers those long-term discouraged workers who have not looked for work in the past year.
Williams’ “Official SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate” shows unemployment in January 2012 was 22.5percent , a 0.1 percent increase over December 2011, whereas the BLS figures were designed to report a .8-point decline, from a seasonally adjusted U3 rate of 9.1 percent in January 2011 to a seasonally adjusted 8.3 percent rate in January 2012.
EEK!?and the glass is still half empty
And the
reality is staring in your face, yet you still refuse to see it.
and the glass is still half empty
And the reality is staring in your face, yet you still refuse to see it.
Classic, I realize I can't satisfy your unhappiness over what you perceive is a lack of justice.
A glass half-full or half-empty comes of a person's own experience and personality.
You apparently feel that individual bankers should be criminally prosecuted
for their decisions and actions that lead to the mortgage and financial crisis.
But the officers of a corporation are essentially immune from prosecutions,
unless they have acted criminally manner (theft, fraud, embezzlement, etc.).
In fact, the corporation is required to legally defend it's officials for their decisions,
and may be required to financially indemnify the officials from any penalties.
The Board of Directors may dismiss it's officials, with or without settlements.
But as such, the penalties that the corporation, itself, can incur are only financial,
and these are usually offset by liability insurance.
Various people, including your nemesis, Obama, have said the
bankers may not necessarily have performed illegally
- immorally, maybe - but illegally, not likely or very difficult to prove.
To attribute lack of federal prosecution to political contributions is dissimulation.
OTOH, individual corporate officers are being prosecuted (fraudulent robo-signing, etc.)
by States Attorney Generals, but these may not be the particular individuals you want to see imprisoned.
Maybe a review at what has been proceeding against Washington Mutual
will assuage some of your dissatisfaction. Here is a bit of
WaMu's recent history:
Stephen Rotella joined WaMu as president and COO and acted
as president of the Home Loans Group until David Schneider took the position in mid-2005.
WaMu also appointed a new Chief Enterprise Risk Officer (Ronald Cathcart)
and a new Controller (John Woods) at this time .
Chase Bank eventually came to own WaMu's assets, and are defending
these "former" executives in a law suite brought by the FDIC.
Here is a link to
Bloomberg News:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The FDIC has authorized lawsuits against 158 officers and directors
in an effort to recoup more than $3.5 billion in losses stemming from the credit crisis,[/COLOR]
agency spokesman Andrew Gray said today in an e-mail.
The agency, which has shuttered more than 290 lenders since the start of 2008,
has filed five other cases against officers and directors,
including one in July seeking $300 million in damages from four executives of IndyMac Bancorp Inc.
In 2008, a class-action law suite was brought against WaMu on behalf of it's stockholders.
Defendants include top WaMu executives, directors, underwriters of securities offerings,
and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Big 4 accounting firm.
<snip>
Confidential Witness 17, a former Senior Vice President of Enterprise Risk Management,
“explained that various Risk Reports were delivered to WaMu’s senior management
– including at least Defendants Rotella, Cathcart and Casey
– during 2006 ‘specifically quantified the fact that the Company
was exceeding certain risk parameters as dictated by [WaMu’s] risk guidelines’” (Complaint p. 44)
The sequence of events is in this
link:
TheCourt's final decision says, in part:
Case 2:08-md-01919-MJP Document 906 Filed 11/04/11 Page 2 of 3
ORDER APPROVING PLAN OF ALLOCATION OF NET SETTLEMENT FUNDS
Master No: 2:08-md-1919 MJP
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that:
1. [COLOR="DarkRed"]This Order approving the Plan of Allocation[/COLOR] incorporates by reference the definitions
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Individual Officer and Director Defendants
and with Washington Mutual, Inc. dated June 30, 2011 (ECF No. 874-1),
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the Underwriter Defendants
dated June 30, 2011 (ECF No. 875-2), and the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
with Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP dated June 30, 2011 (ECF No. 874-3)
(collectively, the “Stipulations”) and all terms used herein shall,
with respect to the respective Stipulations, have the same meanings as set forth
in the applicable Stipulation or in the Notice.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]6. The Court hereby finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation
is, in all respects, fair and equitable to the Class.
Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the Plan of Allocation proposed by Lead Plaintiff.
7. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Order, and immediate entry by the
Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2011.
Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge [/COLOR]
So far as WaMu officials, Kerry Killinger, Stephen Rotella, David Schneider, are concerned,
they lost their jobs and their penalties were published 12/17/12 in the
NY Times.
The article also discusses the reasoning behind the FDIC settlement.
But, I suspect all this will have little effect on your feelings
about Obama and the Dept of Justice, and you will vote accordingly.
So be it... only you can fill your own glass.
LAMP. I've missed you! :)
Still searching the interior of Alaska for HLJ :rolleyes
I guess you may as well go on home. :(
I think he was abducted by aliens. Or he rose up or something.
You apparently feel that individual bankers should be criminally prosecuted for their decisions and actions that lead to the mortgage and financial crisis.
yep
In fact, the corporation is required to legally defend it's officials for their decisions, and may be required to financially indemnify the officials from any penalties.
fine -go after them then.
your nemesis, Obama
Completely incorrect.
To attribute lack of federal prosecution to political contributions is dissimulation.
perspective
But, I suspect all this will have little effect on your feelings
about Obama and the Dept of Justice, and you will vote accordingly.
correct
OBAMA'S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:
2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team."
2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."
2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."
2008: " Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."
2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."
Bbretbart will never die.... :) eva.
Isn't breitbart dead?
like elvis.. y'know how he released "a little less conversation" years after he died? Others are pulling the strings on his dead body to make money.
Except Elvis has *talent*, *intelligence*, and *something positive* to contribute. Other than that, it's just the same.
[YOUTUBE]d0vXxH1IEmQ[/YOUTUBE]
The newer version transposed the key of A major recording of three months earlier into E major and featured a vocal, now with heavy reverb, in which Elvis performed an octave leap between verses, with backup vocals from The Blossoms.[2] This new version was not officially released by RCA until the 1990s.
So, when are we going after Borat? And why will our politicians not even discuss it?
Breitbart will haunt Liberal Causes for years to come. Esp as people like me give them the money to do it. ;)
OBAMA'S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:
2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team."
2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."
2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."
2008: " Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."
2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."
Politifact Destroys this. The truth always matters.
Doesn't matter.
to some people.
The truth always matters.
to some people.
...
generally speaking, these are different groups of people.
Bwahahaha! That was EXCELLENT, V.
Grunwald is an obvious Obama supporter but his arguments at least make logical sense. Long but interesting read.
Think Again: Obama's New Deal
The president's Republican critics are dead wrong. The stimulus worked.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/think_again_obamas_new_deal?page=0,0
Edit: Well apparently he is writing a book on the topic...
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Deal-Michael-Grunwald/dp/1451642326/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1335200283&sr=1-1Gruwald says the stimulus saved us from a second great depression.
If that's true, then it was a bad thing. It appears that's what it will take to get people to wake the fuck up to what's been going on for the last 30 years. Apparently there are still too many people doing too well, to create enough interest in straightening congress out.:mad:
Gruwald says the stimulus saved us from a second great depression.
If that's true, then it was a bad thing. It appears that's what it will take to get people to wake the fuck up to what's been going on for the last 30 years. Apparently there are still too many people doing too well, to create enough interest in straightening congress out.:mad:
There's enough people doing really, really, really well who want to preserve the status quo and retain their immunity from the laws the rest of us are expected to follow. Wealthy tea party members establish PAC's to get their right wing wacko candidates elected. Upper echelon members of the government routinely smooth the way for lucrative contracts for large companies whose CEO's have deep pockets - deep pockets to keep the money flowing to the correct party and candidates. Naturally, these CEO's can do whatever they feel like and no one raises so much as an eyebrow.
Convert to the Church of the Latter Day Saints now and avoid the rush.
Not only the "people doing really, really, really well", there are a shitload of people not doing as well as they were, but still employed, hanging on, and getting by. They're scared because the know if they lose their job they're well and truly fucked, so they don't want to rock the boat. They'll likely plug their ears, say nanananana, and vote for the party they always voted for.
It will take a real depression to piss these people off enough to clean house. The Teaparty played to the disgruntled mood of the country with congress, but see who it attracted. People that were comparatively well off, and not pissed off enough to really think about who they were voting for. How else would you explain Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
Not only the "people doing really, really, really well", there are a shitload of people not doing as well as they were, but still employed, hanging on, and getting by. They're scared because the know if they lose their job they're well and truly fucked, so they don't want to rock the boat. They'll likely plug their ears, say nanananana, and vote for the party they always voted for.
It will take a real depression to piss these people off enough to clean house. The Teaparty played to the disgruntled mood of the country with congress, but see who it attracted. People that were comparatively well off, and not pissed off enough to really think about who they were voting for. How else would you explain Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
Lacking cable or even a TV, I had to look up O'Donnell on the net. I like this quote of hers in 2007 on the O'Reilly Factor. O'Donnell said, "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.”
Where's Mickey when we need him?
The fact that people actually vote for her shows just how ignorant and intolerant American voters have become. The far right is engaging in what amounts to the politics of hatred. I think that as much as anything influences Joe Six Pack when he enters the polling booth. I don't know if a deepening economic crisis would influence old Joe much. If he lost his job, he'd probably blame the flag burners in Congress who oppose giving big corporations even more tax breaks than they already get, pander to "welfare queens," and won't give the little guy a break by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Surely all those rich people who suddenly have extra money would use it to buy fancy items at the hardware store Joe was laid off from.
What Joe refuses to understand is that big corporations use their tax breaks to give zillion dollar raises to their CEO's - not create new jobs; that welfare queens actually constitute only about 20% of those who receive assistance from social programs - 80% of the beneficiaries of these programs are the elderly and the disabled; and the rich bitch from the snappy gated community was already buying her gold faucets from some chic overseas outfit and would never be caught dead in Joe's hardware shop.
Americans today are ignorant and mean and they scare me.
Not only the "people doing really, really, really well", there are a shitload of people not doing as well as they were, but still employed, hanging on, and getting by. They're scared because the know if they lose their job they're well and truly fucked, so they don't want to rock the boat. They'll likely plug their ears, say nanananana, and vote for the party they always voted for.
It will take a real depression to piss these people off enough to clean house. The Teaparty played to the disgruntled mood of the country with congress, but see who it attracted. People that were comparatively well off, and not pissed off enough to really think about who they were voting for. How else would you explain Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
I don't disagree with you but I don't know if people will just "wake up" if the situation gets bad enough. It would be the hopeful possibility but xenophobia et al. is the other option, which would just make a horrible situation worse. Many genocides (Rwanda and Nazi's for example) are the result of populations getting pushed to the edge and taking it out on people who had no control over the situation in the first place.
I don't know if people will just wake up if the situation gets worse either. But I've already seen they won't if it doesn't. I was being optimistic, but you could very well be right. If you are, that would solve the unemployment problem. Lots of jobs opening up suddenly and undertakers hiring.
I don't disagree with you but I don't know if people will just "wake up" if the situation gets bad enough. It would be the hopeful possibility but xenophobia et al. is the other option, which would just make a horrible situation worse. Many genocides (Rwanda and Nazi's for example) are the result of populations getting pushed to the edge and taking it out on people who had no control over the situation in the first place.
Excellent point. I would also like to point out that American culture and society has undergone a major sea change since the depression era in the 30's. At the time of the great depression a much higher percentage of Americans lived in rural areas. The small family farm where the plowing was done with a mule could still to be found all over the country. If you live in a rural area you have fewer neighbors and you come to know the ones you do have well. They may have shared the boundary of your back 40 for generations. People helped one another out as a matter of course. You might help Joe out with the haying, but he could just as well be over at your place someday, helping to rebuild your barn that was lost in a fire. It was far easier for the Americans of that era to understand the importance of helping their fellow countrymen in a time of dire need.
Today's America is a highly urbanized place. Everybody tends to reside in the big city where you can live next door to someone for years and never even know their name. If you happen to have a flat tire on a busy city street, people are more likely to honk their horns in irritation than they are to stop and help you change your tire. Everyone is anonymous. The sense of community and shared hardship does not exist. If someone loses their job or their home they probably deserved it because (pick one) they were the wrong color or spoke with the wrong accent or they lacked the good old American work ethic or they were faking the condition that rendered them disabled. Etc. ect., ect.
Today's America values wealth and priviledge above all else. "He who dies with the most toys wins." Taxation is considered a form of slavery by the tea party because they'd prefer to spend that money on a new Mercedes rather than contribute to the shared fund which maintains our highways and the rest of our national infrastructure.
Today's America always seems to be involved in some undeclared war in some country that most Americans know little about and absolutely nothing about what is really going on. The all volunteer military allows Americans to shrug their shoulders with the comment that those who serve in our armed forces signed on for it. This national state of denial is abetted by the rule that no pictures be taken of the caskets of the dead that are returned daily to our shores. These men and women gave their lives for a country that wants to pretend they never existed. How ironic is that?
Government spending on ever newer and ever better weapons of death is a sacred cow that no one will touch. Just as no one will touch our veterans either. The VA continues to be the target of budget slashers. Our veterans have served their purpose and those who have deep wounds of the body or spirit are useless. We relegate them to city parks and over crowded homeless shelters, and should we pass one on the street, we refuse to meet his eyes.
Today's America is looking into the abyss and the abyss is looking back.
From my
post here last March
Under the agreement, the banks will provide principal relief and other
borrower assistance valued at $17 billion. In addition, roughly $5 billion
of the settlement will be paid in fines, while $3 billion will be used to help
refinancing for homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth.
The deal also includes new mortgage-servicing standards.
Today, the first preliminary report was made public...
NY Times
By SHAILA DEWAN
Published: August 29, 2012
Homeowners See Benefits in Bank Plan
[COLOR="DarkRed"]More than 130,000 homeowners have received $10.5 billion in relief
under the national settlement over foreclosure abuses, according to
a preliminary report issued Wednesday by the settlement monitor.[/COLOR]
Under the settlement in February, reached in response to evidence
that the foreclosure process had been riddled with fraud,
the country’s five largest mortgage servicers promised $25 billion
to help stem the tide of homeowner losses.
About $20 billion of that was to be in relief to homeowners,
primarily through various forms of debt forgiveness.
Although it may seem that banks have already satisfied more
than half of their commitment, only a portion of the $10.5 billion
will count, because of the way the relief is tallied.
The banks — Ally Financial, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo
— reported that the [COLOR="DarkRed"]bulk of the help so far had come in the form of short sales,[/COLOR]
in which lenders allow homeowners to sell for less than what they owe.
Many homeowners have been stuck in their homes because they have lost so much value.
The banks reported $8.7 billion in debt written off through short sales.
<SNIP>
So this "relief" consists of losing your house and walking away with nothing, but at least they don't keep chasing you for more? Thanks, banks.
So this "relief" consists of losing your house and walking away with nothing,
but at least they don't keep chasing you for more? Thanks, banks.
Ummm... I don't think I would describe it that way.
The article also talks about some of the foreclosures being settled
by "home equity loans", while others were "short sales".
I think this would mean that for those owners who had significant equity
(e.g., more than 20% of loan-to-value), they could end up staying in their homes,
and paying a reduced monthly payment (but probably at a higher interest rate).
The short sales were likely the people who became "owners" with very little down payment.
For them,
they had little/no equity in the property, and so lived in the house
while making mortgage payments that were essentially all interest.
(aka "rent")
For these people, I would say they essentially had nothing to walk away from,
but they preserved their credit ratings, and maybe some dignity.
The people who were really screwed by all this were those whose foreclosures
had already been completed, and they had been forced off of their property.
They lost their home, their credit rating, and many other valuables.
And the maximum they received from this "settlement" was $2,000. :eyebrow:
And the beat goes on...
NY Journal
9/28/12
Bank of America to Pay $2.43 Billion to Settle Suit Over Merrill Deal
Bank of America announced on Friday that it would pay $2.43 billion
to settle a class action lawsuit related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch,
as the legal woes continue for the financial institution.
<snip>
Early in the financial crisis, Bank of America looked to be one of the winners.
As other banks struggled to stay afloat, the firm swooped in to buy
Countrywide Financial, the mortgage lender, in 2008.
Later that year, Bank of America agreed to purchase Merrill Lynch, the beleaguered investment bank.
But both deals are proving to be a legal albatross.
Countrywide’s mortgage problems have weighed on profits for awhile.
In the second quarter of 2011, the bank reported an $8.8 billion loss,
mainly related to a settlement with mortgage investors.
Earlier this year, Bank of America and four other banks agreed to a
$26 billion settlement related to their foreclosure practices.
Now, it faces a similar burden from the Merrill Lynch deal.
Bank of America said it would take a $1.6 billion hit related to the settlement
and other legal expenses.
And this too...
NY Times
STEVEN M. DAVIDOFF
9/27/12
A $50 Billion Claim of Havoc Looms for Bank of America
<snip>
This episode also spawned a lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission
that Bank of America, Mr. Lewis and Joseph Price, the former chief financial officer,
settled for $150 million.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan approved the deal
but complained that it didn’t sufficiently penalize the individuals involved.
The amount was paid by Bank of America with no liability for Mr. Lewis or Mr. Price.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Judge Rakoff called the settlement “half-baked justice at best.”
Judge Rakoff may see his wish for greater penalties granted.
The New York attorney general’s office has a lawsuit on the matter.[/COLOR]<snip>
Yes, the beat goes on...
Wall Street Journal
JEAN EAGLESHAM And DAN FITZPATRICK
10/01/12
J.P. Morgan Sued on Mortgage Bonds
New York's top prosecutor filed a civil complaint against J.P. Morgan Chase Co.,
alleging widespread [COLOR="DarkRed"]fraud[/COLOR] by the company's Bear Stearns unit in the sale
of mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the financial crisis.
Eric Schneiderman, New York's attorney general, filed the civil lawsuit
in New York state court Monday. [COLOR="DarkRed"]The case is the first brought under the aegis of
a law enforcement group that was formed by President Barack Obama in January
to pursue alleged wrongdoing related to the financial crisis.[/COLOR]
More cases from the group are expected to follow.
"We intend to follow up with similar actions against other sponsors and underwriters of RMBS,"
said an official in the attorney general's office.
The allegations relate to billions of dollars of subprime securities
issued by Bear Stearns Cos. before the troubled firm, now owned by J.P.Morgan, collapsed in 2008.
The suit alleges that losses on residential-mortgage securities issued by Bear Stearns
in 2006 and 2007 alone were "astounding," totaling $22.5 billion, or more than a quarter
of the original principal balance. The action asks that the company be made to pay
an undisclosed amount of damages "caused, directly or indirectly, by the fraudulent and deceptive acts."
New York's attorney general filed a civil complaint against J.P. Morgan Chase alleging
widespread fraud in the sale of mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the financial crisis.
<snip>
From
here
I agree with this guy. Frankly, I'm embarrassed by the rudeness of the opposition in this country.
here was a time not so long ago when Americans, regardless of their political stripes, rallied round their president. Once elected, the man who won the White House was no longer viewed as a republican or democrat, but the President of the United States. The oath of office was taken, the wagons were circled around the country’s borders and it was America versus the rest of the world with the president of all the people at the helm.
The health-care debate, which looked more like extreme fighting in a mud pit than a national dialogue, revealed a very vulgar side of America. President Obama’s face appeared on protest signs white-faced and blood-mouthed in a satanic clown image. In other tasteless portrayals, people who disagreed with his position distorted his face to look like Hitler complete with mustache and swastika.
Odd, that burning the flag makes Americans crazy, but depicting the president as a clown and a maniacal fascist is accepted as part of the new rude America.
...regardless of their political stripes, rallied round their president. Once elected, the man who won the White House was no longer viewed as a republican or democrat, but the President of the United States.
Still many who feel that way regardless of what this crappy POS site says.
Here's the link
http://theobamadiary.com/tag/hes/
And there are PLENTY of pics of Bush and virtually every president since the 50's with some sort of Hitler reference. Bush did get a movie made about him being assassinated too. To say that this crap started with Obama is Bullshit.
I live in a city that is very well off... good schools, expensive houses, etc.
When the housing crisis began there was little effect here for quite a while.
But eventually, it did hit, and home sales slumped and then prices fell.
Construction of new homes slowed and building permits dropped.
I've heard that places that were slowest to be hit by the crisis would be the first to show the recovery.
And last week as I was driving around town, I noticed several new construction sites.
Today, I came across this article.
Maybe, just maybe, the worst is over.
Bloomberg
10/17/12
Housing Starts in U.S. Surged in September to Four-Year High
Housing starts in the U.S. surged 15 percent in September
to the highest level in four years, adding to signs the industry at the
heart of the financial crisis is on the road to recovery.
Starts jumped to a 872,000 annual rate last month, the most since July 2008
and exceeding all forecasts in a Bloomberg survey of economists,
Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington.
[ATTACH]41236[/ATTACH]
The median estimate of 81 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 770,000.
An increase in building permits may mean the gains will be sustained.
<snip>
Building permits, a proxy for future construction, jumped to an 894,000 annual rate,
also exceeding the median forecast and the most since July 2008.
They were projected to rise to 810,000, with a range of 780,000 to 850,000.
The number of permits swelled by 45.1 percent since September 2011,
the biggest annual jump since 1983.
Construction of single-family houses climbed 11 percent from August to a 603,000 rate.
Work on multifamily homes, such apartment buildings, increased 25.1 percent
to an annual rate of 269,000.
Maybe, just maybe, the worst is over.
[ATTACH]41237[/ATTACH]
I'm completely frightened.
Unless I get a job offer, I ain't gettin' into Canada.
Can't even get into Canada. :headshake
Maybe I'll move to Mexico instead. :biggrinba
Mexico doesn't let immigrants in, I don't think. I don't think you can emigrate there. You have to kind of sneak in and lay low. And speak Spanish.
it would be easier to sneak into canada. we'd blend.
Well Jebus Crepes...where CAN I move to?
Anyone?
let's try islands...they seem really lax on security and shit like that. The Seychelles? They can't even extradite us from there! Or the canaries...NOT Hispaniola though. NO WAY.
eta: it can't be Oz coz they let NO ONE in; but I dunno about the Kiwi's and how they do it. we could do some research...
Maybe, just maybe, the worst is over.
Also a report on the news yesterday that defaults on loans, credit cards, and mortgages is steadily dropping a significant amount.
I know people who weren't hit nearly as bad by this recession as many were. They were working, paying their bills, with no wolves at the door. Sure their house was worth less, but they weren't planning on selling or borrowing against it anyway, so it only made a difference on paper, not lifestyle. Their stocks dropped in value, but most have come back.
But in the constant barrage of 24 hour news, virtually every news story included the tag line, "in this economy". Plus the political campaign is telling us doom & gloom is the order of the day. So even these people that skated fairly well through it all, talk constantly how bad things are.
The recession will be over when the public perceives it to be over, regardless of the unemployment rate.
I don't know if I could get into the Canary Islands, not being a canary. How about the Virgin Islands?
How about Bali? I just want to walk around singing Bali Hai all day. I bet they never heard that one before. ;)
we could go to Key West, P-town Mass., or anywhere in Vermont b/c those places all flaunt the US gov't no matter who gets elected.
eta: um....I don't think they'd let either of us in the Virgin Islands...how about Iceland!!!!!!!!! We could be White Walkers!
I want to live somewhere where everyone rides mopeds around.
Key West is good, but I don't trust repubs in office if we get a hurricane or something.
Ooooh, Switzerland! It's all like, neutral and stuff. And I have people there! Allons-y!
Key West tried to secede once and they named themselves the Conch Republic.
Switzerland...isn't that full of ex-nazi's guarding their art and gold?
We be going to the Frenchy part.
Also a report on the news yesterday that defaults on loans, credit cards, and mortgages is steadily dropping a significant amount.
I know people who weren't hit nearly as bad by this recession as many were. They were working, paying their bills, with no wolves at the door. Sure their house was worth less, but they weren't planning on selling or borrowing against it anyway, so it only made a difference on paper, not lifestyle. Their stocks dropped in value, but most have come back.
But in the constant barrage of 24 hour news, virtually every news story included the tag line, "in this economy". Plus the political campaign is telling us doom & gloom is the order of the day. So even these people that skated fairly well through it all, talk constantly how bad things are.
The recession will be over when the public perceives it to be over, regardless of the unemployment rate.
Another well spoken post. The recession *is* over, our economy has stopped receding some time ago. We're in a depression, a depressed economy now, but no one wants to call it that either.
Actually, xoB, you understate your point which is self-evident. It's so true that it defies refutation. You sound like you're channeling
FDR:
Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds.
among others ;)
There's a new dog on the block... with BIG teeth
NY Times
BEN PROTESS and MICHAEL J. DE LA MERCED
11/2/12
FERC Takes Aim at Wall Street
Wall Street finds itself in a bare-knuckle brawl with a government agency.<snip>
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the government watchdog overseeing
the oil, natural gas and electricity business, has lately taken aim at three major banks
suspected of manipulating energy prices.
After taking action against JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank,
the agency on Wednesday threatened to impose its largest fine ever against Barclays.<snip>
The banks sense that a larger regulatory battle is at stake.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Unlike financial regulators, the energy commission can fine firms $1 million a day for every violation.[/COLOR]
The string of recent cases, banks fear, could lay the groundwork for years of costly litigation.
The agency’s effort is rooted in a 2005 law passed in the aftermath of the Enron fraud.
The law created an enforcement unit at the agency and gave it the authority to assess hefty fines.
Under the Obama administration, the enforcement unit expanded
its ranks and received a nearly 50 percent budget increase.
The unit, which this year created a specialized group to analyze arcane data
and detect manipulation, also hired seasoned criminal investigators.
<snip>
The commission disclosed this summer that it was investigating JPMorgan Chase
over potential manipulation of markets in California and the Midwest,
exploring whether the firm had engaged in abusive bidding for energy prices.
The fight also centers on a technical issue: whether JPMorgan must turn over internal e-mail.
The bank initially refused to turn over documents to the California agency
that oversees the state’s power grid, citing attorney-client privilege.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]In September, the federal energy commission ordered the bank to produce evidence
that it had not violated market rules, or risk losing its license to sell power at market rates.
Last month, JPMorgan apologized and turned over some of the documents,
blaming miscommunication for the impasse<snip>[/COLOR].
The broader inquiry into the bank continues.
Not to worry, Romney will send the FERC the way of Big Bird.
We don't need no regulation
We don't need no bank control
No meddling with capitalism
FERC, leave them banks alone
Hey FERC, leave them banks alone
All in all it's just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
hmmm...
Actually, there were twelve terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during George W. Bush’s tenure — the most of any president in history — and eight of those occurred while Donald Rumsfeld was in office.and eight of those occurred while Donald Rumsfeld was in office.
There is nothing more suspicious than a perfect alibi. :eyebrow:
Remember just a few weeks ago when Obama was being criticized for the high price of gasoline.
Where are those screeching critics now ?
Western Oregon had prices of $4.49 / gal for regular back then.
Today, on the price has dropped to $3.51.
Should Obama be praised for this ?
Obviously not... just as the earlier charges were outside of his control.
Here comes
Norquist, out of the woodwork again...
CGS This Morning
(CBS News) with on-line video
11/12/12
Grover Norquist: Obama's goal is to raise energy taxes on middle class
President Obama met with congressional leaders on Friday
to tackle the upcoming fiscal cliff and over the weekend,
several Republicans in Congress said there is momentum to make a deal before 2013.
As it stands, Mr. Obama has stated that he will allow the Bush tax cuts
for wealthier Americans to expire and Speaker John Boehner has said Congress
can generate revenue from tax reform and closing special interest loopholes.
Grover Norquist, an anti-tax lobbyist and founder of "Americans For Tax Reform,"
has led the conservative effort against the tax increase.
He has gotten nearly all the Republican members of Congress to sign his anti-tax pledge
and on Monday, Norquist shared his own ideas for resolving the fiscal cliff on "CBS This Morning."
<snip>
"I'd rather do growth than raise taxes, which slows the economy and damages things,"
Norquist said. [COLOR="DarkRed"]"Obama is not interested in taxing the rich;
he admits there's no money there...his goal, as you saw after the election,
is to raise energy taxes on the middle class, not something he mentioned during the campaign."[/COLOR]
The 5-minute video in the link above of his sophisticated interview is worth watching.
I didn't know very much about our friend, Grover Norquist until now. He first came to my notice when I saw him on an interview with CNN. The interviewer was implying that any Republican who broke faith with Norquist's mandatory "no new taxes" pledge was dead meat as far as the Party was concerned. Norquist did a nice snake imitation, his eyes slithering here, slithering there - neither confirming nor denying anything.
I checked Norquist out on Wiki and discovered that he is the behind the scenes puppetmaster who pulls the strings on almost every Republican politician and is one of the Tea Party's biggest fans. He's helped shape Republican policies at least since the Reagan years and helped engineer W.'s election along with W.'s tax cuts for the wealthy.
Norquist's day job is to head Americans for Tax Reform, a non profit which is not required to disclose the identity of its contributors. However, according to CBS News, a significant portion of ATF's funding appears to come from wealthy individuals, foundations and corporate interests.
One of the few Republicans who has stood up to Norquist is former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Simpson describes Norquist's position as "no taxes, under any situation, even if your country goes to hell."
I would say that Simpson appears to be correct.
Here's some news the Republicans did not want to hear...
CBS News/ November 14, 2012, 9:30 AM
Brian Montopoli, Jill Jackson
Pelosi to stay on as Minority Leader
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California,
who has served as the highest-ranking female politician in American history,
will stay on as the top Democrat in the House during the coming 113th Congress, CBS News has learned.
<snip>
Maybe this will bring Merc back to The Cellar.
He was very fond of posting his thoughts about Pelosi.
Not a joke.
President Obama is using a Cold War-era mind-control technique known as "Delphi" to coerce Americans into accepting his plan for a United Nations-run communist dictatorship in which suburbanites will be forcibly relocated to cities. That's according to a four-hour briefing delivered to Republican state senators at the Georgia state Capitol last month.
a Cold War-era mind-control technique known as "Delphi"
My understanding and experience with the Dephi Method is almost the opposite of that description.
I believe that instead of mind-control, this method of decision-making
removes the influence of the more authoritative or well-known leaders,
and eliminates any "appeal to authority" by the reputation of individuals in the group,
It allows equal weight to the idea or proposal of each individual respondent in the group.
Here is a description from Wikipedia:
The Delphi method (play /ˈdɛlfaɪ/ DEL-fy) is a structured communication technique,
originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method
which relies on a panel of experts.[1]
In the standard version, the experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds.
After each round, a facilitator provides an anonymous summary of the experts’ forecasts
from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments.
Thus, experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies
of other members of their panel.
It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease
and the group will converge towards the "correct" answer.
Finally, the process is stopped after a pre-defined stop criterion (e.g. number of rounds,
achievement of consensus, stability of results) and the mean or median scores
of the final rounds determine the results.[2]
But then, re-defining words to mean just their opposite is a traditional tool of right wing extremists.
Remember just a few weeks ago when Obama was being criticized for the high price of gasoline.
Where are those screeching critics now ?
Western Oregon had prices of $4.49 / gal for regular back then.
Today, on the price has dropped to $3.51.
Should Obama be praised for this ?
Obviously not... just as the earlier charges were outside of his control.
Today, a story is emerging that the "shortage" of gasoline back then was phony.
The story is that the price hike was artificially caused by an announcement
that two refineries were "off line", and it was just a matter of "supply and demand".
The same source that helped bring down Enron is saying that "pollution" records
show that these refineries continued running and producing gasoline.
The Dept of Justice is being asked to investigate...
P.S. Today, the lowest prices for regular gas in PDX are at $3.41 / gal
it's about $3.25 / gal out here
I did a bit of Googling, and found that this questioning of the refineries did come up last July.
I'm sort of surprised the media did not make more of it, but instead fed the attack-Obama frenzy.
Even the isolated coastal towns in Oregon have gas prices in the low, low $3.4X's now.
![funny ones]("http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/files/2009/01/bushdoor1.jpg"){kind=link}