Like

Hard (as possible) facts - political

  Thread Last Poster Posts Last Post
Archive through September 20, 2011unbridled id100
Archive through August 29, 2011Jan Vigne100
Archive through August 18, 2011unbridled id100
Archive through August 04, 2011Jan Vigne100
Archive through May 16, 2011Jan Vigne100
Archive through December 15, 2010leo stierer100
Archive through September 22, 2010leo stierer100
Archive through August 17, 2010Jan Vigne100
Archive through August 03, 2010Jan Vigne100
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2577
Registered: Oct-07
Reality is everthing that doesn't disappear when you quit believing in it.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16766
Registered: May-04
.

"Reality as you see it or reality as it is ? I cannot identify with the former and I embrace the latter."




You read that somewhere I presume.



Otherwise, you might not want to squeeze so hard, it's cutting off the bloodflow to your brain.



copy/paste, copy/paste ... can't think about reality, brain hurts ... copy/paste, copy/paste ... somewhere? ... must be another irrational, factless screed against Obama! ... double down, double down ... copy/paste ... copy/paste ... double down ... brain hurts ...




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 705
Registered: Mar-04
"You read that somewhere I presume. "

Yes you are an open book.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16768
Registered: May-04
.

That doesn't make any sense - but then nothing you post ever makes any sense. Even you copy/paste skills are sorely lacking in rationality.


copy/paste, copy/paste ... can't think about reality, brain hurts ... copy/paste, copy/paste ... somewhere? ... must be another irrational, factless screed against Obama! ... double down, double down ... copy/paste ... copy/paste ... double down ... brain hurts ...




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 706
Registered: Mar-04
There isn't much rationality involved in copy and pasting... There is a theme to what I put up though, which is that barry is an incompetent and must be voted out. What you are is a bitter aging woman who enjoys browbeating people, but as I told you I don't appease bullies...

I have asked you at least a dozen times the same couple of simple questions... You refuse to answer them and simply echo the conga line of freaks at msNbc, and you talk about depth ? Everything Republican is bad/evil, Obama and the dems are noble champions who have the best interests of the "people" in mind, and it even says "fact" in the title...
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16769
Registered: May-04
.


RIP DISCRIMINATION

Statement by the President on Certification of Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Today, we have taken the final major step toward ending the discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law that undermines our military readiness and violates American principles of fairness and equality. In accordance with the legislation that I signed into law last December, I have certified and notified Congress that the requirements for repeal have been met. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will end, once and for all, in 60 days—on September 20, 2011.

As Commander in Chief, I have always been confident that our dedicated men and women in uniform would transition to a new policy in an orderly manner that preserves unit cohesion, recruitment, retention and military effectiveness. Today's action follows extensive training of our military personnel and certification by Secretary Panetta and Admiral Mullen that our military is ready for repeal. As of September 20th, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country. Our military will no longer be deprived of the talents and skills of patriotic Americans just because they happen to be g*y or lesbi*n.

I want to commend our civilian and military leadership for moving forward in the careful and deliberate manner that this change requires, especially with our nation at war. I want to thank all our men and women in uniform, including those who are g*y or lesbi*n, for their professionalism and patriotism during this transition. Every American can be proud that our extraordinary troops and their families, like earlier generations that have adapted to other changes, will only grow stronger and remain the best fighting force in the world and a reflection of the values of justice and equality that the define us as Americans.



Kudos to this Democratic President who has finally and forever ended yet another chapter in the ugly history of discrimination to which too many in this society fearfully cling. Let us all remember the witch hunts which followed the passage of DADT as a regretful period in our journey toward a better, more equal America.


Mullen: DADT Repeal Is ''First And Foremost A Matter Of Integrity'

The repeal of the military''s "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that banned g*ys and lesbi*ns from serving openly in the armed forces went into effect Tuesday, which Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called "an historic day for the Pentagon and the nation."

In a press conference at the Pentagon on Tuesday, Panetta said that "thanks to this change I believe we move closer to achieving the goal at the foundation of the values that America is all about. Equality, equal opportunity and dignity for all Americans."

Admiral Mike Mullen called the repeal "first and foremost a matter of integrity. [DADT] was fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution." He added that he's "convinced we did the work necessary to prepare for this change," and that "today is really about every man and woman who serves this country, every man in woman in uniform regardless of how they define themselves."

"It's the right thing to do, it's done, and we need to move on," Mullen said.

Military leadership had written in a letter that beginning just after midnight on Tuesday, the military's "rules, regulations and policies reflect the repeal guidance issued by the Department of Defense and will apply uniformly without regard to sexu*l orientation, which is a personal an private matter."

"We expect all personnel to follow our Values by implementing the repeal fully, fairly and in accordance with policy guidance," the letter continued. "It is the duty of all personnel to treat each other with dignity and respect, while maintaining good order and discipline throughout our ranks. Doing so, will help the U.S. Army remain the Strength of the Nation."

Read the full letter here (.pdf).

The DADT repeal took effect after 18 years and after more than 14,000 military discharges. Congress passed the repeal back in December by a vote of 65-31, and President Obama signed it into law shortly after.

Obama released a statement Tuesday marking the end of the policy, saying "the discriminatory law known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is finally and formally repealed."

"I was proud to sign the Repeal Act into law last December because I knew that it would enhance our national security, increase our military readiness, and bring us closer to the principles of equality and fairness that define us as Americans. Today's achievement is a tribute to all the patriots who fought and marched for change,"?" Obama said.
}




From that far right wingnut bastion The American Thinker(?);



8 GOP senators who voted for repeal of DADT

As with any big vote, it came down to a matter of individual conscience in the end. The 8 GOP senators who sided with the Democrats on the issue of DADT repeal all expressed varying degrees of concern over how the new policy will be implemented, but the surprise vote of Senator Burr in favor of repeal revealed the the North Carolinian as conflicted:


The Republican senators voting "yes" with the Democrats on repeal were Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John Ensign of Nevada, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska - and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine.

But while Kirk and Ensign had previously indicated they were open to voting for repeal, Burr's vote came as a surprise even to the sponsors of the legislation. Collins, who led the charge for repeal in the Senate with Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, said she lobbied every other GOP senator who voted for repeal, except for the North Carolina Republican.
"I was confident going into the vote today that we had six to seven votes. I didn't not expect eight," said Collins. "I was delighted but surprised with the vote from Sen. Burr. I think that was a gutsy vote and I was delighted. But he was not someone who I thought to lobby on the issue."

[...]


"It''s just that we've had a generational change and I have vehemently objected to making a policy change of this magnitude at this time. When cloture was passed, that settled that," Burr said. "It's not accepted practice anywhere in our society, and it only makes sense. But again, I was vehemently opposed to the timing of this."

Burr was not speaking of homosexu*lity itself as "not accepted practice" but rather discriminating against gays. Mark Kirk, who was on the fence as late as Thursday, but eventually voted in favor of repeal:

"Following their exhaustive and considered military judgment, I support the Joint Chief's recommendation to implement the repeal of the current policy once the battle effectiveness of the forces is certified and proper preparations are complete," said Kirk. "The legislation before us provides our military leaders with the time they requested to change the policy."


Only two of the yes votes are up for re-election in 2012: Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe.
}








.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16770
Registered: May-04
.

" Everything Republican is bad/evil, Obama and the dems are noble champions who have the best interests of the "people" in mind, and it even says "fact" in the title..."


You finally noticed.


I refer you to my last post above.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16771
Registered: May-04
.

Andrew Breitbart while speaking to a Tea Party crowd in Lexington Massachusetts got carried away with his speech, saying that liberals attack him "all the time". He went on to say - "Fire the first shot' Bring it on. Because I know who's on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns... There's just a part of me that wants them to cross that line"

Watch the entire video:
http://ed.msnbc.msn.com/ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHslkhZWzUQ



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16772
Registered: May-04
.

Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on 'Lost Decade'
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
WASHINGTON - Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

And in new signs of distress among the middle class, median household incomes fell last year to levels last seen in 1996.

Economists pointed to a telling statistic: It was the first time since the Great Depression that median household income, adjusted for inflation, had not risen over such a long period, said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard.

"This is truly a lost decade," Mr. Katz said. "We think of America as a place where every generation is doing better, but we're looking at a period when the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s."


The bureau's findings were worse than many economists expected, and brought into sharp relief the toll the past decade - including the painful declines of the financial crisis and recession -had taken on Americans at the middle and lower parts of the income ladder. It is also fresh evidence that the disappointing economic recovery has done nothing for the country’s poorest citizens.

The report said the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line last year, 15.1 percent, was the highest level since 1993. (The poverty line in 2010 for a family of four was $22,314.)

The report comes as President Obama gears up to try to pass a jobs bill, and analysts said the bleak numbers could help him make his case for urgency. But they could also be used against him by Republican opponents seeking to highlight economic shortcomings on his watch.

"This is one more piece of bad news on the economy," said Ron Haskins, a director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution. "This will be another cross to bear by the administration."

The past decade was also marked by a growing gap between the very top and very bottom of the income ladder. Median household income for the bottom tenth of the income spectrum fell by 12 percent from a peak in 1999, while the top 90th percentile dropped by just 1.5 percent. Overall, median household income adjusted for inflation declined by 2.3 percent in 2010 from the previous year, to $49,445. That was 7 percent less than the peak of $53,252 in 1999. Part of the income decline over time is because of the smaller size of the American family.

This year is not likely to be any better, economists said. Stimulus money has largely ended, and state and local governments have made deep cuts to staff and to budgets for social programs, both likely to move economically fragile families closer to poverty.

Minorities were hit hardest. Blacks experienced the highest poverty rate, at 27 percent, up from 25 percent in 2009, and Hispanics rose to 26 percent from 25 percent. For whites, 9.9 percent lived in poverty, up from 9.4 percent in 2009. Asians were unchanged at 12.1 percent.

An analysis by the Brookings Institution estimated that at the current rate, the recession will have added nearly 10 million people to the ranks of the poor by the middle of the decade.

Joblessness was the main culprit pushing more Americans into poverty, economists said.

Last year, about 48 million people ages 18 to 64 did not work even one week out of the year, up from 45 million in 2009, said Trudi Renwick, a Census official.

"Once you've been out of work for a long time, it's a very difficult road to get back," Mr. Katz said.

Median income fell across all working age categories, but was sharpest drop was among the young working Americans, ages 15 to 24, who experienced a decline of 9 percent.

According to the Census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 - $47,715 - was virtually unchanged, in 2010 dollars, from its level in 1973, when it was $49,065, said Sheldon Danziger, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan.

Those who do not have college degrees were particularly hard hit, he said. "The median, full time male worker has made no progress on average," Mr. Danziger said.

The recession has continued pushing 25 to 34 year olds to move in with family and friends to save money. Of that group, nearly half were living below the poverty line, when their parents’ incomes were excluded. The poverty level for a single person under the age of 65 was $11,344.

"We'’re risking a new underclass," said Timothy Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

"Young, less educated adults, mainly men, can't support their children and form stable families because they are jobless," he added.

But even the period of economic growth that came before the recession did little for the middle and bottom wage earners.

Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that the period from 2001 to 2007 was the first recovery on record where the level of poverty was deeper, and median income of working age people was lower, at the end than at the beginning.

"Even before the recession hit, a lot of people were falling behind,' he said. "This may be adding to people's sense of urgency about the economy."

The suburban poverty rate, at 11.8 percent, appears to be the highest since 1967, Mr. Sherman added. Last year more Americans fell into deep poverty, defined as less than half the official poverty line, or about $11,000, with the ranks of that group increasing to 20.5 million, or about 6.7 percent of the population.

Poverty has also swallowed more children, with about 16.4 million in its ranks last year, the highest numbers since 1962, according to William Frey, senior demographer at Brookings. That means 22 percent of children are in poverty, the highest percentage since 1993.

The census figures do not count noncash assistance, like food stamps and the earned income tax credit, and economists say that as a result they tend to overstate poverty numbers for certain groups, like children. But rises in the cost of housing, medical care and energy are not taken into account, either.

The report also said the number of uninsured Americans increased by 900,000 to 49.9 million.

Those covered by employer based insurance continued to decline in 2010, to about 55 percent, while those with government provided coverage continued to increase, up slightly to 31 percent. Employer based coverage was down from 65 percent in 2000, the report said.


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 15, 2011
An article on Wednesday about the rise in the poverty rate misstated the year in which the median income, which fell last year, was at a similar level. It was 1996, not 1997. The article also gave an incorrect figure for the number of people the Census Bureau found to be in poverty in the United States. The number is 46.2 million people, not 56.2 million.


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 17, 2011
An article on Wednesday about the rise in the poverty rate misstated the name of a research center based at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. It is the Institute for Research on Poverty, not the Institute for Research and Poverty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print



Batting .000 for the '00s, America's Lost Decade

... Century of Progress
In the 1910s, we expanded health and safety standards, established the Federal Reserve, and (unlike today) quickly lifted the limitations on civil liberties enacted during World War I.

In the '20s, we pioneered jazz, widespread radio use, motion pictures and the managerial approaches still used by modern business.

In the '30s, amid the Great Depression, we built much of the infrastructure we still use - including, most likely, the roads you drove on today and the schools where you dropped off your children.

In the '40s, we not only emerged as the preeminent power in the world but also helped develop radar, antibiotics and nuclear energy.

In the '50s, we built the interstate highway system, cured polio and used the government to help people own their own homes.

In the '60s, we went to the moon, made great strides toward racial equality, directed federal money toward better education and opened our borders to many more non-Europeans.

In the '70s, we moved toward gender equality, began dramatic advances in medical research and started cleaning up the environment.

In the '80s, we strengthened Social Security, reformed the tax code and fixed the immigration system (at least temporarily), while peacefully winding down the Cold War.

In the '90s, we balanced the budget, reformed welfare and watched the Internet - a government creation - transform our world.

The Lost Decade
And the past 10 years? Shoes off in the airport. Bruising unemployment. Slipping from first to 12th in college graduation. Even classic loser decades, like the 1930s and 1970s, were more productive than the oughts.

Census figures released this week show that for the first time since the Great Depression median household income, adjusted for inflation, hasn't risen at all in over a decade. More than 15 percent of Americans now live in poverty, and the income of the bottom 10th has fallen alarmingly. Even the suburban poverty rate is at its highest since the 1960s. The economist Lawrence Katz of Harvard University is now calling it the "Lost Decade."

Beyond No Child Left Behind (now in the process of being dismantled), President George W. Bush did nothing on the fundamentals. No rebuilding the country, no tax reform (unless you include monster tax cuts), no entitlement reform (unless you include adding a new prescription drug benefit without paying for it), no energy independence, no immigration reform, no long term deficit reduction (to the contrary, moving the budget from surplus to deep deficits).

Nothing New
In short, nothing to show for his time in office beyond doing good work on AIDS internationally and the wholly defensive claim that we were not attacked a second time on his watch. Besides Apple products and social networking, what new and exciting developments did the decade give us?

If Obama loses the next election, he won't be associated with a decade (like George H.W. Bush). If he wins, and serves until 2017, the next 10 years will probably be seen as the Obama decade. Only then will we know if history will view him as something more than the first black U.S. president .

If Perry is elected, he has pledged to "make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can." He and his supporters may have forgotten that it was Washington that helped build everything from the interstate to the Internet ...
; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/batting-000-in-00-s-u-s-sees-lost-decad e-commentary-by-jonathan-alter.html




The Lost Decade: New Census Data Outlines Bush Era Setbacks in Poverty, Income, and Health Coverage

The Lost Decade: New Census Data Outlines Bush Era Setbacks in Poverty, Income, and Health Coverage

A new DLC report looks at recent Census data to assess the damage. With the final year of George W. Bush's presidency on the books, the numbers are clear: much like Japan during the 1990s, the last 10 years have been a "Lost Decade" for the United States. The analysis reveals that, after a decade in which incomes rose, poverty fell, and the rate of Americans lacking health coverage shrank, the country has suffered setbacks across all three social indicators.

The new report, "The Lost Decade: New Census Data Outlines Bush Era Setbacks in Poverty, Income, and Health Coverage", authored by DLC research associate Conor McKay, makes three principal findings:


1. Income: Inflation adjusted incomes fell further under President Bush than under any president since reporting began. Under President Clinton, per capita incomes rose 25 percent.

2. Poverty: The poverty rate jumped 17 percent under President Bush, with nearly 8 million more Americans in poverty today than were in 2000. In 2008, the country saw the largest single-year increase in the poverty rate in the last 25 years. The poverty rate fell 24 percent under President Clinton.

3. Health Coverage: The number of uninsured Americans increased over 20 percent to an all-time high of 46.3 million, including a dramatic 157 percent increase in the population of uninsured Americans over the age of 65. The uninsured rate dropped under President Clinton


http://www.educationnews.org/political/34530.html




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16774
Registered: May-04
.

... many voters still don't believe the president is responsible for the nation's current economic climate. Six in ten - 60% - think Mr. Obama inherited the current economic conditions while 34% report they are a result of his own policies. Six percent are unsure.

In McClatchy-Marist's August survey, 59% thought President Obama was handed the nation's economic crisis while 33% said his policies contributed to them. Eight percent, at the time, were unsure ...


63% of U.S. residents think the president's jobs plan does not go far enough, 18% say it goes too far, and 19% are unsure ...


51% of American adults think Mr. Obama's plan will do more good than harm. 38% report it will do more harm than good, and only 1% says it will not make a difference. 11% are unsure.


Most Americans want the Republicans in Congress to pass President Obama's jobs creation plan in some form. Nearly four in ten U.S. residents - 38% - want them to push the plan through as it stands. 33% want it passed with revisions, and 20% do not want them to pass President Obama's proposal at all. Nine percent are unsure.


45% of U.S. residents trust the president more to create jobs while 41% place more faith in the Republicans in Congress. 14% are unsure.


About two-thirds of voters - 67% - disapprove of how the Republicans in Congress are doing in office. 26% approve, and 8% are unsure. There has been a slight bump in the proportion of voters who are dissatisfied with Congressional Republicans. Last month, 62% disapproved of their performance, 27% approved, and 11% were unsure.

There is also increased displeasure with the Democrats in Congress. Currently, more than six in ten registered voters nationally - 63% - disapprove of how these elected officials are doing in office while 30% approve. Only 7% are unsure. In August, 55% gave these Democrats a thumbs-down while 35% applauded their performance. 11%, at the time, were unsure.



There has also been an increase in the proportion of independents who disapprove of how Republicans are performing in Congress. 71% currently disapprove while 64% thought this way last month.

71% of independent voters disapprove of the job of Congressional Democrats. In August, 59% shared this opinion.

Even 43% of Republicans disapprove of how members of their own party are performing on Capitol Hill.
Among Democrats, about one-third - 33% - shake their heads in disapproval at their fellow Democrats in Congress.



45% of registered voters believe the president's ideology is about right while 41% say he is too liberal. Seven percent believe he is too conservative, and 6% are unsure


Fewer voters now have a favorable impression of President Obama. 46% view him favorably while 48% perceive him unfavorably. Five percent are unsure. President Obam's current favorability rating is his lowest since taking office. His previous low occurred last November when 47% of the electorate thought well of him.

In McClatchy-Marist's August survey, a slim majority - 52% - felt positively about the president while 41% had a less than stellar view of him. Eight percent, at the time, were unsure.



However, many voters still don't believe the president is responsible for the nation's current economic climate. Six in ten - 60% - think Mr. Obama inherited the current economic conditions while 34% report they are a result of his own policies. Six percent are unsure.

In McClatchy-Marist's August survey, 59% thought President Obama was handed the nation's economic crisis while 33% said his policies contributed to them. Eight percent, at the time, were unsure.




Obama's Jobs Plan Doesn't Go Far Enough, Say More Than Six in Ten Americans

More than three quarters of U.S. residents - 77% - doubt unemployment will improve in the next year. Although a slim majority of Americans - 51% - believes President Barack Obama's proposal to create jobs will do more good than harm, more than six in ten residents nationally - 63% - don't believe the president's proposal goes far enough to improve the nation's jobs picture. 71% want the Republicans in Congress to either pass the president's proposed jobs plan or push the bill through with revisions.

Key points:

63% of U.S. residents think the president's jobs plan does not go far enough, 18% say it goes too far, and 19% are unsure.
o Among registered voters:

78% of Democrats and 59% of independent voters think the proposal does not go far enough. Even a majority of Republicans - 54% - believes the president' plan should do more.



Most Americans want the Republicans in Congress to pass President Obama's jobs creation plan in some form. Nearly four in ten U.S. residents - 38% - want them to push the plan through as it stands. 33% want it passed with revisions, and 20% do not want them to pass President Obama's proposal at all. Nine percent are unsure.


About two-thirds of voters - 67% - disapprove of how the Republicans in Congress are doing in office. 26% approve, and 8% are unsure. There has been a slight bump in the proportion of voters who are dissatisfied with Congressional Republicans. Last month, 62% disapproved of their performance, 27% approved, and 11% were unsure.
There is also increased displeasure with the Democrats in Congress. Currently, more than six in ten registered voters nationally - 63% - disapprove of how these elected officials are doing in office while 30% approve. Only 7% are unsure. In August, 55% gave these Democrats a thumbs-down while 35% applauded their performance. 11%, at the time, were unsure


Independent voters also play a key role here.
There has also been an increase in the proportion of independents who disapprove of how Republicans are performing in Congress. 71% currently disapprove while 64% thought this way last month.

71% of independent voters disapprove of the job of Congressional Democrats. In August, 59% shared this opinion.

Even 43% of Republicans disapprove of how members of their own party are performing on Capitol Hill.
Among Democrats, about one-third - 33% - shake their heads in disapproval at their fellow Democrats in Congress.





%202011%20USA%20McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf,http://mari stpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/US110913/Obama_Congress_Jobs/Complete %20September%2020,%202011%20USA%20McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tabl es.pdf



http://maristpoll.marist.edu/920-39-approval-rating-for-obama-lowest-of-presiden cy/






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16775
Registered: May-04
.

A New "Perry Tale"

Once again, the Texas-governor-who-wants-to-be-your-president is flitting hither, tither, and yon [Perry Tale Theme] spreading little "Perry Tales" about his record.

This time, the right-wing sprite is sprinkling fresh fairy dust on his earlier screed against America's Social Security program. During the past couple of years, in the heat of his lusty romance of the rowdy tea party crowd, Perry has wooed and wowed those who hate government, offering passionate denunciations of Social Security as "a Ponzi scheme," "a monstrous lie," and a "failure." The national retirement program, he thunders, violates the Constitution's "principles of federalism and limited government." His unequivocal message was: Kill it!

But - oops - now in hot pursuit of the GOP presidential nomination, he's learned that even most Republicans wince at his macho wackiness on a social program they support and millions are using. A CNN poll in August finds that 57 percent of Republicans want no major changes in Social Security. Why? Because, despite the Ponzi-scheme Perry Tale, it works.

So, the red-meat tea partier who would savage the program has suddenly turned into a senior-hugger, offering a revised, gentler Perry Tale. In this one, he never, ever meant to abolish Social Security. Nay, Perry now says with a pixie twinkle, he only wants to stimulate "a legitimate conversation in this country about how to fix that program."

If you're not sure what "fix" means, ask your dog. (LOL!)

Perry might heed the blunt words of another Republican, Dwight Eisenhower: "Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security... you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believe you can [abolish it]... Their number is negligible, and they are stupid."


"Social Insecurity," www.snopes.com, 2005.

"Perry and Social Security," September 10. 2011.

"Perry talks Social Security, candidates at California event," Austin American Statesman, September 9, 2011.

"After Debate Night, Pondering Election Night," September 9, 2011.

http://jimhightower.com/node/7550


(When Perry was still a Democratic state representative, Karl Rove took him under his wing and set Perry up for a run as a Republican against the liberal icon Jim Hightower. This was in a race for agriculture commissioner, a statewide post without a vast array of issues. Perry ran against a Hightower rule requiring farmers to get their workers out of the fields before they sprayed pesticide on them, and won.)




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16776
Registered: May-04
.

Health and Rights: Trends in the First Quarter of 2011


To date, legislators have introduced 916 measures related to reproductive health and rights in the 49 legislatures that have convened their regular sessions. (Louisiana's legislature will not convene until late April.) By the end of March, seven states had enacted 15 new laws on these issues, including provisions that:

expand the pre-abortion waiting period requirement in South Dakota to make it more onerous than that in any other state, by extending the time from 24 hours to 72 hours and requiring women to obtain counseling from a crisis pregnancy center in the interim;
expand the abortion counseling requirement in South Dakota to mandate that counseling be provided in-person by the physician who will perform the abortion and that counseling include information published after 1972 on all the risk factors related to abortion complications, even if the data are scientifically flawed;
require the health departments in Utah and Virginia to develop new regulations governing abortion clinics;
revise the Utah abortion refusal clause to allow any hospital employee to refuse to "participate in any way" in an abortion;
limit abortion coverage in all private health plans in Utah, including plans that will be offered in the state's health exchange; and
revise the Mississippi sex education law to require all school districts to provide abstinence-only sex education while permitting discussion of contraception only with prior approval from the state.
In addition to these laws, more than 120 other bills have been approved by at least one chamber of the legislature, and some interesting trends are emerging. As a whole, the proposals introduced this year are more hostile to abortion rights than in the past: 56% of the bills introduced so far this year seek to restrict abortion access, compared with 38% last year. Three topics -"insurance coverage of abortion, restriction of abortion after a specific point in gestation and ultrasound requirements - are topping the agenda in several states. At the same time, legislators are proposing little in the way of proactive initiatives aimed at expanding access to reproductive health - related services; this stands in sharp contrast to recent years when a range of initiatives to promote comprehensive sex education, permit expedited STI treatment for patients - partners and ensure insurance coverage of contraception were adopted. For the moment, at least, supporters of reproductive health and rights are almost uniformly playing defense at the state level.



http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2011/statetrends12011.html





Is it possible someone could explain to me how you can be for both allowing workers to be sprayed with toxic substances and controlling what a woman does with her own body?





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16777
Registered: May-04
.

Issa Sought U.S. Clean Energy Aid in the Past

Republican Representative Darrell Issa, who said government subsidies to specific companies can encourage corruption, sought U.S. help in the past for clean- energy projects in his home state of California.

Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to support an Energy Department loan for Aptera Motors Inc., a Carlsbad, California, electric-car maker, according to a letter received by the department Jan. 14, 2010.

"Awarding this opportunity to Aptera Motors will greatly assist a leading developer of electric vehicles in my district", Issa wrote in letters obtained yesterday.


Issa's committee has been investigating regulations proposed by the Obama administration and now is examining the system of federal support, including loan guarantees for companies such as Fremont, California-based Solyndra LLC. The solar-panel manufacturer filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6 after receiving $535 million in U.S. loan guarantees since 2009.

"There's been this attitude that somehow the government can weigh-in with loan guarantees and money and pick specific company winners and losers," Issa said yesterday on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program. "We see that as a backdoor, easy way to end up with corruption in government."

Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Issa, said Aptera has been awaiting an Energy Department decision for three years.

In the entire time that Aptera's application has been pending, Solyndra was able to obtain taxpayer backing and go bankrupt leaving taxpayers on the hook," Hill said in an e- mail. "Most applicants for federal programs don't, in fact, receive the VIP treatment Solyndra did".

Backing Quallion
Issa also signed a June 22, 2009, letter to Chu promoting battery maker Quallion LLC, based in Sylmar, California. An Energy Department clean-energy grant might create more than 2,300 jobs nationwide, according to the letter, which was signed by Issa and 16 members of California's delegation.

The grant program is a "huge step forward" to improving the environment, eliminating dependence on foreign oil and creating a modern "green collar" U.S. workforce, according to the letter.

In the C-SPAN interview, Issa said government support for specific companies can be dangerous because politicians might favor companies out of ideology or because executives are campaign contributors.

Issa's committee will hold a hearing tomorrow titled, "How Obama'
s Green-Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs."
}

Energy committee Republicans released a report on Solyndra Sept. 14 that said Obama's aides pressed loan officials to accelerate their review in time to let U.S. officials announce the deal.

White House and Energy Department officials have said political considerations didn't affect the review of Solyndra's loan application.} }

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-21/issa-sought-u-s-clean-energy-aid.html




... Issa, chairman of the House subcomittee, said it will hold a hearing titled, 'How Obama's Green-Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs' on September 22.

Committee leaders will examine whether it was improper for government officials to select companies eligible for subsidised government loans when those companies could give campaign donations.

'We're looking at the system, the corruption that seems to be endemic in both ideologically picking winners, but also looking at the possibility that this is an unfixable program,' he said.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039803/California-Congressman-latest-la unch-probe-Obamas-actions-bankrupt-solar-company-Solyndra.html





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16778
Registered: May-04
.

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama says he backs immigration reform, announcing last month an initiative to ease deportation policies, but he has sent home over 1 million illegal immigrants in 2-1/2 years - on pace to deport more in one term than George W. Bush did in two.

The Obama administration had deported about 1.06 million as of September 12, against 1.57 million in Bush's two full presidential terms.
; http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-obama-immigration-idUSTRE78J0572011 0920




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16782
Registered: May-04
.

GOP Pledge-O-Meter Scorecard

Promise Kept 8
Compromise 1
Promise Broken 1
Stalled 5
In the Works 14
Not yet rated 28



The Obameter Scorecard

Promise Kept 145
Compromise 43
Promise Broken 47
Stalled 69
In the Works 202
Not yet rated 2



http://www.politifact.com/




The GOP plan; promise small then stall.


"What 'jobs bill(s)' have the repubs offered since taking office eight months ago?

While pledging - to the person - to repeal the Affordable Health Care Bill, the repubs have offerred what plan(s) as their alternative thinking when it comes to reduce the cost of health insurance and health care? What provisions have been made in those plans for the now 50 million uninsured Americans? What about the elderly? Even the majority of the tea partiers expect government run Social Security and Medicare to be there for them despite their protests that Obama keep his 'government hands' off those two programs."





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16784
Registered: May-04
.

I am a job creator who creates no jobs

By Dana Milbank, Published: September 20

Iam a job creator.

I am not a job creator in the sense that I actually create jobs. I have never knowingly created a job, and my long term business plan, approved unanimously by my board of directors, does not call for the creation of a single one.

But I am a job creator in the sense Republicans mean when they say "don't tax our job creators more" ((House budget committee Chairman Paul Ryan) or "we cannot increase taxes on the job creators" (House Speaker John A. Boehner). This is because, in the eyes of the government, I am a small business - and, as the House Republicans like to say, "small businesses are the job creators."

Like the overwhelming majority of small businesses, I am a one-man operation. And, like most small businesses, I would not hire anybody even if the government dropped my tax rate to zero.

According to Small Business Administration statistics, based on 2009 Census data, 21.1 million of the 27 million small businesses in the United States are "non-employer firms," which have no workers other than the owner. Of those, 18.7 million are "sole proprietors," 950,000 are partnerships and 1.4 million are corporations, like me.

When lawmakers talk about small businesses as the engine of growth, they bring to mind entrepreneurs building start-ups from their garages. But when officials talk about protecting the "job creators" from tax hikes, they are mostly protecting a bunch of doctors, lawyers, freelancers, contractors and the like.


On the advice of my accountants, I formed a "C corporation," which means that, as a legal entity, I am pretty much the same as General Motors and Google. But I run a lean operation. While my business, Ink-Stained Inc., produces the occasional book, TV appearance and speech, it is probably not going to win any best practices awards.

Disagreement is rare during board meetings at Ink--Stained Inc. world headquarters (my house), because I am the chairman, chief executive, president, treasurer, secretary, chief technology officer and mail-room clerk. Occasionally board members complain about environmental regulations, not because these regulations affect us but because that is what we have heard corporations are supposed to do.

We administer a modest pension plan for our sole employee, and we reimburse a few health care expenses. We have big, professional looking checks, and we attempt to keep our accounts balanced, although our chief financial officer (also me) is a lagging performer. We once considered hiring our wife as a consultant to help us organize our finances, but the HR department was unable to come to terms with her. We have so far repelled all attempts at unionization.

I should add that I am in no danger of being caught in the net of President Obama's proposed millionaires' tax. I pay the accountants a few thousand dollars, and they make sure I am not paying more in taxes than I should be. (Note to the IRS: They do this in ways that are conservative, entirely above board and so innocuous that they should not attract your interest in the slightest.)

While there is something absurd about being a one man corporation, it's a rational response to an irrational tax code. If lawmakers got serious about tax reform that removed loopholes, the money spent on accountants and actuaries (valuable though they are) could instead be used to grow the economy or to pay the federal debt. But that's a matter for another day.

At the moment, the Ink-Stained Inc. case study, should the Harvard Business School wish to study it, is a reminder to be skeptical of the "job creator" argument in the tax debate. "It's a good example of the murkiness of what we mean by small business and the connection to jobs," William Gale, co-director of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center, told me. "There's sort of this notion of small business innovation and job creation that just doesn't necessarily hold."

That's even more so with Obama's "Buffett Rule," under which millionaires would have to pay a higher tax rate than a typical middle class worker. As a practical matter, most already do. Gale said the rule would raise the taxes on only a few thousand people, perhaps as few as 1,000.

In a nation of more than 300 million, that's not going to make a dent in job creation. Even the data analysts at Ink-Stained Inc. could figure out that one - that is, if we had any data analysts.
}

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-am-a-job-creator-who-creates-no-jobs/20 11/09/20/gIQAhpgGjK_print.html





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16787
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.lethimdie.com/?wpisrc=nl_fix
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16788
Registered: May-04
.


From Forbes Magazine on line

Elizabeth Warren and the Liberal Narrative

I've complained before that Democrats - and Obama in particular - have conceded the narrative to Republicans and the Tea Party on jobs, the deficit, stimulus spending, and very nearly on healthcare. The story of politics in this country has shifted dramatically to the right.

This is no great surprise. Recessions are good for deficit hawks, employers, and nationalist gestures. The left is bound to find itself in some sort of retreat. Nevertheless, few liberal leaders in this country have done a very good job at turning the narrative back around and explaining a clearly progressive vision of society, of the jobs problem, and so forth. Obama's recent "populist" rhetoric has been a brief departurefrom a centrism that concedes almost entirely the story of What Went Wrong to his political opponents.

Storytelling in politics is important, as the populists themselves knew back when there was such a thing as a leftwing populist movement in America. The fact that this narrative has been lacking in recent years has been troubling.

So when Steve Benen posted this video of Elizabeth Warren debunking claims of class warfare" I was pleasantly surprised:

(link to video is below)

Transcript and further thoughts, after the leap:


"I hear all this, you know," 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever'. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

In other words, here is a progressive politician who can translate a progressive message and a liberal narrative of What Went Wrong into language the mainstream can understand. This is the message many liberals have been hoping Obama would make for years.



Furthermore, it's exactly the sort of point liberals ought to be making when faced with folks like Paul Ryan who are claiming that any tax hike on the rich is class warfare". As Steve points out, "if more Democrats were able to make the case for the underlying social contract as effectively, our discourse would be vastly less mind-numbing."

Will Wilkinson agrees that this is "precisely the sort of rhetoric Democrats need to perfect in order to hold ground in the next round of national elections." However:

Of course, not unlike a tea-party Republican making the case for small government, Ms Warren paints in over-broad, simplifying strokes. It is not actually true that "the rest of us" paid for the roads, the education of workers, or police and fire protection. Some of us paid for them, and some of us paid a lot more than others. Rich people, for example, have paid and continue to pay more than the rest of us.

Yet Wilkinson himself is painting in overly-broad strokes. Yes, rich people do pay more in taxes, but they also benefit a great deal more from government spending. Those roads that rich people helped pay for with their taxes move goods that rich people sell. Capital requires infrastructure to flow, and infrastructure requires government spending.

Besides, most Americans don't actually prefer the system of wealth disparity we have, and favor higher levels of redistribution in spite of any Republican claims to the contrary:


(Shows chart of actual wealth distribution - what Americans think it is - what they would like it to be; http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2011/09/inequality-page25_actualdi stribwithlegend.png

Will rightly observes that "Scott Brown favours roads and police and schools and the idea that rich people should contribute more for their provision than should the less-rich." But he dodges the point that Warren was responding to, namely that any further tax hike - " even a return to historically low Clinton tax rates - is tantamount to class warfare".

To be fair, Will wants an intelligent discourse to flourish, and I agree that this would be really helpful, a clear and startling evolution of how politics plays out in America. But we're not going to discuss "the best mix of publicly and privately financed roads" or whether "government ought to arrange the law to enable free markets in health care and education to flourish" at campaign stops or in stump speeches. And we're certainly not going to have that conversation amidst the loud clamoring on the right that any mention of tax hikes is nothing short of a Marxist assault on the "productive" class.

If you've listened to rightwing talk radio you've heard the story that they tell; if you've watched Fox News you've heard the same tale. In that story, the producers in society -" the successful, hard-working, Real Americans" - are fending off an assault from the losers, those who will not help themselves.

Will wants Elizabeth Warren to answer this narrative with a nuanced discussion of the proper role of government in public roads and education. This makes little sense. A compelling narrative must be answered with a compelling narrative of your own. This is how storytelling in politics works.


I'm sympathetic to Warren's story, obviously, because I think it's true. I think it's true even if it is boiled down to simplified terms. I think it's true because while I appreciate the value of a market economy, the notion that the free market and low taxes will solve all our problems strikes me as fundamentally false.

Nor does the simplification bother me. Quite the contrary. What else should we expect from a woman attempting to gain a senate seat? An elaborate treatise on the proper mix of liberalism and libertarianism in our political system? Von Mises on the beach?

Stump speeches are more like blog posts than investigative journalism. We shouldn't treat them as anything more.

Bonus: Here's Warren on MSNBC's Morning Joe elaborating on her case for the middle class; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFrTZ0ov79I&feature=player_embedded


Link to main article; http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-and-the-liberal -narrative-2/





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16789
Registered: May-04
.

Nine Policies Republicans were for long before they were against them:

In 2001, the GOP's budget guru, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, was excited for the opportunity to vote for Bush's "temporary" tax cuts. "I think we ought to have this income tax cut fast ... to make sure we get a good punch into the economy, juice the economy to make sure that we can avoid a hard landing," he said at a committee hearing. "The economy has soured," he continued. "And it is my concern that if we keep waiting and seeing we won't give the economy the boost it needs right now."

Fast forward 10 years, to this August. President Obama was poised to call for an extension of a payroll tax break -- and an additional break for businesses -- and Ryan began singing a very different tune. "Those things are all temporary," he told Fox News. "They are demand-sided. And they are proven not to work and they still facilitate uncertainty for businesses." Suddenly, tax cuts -- the GOP's answer to every economic issue of the past four decades -- were "proven not to work."

"What's plaguing our economy today," he said, is "the amount of uncertainty as to what the future holds for them on regulations, on taxes, on interest rates and all of those things." He said that the temporary nature of the cuts "exactly exacerbates those problems."

Obama had made a point of the fact that the proposals contained in his jobs package had all been embraced by Republicans in the past, but that didn't prevent them from bashing it, just as they had decried many other erstwhile conservative ideas as so much misguided "socialism" when proposed by Democrats.

Before the memory-hole swallows them up, consider nine other ideas that Republicans had long championed, and were then picked up by Democrats and became toxic within the GOP caucus. They tell us not only how serious Republicans are about undermining the administration, but also how far both parties have lurched to the right -- the Democrats are offering inherently conservative proposals to deal with the problems we face, and today's Right considers those policies to be way out in left field.

1. The Health-Care Mandate
2. Cap and Trade
3. Small business tax credits
4. Infrastructure bank
5. Supplier side cuts to Medicare
6. Financial disclosure laws
7. Encouraging low income home ownership
8. The Fairness Doctrine
9. Judicial restraint

http://www.alternet.org/story/152447/9_policies_conservatives_were_for_long_befo re_they_were_against_them?page=1



Yes, Alternet is a left leaning webpage. No one would dispute that fact. The point, however, is not to shoot the messenger in this case but to hear the message. As I've said before - prove this wrong and we can talk. Only claim it is biased falsehoods because of the website that reports it and you have once again shown your ignorance of factual evidence and your willingness to "double down and not believe the facts" as the scientific research has suggested is your "go to" preference.

In other words, dispute the facts of the article not the fact this comes from a webpage you might disagree with. While it is fairly easy to point to the 76% lies in most of the wingnut diatribes that have been posted here, I ask you to show me - with proof - the points where you disagree with what has been stated. Then we can have a conversation.






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16790
Registered: May-04
.

Highs and extreme lows in the last 48 or so hours (IMO):

Obama Says Palestinians Are Using Wrong Forum

Marines Hit the Ground Running in Seeking Recruits at G@y Center


Judge Rejects Challenge to Voting Rights Law by County in Alabama

Young Adults Make Gains in Health Insurance Coverage

Shuttered G.M. Plant May Reopen, and a Town Smiles

Century After It Was Banned, Place of Honor for Twain Tale

Napolitano: Disaster Aid Fund 'Running on Fumes'

Average Scores Slip on SAT

Retiree Benefits for the Military Could Face Cuts

2010 Data Show Surge in Poor Young Families

Republicans Attack on Handling of Stimulus Money and Green Jobs

House Rebukes G.O.P. Leaders Over Spending

Dispute on Disaster Aid Threatens Bill to Avert Government Shutdown

Romney calls for a tax policy that will help "us" in the middle class

White Supremacist Executed for Texas Dragging

Davis Is Executed in Georgia


http://www.nytimes.com/




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16791
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.assignmenteditor.com/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16793
Registered: May-04
.

Rush: Elizabeth Warren Is A "Parasite Who Hates Her Host, Willing To Destroy The Host While She Sucks The Life Out Of It"; (audio only) http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201109220014





 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16794
Registered: May-04
.

Fact-checking the Fox News-Google GOP debate


"We're bankrupt."
Gary Johnson

FALSE


President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America."
Mitt Romney

PANTS ON FIRE


Says Texas gained 21,000 doctors due to tort reform.
Rick Perry


FALSE


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/22/fact-checking-fox-ne ws-google-gop-debate/


I might add that in the approximately two minutes I spent watching the debate I heard; 1) Rick Santorum (http://spreadingsantorum.com/ pledge to return the US military to the days of Don't Ask Don't Tell witch hunts (which drew a large round of applause from the audience), and, 2) Herman Cain make the claim that, as a cancer survivor, he would have been dead under Obamacare since his treatments would have been subject to the approval of Washington bureaucrats - which is a PANTS ON FIRE lie.

Even when talking points are proven to be completely false, the repubs stick to them with undieing devotion. I've recently seen Rick Perry question Obama's citizenship in a nod to the still latent birther crowd on the far right. And Cain's statement was long ago proven to be false in that the Health Care Reform bill states clearly that everyone who is invoved - and not under the watch of Medicaid or Medicare - will be dealing with private insurance companies.






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16795
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/wuerker/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16796
Registered: May-04
.

FACT CHECK: Slippery assertions in GOP debate


WASHINGTON (AP) â€" Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared in the Republican presidential debate Thursday night that he had never advocated turning Social Security over to the states. His denial was hard to fathom given his past rhetoric about the program.

"Let the states do it," he said last year, for example.

In the latest debate, Michele Bachmann misread presidential approval polls and denied making a statement that she actually did make just the week before, concerning a vaccine for girls. Mitt Romney denied supporting an Obama administration education program that he had praised.

But the most consequential exchange may have been over Social Security, and Perry's changing thoughts about it.

A careful parsing of Perry's words over the past months shows that his position on Social Security is not cut and dried. As he said in the debate, he believes that states should be allowed to exempt certain state or local government employees from the program, in favor of a state-approved alternative. That's already the reality in some places, including at least three Texas counties.

Far more radical is the idea of essentially dismantling Social Security as a federal entitlement and making states responsible for basic retirement security of all its citizens. He asserted in the debate, "We never said that we were going to move this back to the states."

But at times, Perry has sounded very much in favor of doing just that. In a November appearance on MSNBC, he said of Social Security, "Get it back to the states. Why is the federal government even in the pension program or the health care delivery program? Let the states do it."

What's clear is that Perry, in his book and afterward, trashed Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and "crumbling monument to the failure of the new deal" and has since backtracked on such harsh words, especially since rival Romney has come to the defense of the popular entitlement.

A look at some other statements in the Florida debate and how they compare with the facts.

BACHMANN: "President Obama has the lowest public approval ratings of any president in modern time."

THE FACTS: That's true, if you leave out Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford. All of them at some point in their terms dipped lower than Obama's low point of 38 percent job approval, according to Gallup's comparison.

___

ROMNEY: "I don't support any particular program that he's describing," he said, disputing Perry's claim that Romney favors some of President Barack Obama's education initiatives, specifically the Race to the Top program.

THE FACTS: Romney was reluctant to tell Republican primary voters he doesn't hate every Obama policy. Romney does indeed support some of the specific policy changes encouraged by the Race to the Top program and said as much earlier in the week. Speaking in Miami on Wednesday, he praised the president's education secretary, Arne Duncan, for the program. And during the debate, Romney acknowledged supporting elements of the initiative, including teacher evaluations and charter schools.

___

ROMNEY: "I believe government is too big. It's gone from 27 percent of our economy in the years of JFK to 37 percent of our economy."

THE FACTS: Romney is including state and local government spending along with federal spending. His numbers are not far off, but most of the big increases came from Social Security and Medicare payments. Medicare started after Kennedy's presidency. Now it is one of the biggest government spending programs, and one of the most popular. Federal spending alone accounted for 23.8 percent of the gross domestic product last year and is expected to reach 25.3 percent this year.

___

PERRY: It's not the first time that Mitt has been wrong on some issues before. And the bottom line is, we never said that we were going to move this (Social Security) back to the states."

ROMNEY: "Well, it's different than what the governor put in his book just, what, six months (ago), and what you said in your interviews following the book. So I don't know. There's a Rick Perry out there (who) ... says that the federal government shouldn't be in the pension business, that it's unconstitutional. Unconstitutional and it should be returned to the states."

THE FACTS: In his book Perry heavily criticized Social Security, advocated states' rights and suggested federal entitlements were unconstitutional in general, but he never tied these beliefs together as succinctly as Romney claimed.

Even so, he danced close to branding Social Security as unconstitutional. He called Social Security the best example of a program that tosses "aside any respect for our founding principles of federalism." He also lamented: "If only the New Dealers had been kind enough to allow workers to make their own choice about whether to participate." And he said the program was introduced "at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government."

___

ROMNEY: Obama "addressed the United Nations in his inaugural address and chastised our friend, Israel, for building settlements, and said nothing about Hamas launching thousands of rockets into Israel."

THE FACTS: Obama in his 2009 address to the U.N. General Assembly by no means ignored the plight of Israelis.

Describing those who pay the "greatest price" for the conflict, Obama spoke of an Israeli girl in the town of Sderot "who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night." Sderot borders the Gaza Strip and has been the target of hundreds of rockets fired into Israel from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

In the 2009 speech, Obama also did reject the "legitimacy" of Israeli settlement construction in lands the Palestinians want for their state, but those terms are largely reflective of American thinking over the last three-and-a-half decades. The Obama administration later vetoed a U.N. resolution that would have condemned Israel for the policy.

___

BACHMANN: "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement," she said when asked by a moderator if she stood by her comment that the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer was "potentially dangerous."

THE FACTS: Bachmann can't escape the tape. Bachmann used that exact phrase during the last debate when she criticized Perry for trying to order pre-teen girls to get the vaccine in Texas. "Little girls who have a negative reaction to this potentially dangerous drug don't get a mulligan. They don't get a do-over," Bachmann said then. Bachmann has tried to distance herself from remarks she made after the debate linking the vaccine to mental retardation â€" a claim debunked by scientists. She said then and now she was relaying the story of another mother whose daughter had the shot.


http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-slippery-assertions-gop-debate-032527744.html







.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16797
Registered: May-04
.

Obama's Jobs Act "Bipartisan"? Not Entirely

In his jobs speech to the nation on Sept. 8, President Barack Obama overstated his case for bipartisan support for each "kind of" proposal in his new jobs stimulus bill. While it's true there is much common ground in Obama's proposal, several of the planks in the plan, called the American Jobs Act, have gotten only token Republican support in the past, while being opposed by an overwhelming majority of Republicans.

In his speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama laid out a $447 billion plan that aims to jump-start employment. It includes tax cuts for employers and employees, tax cuts for businesses that hire new employees, unemployment assistance, money to build roads and bridges and money to states for teachers, firefighters and police officers. It's a plan, Obama said repeatedly, that should get support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Obama, Sept. 8: "There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans - including many who sit here tonight".

Obama, Sept. 8: "Every proposal 've laid out tonight is the kind that's been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past."

In a press gaggle aboard Air Force One on Sept. 9, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the talking point, saying, the American Jobs Act as you know, "is comprised of a series of measures that have historically garnered bipartisan support."

The implication was clear: Republicans who don't support the bill are simply being obstructionists. But is it true that Republicans have supported "the kind of" proposals laid out by Obama?

Some of them, for sure.

Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor acknowledged as much in a blog post on Sept. 9.

"From the trade agreements, tax relief for small businesses, regulatory relief, and unemployment benefits programs, there are a lot of areas of commonality between the House Republicans' jobs plan and the proposals the [p]resident discussed last night," Cantor said.


But the evidence for Republican support of some of the other measures in Obama's plan is thin. In some cases, we are talking about only a few Republicans who bucked the overwhelming opposition of their party.

Aid for Teachers and Firefighters?

For example, part of the Obama plan is to invest $35 billion to prevent the layoffs of up to 280,000 teachers, police officers and firefighters, and to hire tens of thousands more.

In December 2009, House Democrats passed the Jobs for Main Street Act that included $24 billion for state and local governments to retain teachers and police officers. (Not unlike what is included in Obama's plan now.) It did not include a tax credit for small businesses that create jobs.

It passed the House 217 to 212, but not a single Republican voted for it. The measure never took hold in the Senate, however.

In March 2010, six House Republicans joined 211 Democrats to help pass a pared-down version of the bill, then called the HIRE Act. The $17.5 billion bill included a temporary payroll tax break to companies that hire jobless people. Notably, however, it was opposed by 166 House Republicans. Two weeks later, 11 Republican senators helped pass a Senate version of the bill. But it also was opposed by a majority of Senate Republicans - 28.


On Aug. 5, 2010, two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, crossed party lines and voted for a bill that included $10 billion for state governments to spare thousands of teachers whose jobs were imperiled by strapped state budgets. But 39 Republicans voted against it.

In short, there has been scant Republican support for increased federal aid to states to retain and hire teachers, police and firefighters.

Money to Modernize Schools?

The Obama plan also includes $25 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools, as well as $5 billion to modernize community colleges. It's true that in June 2008, 27 House Republicans voted for a $6.4 billion bill to modernize and make repairs to public schools. The bill passed the House 250 to 164, with all the votes against it coming from Republicans.

And on Sept. 17, 2009, 16 House Republicans joined 246 Democrats to beat back an amendment (H. Amdt. 425) that would have cut $6.6 billion for school construction funding from the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. However, 155 Republicans and six Democrats voted in favor of the amendment.

Again, that's not much evidence of Republican support for increasing federal spending on school construction.

As for Obama's plan to spend $50 billion on highways, transit, rail and aviation, the White House notes that before the stimulus passed in early 2009, Republicans, led by Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Richard Burr and Mel Martinez, offered their own alternative stimulus plan - one that was half the cost of the Democrats' plan, but included $65 billion in state grants to build and repair bridges and roads.

We asked House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel via e-mail whether all of the kinds of proposals in Obama's plan enjoyed support from Democrats and Republicans. He replied:

Steel, Sept. 9: Not even close. For starters, the plan includes direct aid to states, 'modernizing' schools, spending on 'shovel ready projects, rehabbing homes, expanding the internet, etc. Those are the same 'kind of proposal' that made up the President's stimulus bill. As you know, every single Republican in the House voted against that bill. Do Republicans oppose infrastructure and the internet? Of course not. But we've not supported this 'kind of proposal' as a means to boost the economy.

Update, Sept. 12: The president's budget director, Jacob Lew, told reporters in an afternoon briefing that the jobs bill would be paid for by eliminating tax preferences for upper-income individuals and corporations. For example $400 billion over 10 years would come from limiting tax deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments for couples making over $250,000 a year, and individuals making over $200,000. Eliminating certain preferences for oil and gas companies would raise another $40 billion, Lew said. And such tax increases have been adamantly opposed by Republicans.

Again, some of the proposals in Obama's plan - tax relief for small business and regulatory relief, for example - have clearly gotten support from Republicans in the past. But when Obama claimed that all the "kinds of" proposals in his plan have gotten Republican support in the past, he overplayed his hand. Some of the spending proposals in Obama's plan have gotten scant Republican support when similar measures were proposed in the past, and many were overwhelmingly opposed by a majority of Republicans.}

Robert Farley

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/obamas-jobs-act-bipartisan-not-entirely/



I'm not sure why Factcheck.org decided to only consider those votes which have taken place since Obama's presdency has begun. To any Dem the isssue is the persistent obstruction by the repubs to virtually anything Obama has supported since 01/21/09. The repubs are on record as having supported every item on Obama's jobs plan - even having sponsored a few themself - only to back off once Obama had taken office.

Or, am I wrong and Republicans have never supported teachers and schools? Have they never supported first responders? Never supported infrastructure?


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16798
Registered: May-04
.

About Perry's HPV vaccine anecdote...

The closest thing Rick Perry had to a good moment in the GOP debate was telling a story about a 31-year-old woman with Stage IV cervical cancer who he said was the person who "lobbied" him with regard to the HPV vaccine and influenced his policy decision.

It was a moving story. But it also isn't apparently quite what happened, according to ABC News:

The woman Rick Perry mentioned in the Republican debate Thursday was Heather Burcham, a thirty one year old woman dying from cervical cancer. But what Perry left out in his answer was that he met her after he issued his executive order.


Perry issued the executive order requiring sixth grade girls receive the HPV vaccine in early February of 2007, and he met Burcham while she was lobbying the Texas legislature to uphold the governor's executive order. The legislature ultimately ruled against Burcham and Perry and did away with the vaccine mandate.

As first reported by KTRK's Ted Oberg, the pair struck up a friendship despite the Texas legislature revoking the governor's mandate. Perry invited Burcham to a ranch, rode motorcycles with her and even sat at her bed during her final days. Burcham died in July 2007.

Perry has often referred to Burcham on the campaign trail, saying recently he sat at the bedside of a dying woman with cervical cancer.

The Texas governor spoke at her memorial service in July 2007, saying it was a missed opportunity for the Texas legislature to not uphold his executive order.

"Though some could not see the benefits of the HPV vaccine through the prism of politics, some day they will," Perry said in July 2007. "Someday they will recognize that this could happen to anyone's daughter, even their own. Someday they will respond with compassion when they once responded with ignorance. And, someday, they will come to a place where they recognize the paramount issue is whether we will choose life, and protect life, without regard to what mistakes, if any, have been made in the past."

Perry is discovering, quickly, how different the scrutiny is on the national stage. And moments like this, which get fact-checked, can become potential problems.
}


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64246.html




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16800
Registered: May-04
.

ON THIS DAY

On Sept. 23, 1952, Republican vice-presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon went on television to deliver what came to be known as the "Checkers" speech as he denied allegations of improper campaign financing.; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsYjl5oMs6M

When was the last time you heard a politician use the "poo-poo'd"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCp8Edp4pfo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxeFMHyOx3I&feature=related



 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16807
Registered: May-04
.

From Politico's "The Arena" ...

Erika Lovley
Moderator :


At a California fundraiser President Obama chided some attending recent Republican debates. "You've got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don't have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they're g@ay.†Critics have also slammed a GOP debate audience for applauding a looming execution in Texas.

Might these spontaneous audience reactions make the GOP crowds appear bloodthirsty, and ungrateful for the contributions of g@ay servicemembers? Or are these episodes overblown and unrepresentative of the Republican primary electorate?




Approximately 179 commments, including ...



David Biespiel
American poet, director, Attic Institute :
Of course it's only a few people. But the common term for those people is: the Republican party base.



http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/are-gop-debate-crowds-bloodthirsty.html





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16808
Registered: May-04
.

Obama Jobs Plan Prevents 2012 Recession in Survey of Economists

President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan would help avoid a return to recession by maintaining growth and pushing down the unemployment rate next year, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.

The legislation, submitted to Congress this month, would increase gross domestic product by 0.6 percent next year and add or keep 275,000 workers on payrolls, the median estimates in the survey of 34 economists showed. The program would also lower the jobless rate by 0.2 percentage point in 2012, economists said.

Economists in the survey are less optimistic than Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who has cited estimates for a 1.5 percent boost to gross domestic product. Even so, the program may bolster Obama's re-election prospects by lowering a jobless rate that has stayed near 9 percent or more since April 2009.

The plan "prevents a contraction of the economy in the first quarter" of next year, said John Herrmann, a senior fixed income strategist at State Street Global Markets LLC in Boston, who participated in the survey. "It leads to more retention of workers than net new hires."

Some 13,000 jobs would be created in 2013, bringing the total to 288,000 over two years, according to the survey. Employers in the U.S. added 1.26 million workers in the past 12 months, Labor Department data show.

Obama’s plan, announced on Sept. 8, calls for cutting the payroll taxes paid by workers and small businesses while extending unemployment insurance. It also includes an increase in infrastructure spending and more aid for cash strapped state governments.

What Happens?

"The important thing to consider is: What happens if we don't do anything?" said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida. He said the program "very well could" forestall a recession in early 2012 ...



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/obama-jobs-plan-prevents-2012-recession -in-survey-of-economists.html





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16809
Registered: May-04
.

Lots to look at here though the rulings stay close to the 76% rule.

Pundits fare poorly on the Truth-O-Meter


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/30/pundits-fare-poorly-truth-o-meter/




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16810
Registered: May-04
.

From the right leaning Economic Policy Institute;

Regulatory uncertainty:
A phony explanation for our jobs problem


By Lawrence Mishel | September 27, 2011

Job creation has finally returned as a front and center priority in Washington. The prescription for spurring job creation, however, depends on the diagnosis of the underlying problem. Policymakers are currently invoking two very different explanations for the jobs crisis. The more persuasive explanation is that the demand for goods and services is depressed because of the collapse of the housing and stock market bubbles -"the financial crisis" - that has led to both a deleveraging (paying off debts) of households and a cratering of the construction sector. The initial shock of the bubble's burst then cascaded into non-construction business investment that dried up as customers disappeared. Finally, all of this led to state and local governments cutting back services and jobs as tax revenues plunged.

DOWNLOAD PDF: EPI Briefing Paper No. 330
EPI BLOG: More on why regulatory uncertainty is a phony explanation

There is a competing story, widely told by Republican politicians and business trade associations, which claims that business investment and hiring is being held back by uncertainty over future regulations and taxation. As Maine Senator Susan Collins said in introducing her bill to put a moratorium on all new regulations: "Businesses, our nation's job creators and the engine of any lasting economic growth, have been saying for some time that the lack of jobs is largely due to a climate of uncertainty, most notably the uncertainty and cost created by new federal regulations" (Kasperowicz 2011). Her view has been repeated by others, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (2011) and the Chamber of Commerce (Donohue 2011).

An examination of current economic trends, and especially what employers are doing in terms of hiring and investment, debunks this story about regulatory uncertainty as the cause of our dismal job growth. An examination of what employers and their economists are saying again and again in private surveys (cited later in this paper) makes it clear that what businesses actually identify as their primary set of challenges does not fit this story either. In other words, what the heavily politicized trade associations in Washington are saying does not correspond to the real challenges facing both large and small businesses, even as they themselves perceive them.

What is the flawed reasoning behind the "uncertainty" argument?

What is the logic behind the "uncertainty" argument for our poor job growth? Based on numerous media reports, we know that firms have substantial cash on hand to invest (Monga, Mattiloi, and Chasan 2011), but that they are not using it for new hires or investments. We also know that firms are making a third more profit than they did before the recession (Eisenbrey et al. 2011), so they are not being held back by current profitability or the ability to finance investments. There is no mention of any demand-side problems in the rhetoric coming from House leaders, so presumably they believe that businesses have ample customers.

Given all of this, the story must be - according to conservative policymakers - that employment growth is sluggish because firms are turning down, and will continue to turn down, opportunities to make goods and services that are profitable today (current sales are very profitable) because they fear regulations will not allow these sales opportunities to be as profitable in the future and they fear making the longer-term commitment of hiring permanent workers.

Actually, it's not really "uncertainty" about these potential rules and regulations that is the complaint; the regulatory process is moving along, and the rules are becoming final and therefore certain. But the House Republicans and various business groups are actually trying to delay the rules, prolonging the sense of uncertainty. The bottom line is an old conservative story: that regulation will raise costs and make future business opportunities to sell goods and services insufficiently profitable. The new twist is that these fears are suppressing current investments and hiring, and are thus a major cause of our unemployment problem.

The underlying assumption that regulations inhibit job growth is questionable, of course. EPI's Isaac Shapiro and John Irons have reviewed the available evidence on this and found that, taken in their entirety, neither studies on the economy as a whole or ones on particular sectors support the view that regulations cause substantial job losses. Following are excerpts from Shapiro and Irons (2011):

The most common general studies are of environmental regulations, and these have consistently failed to find significant negative employment effects. Moreover, studies suggesting that regulations have broad negative effects on the economy offer little persuasive evidence.

Some well-executed studies have found that certain regulations led to job losses in particular areas, but most studies of various industries suggest that regulations had either a close to neutral or small positive effect on employment levels.

It is worth mentioning that this "regulatory uncertainty" argument requires its proponents to have a particularly peculiar form of amnesia, given that the worldwide economic collapse we are now experiencing is due to a failure to sufficiently regulate financial markets ...


http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute


Phony Fear Factor
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The good news: After spending a year and a half talking about deficits, deficits, deficits when we should have been talking about jobs, job, jobs we're finally back to discussing the right issue.

The bad news: Republicans, aided and abetted by many conservative policy intellectuals, are fixated on a view about what's blocking job creation that fits their prejudices and serves the interests of their wealthy backers, but bears no relationship to reality.

Listen to just about any speech by a Republican presidential hopeful, and you'll hear assertions that the Obama administration is responsible for weak job growth. How so? The answer, repeated again and again, is that businesses are afraid to expand and create jobs because they fear costly regulations and higher taxes. Nor are politicians the only people saying this. Conservative economists repeat the claim in op ed articles, and Federal Reserve officials repeat it to justify their opposition to even modest efforts to aid the economy.

The first thing you need to know, then, is that there's no evidence supporting this claim and a lot of evidence showing that it's false.

The starting point for many claims that antibusiness policies are hurting the economy is the assertion that the sluggishness of the economy's recovery from recession is unprecedented. But, as a new paper by Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute documents at length, this is just not true. Extended periods of "jobless recovery" after recessions have been the rule for the past two decades. Indeed, private sector job growth since the 2007-2009 recession has been better than it was after the 2001 recession...
; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/krugman-phony-fear-factor.html?_r=1&nl =todaysheadlines&emc=tha212&pagewanted=print





.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 707
Registered: Mar-04
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News: "And a lot of anger out there. There's so many people who simply don't think they're better off than they were four years ago. How do you convince them that they are?"

"President Obama: "Well, I don't think they're better off than they were four years ago. They're not better off than they were before Lehman's collapse, before the financial crisis, before this extraordinary recession that we're going through. I think that what we've seen is that we've been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy, but the unemployment rate is still way too high. And that's why it's so critical for us to make sure that we are taking every action we can take to put people back to work.

Well at least he isn't as detached as I figured him to be... Play that quote in every Republican ad.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16819
Registered: May-04
.

"Play that quote in every Republican ad."


Even in the money soaked repub world of the Koch brother's deep and semi-anonymous pockets combined with Karl Rove's American Crossroads corporate funding that would seem to me to be a waste of resources. There's absolutely nothing in that statement what would reinforce the idea Obama is a Muslim jihadist Manchurian Candidate who hates white people out to bring down America with his Socialist ways of destroying capitalism by "spreading the wealth around".

Even the average brick brained repub listener would have to use their severely limited capacity to reason through a complete sentence in order to come to that conclusion.









Oh, .... yeah ... now that I think about it.





ROTFLMAO!







.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16820
Registered: May-04
.


I see you're back at it again, squiddy. How was your week in rehab? Any results to report? New meds to take? Websites to avoid?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16821
Registered: May-04
.

So Solyndra (you know, the loan program which began under W) is the latest repub attempt to discredit Obama for lack of oversite, eh? Well I suppose no repub - oversight maven Darrel Issa in particular - is going to ask the question what did non-curious about everything, all regulations should be "voluntary", frat boy livin' large off someone else's cash GWB know and when did he know it about ...

Fannie Mae Knew Early of Abuses, Report Says

Fannie Mae, the mortgage finance giant, learned as early as 2003 of extensive foreclosure abuses among the law firms it had hired to remove troubled borrowers from their homes. But the company did little to correct the firms' practices, according to a report issued Tuesday(*).


Only after news reports in mid-2010 began to describe the dubious practices, like the routine filing of false pleadings in bankruptcy courts, did Fannie Mae's overseer start to scrutinize the conduct. The report was critical of that overseer, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and was prepared by the agency's inspector general.

In one notable lapse, even after the agency reported problems to Fannie Mae in late 2010 about some of the approved law firms, it did not request a response from the company, the report said.

"American homeowners have been struggling with the effects of the housing finance crisis for several years, and they shouldn't have to worry whether they will be victims of foreclosure abuse," said Steve Linick, inspector general of the finance agency. "Increased oversight by F.H.F.A. could help to prevent these abuses."

The report is the second in two weeks in which the inspector general has outlined lapses at both the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the companies it oversees - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agency has acted as conservator for the companies since they were taken over by the government in 2008. Its duty is to ensure that their operations do not pose additional risk to the taxpayers who now own them. The companies have tapped the taxpayers to cover mortgage losses totaling about $160 billion ...

The new report from the inspector general tracks Fannie Mae's dealings with the law firms handling its foreclosures from 1997, when the company created its so called retained attorney network. At the time, Fannie Mae was a highly profitable and powerful institution, and it devised the legal network to ensure that borrower defaults would be resolved with efficiency and speed.

The law firms in the network agreed to a flat rate fee structure and pricing model based on the volume of foreclosures they completed. The companies that serviced the loans for Fannie Mae, were supposed to monitor the law firms' performance and practices, the report noted

After receiving information from a shareholder in 2003 about foreclosure abuses by its law firms, Fannie Mae assigned its outside counsel to investigate, according to the report. That law firm concluded in a 2006 analysis that "foreclosure attorneys in Florida are routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits," and that the practice could be occurring elsewhere. "It is axiomatic that the practice is improper and should be stopped," the law firm said.

The inspector general's report said that it could not be determined whether Fannie Mae had alerted its regulator, then the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, to the legal improprieties identified by its internal investigation.

Amy Bonitatibus, a Fannie Mae spokeswoman, declined to comment on the inspector general's report, but said that the 2006 legal analysis identified a specific issue with the practice of filing lost-note affidavits, which the company immediately addressed.

The inspector general said that both Fannie Mae and its regulator appear to have ignored other signs of problems in their foreclosure operations. For example, the Federal Housing Finance Agency did not respond to borrower complaints about improper actions taken by law firms in foreclosures received as early as August 2009, even though foreclosure abuse poses operational and financial risks to Fannie Mae.

The report cited a media report from early 2008 detailing foreclosure abuses by law firms doing work for Fannie Mae ...

Finally last fall, after an outcry over apparently forged foreclosure documents and other improprieties, the Federal Housing Finance
Agency began investigating the company's process. In a report issued early this year, it determined that Fannie Mae's management of its network of lawyers did not meet safety and soundness standards. Among the reasons: the company's controls to prevent or detect foreclosure abuses were inadequate, as was the company's monitoring of the law firms. "If a law firm self-reported no issues as it processed cases," the inspector general said, "then Fannie Mae presumed the firm was doing a good job."}


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/business/fannie-mae-ignored-foreclosure-misdeeds-report-says.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25&pagewanted=print




* http://www.fhfaoig.gov/Content/Files/AUD-2011-004.pdf







.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 708
Registered: Mar-04
Furiously unraveling
Gun scandal still growing

Last Updated: 12:27 AM, October 3, 2011

Posted: 10:34 PM, October 2, 2011
More Print
headshotMichael A. Walsh

The joke goes that anything named Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ought to be a convenience store instead of an arm of the federal government, but whats going on in Washington these days with the embattled agency is no laughing matter.

Hardly a week passes now without some revelation about the Obama administrations complicity in what may yet turn out to be one of the worst and most lethal scandals in American history: Operation Fast and Furious.

In a classic Friday document dump -- a sure sign of an administration with something to hide -- the feds released to congressional investigators a months worth of e-mail correspondence in the summer of 2010 between Bill Newell, then head ATF agent in Phoenix, and his friend Kevin OReilly, a former White House national-security staffer for North American affairs.
Demanding answers: Rep. Darell Issa is asking for a special prosecutor for Fast & Furious.

What do you know? Among the e-mails was a photograph of a powerful Barrett .50-caliber rifle that had been illegally purchased in Tucson and recovered in Sonora, Mexico, raising the possibility of a second gunwalking program, this one called Wide Receiver.

Like Fast and Furious, the ATF-supervised scheme that saw thousands of weapons walk across the Mexican border for reasons no one in the Justice Department has yet satisfactorily explained, Wide Receiver was apparently a joint operation that also included the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the IRS and the US Attorneys office.

Its likely there have been others, in such states as Florida and Indiana.

While the back-channel e-mails dont explicitly discuss Fast and Furious, they do show the White Houses intense interest in the ATFs and other federal agencies activities in Arizona. In one message, OReilly asks Newell whether he can share some information with other officials. Sure, just don}t want ATF HQ to find out, especially since this is what they should be doing (briefing you)! comes the reply.

Despite whistle-blower testimony, Newell denies that his agents deliberately facilitated weapons transfers to Mexican drug lords, although he recently admitted in a supplemental statement to Rep. Darrell Issas House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that his July testimony lacked clarity.

Weve also just learned from documents that guns linked to Fast and Furious turned up in El Paso last year -- the first time such weapons have surfaced outside Arizona, where the guns were released. A convicted drug felon was allowed to buy 40 AK-47-type rifles, which eventually wound up in Texas.

Its time for politicians on both sides of the aisle to demand answers from Justice and the White House. Issa and his colleague in the Senate, Chuck Grassley, have been doing yeomans work, but theres only so much they can do without the wind at their backs.

A White House under investigation can delay, slow-walk documents, redact them in the name of national or operational security, and simply refuse to make witnesses available to investigators -- all of which the administration has done. Issa and Grassley had asked to interview OReilly before the end September, but the White House says hes on assignment in the Mideast and thus unavailable.

Short of a special prosecutor -- a move floated by Issa but one that the Justice Department, which is leading its own probe, would likely block -- the only hope we have that the truth will come out is public pressure.

So where are the GOP candidates? Where is a critical mass of journalists and commentators, who should be asking sharp, tough, pertinent questions in the national interest?

By now, its clear that the US government is in Fast and Furious up to its ears -- with two, possibly three dead agents and more than 200 dead Mexicans to show for an operation that never had the slightest chance of success.

The only real question is: Why?

Re
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16822
Registered: May-04
.

Repubs at work - once again - at voter suppression, repub Secretary of Sate accuses military personnel of "potential voter fraud" ...

Gessler: No to mailing ballots to inactive voters
Secretary of state's view extends to inactive military voters.


Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert "Bo" Ortiz wanted an answer Thursday from Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler to a simple question but one heavily laced with politics: Could Ortiz send out roughly 70 mail ballots to registered county voters in the military, but who did not vote in the 2010 election?

"I want an order from the secretary's office by Friday (today) saying that I cannot send out those ballots because I believe I should under the (Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act)," Ortiz said Thursday morning.

He got his answer at closing time Thursday. Gessler's letter to Ortiz said the secretary of state was sticking to his position that no inactive voters should get ballots sent to them this election - including out of area military voters, or those "covered" by the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act.

"A covered voter who is registered to vote may apply for a ballot. Ballots are not automatically sent to covered voters," Gessler's letter said. "Thus, Pueblo County may only send mail ballots to inactive voters who submit a timely request as required by the (Act)."

Perusing the letter Thursday night, Ortiz said Gessler had provided an order as asked.

Ortiz, however, said he wanted to discuss Gessler's letter with his legal adviser, Pueblo County Attorney Dan Kogovsek, before making a decision on the matter that has become more controversial with the added question of how inactive military voters should be treated.

The military voter issue is the latest twist in the confrontation between Gessler and two counties - Pueblo and Denver - over their intentions to send ballots to inactive voters this year. Denver Clerk Debra Johnson intends to send out about 55,000 ballots to inactive voters in that county, including military voters.

Ortiz has 17,000 ballots ready for inactive voters among the 82,000 he expects to mail out for the November election. He's already mailed out about 600 ballots to military voters who are considered active voters, meaning they voted in 2010. By law, military voters are supposed to get their ballots sent to them 45 days prior to an election.

Gessler has filed a lawsuit against the Denver clerk's office and a Denver District Court hearing is scheduled for Oct. 7. That's important because Ortiz said he will send out the county ballots this year on Oct. 11. He is holding onto the 17,000 inactive voter ballots for now, but intends to mail out the 70 or so that would go to inactive military voters today, unless Gessler orders him not to.

It's a showdown that has pitted the Republican Gessler against the Democrats, Ortiz and Johnson, as well as Democratic members of Congress.

At its core, the dispute is over inactive voters. State law has required county clerks to send ballots to both active and inactive voters in three previous elections, but that requirement expired this year. Gessler claims current state law limits clerks to sending ballots to active voters only, meaning those that voted in the 2010 general election or have freshened their registration in some way.

"We've studied the legislative hearings on the matter and its our view that lawmakers wanted the requirement to send ballots to inactive voters to expire out of a concern over cost and potential voter fraud," said Andrew Cole, Gessler's spokesman.

County clerks submitted their election plans to Gessler's office this summer. Ortiz said the state office approved his, but Gessler's office said the Pueblo County plan only indicated an intention to send out 82,000 ballots to voters without any mention of inactive voters.

"Our office has never approved any plan to send ballots to inactive voters," Cole said.

But bringing military voters into the dispute casts it in a different light and Ortiz did that this week. While Gessler has made the news this year with charges about illegal voters casting ballots in the 2010 election, no one has suggested that fraud occurred among any military voters.

Ortiz said his office already has sent out about 600 ballots to military voters who voted in 2010 in order to meet the 45 day requirement for them to get their ballots in time. But he said Gessler's office contacted him just before that deadline and told him to hold the ballots for inactive voters - which amounts to about 70 ballots for inactive military voters.

In a letter to Gessler on Tuesday, Ortiz said Kogovsek advised him that Gessler's reading of the law is wrong.

"â€Under the state act, I am legally required to mail ballots to uniformed service voters who are eligible to vote, whether or not they are 'inactive',"’ Ortiz said in the letter.

So it's a dispute about sending out ballots because Gessler's office does require Ortiz and other clerks to have sufficient ballots printed to allow all inactive voters to vote - should they go to the county clerk's office or a polling center and ask for a ballot.

"There were thousands of ballots mailed out to inactive voters in 2010 that were unaccounted for," Cole said.

U.S. Reps. Robert Brady, D-Pa., and Charles Gonzales, D-Texas, weighed in on the issue this week, sending a letter to the Justice Department that charged Gessler with trying to suppress voting in Denver County and Colorado.

"What Secretary Gessler suggests is likely to disenfranchise eligible voters and should be condemned therefore," they wrote, adding they wanted an investigation of Gessler's actions.

Anyone can still register to vote for the November election through Monday. They can do that by contacting the elections office at the Pueblo County Courthouse or online through the secretary of state's office at www.govotecolorado.com


http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/gessler-no-to-mailing-ballots-to-inactive-vo ters/article_1383c1ea-eb26-11e0-8e51-001cc4c002e0.html



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16823
Registered: May-04
.

"So where are the GOP candidates? Where is a critical mass of journalists and commentators, who should be asking sharp, tough, pertinent questions in the national interest?

By now, its clear that the US government is in Fast and Furious up to its ears -- with two, possibly three dead agents and more than 200 dead Mexicans to show for an operation that never had the slightest chance of success.

The only real question is: Why?"




Why you ask? Here's why ...


AP sources: Bush-era probe involved guns 'walking'

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government under the Bush administration ran an operation that allowed hundreds of guns to be transferred to suspected arms traffickers — the same tactic that congressional Republicans have criticized President Barack Obama's administration for using, two federal law enforcement officials said Tuesday.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other Republicans have been hammering the Obama Justice Department over the practice known as "letting guns walk." The congressional target has been Operation Fast and Furious, which was designed to track small-time gun buyers at several Phoenix-area gun shops up the chain to make cases against major weapons traffickers. In the process, federal agents lost track of many of the more than 2,000 guns linked to the operation.

When Bush, a Republican, was president, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Tucson, Ariz., used a similar enforcement tactic in a program it called Operation Wide Receiver. The fact that there were two such ATF investigations years apart in separate administrations raises the possibility that agents in still other cases may have allowed guns to "walk." ...

Federal law enforcement officials familiar with the matter say Operation Wide Receiver began in 2006 after the agency received information about a suspicious purchase of firearms. The investigation concluded in 2007 without any charges being filed.

After Obama took office, the Justice Department reviewed Wide Receiver and discovered that ATF had permitted guns to be transferred to suspected gun traffickers, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the practice is under investigation by Congress and the Justice Department inspector general's office.

Following the discovery that agents in Tucson let the guns "walk," a tactic which has long been against Justice Department policy, the department under Obama decided to bring charges against those who had come under investigation in 2006 ...

To date in Wide Receiver, nine people have been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms. Two of the nine defendants have pleaded guilty and a plea hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13 for two other defendants.

Last October, Jason Weinstein, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's criminal division, raised concerns about investigative methods in Operation Wide Receiver and about the timing of announcing indictments in both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious.

"It's a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked, but it is a significant set of prosecutions," Weinstein wrote in a Justice Department email turned over to Congress, which released the document.

Weinstein raised the question in asking whether Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general who runs the Justice Department's criminal division, should participate in a news conference when indictments in Fast and Furious and the case resulting from Wide Receiver were unsealed.

The two federal law enforcement officials said Weinstein's language about "a tricky case" referred to Wide Receiver, not Fast and Furious.

In an emailed reply to Weinstein, James Trusty, at the time deputy chief in the gang unit at the Justice Department, said "it's not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of US guns are being used in MX (Mexico), so I'm not sure how much grief we get for 'guns walking.' It may be more like, 'Finally, they're going after people who sent guns down there."

The two law enforcement officials said the language of Trusty's email also refers to the Tucson case, not Fast and Furious.

Trusty's email adds "I think so" on the question of whether Breuer should participate in a press conference, but Trusty adds that "timing will be tricky too."

It continued: "Looks like we'll be able to unseal the Tucson case sooner than the Fast and Furious (although this may be just the difference between Nov and Dec). It's not clear how much we're involved in the main F and F case, but we have Tucson and now a new, related case with (deleted) targets."

The Justice Department blacked out the number of targets in this apparent related third case before turning the email over to congressional investigators on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Fast and Furious was a response to longstanding criticism of ATF for concentrating on small-time gun violations and failing to attack the kingpins of weapons trafficking ...





How uncomfortable that must be to find yet another program the repubs thought they could use against Obama was actually started under Bush.







http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-bush-era-probe-involved-guns-walking-193626306.html




Ya'see, squiddy, if you make even a small attempt at getting to the "hard (as possible) facts" before you post this BS, you won't find yourself embarrassed at every turn. Didn't they teach you nothing in rehab? I guess you're still just relying on the hard right wingnuts for your "information", eh? Too bad, 76% of what they tell you is a pants on fire lie.










.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16824
Registered: May-04
.

Perry bet big on tax grants to subprime lenders


WASHINGTON (AP) â€" As Texas governor, Rick Perry spent tens of millions in taxpayer money to lure some of the nation's leading mortgage companies to expand their business in his state, calling it a national model for creating jobs. But the plan backfired.

Just as the largest banks began receiving public cash, they aggressively ramped up risky lending. Within four years, the banks were out of business and homeowners across Texas faced foreclosure. In the end, the state paid $35 million to subsidize it.


An Associated Press review of federal mortgage data, court filings and public statements found that Perry downplayed early warnings of an impending mortgage crisis as alarmist. That's even as Perry's own attorney general would later investigate whether Countrywide Financial Corp. encouraged homeowners to borrow more than they could afford.

As Perry offered $20 million in grants to Countrywide and $15 million to Washington Mutual Inc. â€" each blamed for having a major role in one of the country's most serious recessions â€" he took in tens of thousands of their dollars for his gubernatorial campaign.

Perry, a Republican candidate for the White House, did what any governor would want to do: bring in jobs for his state. He also supported a cap on how much consumers could borrow against their homes, which experts credit for softening the blow of the mortgage crisis in Texas: by the end of 2008, more than 22 states had a greater percentage of foreclosures.

Yet Perry didn't appear to recognize that the industry his administration had subsidized was damaging the national economy.


The AP analysis found that Washington Mutual, Countrywide and their subsidiaries boosted risky lending in Texas within a year after receiving grants from the Texas Enterprise Fund. In 2004, only one out of every 100 Washington Mutual loans in the state was originated to homeowners with less-than-perfect credit. The next year, that figure rose to more than one in four.

Countrywide's lending volume also boomed. In 2004, 14 percent of the company's loans in the state were given to high-risk borrowers, but the following year â€" when Countrywide received its first $10 million disbursement from the fund â€" the rate of risky loans jumped to nearly one in three, the AP's analysis found. Texas ranked No. 3 for the number of risky mortgages underwritten by Countrywide, behind only Florida and California.

In October 2007, as credit-rating agencies continued downgrading hundreds of billions in mortgage-backed assets on Wall Street, Perry's spokeswoman described Texas as "one of the hottest housing markets in the nation" and dismissed concerns about the looming economic implosion as "slightly alarmist."

The enterprise fund is known in Texas as a signature issue for Perry, and one that has drawn critical scrutiny by the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice in light of subprime mortgage lending in the mid-2000s. The AP's review uncovered new details of his economic deals as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination, particularly in how the two lenders engaged in subprime lending in Texas.

The AP's analysis examined rates of so-called high-cost mortgages, including subprime loans and those that required less documentation than traditional mortgages. Federal data available under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act identifies mortgage transactions that show signs of risky lending.

Texas officials said the fund has an 11-point vetting process, and subsidies are approved by Perry and top state leaders with requirements to create certain numbers of jobs. Between Washington Mutual and Countrywide's TEF contracts, officials pledged more than 11,000 new jobs.

Bank of America Corp., which acquired Countrywide in 2007, ended its contract under the fund in early 2010 and returned $8.45 million because it couldn't meet the contract's 7,500 promised jobs. But since JPMorgan Chase acquired WaMu, as Washington Mutual was called, in 2008 and maintained the contract, it didn't have to pay back its predecessor's $15 million grant.

"The state's contract with Countrywide was specific to creating jobs, and ultimately produced more than 3,800 jobs for Texans," Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told the AP.

Countrywide pledged to create thousands of new jobs, but later shed more than that in nationwide layoffs. That came as Countrywide and WaMu gave checks to Perry's re-election campaign, including $2,500 from WaMu's political action committee as late as March 2008. The companies gave more than $15,000 in total contributions, state records show.

Meanwhile, Countrywide faced problems in Texas. Perry's own attorney general reached an agreement with the lender in 2008 that would give millions to customers who lost their homes to foreclosure. The attorney general's office began its investigation that year amid allegations that Countrywide encouraged homeowners to accept loans they could not afford.

But the warning signs came earlier.

In the first half of 2005 â€" just as the companies were collecting subsidies from Perry's administration â€" more than two-thirds of all loans by Countrywide and WaMu had low- or no-documentation requirements, according to a report compiled by a federal commission on the financial crisis.


Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo told Wall Street analysts that Countrywide intended to dominate the mortgage market and increase its overall market share by 2006 to 30 percent.

Back at its offices, Countrywide subsidiary Countrywide Home Loans Inc. processed more than 150,000 mortgages a month in mid-2004, relying on automated underwriting software to speed up the approval process.

That was a year before the mortgage crisis began to escalate, and six months before Perry announced his Countrywide deal. In a speech at the time, Perry called Countrywide a good employer and said state government subsidies would help other such companies move their businesses to Texas.


http://news.yahoo.com/perry-bet-big-tax-grants-subprime-lenders-083030051.html




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16826
Registered: May-04
.

Perry once defended Confederate symbols

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) â€" Eleven years ago, when the NAACP stepped up a campaign to remove the Confederate battle flag from statehouses and other government buildings across the South, it found an opponent in Rick Perry.

Texas had a pair of bronze plaques with symbols of the Confederacy displayed in its state Supreme Court building. Perry, then lieutenant governor, said they should stay put, arguing that Texans "should never forget our history."

It's a position Perry has taken consistently when the legacy of the Civil War has been raised, as have officials in many of the other former Confederate states. But while defense of Confederate symbols and Southern institutions can still be good politics below the Mason-Dixon line, the subject can appear in a different light when officials seek national office.

For Perry, now Texas governor for 11 years and in the top tier of Republican presidential candidates, a racial issue is already dogging him.

He took criticism over the weekend for a rock outside the Texas hunting camp his family once leased that had the name Niggerhead painted on it. Perry's campaign says the governor's father painted over the rock to cover the name soon after he began leasing the site in the early 1980s and says the Perry family never controlled, owned or managed the property. But rival Herman Cain, the only black Republican in the race, says the rock symbolizes Perry's insensitivity to race.

A related issue may rise this fall when Texas decides whether to allow specialty license plates featuring the Confederate flag. The plates have been requested by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a nonprofit organization Perry has supported over the years. A state board he appointed will decide.

The NAACP says its initiative against "glorification" of slave-state symbols remains ongoing. "The romanticism around the Old South," said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau. "It's a view of history that ignores how racism became a tool to maintain a system of supremacy and dominance."

Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner did not return messages seeking comment on the matter. But Granvel Block, the Texas Division commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the organization appreciated Perry's position on such issues.

"I would give him high praise for saying it," Block said. "Honoring your ancestors, it's something that the Bible teaches."

The Confederate battle flag has been chief target for the NAACP. The organization called for a boycott of South Carolina in 2000 for flying the banner over its statehouse. The state moved the flag to a capitol memorial. In 2003, Georgia replaced its state flag, which included the Confederate battle standard, with one that combined other elements from previous state flags. Other institutions have scaled back their displays of Confederate heritage. The University of Mississippi retired Colonel Rebel as its on-field mascot.

In January 2000 the NAACP asked Texas to remove the Confederate battle flag from plaques in the entryway of a building housing the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, saying it undermined the notion of judicial equality. One of the 11-inch by 20-inch bronze plaques featured the seal of the Confederacy and the other the image of the battle flag and quotations from Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Perry wrote to the Sons of Confederate Veterans in March 2000 that, "although this is an emotional issue, I want you to know that I oppose efforts to remove Confederate monuments, plaques and memorials from public property" ...


http://news.yahoo.com/perry-once-defended-confederate-symbols-070535630.html





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16827
Registered: May-04
.

Seeking Taxes, Romney Went After Business

BOSTON - Much of the business community in Massachusetts was puzzled. Mitt Romney, a Republican with high caliber corporate credentials, had run for governor pledging to sweep aside barriers to business and act as the state's "top salesman."

But just a few months after Mr. Romney took office in 2003, what he delivered seemed anything but friendly to the C.E.O. crowd: a bill to financial firms for what they saw as $110 million in new corporate taxes - and a promise of more to come.

"How could he do this to businesses as a business guy?" Joe Casey, then a top executive at a Massachusetts bank, Seacoast Financial, recalled asking colleagues whose companies had to pay up after the Romney administration closed a tax loophole. "It was very aggressive, and it was a surprise."

For the next three years, the Romney administration relentlessly scoured the tax code for more loopholes, extracting hundreds of millions of corporate dollars to help close budget gaps in a state with a struggling economy. It was only after Mr. Romney was gearing up in 2005 for a possible White House bid that he backed away from some of his most assertive tax enforcement proposals amid intensifying complaints from local companies and conservative antitax groups in Washington.

Mr. Romney's campaign against the tax loopholes, like no other period in his career, put him at odds with the values and expectations of the corporate world from which he came. Today, in seeking the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Romney promotes himself as the pro-business candidate who understands what companies need and how to create jobs.

An examination of the period reveals a more complicated picture. It shows a governor who sometimes put the need to find new revenues ahead of the conservative argument that tax increases almost by definition kill jobs; a shrewd financial manager who aides said was guided by a strong sense of rectitude, not just pragmatism; and a political aspirant willing to buck the orthodoxies of his own party - at least, state lawmakers said, until his national ambitions tempered that impulse and led him to steer a more conservative course.


Today Mr. Romney rarely, if ever, discusses on the campaign trail how he closed the Massachusetts tax loopholes. There is no proud description of them in his two books, even though many lawmakers in the state consider them a rare show of political courage ...

Closing Tax Loopholes

In his 2002 campaign for governor, Mr. Romney ran as a turnaround artist. After a career as a venture capitalist asking companies for money, he liked to tell audiences, he was eager to ask for something else: jobs in Massachusetts.

"I'm looking forward to being the state's most active salesman, out there banging on doors," he said in one of his first appearances after announcing his candidacy. ""Come to Massachusetts, look what we have for you."

His campaign swelled with donations from employees of the state's biggest corporations:: Fidelity Investments, Staples, Liberty Mutual.

Mr. Romney said he was determined to reduce taxes in a state long derided for its high costs: in the corridors of finance, "Taxachusetts" had become a casual epithet.

But his campaign promise never to raise taxes left him with few options once in office: the state's budget deficit had reached $3 billion, a gap that could not be eliminated by cutting spending and reducing the state work force.

Inside the Romney administration, Alan LeBovidge, a recently retired corporate tax adviser at PricewaterhouseCoopers and the state's commissioner of revenue, stumbled on a potential trove of cash. He found that dozens of Massachusetts banks had reduced their taxes by transferring billions of dollars in assets, like mortgages, into real estate investment trusts. The trusts, by design, were subject to virtually no taxes. Mr. LeBovidge wanted to ban the practice and force the banks to pay outstanding taxes on the assets.

Would the new governor sign on? Mr. Romney, after all, had spent decades trying to wring profits out of companies as a founder of Bain Capital, a Boston private equity firm, and had deep ties to the state's banking industry.

During a lengthy discussion in Mr. Romney's office in early 2003, Mr. LeBovidge made his case. "This is costing us a ton of money, Governor," he recalled telling Mr. Romney.

The governor seemed just as offended as Mr. LeBovidge. "It's not right," Mr. Romney said, according to the tax chief. It was a refrain Mr. Romney would repeat to aides and anybody else who asked. Banks are not real estate companies, they are banks, he would say.

Mr. Romney instructed Mr. LeBovidge to pursue the matter. "Go do it," Mr. LeBovidge recalled the governor saying.

The governor's support extended well beyond signing a law that outlawed the tax arrangement. With Mr. Romney's encouragement, Mr. LeBovidge pursued several years' worth of outstanding payments from the banks, reaching a major settlement that netted the state $110 million in 2003.

Mr. LeBovidge expanded the Revenue Department's auditing budget, hired new staff members and combed the tax code for more loopholes.

"He wanted us to go after the big game," Mr. LeBovidge recalled. "He was very supportive."

The Revenue Department found dozens of similar practices, and the Romney administration set about closing the loopholes one by one. It proposed bills that would collect $120 million in new corporate taxes for 2003, $90 million in 2004 and $170 million in 2005, records show.

Gone was a regulatory quirk that had let companies avoid taxes on software downloaded from the Internet but required taxes on software installed with a disk. So, too, was a company's ability to skirt taxes by transferring valuable trademarks to out of state subsidiaries ...

By the end of Mr. Romney's term, the loophole measures required companies to pay about $370 million a year in additional taxes, a nearly 20 percent increase from the period before he took office, according to an analysis of government data by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonprofit research group that receives financing from corporations.

The impact of closing the loopholes, which produced a relatively small fraction of state revenues, is an open question. "It cost us jobs," said David G. Tuerck, an economist at Suffolk University in Boston, though others say that is difficult to measure and subject to debate. During Mr. Romney's tenure, Massachusetts ranked near the bottom - 47th out of 50 states - in new job creation.

Several experts on the state's economy said that by increasing tax enforcement, Mr. Romney staved off wider cuts to essential services.

"When you do the cold, hard calculations, the benefits of reducing corporate tax avoidance clearly outweigh the costs," said Noah Berger, president of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization.


Mr. Fehrnstrom, the Romney spokesman, said the former governor "believes government has a responsibility to enforce the tax laws and make sure that as companies pursue creative and aggressive accounting techniques that there is an effort to push back" ...

Business Pushes Back

In interviews, several business leaders described a sometimes strained relationship with Mr. Romney that began, but did not end, with the tax measures.

His administration drew up legislation, starting in 2003, that sought to raise dozens of government fees affecting businesses: for outdoor advertising, elevator repairs, delivery of petroleum products, even the cost of a road test for a commercial driver's license (to $40 from $20).

When residential property tax assessments shot up in 2003, the governor signed a bill encouraging towns to offset the higher costs by lowering tax rates for homeowners but raising them for commercial properties.

And when Congress passed a jobs bill in 2004 that forced states like Massachusetts to lower their corporate tax rates, the Romney administration sought to exempt itself from the change to save about $30 million.

"And what would be the point of having a Republican PRO-business governor, again?" asked a Boston Herald editorial opposing the move at the time.

Mr. LeBovidge said that the state simply needed the money. "We didn't want to lose the revenue," he said ...

Grover Norquist, who has successfully pushed dozens of Republican lawmakers to sign no tax pledges as the president of Americans for Tax Reform, assailed the plan as a threat to free society. He likened it to "crossing state lines to mug someone."

Mr. Norquist's voice was especially potent. By the end of Mr. Romney's governorship, the two men had spoken twice about Mr. Romney's future in national politics, making clear, Mr. Norquist said, that he was a likely Republican candidate for president.

Mr. Romney, who had previously seemed so immune to the pressure from the business lobby, suddenly reversed course. He yanked the proposal to empower his tax commissioner further, despite support from leading Democrats in the Legislature, and scaled back by half his 2005 plan to raise $170 million in new loophole closings.

"There was a lot of pressure on the administration not to do it," Mr. LeBovidge said with a hint of regret. Mr. Romney, he said, "felt it was not a battle worth fighting."

By 2006, Mr. Romney was traveling the country, all but openly campaigning for the White House as a fiscal conservative. Much to Mr. Norquist's delight, Mr. Romney became the first Republican presidential candidate to sign his no new taxes pledge, in 2007 - something he had declined to do five years earlier when he ran for governor.

Mr. Norquist acknowledged that he had been deeply disappointed by Mr. Romney's corporate tax overhaul. Unlike the governor, Mr. Norquist regards the changes as tax hikes.

"They changed the laws and the rules to significantly raise taxes," he said. "That is a tax increase."

But he is willing to look past it now. "The important thing," Mr. Norquist said, "is that his stated position is that it won't happen again."


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/us/politics/romneys-strategies-as-governor-bucked-his-ceo-image.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2&pagewanted=print






.


 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16828
Registered: May-04
.

Indecision 2012 - The Great Right Hope - The Manchurian Candi-Dad
The only obstacle to Mitt Romney winning next year's Republican nomination is that, up until recently, he was the antithesis of everything Republicans stand for.


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-4-2011/indecision-2012---the-great -right-hope---the-manchurian-candi-dad




"Play that in every Democratic ad."




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 709
Registered: Mar-04
Obama Campaign Says GOP Blocking Jobs Bill--After Reid Blocks Jobs Bill
4:17 PM, Oct 4, 2011 By MICHAEL WARREN
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts


The Obama campaign sent out an email today asking supporters to urge Congress to at least vote on the presidents jobs bill almost immediately after Democratic majority leader Harry Reid blocked a vote on the bill in the Senate.

On the Senate floor today, Republican leader Mitch McConnell asked for unanimous consent to proceed on voting on the bill. Reid, who has struggled to find enough votes for the bill in the Democratic caucus, objected to the motion and killed the opportunity for a vote.

About ten minutes later, Jim Messina, Obamas 2012 campaign manager, emailed this message to supporters:

President Obama is in Dallas today urging Americans who support the American Jobs Act to demand that Congress pass it already.

Though it's been nearly a month since he laid out this plan, House Republicans haven't acted to pass it. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is out there actually bragging that they won't even put the jobs package up for a vote -- ever.

It's not clear which part of the bill they now object to: building roads, hiring teachers, getting veterans back to work. They're willing to block the American Jobs Act -- and they think you won't do anything about it.

But here's something you can do: Find Republican members of Congress on Twitter, call them out, and demand they pass this bill.

So will the Obama campaign be asking its supporters to "call out" Harry Reid and "demand" he and Senate Democrats pass the bill?


"Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince".
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 710
Registered: Mar-04
So what did Attorney General Eric Holder know about the controversial Fast and Furious operation that put thousands of U.S. guns in the hands of Mexican drug lords and when did he know it?

Holder told the Judiciary Committee May 3, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

But in a newly discovered July 2010 memo Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, told Holder that straw buyers in the Fast and Furious operation "are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels."

Congressional investigators believe Holder began receiving weekly briefings on the program from that day on. The program didn't become a matter of public knowledge until a Border Patrol agent was killed and two of the U.S.-supplied guns were found at the scene. A spokesperson for the Justice Department now insists that Holder simply misunderstood the committee's question, which seems lame in the extreme.

There is, of course, an easy way to clear things up, and that's for Holder to come before the committee again and correct the record, to disclose at what point he realized that guns were "walking" across the border never to be seen again, and why this idiotic effort wasn't halted sooner.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16830
Registered: May-04
.

"Though it's been nearly a month since he laid out this plan, House Republicans haven't acted to pass it. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is out there actually bragging that they won't even put the jobs package up for a vote -- ever.

It's not clear which part of the bill they now object to: building roads, hiring teachers, getting veterans back to work. They're willing to block the American Jobs Act -- and they think you won't do anything about it.

But here's something you can do: Find Republican members of Congress on Twitter, call them out, and demand they pass this bill.

So will the Obama campaign be asking its supporters to 'call out' Harry Reid and 'demand' he and Senate Democrats pass the bill?"




Uh, yes, the Dems who are causing the delay are the bluedogs - the most fiscally conservative Dems who are guarding their donors' back (read; "wallet"). Though no current blind to history repub - you still think repubs are the party of racial integration - would ever know it once existed, at one time both parties had liberal, moderate and conservative members. (Go do some basic reserach regarding who told Nixon it was time to resign before the nation saw every detail of his legacy of high crimes and misdemeanors.) Today, only the Dems still allow such variance of opinion within their ranks. That does not mean the vast majority of Dems do not at times disagree with other, more conservative Dems.

These bluedogs are the same Dems who received thousands (read; "thousands") of calls, emails and letters urging them to pass health care reform. You seem to think Dems are as simple minded and lockstep-following as are all of those garden variety, ideologically "pure" () repubs. That may be how repubs now operate - called out should they stray from the (tea) party (read; "John Bircher/corporate sponsored") line (watch the current crop of repub Presidential hopefulls scrambling to get as far to the right of every issue as possible with most doing "Romney/Perry-esque" flip flops and spinning lies about their past positions while hoping no one notices the current flavor of the week has made yet another verbal or historical faux pas) - but, you see, Dems have the ability to think for themself. Always have, always will.

I understand you have no concept of what that means - thinking, that is - and you have nothing more than the capacity to copy/paste this sort of BS you find in your daily perusal of the right wingnut blogs. However, once again, you show you also have no capacity for doing the basic research necessary to find out how you have been lied to - once again - before you claim someone else's thought as your own.

What's it like, squiddy? Is it tough constantly finding out what you're being told is a lie - Bush began the loan process to Solyndra, Bush began sending guns across the border, Obama actually has a birth certificate, most of the American public still blames W for the economy, Bush didn't have anything to do with getting Bin Laden, Cheney inc. are a bunch of war criminals? Or, do you - as the researchers have found is most likely - do you just double down on the wrong headed thinking, refusing to accept proven facts just because they are not what you prefer to believe?


"Everything Republican is bad/evil, Obama and the dems are noble champions who have the best interests of the "people" in mind, and it even says "fact" in the title..."


What part of that have you forgotten already? You posted it. Don't tell me you don't even believe the crap you yourself post! (OK, 100% of what you post is a BS lie, but we'll overlook that for now.)

Facts, squiddy, facts. They are what this thread is all about, not your wingnut BS copy/paste.


You don't belong here and I can hear rehab folks calling you back.




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16831
Registered: May-04
.

"Congressional investigators believe Holder began receiving weekly briefings on the program from that day on."


Read; "hyper-partisan repubs looking to score cheap political points before the upcoming elections".


Say, why do ya'suppose the get to the bottom of this despite the actual evidence repubs mention Bush's role in the illegal gun running?

Too much like (I don't remember being President)Reagan/Bush (I was out of the loop as Vice President) Sr. and Iran/Contra arms deals, maybe?


Well, none the less, you just keep telling us what the repubs "believe" to have happened. Oh! and don't forget to tell us when they actually find out what happened and are forced into mentioning Bush's role.




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16832
Registered: May-04
.

Say! I bet the crap sites you read didn't even mention this ...



Democrat Wins West Virginia Governor's Race



I'm surprised you didn't bring that bit of news up yourself, squid. What? too busy pounding sand about the "Fast and Furious" hearings and what the repubs "believe"?




ROTFLMAO!!!






.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 711
Registered: Mar-04
I am aware of the Democrat winning that state. What I find funny is that your hero Debbie wasserman schultz the yenta from Florida said "Instead, they voted for Governor Tomblin someone who, like President Obama, has his eye on the ball working to create jobs, educate children and win the future."
I think you are much like that troll Schultz, nothing more than a drone who toes the party line at all costs.

Tomblin actually isn't on the same page as Barry in many ways because as you know crazy woman West Virginia is slowly turning from a blue state to a red state.

"His campaign Web site says "More Jobs, Lower Taxes," and his record and proposals for tax cuts were an important part of his campaign. He was endorsed by the National Rifle Association, and reacted by saying, "My support for gun owners and gun owners' rights has never wavered, and I will continue to fight for Second Amendment issues as governor of our great state." On energy, he supported coal ("There are some who want to turn their backs on coal - not me") and natural gas fracking: "The continued expansion of natural gas exploration in West Virginia can fuel a whole new energy economy, and I will go anywhere and do anything to create these jobs right here at home." As acting governor, he reportedly pursued a lawsuit against the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency to fight its regulations on coal."

You are useful idiot crazy woman in room 237, and not 76% of the time, but 100% of the time. You carry water for a party that is out of touch, slowly coming unhinged, and will be punished at the ballot box next fall. A party headed by a hand picked "academic" in so far over his head it has become a national embarrassment.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16833
Registered: May-04
.

Well, at least that wasn't just another copy/paste. It was still worthless but it was your own brand of worthless.




So, if you knew about the Democratic win, why didn't you congratulate us? Would that have actually killed you?


Oh. I get it, that would have officially made you a RINO which, for a repub, is as good as dead.






"As acting governor, he reportedly pursued a lawsuit against the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency to fight its regulations on coal."




And yet the geniuses at the repub headquarters spent millions of dollars trying to tie him to Obama ...

West Virginia governor's race seen as Obama referendum

(Reuters) - West Virginians voted on Tuesday in a close governor's race that has become as much about a Democrat not on the ballot - U.S. President Barack Obama - as about the two men who are running ...

Tomblin's campaign has fought efforts to tie the acting governor, who is also president of the West Virginia Senate, to the White House.

Outside groups have poured money into the race, even though the winner must run again in the general election in November 2012. The Republican Governors Association has spent $3.4 million and the Democratic Governors Association $2.4 million ...

Tomblin, a conservative Democrat, has released ads showing him with Joe Manchin, the former governor whose election to the U.S. Senate led to the court ordered special election. Manchin has distanced himself from the White House, particularly on opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency, seen in West Virginia as a threat to coal industry jobs.

"I've got a proven track record that I'm the one who's been fiscally responsible for this state to have a balanced budget," Tomblin said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-usa-campaign-westvirginia-idUSTRE79 310C20111004



A "conservative Democrat". What did I say, squiddy? Democrats tolerate a wide variety of opinions within the party. The repubs? Ehhhhh, ... not so much. But you've all been told to hate Obama so often and so much, the repubs wasted millions in ads trying to tie Tomblin to Obama because they can't get beyond their own lockstep line toeing. Really, squiddy! Take a break from the double down and rest your little, overworked brain. You've come up with two whole paragraphs that weren't coply/paste. You might have to take the rest of the month off ... or maybe even head back to rehab. You obviously didn't benefit at all from Obama's re-education camp.



"You are useful idiot crazy woman in room 237, and not 76% of the time, but 100% of the time."



That's a very odd thing to say when it comes fom someone who has repeatdely been proven not to have facts and truth on his side. And yet you haven't been able to prove anything I've posted to be anything other than factually correct. Another case of "double down fever", eh?




ROTFLMAO!!!!!







.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 712
Registered: Mar-04
"So, if you knew about the Democratic win, why didn't you congratulate us? Would that have actually killed you?"


You mean like you did when Turner won in the New York ninth filling the seat of your demented hero Oscar Mayer Weiner ? Well no I wouldn't have killed me but it isn't a big deal to me. The big election is next year and your man is going to lose. No matter what the result you will continue to be the vapid useful idiot you have shown yourself to be. As I said his agenda isn't Barrys agenda (on several issues) so he ran as a "conservative" democrat. There really isn't a conservative wing in your party but he is as close as it can get, and that is because the state is turning red.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16834
Registered: May-04
.



uh huh!


"You mean like you did when Turner won in the New York ninth filling the seat of your demented hero Oscar Mayer Weiner ?"


Rep. Foley Quits In Page Scandal
Six-term Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) resigned yesterday amid reports that he had sent sexu*lly explicit Internet messages to at least one underage male former page.



Larry Craig's Wide Stance Gets Him in Trouble
In June of 2007, Larry Craig made comedians jobs easier for a few weeks when he was arrested in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

Craig was allegedly trying to pull some sort of sexu*l shenanigans with the guy in the stall next to him. That guy turned out to be an undercover police officer.

According to the arresting officer's report, Craig tapped his right foot and rubbed it up against the officer's left foot as a signal that he wanted to engage in some sort of sexu*l act. Craig then "proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward."

That's when the officer stuck something else under the stall partition: his badge.


Gingrich Had Affair During Clinton Probe
(CBS/AP) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

Newt Gingrich's 'h0rny patriot' infidelity excuse





Well, that's all we should need to say about that issue. I would suggest a repub should never try the attack on morality approach. 'K?


Do you know how difficult it is on this forum to say d@mn near anything about repubs when the forum won't allow the words "sexu*l" and "g*y" to be used? Fortunately, "really, really creepy" is still OK.



"The big election is next year and your man is going to lose."



uh, huh!


Poll: GOP's Favorability At Its Worst In A Decade

Pick a poll, any poll.




"There really isn't a conservative wing in your party but he is as close as it can get, and that is because the state is turning red."



uh huh!


The Republicans "are buying expensive," said Jennifer Duffy of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "They realize that it's a bit of a long shot but they felt it was worth trying and they put a lot of money on TV for him." ...

Democrats hold a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration advantage over Republicans in West Virginia, and Tomblin has led Maloney in every poll.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-usa-campaign-westvirginia-idUSTRE79310C20111004



You see, squiddy, if you ever tried to do some research before you posted your crap, you'd find out how wrong everything you've been told is. You can post it but it's still a lie. Saying "Beetlejuice" three times doesn't make that come true either. But you won't do research becasue that would involve putting some effort into fact fnding and facts are something you'd rather conveniently ignore.

Double down fever. Remember, the researchers found this flaw in your tiny, atrophied brain cells to be a symptom of larger "patological" problems.






"vapid useful idiot"

uh huh!


Right, BS copy/paste boy.







ROTFLMAO!!!!!











.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16835
Registered: May-04
.

Who will be the GOP messiah?

Simon asks: If Obama is so weak, why can't the Republicans decide who will beat him?



Barack Obama is so doomed politically that he sits behind his desk in the Oval Office with a vulture on each shoulder. And every day at noon, Joe Biden comes in dressed as the Grim Reaper and they all play gin.

I know this because the poll gods tell me this. A recent McClatchy/Marist poll says that 49 percent of voters say they definitely plan to vote against Obama in 2012.

In addition, 52 percent of Americans think the Republican candidate will win (even though they don't know who the Republican candidate will be). And nearly one out of every three Democrats agrees that Obama is finished.

Other polls have shown similar dismal numbers for Obama. But I say the poll gods are wrong. Not only can Obama be reelected, but he is the favorite right now.

Why? Because Obama has one huge plus going for him. It's called the Republican field.

And Republican voters agree with me. Because if Obama were really so weak a candidate, why would Republicans keep looking for a messiah to save them?

One day it is Michele Bachmann. Then she poops out, and it is Rick Perry. Then he disappoints, and the party turns, in desperation, to Mitt Romney. Then the party decides it is not that desperate and turns to " I kid thee not" Herman Cain.

A CBS poll released Tuesday shows that Cain has moved into a tie with Romney for first place in the Republican field. (After the poll was released, ugly rumors circulated that Warren G. Harding had come in third, even though he has been dead for 88 years.)

So what do I make of Cain's (meaningless) rise in the (meaningless) polls?

It is meaningless. And a sign of how badly Republicans are still floundering in their search for a candidate. Cain is a genial, harmless dodo who thinks running a country is just like running a business. But it isn't.

In business, your competitors rarely strive to develop nuclear weapons like Iran (a subject Cain knows almost nothing about). In business, rarely do your competitors have the capacity to clash in ways that could involve the armed forces of the United States, such as China with Taiwan or Israel with its neighbors (two areas of the world that Cain has demonstrated remarkable ignorance about). And in business, you don't have to feed the hungry, house the homeless or heal the sick.

True, Cain is a man with a domestic plan. Unfortunately for him, it is an utterly hopeless one. Whatever the economic merits of his 9-9-9 plan, it is doomed to political failure because, among other things, it would have Americans give up something they like " their home mortgage interest deduction" for something they won't like: a 9 percent national sales tax that would be levied on top of state and local taxes.

According to PolitiFact, "In Florida, that would create a hypothetical tax rate of 15 percent in most parts of the state." True, Cain's plan offers benefits, but I want to see Cain win Florida and its 29 electoral votes in November 2012 lugging a 15 percent sales tax around on his back.

Yet the poll gods say Cain is hotter than a two-dollar pistol. (Though under Cain, a two-dollar pistol would cost $2.30 in Florida.) But this shows just how frantic Republican voters are. Cain could never win the GOP nomination " yes, race raises its ugly head" and even if he did, he could never win 270 electoral votes to beat Barack Obama.

I am not picking on Cain. I have said exactly the same thing about Michael Bloomberg every time he surfaces as a fantasy independent candidate. His aides tell me that Bloomberg is rich enough to wage and win ballot-access fights in all 50 states; he could self-finance his campaign with billions of dollars more than any opponent and he could buy all the TV time in the known universe.

And I always say the same thing to them: Tell me the states Bloomberg will win. Write down the states that add up to 270. I am still waiting for an answer.

So who could get to 270? Romney could. Conceivably. And Perry. Conceivably. True, Perry is damaged goods today, but he is raising oodles of money, and reporters, lacking their own money, are very impressed by the money of politicians.

But could Republicans be unable to decide on a front-runner because they believe any of their candidates could beat Barack Obama?

No, they could not be so foolish. Though Obama now calls himself the underdog and told one crowd Tuesday that his 2012 efforts "won't be as sexy as in 2008" and another crowd that "this election is going to be much more just grinding it out", the fact is, he is pretty good at grinding things out.

True, he presides over a lousy economy and a dreadful war in Afghanistan. But he also has some real accomplishments. He is a heck of a stump speaker and a pretty good debater, and he has an experienced campaign staff.

I don't believe staffs win elections; the candidates do. But a good staff can help.

And Obama's campaign staff in Chicago has been doing many things " raising money, shaping strategy, developing a message" but it also has been doing just one thing: counting. To 270.

Which it does awfully well.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65256.html






.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2587
Registered: Oct-07
Executive summary of the Gallup poll on Presidential Popularity....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148874/Obama-Job-Approval-Higher-States.aspx#1

Only 1 President has been reelected with a sub-50% 'score'....and that was Bush II.

Fact is, the election at this time appears to be the Republicans to lose.

People still talk about raising taxes, but I've not heard a word said about the (Presidentially) ignored debt commision report which advocated, among other things, doing away with the (many) tax code loopholes.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 713
Registered: Mar-04
Crazy woman you have a simply sense of humor. Do you find humor when barry gets on a bus and says PASS THIS BILL, yet harry reid won't bring it up for a vote ?

are you
ROTFLMAO!!!!! on that one ?


2 to 1 voter registration advantage and yet your party barely wins both the senate seat (handed down from the former Klan member you are proud of) and the the Governors seat. Your man won by 4%.... the gap is closing and soon the state will vote Republican. Do you think if the Democrats followed Barrys agenda to the letter as the Yenta claimed they would win ?
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 714
Registered: Mar-04
I didn't read about your opposition to Robert Byrd... Do you agree with his fox news comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0 ?

When he made that slur did you ask for him to resign ?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16836
Registered: May-04
.

"People still talk about raising taxes, but I've not heard a word said about the (Presidentially) ignored debt commision report which advocated, among other things, doing away with the (many) tax code loopholes."



Ya'know, with your vast array of "information sources", I'm not the least bit surprised you haven't heard anything about anything important. Do some research, squiddy. Stop relying on Fox News to tell you what you need to know. They get you intersted in crap like ...


"I didn't read about your opposition to Robert Byrd... Do you agree with his fox news comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0 ?

When he made that slur did you ask for him to resign ?"





I'm going to say, I don't go hunting down incomplete links just to satisfy you and I don't comment on "that slur" when I have no idea "what slur" you might be referring to. Robert Byrd happens to have died quite a while back. He also renounced and apologized for his past a very long time ago and did more in one year to make reprimands for his past than any of the current repubs will do in their lifetime. The man was a product of his age and his culture. Is that an excuse for Tom Foley? Gingrich cheating while attacking Clinton? Gingrich divorcing his wife while she was suffering from cancer? I don't think so. Do you truly suppose the repubs have no unsavory past history? Say, like Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurman's racism? To ask about Robert Byrd is like asking why I didn't react to the corruption of "The $64 Million Dollar Question".

Tell you what, why don't you get yoursef interested in something that actually matters and maybe you'll learn how to reason through an argument. As is, you don't belong here.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16837
Registered: May-04
.

October 5, 2011, 4:56 pm
Romney to Speak Before Controversial Figure
By ERIK ECKHOLM

Since Mitt Romney is battling suspicion among Christian conservatives about the depth of his opposition to same sex marriage and ab0rtion, it is no surprise that he is joining the other major Republican candidates this week to speak at the annual Values Voters Summit, a celebration of the political aims of the religious right.

The conference, from Friday to Sunday in Washington, is sponsored by the Family Research Council, the American Family Association and other evangelical Christian groups. It aims to energize social conservatives and test the fidelity of the candidates.

The conference planners have obliged Mr. Romney, scheduling him to speak right before Bryan Fischer, who is chief spokesman for the family association and is known for his strident remarks on h0omosexuality, g@y rights, Muslims and Mormons. Their talks will be followed by a panel of same sex marriage opponents.

The liberal advocacy group People for the American Way has called on the presidential candidates, and especially Mr. Romney because he will share a stage, to publicly disassociate themselves from Mr. Fischer and what it called, in a statement on Wednesday, his "unmitigated big0try." The Southern Poverty Law Center has made similar appeals to the candidates.

The Family Research Council and the American Family Association have both been labeled "â€antig@y hate groups" by the law center, a private advocacy organization, for spreading misinformation about h0mosexuality. But the two groups say the charges are politically motivated and they are praised by some conservatives for defending Biblical values.

Mr. Fischer has stood out for his harsh statements on his daily radio show, likening g@y rights advocates to domestic terrorists, arguing that g@y men and lesbi@ns should be barred from public office and repeating the discredited theory that h0mosexuals built the N@zi Party. He has said that American Muslims should be banned from the military and that Mormons, let alone Muslims, should not enjoy First Amendment protections because these are reserved for true Christians.

"If Mitt Romney wants to appeal to mainstream audiences, he should publicly disassociate himself from Fischer's big0try before handing him the podium,"
said Michael Keegan, president of People for the American Way.

The Romney campaign did not immediately comment on the call to distance the candidate from Mr. Fischer.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/romney-on-stage-before-controversi al-speaker/?partner=rss&emc=rss





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16838
Registered: May-04
.

A new feature for this thread starts today, "My Day in Dallas".

Today I woke up to some right wingnut, whacko, talking head complaining about the NYPD not taking rubber bullets and tear gas to the completely peaceful "Occupy Wall Street" protestors.

Later this morning, as I was leaving the grocery store, I saw a guy in the parking lot wearing what I thought was an unusual T-Shirt given his appearance. He was about 5'4" and probably weighs in at around 250+ lbs. Balding and unshaven, his T-Shirt didn't quite cover his buttcrack and neither did his pants. The T-Shirt had "Stud Muffin" printed on it.


I'm going to guess only one of these idiots was actually serious.



http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-5-2011/parks-and-demonstration




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 715
Registered: Mar-04
Ok so you do support Robert Byrd, and you are a democrat and support their shameful racist past. I knew you were full of hate what with the way you rant and rave on these boards. All you have to do is highlight the link and right click, that should be easy for someone as competent as you pass yourself off to be.

What is the the stated purpose of the "occupy wall street people" since it appears you support them ?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16839
Registered: May-04
.

Several weeks ago I asked a very simple question - or so I thought. There has been no response to that question. So rather than assume you know what I support and what I think based on what you have been told I should believe, I have to come to the conclusion no one has a ready answer to my question. This despite the fact it represents a major tenet of the repub party which, I assume, at least two of the participating members of this thread either support or would, at the very least, agree with in part.

The question is, "In the coming week, can you explain how Washington or 'big Government' has been 'consequential' in your life? Put more plainly for those of you who are not so quick on the uptick - that's you, squiddy - how has government affected your day to day life in the coming week?"

Since no one has been able to say in any way how government has impacted their life, I have to assume; 1) you don't really know what government does, and, 2) you blindly accept what you are told to think without the slightest bit of actual thought process ocurring to make a rational decision based upon factual evidence - in other words, you are a trained hamster.






The question will remain open and anyone who cares to answer can freely do so. I would suggest you think about the process through which you can provide a response should you be that totally ignorant of how government impacts your life.



I have also asked two other questions which have received equal amounts of non-response despite the fact they are points of contention in the everday life of virtually every American citizen.



Let's take two items from the above article and ask a few questions that IMO are very difficult for any repub to answer ..


What "jobs bill(s)" have the repubs offered since taking office eight months ago?

While pledging - to the person - to repeal the Affordable Health Care Bill, the repubs have offerred what plan(s) as their alternative thinking when it comes to reducing the cost of health insurance and health care? What provisions have been made in those plans for the now 50 million uninsured Americans? What about the elderly? Even the majority of the tea partiers expect government run Social Security and Medicare to be there for them despite their protests that Obama keep his "government hands" off those two programs.




I invite any response to the very basic question, what is it the repubs actually stand for?


Those two questions were posted on Sept, 19. During that time we've had more than a few copy/pastes of right wingnut BS which has little or nothing to do with the issues which face America but which do serve as distractions to what the men behind the curtain are actually doing.

Those two questions will also remain open in the hope that someone - anyone - can provide a response to the issues they represent. These are, IMO, just three of the very important questions which should be at the heart of any debate regarding the direction in which America will head in the near and not so distant future. IMO these are questions which represent one party making an attempt to move the nation in a forward direction while the other party is simply doing their best to pull America backwards by stalling any progess on any pertinent issue.


If you can clearly and without mindless vitriol explain just how I am wrong on this issue, I would appreciated your input. But you must be factual. No dishonest talking points without historical or intelligent, thoughtful proofs are needed.



Finally, for now, let's have one more question. The repubs have also said lowering taxes would stimulate the economy. The nation has lived with the historically low tax rates for both individuals and corporations for approximately one decade. Revenues from taxes - the recession and persistent joblessness not withstanding - are at their lowest point in over fifty years. We can all agree on those facts, correct?

That said, what taxes should be lowered and how? Please be specific. Bear in mind President Obama has lowered taxes for everyone at least once since taking office and has provided several measures which were aimed at small business growth. Also, how would lowering specific taxes - those not already cut by Obama or Congress - stimulate the economy? Do not fall back on talking points which have been proven to be false. As I said, the tax rates have existed for a decade and yet America faces its highest unemployment along with joblessness for the longest period of time since the great Depression. Pulling data from atime when Reagan took office or Kennedy cut taxes has little to not relevance to today's economy. At the time of those actions Amreica was a manufacturing nation and conditions were substantially unlike today.

Which taxes should be cut and why? What effect would this have on the debt which the government has incurred over the past three decades beginning with Reagan?












.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16840
Registered: May-04
.

Ok so you do support Robert Byrd, and you are a democrat and support their shameful racist past. I knew you were full of hate what with the way you rant and rave on these boards. All you have to do is highlight the link and right click, that should be easy for someone as competent as you pass yourself off to be.

What is the the stated purpose of the "occupy wall street people" since it appears you support them ?





Jeeeeeeez! Just how much of an idiot do you intend to prove yourself to be? Just how incapable of beginning and successfully completing a logical thought process are you?

I know you think you are being "cute" and "smart" in a repungantly stupidly republican way when you say I support Byrd's racism. But, obviously, saying that does not improve your image as a thoughtful person. It merely illustrates once again just how ridiculously ignorant you are and how easily you can be distracted by issues which are not relevant to the those at hand and how nonchalantly you embrace the revisionist history you have been instructed to believe.


Here are a few facts which have been recently discussed. Rick Perry has, for the entirity of his political career, embraced the symbols of racism which are prevelant in the modern Republican party and amongst its members. Mitt Romney has not disavowed the big0try of those with whom the Republican party considers its "evangelical" base. Rick Perry has recently held a prayer meeting - in a stadium which drew several thousand participants - where he melded political and religious ideals. During that meeting other speakers who have been labelled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as belonging to or who personally represent a faction of that segment of the Republican base which spouts hate speech towards minorities (the economically disenfranchised, racially based, sexu@lly oriented and religiously different) shared the stage with Perry and spoke words which represent the persistent big0try prevelant in the far fringe right's viewpoints. The audiences at several of the repub debates have drawn fire for their responses toward g@ys, the uninsured and destitute while cheering the record number of state sponsored executions which have taken place under Perry's watch.


Those are facts which are relevant to today's debate. What Robert Byrd did in 1947 is not. What is relevant in regards to Sen. Byrd is his insistent upon remaining within the Democratic party after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Since you don't seem capable - once again - of introspection or research, I would suggest that before you try this juvenile ploy again you simply look to two facts which exist in the history of the repub party. 1) Where did one time Dems such as Strom Thurman find a welcoming home once those two Acts of Congress had passed? And, 2) do the research to understand Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and discover which well known figure in media today was instrumental in devising the tactic.





What is the the stated purpose of the "occupy wall street people" since it appears you support them ?




You do not belong here.


I said the demonstrators were peaceful and that a local right wingnut on the radio is in favor of turning rubber bullets and tear gas on them.

From that statement you infer that I not only support them but that I can articulate their motives?!






I can tell that Fox News and those right wingnuts who parrot the Fox message do not support them. And I would think it would be suffficiently evident why that would be the case. I can tell you that wingnuts such as Ann Coulter have stated on public record that the way to deal with a "mob" - such as the peaceful (there's that word again!) marchers at Kent State - is for the police state to kill them. And i can tell you that didn't raise an eyebrow when it was said to Sean Hannity on the Fox News channel.


However, to make the presumption I support anyone simply by the fact they are peaceful does seem to me to be a fairly deranged leap of non-reasoning. I also think this demonstartes quite adequately just how you go about making decisions which are not at all based in reality.



Why would you even assume I can tell you what the Occupy Wall Street motives are? Why does that matter at this time?


Why do you stay when it is abundantly evident you do not belong here?






.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 716
Registered: Mar-04
Did you watch the link ? I explained to you is simple terms how to do so and it seems to elude you ?

Strange that the democrats made such a stink about Lott praising Thurmond yet said nothing about Mr. Countrywide loan at a discount Chris Dodd's praise of your hero Klansman Byrd

"Mr. Dodd said, ''I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment.''

He added: ''He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.''

I always thought we needed the insights and wisdom of a Kleagle / Exalted Cyclops of the Klan at our founding and during the war between the states.

By the way Thurmond was a democrat up until 1964. I suppose you wouldn't have been a democrat back then what with all the overt racism in the party ?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16841
Registered: May-04
.

Should I suppose you wouldn't have supported any of our first six Presidents since each of them bought, owned and sold other human beings? Should I also suppose you view yourself as an "originalist" who honors the intent of the founding fathers (which somehow and amazingly seems only to be interpreted correctly by repubs) and you would be someone who wishes to return to a strict interpretation of a "Constitutionally based" government?

Yes?




Since you continue to beat on the racism theme - what is it now, five, six times you've returned to this idea of Democrats' racism? - I must conclude this is an important, if not a motivating, issue with you. Correct?



Why?



Because you have no answer to the questions regarding repub jobs bills? Or repub health care bills? Or which taxes should be reduced and why? Also you have no resposne to how the government has impacted your life in the last three weeks. You have no rationale for why you claim to be a republican? For those are the issues at the heart of the division between the two major parties today, are they not? Yet you are incapable of articulating why you are a republican?


I see.


And I understand - and so we turn to diversions from the real issues and play games with words which will neither provide a single preson a job nor give anyone without health insurance the needed coverage to secure their health and longevity. Diversions seem about all you are capable of dealing with and that suits the repub party well.



OK, Lincoln had no great desire to free the slaves. Truman desegregated the military. LBJ resisted King's calls for the passage of the Civil Rights Act.


And Chris Todd was sloppy in his wording as was Trent Lott. Those are all facts.


What are you trying to prove? What's your end game here?

And what race are you, squiddy? I've been Caucasian all my life. You?






.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 717
Registered: Mar-04
"Why would you even assume I can tell you what the Occupy Wall Street motives are? "

So are you in support of them or not ? Your hero Obama seems to find nothing wrong with them and Pelosi with the ping pong ball eyes salutes them.

So you have no idea why there are groups which identify with, and who will vote overwhelmingly democratic protesting in major cities ? I though you were up on these things because this is your party . Perhaps you need to go back to your source the Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz show to get up to speed.. In the future you would be better served sticking with your "fact" sites when you want to mouth the party line .
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 718
Registered: Mar-04
How long did it take for most Southern whites to identify themselves as Republican ? When did the majority of Southern seats go Republican and when did the Republican party become competitive in most of the state legislatures down there.

See we know the history of Southern racism and that it was intertwined with your party. Your party is the party of slavery, jim crow, and segregation. Now since the South votes Republican you and your ilk try to shift the blame and distort history... shameless really.

As the South became more Republican did racism become more prominent or has it declined ? Never forget that when there was plenty of "strange fruit" hangin from the trees it was under the watchful eyes of your party....
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16843
Registered: May-04
.

"So are you in support of them or not ? Your hero Obama seems to find nothing wrong with them and Pelosi with the ping pong ball eyes salutes them.

So you have no idea why there are groups which identify with, and who will vote overwhelmingly democratic protesting in major cities ? I though you were up on these things because this is your party . Perhaps you need to go back to your source the Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz show to get up to speed.. In the future you would be better served sticking with your "fact" sites when you want to mouth the party line ."





Tell me why it matters to this thread whether I "support" the Occupy Wall Street protestors? As you clearly do not understand, and as you clearly and constantly attempt to derail, the idea of this thread is to stick to facts. Am I to assume you do not support the protestors? That would be the position the vast majority of "your side's" talking heads have instructed their mindless drones to accept - the reason for which should be fairly obvious to even the dullest of the dull.


That, despite the fact, "Today, you have six financial institutions, the largest six, that have assets that are the equivalent of 60 percent of the GDP of the United States of America."
Bernie Sanders, Tuesday, October 4th, 2011


That was ruled "True" by Polififact.



That fact doesn't concerned you as much as you are concerned over whether I support the protestors?!


Or, possibly, you are still unconcerned regarding the fact, "Not a single banker, a CEO from Wall Street, anyone from corporate America â€" nobody, (there was) not one arrest of any of these people who brought down the economy in 2008."
Michael Moore, Wednesday, September 28th, 2011.


That was ruled "Mostly True", as a few very low level financial workers have been arrested and charged with various levels of fraud and/or perjury.



And yet Rushbo's drum beat is we cannot blame the bankers and the financiers as none of them have been jailed - yet. To which I say, how many years did it take to get Barry Bonds indicted for a crime that was obviously blatant and in plain sight? A crime in which no one was actually defrauded or robbed of their property? There's still hope the evidence will be compiled against the "banksters". That is what I support when it comes to the Occupy Wall Street protestors. I really have no concern for removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill. I would point out the true grassroots nature of a protest that has such divergent goals. Quite unlike the astroturf Tea Party protests which were financed and coordinated by groups which fight for the top 1% since they are largely the top 1%. Compare the intervention of, say, Freedom Works - which pays ex-lobbyist, ex-US Representative Dick Armey 1/2 million dollars a year - with their preprinted signs and organized bussing to sites with the ad hoc form of the Wall Street protestors. Additionally, we find the representative sample from the OWS protestors to be a very diverse group. Unlike the TP folks who tend to be mostly disaffected repubs and who, like the repub party itself, fall along those lines of being older, whiter, predominantly male, more affluent and more conservative on social issues such as race relations, g@y marriage, immigration, ab0rtion, etc.


Therefore, as you are now beating the drum against the protestors, I have to assume this is yet another distraction which can be useful for the repub leaders as it keeps you - the little, yappy drones - from thinking about more important matters such as, the repubs' lack of a true jobs plan, lack of a health care plan, lack of a plan on two wars, stalling on major reforms, promising to repeal (but not replace) both Health Care Reform and Wall Street Reform) while backwalking the very tax and jobs proposals Obama has included in his Jobs Plan. All that depsite the consenus opinion - even amongst those repubs who refuse to follow party dogma - that the Jobs Plan would lead to increased hiring, an improvement in sorely needed infrastructure repairs and construction, a resulting stimulus to the economy and a lowering of the jobless rates state by state. All "wins" for America as a nation but not so good for the repubs, so it's best you stay distracted.

That is not to mention the obstruction of the rpeub party to any true reform which would serve to put criminal bankers in jail or, at the very least, to ensure the same situation does not occur again. Yes, hating the OWS crowd seems a useful tool to be used against the mindless, logic-less drones latching onto actual facts.





However, I assume you do not know who also supports the protestors? Try Alex Jones, a very vocal, if not all so friendly to the bankster section of the repub party, Ron Paul supporter. (http://www.infowars.com/targeting-the-real-enemy-occupy-the-fed/) Now, the last time I looked Ron Paul was still running for the repub nomination, was he not? Which would seem to make this a "repub" backed issue if not for the fact the repub party is doing its very best to ignore - shut down - the libertarian, truly individual freedom branch of the party despite what they preach on radio and the floors of Congress. And Jones is urging his listeners to "occupy" sites in protest for as long as it takes for the "banksters" to emerge and be arrested. With that I am uncertain as to how the repubs - the party to which Paul belongs and would like to lead - can simultaneously be "against" the protestors and "for" the vocal wingnut drones calling for turning rubber bullets and tear gas on the protestors.


Now, as you say, "I though(t) (sic) you were up on these things because this is your party . Perhaps you need to go back to your source the (vitriolic, uninformed right wingnut talking heads in abundance but not in-the-know) to get up to speed.. In the future you would be better served sticking with your 'fact' sites when you want to mouth the party line ."



In this case, I couldn't agree with you more. You need to learn about those things which actually occur and develop the capacity to distinguish those things which actually matter.




As to your insult toward Pelosi, I find it as repugnant as I do any of the personal insults your wingnut leaders wallow in. Big0try and insults come easily to your party and most especially to those who do the leading from behind. But I have come to expect nothng better from a certain portion of the repub party. Once agan, the idea you can tear someone down with personal insults is always there as an attempt to make the lowest of the low feel they are superior when they are nothing more than sad. You do fit all the repub drone stereotypes, squiddy. Uninformed, easily distracted from reality, rude and mouthy. Hardly a good combination, definitely not a good combination for a group who claims to find inspiration in their "Christian" beliefs.








.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 719
Registered: Mar-04
"As to your insult toward Pelosi, I find it as repugnant as I do any of the personal insults your wingnut leaders wallow in."

This is the result of too many face lifts, or in other words vanity. You find insults repugnant.... so dementia is setting in isn't it.

As to the Republican plans towards job creation and health care, they are available to anyone who can type and use the internet. Demanding I reproduce them for your amusement simply isn't going to happen. If you want amusement do what others your age do, and watch Matlock re-runs.

So are there any significant differences between Operation linebacker and fast and furious ? I see up above you went into the rather creative "Bush did it" mode.... I know how much you adhere to the concept of intellectual honesty. I also know that if there were any significant differences that wouldn't support the left wing position, that you being a person of integrity who does her research would point those out.

I know by the cutting and pasting you do that you look at these issues with objectivity. I have noticed that you have indeed taken on your own side on several occasions. A person with your intellectual heft simply wouldn't resort to blaming Bush and the Republican party ad nauseam. I mean with the first stimulus being a failure I know you are a not going to simply say pass a bill, not when the Democratic head of the senate and several democratic senators don't support it (in the form your hero Barry does).
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16844
Registered: May-04
.

"How long did it take for most Southern whites to identify themselves as Republican ? When did the majority of Southern seats go Republican and when did the Republican party become competitive in most of the state legislatures down there.

See we know the history of Southern racism and that it was intertwined with your party. Your party is the party of slavery, jim crow, and segregation. Now since the South votes Republican you and your ilk try to shift the blame and distort history... shameless really.

As the South became more Republican did racism become more prominent or has it declined ? Never forget that when there was plenty of "strange fruit" hangin from the trees it was under the watchful eyes of your party...."






The vast majority of your questions can be answered with two concepts; 1 the Dixiecrats of the 1940's and, 2) the passage of the Voting Rights/Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's. You might do well to do some actual research on the topic you find so interesting. (Like that would ever happen!)

By the 1870s the South was heavily Democratic in national and presidential elections, apart from pockets of Republican strength. It was the "Solid South". The social system was based on Jim Crow, a combination of legal and informal segregation that made blacks second-class citizens with little or no political power anywhere in the South.

In the 1930s, the New Deal under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a realignment occurred. Much of the Democratic Party in the South shifted towards economic intervention. Civil rights for blacks was not on the New Deal agenda, as Southerners controlled the key positions of power in Congress. Jim Crow was indirectly challenged as two million blacks served in the military during World War II, receiving equal pay in segregated units, and equally entitled to veterans' benefits. The Republican Party, nominating Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 and 1948, supported civil rights legislation that the Southern Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed.

When the new president Harry Truman established a highly visible President's Committee on Civil Rights and ordered an end to discrimination in the military in 1948 and the Democratic National Convention in 1948 adopted the plank proposed by Hubert Humphrey calling for civil rights, 35 southerners walked out. The move was on to remove Truman's name from the ballot in the South. This required a new party - the State's Rights Party, with its own nominee, J. Strom Thurmond. The Dixiecrats held their convention in Birmingham, Alabama, where they nominated Thurmond for president and Fielding L. Wright, governor of Mississippi, for vice president. The Dixiecrats did not expect to win the presidency outright, rather they thought that if they could win enough Southern states then they would have a good chance of forcing the election into the House of Representatives where they believed Southern bargaining power could determine the winner. To this end Dixiecrat leaders worked to have Thurmond-Wright declared the official Democratic Party ticket in Southern states. They succeeded in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. In other states, they were forced to run as a third-party ticket.

Efforts by Dixiecrats to paint other Truman loyalists as turncoats generally failed, although the seeds of discontent were planted which in years to come took their toll on Southern moderates.
; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat




So, as I hope you can see, there were no calls for Civil Rights coming from the repubs at any time. There were no civil rights "leaders" in the repub party. Quite the contrary! They remained silent on the issue for the most part with both generational and regional views guiding their way. It was, however, the Dems who began a move toward integration and toward racial equalities well before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. I would be interested in any research you might perform () which would indicate any repub participation in these early efforts to end segregation. Which repub leaders were out in front on this issue in the 1940's? I am far less interested in misspoken words which continue to occur with discomforting regularity than I am in the institutionalized actions of either an individual or a political party. So, show me where the repubs advocated ahead of the Dems and didn't just follow the Dems' lead on the issue of race if you wish me to believe the repubs are civil rights champions.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=dixiecrats%20civil%20rig hts&type=


LBJ knew he was doing harm to the Democratic party when he signed the bills into law. As a result the state's rights Southern Dems found a welcoming reception for their continued institutionalized racism in the repub party.

That somehow represents a stain on the Democrats?! That the repub party welcomed in admitted racists while the Dems found no place for them and actively sought to shut down that faction of the Southern Democratic Party? You're going to have to explain that thought process. If you can. This is all what you've been told, isn't it? You haven't done any research or any thinking about it, have you? Prove me wrong, squiddy.



You say "we know the history of Southern racism and that it was intertwined with your party. Your party is the party of slavery, jim crow, and segregation. Now since the South votes Republican you and your ilk try to shift the blame and distort history".

I say you have been told a distorted version of history meant to ease the conscience of too many repubs who have resorted to an institutional brand of racism. Admittedly, it was the Dems who lacked the racial minority electorate votes in the first half of the 20th c/. The blacks in particular were aligned with the party of Lincoln through to most of the 1950's. The Southern Dems were Democrats for reasons which related to financial isues which went back to the Civil War. And, as such, the South benefited greatly from the efforts of those same Dems to extend basic provisions to the area. You can drive around Texas, Louisianna, Arkansas, etc today and see the plumbing and the telephone and electrical lines which were brought to the impoverished areas of the state by Dem legislators such as LBJ's influence. At the same time Southern Dems and repubs were for the most part racist in their beliefs. You seem to conveniently forget this was both a regional and a generational issue and not at all confined to the Democratic Party.


"Never forget that when there was plenty of "strange fruit" hangin from the trees it was under the watchful eyes of your party...." also.


You seem here to be a confirming example of the factual truths to the research and findings reported upon earlier in this thread. I can just about bet you have ignored the finding reporting that repubs are by nature unable to accept information which disagrees with their strongly held beliefs despite those beliefs being based largely on (76%) lies. Despite repeated telling of facts which contradict those wrongheaded beliefs - even when told by those who participated in the factual events, the average repub is highly likely to double down and cling ever more tightly to those falsehoods which make them comfortable.

And so you manage to ignore the initial efforts made by Dems to end segregation and the final resting place for the racist feelings of Southern discontent with Civil Rights - the modern repub party.

I don't find this at all unusual as you've proven numerous times you fit perfectly that model of a repub seen in the further research of "your ilk". When faced with two contradictory precepts, the average repub is far less likely to have the mental capacity to hold two contradictory ideas in their head. They are more likely to see issues in an "either/or" or a "black/white" framework, eventually drawing conclusions based not on factual evidence but on what makes them the most comfortable with their already established beliefs. The capacity to hold two disparate though logically linked concepts in your head is virtually impossible for the average repub. And you, squiddy, are far beow the "average". Therefore, it is perfectly natural for you not to see the move from Dem to repub, in order to satsify their continued racism, as anything other than the Dems being racist. That's what you've been told to believe ("See we know the history of Southern racism and that it was intertwined with your party") and that is what makes you comfortable.

It would be totally against type for you to also, simultaneously, put into your atrophied brain the result of the welcome the repub party offered the once Dixiecrats/still racists. I understand that none of this will get through to any logical portion of your reasoning faculties as you lack both logic and reasoning and aren't all that good with faculties either. But here it is, the racists went into the repub party and stayed as they continued their racist ways. Institutionalized racism was eventually driven out of the Democratic Party. And I'm guessing - what with me being Caucasion all my life and not really being someone who should be affected by anything other than the "benefits" of institutionalized racism - if you asked a minority (non-white, non-christian, immigrant, etc.) individual today what matters to them, it would be what they see today and in recent history and not what existed 70 years ago in a now exiled and reviled portion of the party.




Did you research Nixon's "Southern Strategy" as I suggested? No, of course you didn't. That's too many thoughts for you to have at any one time. Well, now that we've sorted out why you have these falsehoods stuck in your head, you might as well do the research because that is the other portion of the answer to the questions you ask. And do not forget to find out who suggested the strategy to Nixon and who today runs a highly influential media outlet which is now capable of inserting whatever distortions of reality are needed.


Now, let's turn our attention to the question I asked about your repeated references to racism. Why? What is the end game here?

First, I do find a preoccupation with racism to be a very curious thing. Somewhat as if this is a motivating topic for your feelings about the two parties. Since you have been completely unable to articulate why your are a repub, I have to assume this is a topic with which you find a comfortable fit within the repub ideology. Now, unlike the repubs who make an attempt to turn the "race card" back on anyone suspicious of their motives, I doubt you'll find a Dem who denies their party's past. Instead you're more likely to find a Dem who is proud of their party's turn away from racism and big0try. However, why you are so adamant about this topic brings up other questions. You obviously have not come to grips with the perceived instituional racism which exists within your party. Democrats have done so. What we believe is not a, "See, the other guy does it too", justification for any form of racism or big0try. In your example above, Dodd misspoke and he apologized and clarified. What did Lott do? What did the repub internet/media drones do other than attempt a "See, they do it too" defense for this words? Clue: nothing. That's all they had.


What you have accepted from the BS wingnuts is the, "They did it too", justification for perceived racism (amongst other sins) of your party. In case you hadn't noticed, squiddy, "they did it too" doesn't work as a rationalisation nor a justification for wrongdoing once you reach a mental maturity of greater than 8 years of age. Wrong is wrong and we all should be at that level if we are to make a better world for ourself and others. I get the distinct feling you have not reached that level of maturity. You still want to have what others do define what you may acceptably do. It doesn't work that way in the real world, squid, not amongst adults anyway.

Take the concept of perceived institutionalized big0try for example. Can you tell me which national party has voted most frequently against the provision of basic human rights to individuals or groups? Can you tell me which party has promised to take away already established rights should they win back the WH? Can you tell me which party has, since the 1950's, found the most minority members of Congress and which has struggled to find their "token black" or "token Muslim"? Which party has the highest majority of self proclaimed members who are "older, whiter, predominantly male, more affluent and more conservative on social issues such as race relations, g@y marriage, immigration, ab0rtion, etc."? Which party wishes to "take our country back" to the 1940's in terms of human rights?

Until you accept the racist signals and perceived leanings which appear within the repub party with all too great a frequency, you will remain stuck in an adolescent mindset of "they did it too". Mind you, I'm not calling the repubs racists, I am merely pointing to the perception of institutional leanings within a party which defends -and in most cases even supports - such things as the flying of the Confederate flag on US government grounds. Those are facts, squiddy, and they are present today in far too many numbers in the repub party. They are not make believe whitewashes of history meant to once again distract the mindless drones with a persmission slip to feel superior to anyone who does not look, speak, think, believe or worship as they do.

Your fixation with the issue of racism, quite frankly, does not provide an impression that you do not find this distortion of reality and reading of half truths to be your permission slip for continued comfort within the beliefs and actions of the repub party. You are, as the reseach and your past here in this thread indicate, unable to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. You are incapable of accepting facts for what they are - reality.

Are you a racist, squiddy? Is that why you prefer to call yourself a repub?





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16845
Registered: May-04
.

https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/642674.html#POST1976134



I'm not the least bit interested in your juvenile distractions. As you say, I "look at these issues with objectivity". So do us both a favor and go bleat these absurdities on another forum.


You do not belong here.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16846
Registered: May-04
.

"As to the Republican plans towards job creation and health care, they are available to anyone who can type and use the internet. Demanding I reproduce them for your amusement simply isn't going to happen."



No, I didn't expect that it would. You really, really do not belong here, squid. That is the sort of sorrowfully juvenile response I would expect from that same "They do it too" 8 year old when asked about a broken window or where the cat is. It is abundantly clear you have no ability to provide answers to, or to challenge anyone on, any question which is relevant to today.

You have no sense of history other than the distortions and flat out Pants on Fire lies you've been fed. You lack the basic, adult level comprehension required to separate reality from pure fiction. You cannot reason even the simplest of problems and you have no logical thought process which you could even start on such a task. The best you can do it flit from one meaningless piece of detitrus to the next with no cohesive line of convergence other than what you can copy/paste from your BS wingnut sites.

Did you ever watch a gerbil in a cage? They stand up on their hind legs and suddenly they stick their head into their nether regions as if they are checking to make sure everything is still intact. Then they are completely unaware of what they have just done as they munch on their own crap.

That's what you remind me of, squid. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who has no interest in being intelligent. You are incapable of being intelligent. Your head has too much BS in it to allow for anything intelligent. If you cannot perform the basic functions of discourse required to have a conversation at an above-8-year-old level, what point is there for you to remain here? If you cannot even do so much as to provide workable links which might give the appearance that somewhere/somehow you had put just a fraction of a percentage of effort into thinking about a question, what purpose do you serve by being here in the first place? It's evident to everyone that you have no talent up to, nor capacity for, "calling me out" as you suggested was your aim. You are an embarrasment - even for me - to think of you as representing other repubs.

If you cannot articulate either what the repub position is on various issues and you cannot say why you are a repub other than it provides you a public platform for your self-indulgent insults, why are you here? Why are you not taking up someone else's time on a site more suited to the purely juvenile crap you have to offer.

This is a discussion forum, squid. If you're not here to actually engage in an adult level discussion, then you are nothing more than a troll.



As such, you do not belong here.





.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 720
Registered: Mar-04
"How long did it take for most Southern whites to identify themselves as Republican ? When did the majority of Southern seats go Republican and when did the Republican party become competitive in most of the state legislatures down there. As the south became more Republican did racism become more or less prominent ?

As usual you are unable to answer questions because you cannot be intellectually honest...


Do you agree with Krugman that the first stimulus was too small ? If you do how much larger should it have been ? How should it have been implemented differently ?

How exactly is the millionaires tax going to "create" jobs and consumer demand ? What is taking Reid so long to bring up the "jobs" bill that your hero drones on about passing ?
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 721
Registered: Mar-04
Harvey Golub, former chairman of American Express, called the jobs bill an incoherent mess. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, he said that among other flaws, the bill includes an unheard of retroactive tax hike on the holders of municipal bonds.

Many of us have suspected that economic illiterates were setting the economic policy of this administration, Golub wrote, adding that the bill reveals a depth of cluelessness that boggles the mind.

So when your hero loses next fall that makes you a loser too right ?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2590
Registered: Oct-07
lower the tax rate while doing away with all loopholes.
Maybe even begin taxing foreign profits of large corporations? Pres of GE admits to 60% foreign profit......and advocates doing away with loopholes.


Now, How long before Holder gets the boot? Will everyones lies stay in one piece long enough for the miniscule public attention span to go somewhere else? Will the memos showing that he was informed over a year ago override his BS answer about knowing a couple weeks before the hearing?

Good for Jerry Brown and Gil Cedillo. The holes in the logic are gaping. Just sign an affadavit saying you are intending to get citizenship, when you are ineligible. Use education as an excuse to say they (illegals) are being prepared for the job market, for which they are ineligible by dint of being non-resident aliens.
I'm sure someone is starting a 'ReCall Brown' campaing even as I write.
Campaing Slogan?
'If it's Brown, flush it!'
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16849
Registered: May-04
.

Squid, no matter how embarrassing you are to yourself, you continue to prove you are nothing more than a drone ideologue incapable of having an actual idea.



You do not belong here.






.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 722
Registered: Mar-04
Just as I expected.... When pushed for anything more than the usual tripe you fall flat on your face.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 723
Registered: Mar-04
Obama Jobs Council Stacked With Democratic Donors

The group of private-sector business leaders advising President Obama on how to create jobs and grow the economy is full of deep-pocket Democratic donors and high-profile financiers of Obamas re-election campaign, a review of Federal Election Commission data shows.

At least 10 members of the Obama-appointed Council on Jobs and Competitiveness gave the legal maximum contribution $4,600 to help get Obama elected in 2008, and they continue to write checks for the president in 2012. Several also serve as Obama campaign bundlers, top fundraisers who collect millions of dollars from their networks of well-to-do colleagues and friends to aid his re-election bid.

The bundlers Mark Gallogy, co-founder of investment firm Centerbridge Partners, Penny Prtizker, president and CEO of Pritzker Realty Group, and Robert Wolf, chairman of UBS Americas have raised as much as $2.7 million for Obama in 2008 and 2012 combined, according to estimates provided by the Obama campaign.

Pritzker served as the Obama presidential campaigns national finance chairwoman in 2008 and co-chair of the Obama inaugural committee in 2009. Wolf is an occasional Obama golf partner and most recently played golf with the president during his vacation on Marthas Vineyard.

Other members of the council who have personally padded Obamas election coffers include Xerox Corporation CEO Ursula Burns, TIAA-CREF CEO Roger Ferguson, MIT/Harvard Broad Institute director Eric Lander, Citigroup chairman Richard Parsons, Hooven-Dayton Corp. CEO Christopher Che, UC Berkeley professor Laura DAndrea Tyson, attorney and Amazon.com/Google board member John Doerr, and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg.

Sandberg hosted an exclusive, star-studded fundraiser for the Obama Victory Fund at her Palo Alto, Calif., home Sept. 25 that netted at least $2.5 million for the 2012 campaign. The money is split between the Obama Campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

The companies and organizations represented on the council have also been prolific donors to Democrats and Obama through their political action committees, or PACs.

UC Berkeley employees contributed $1.6 million combined to Obama in 2008, more than from any other organization, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. UBS, Citigroup and GE, whose chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt leads Obamas jobs council, were the source of more than $1.7 million combined. (Is that the same GE that doesn't pay their "fair share" ?)

Comcast Corp., headed by CEO Brian Roberts who sits on the council, is the top corporate source of campaign cash for Obamas 2012 bid. (hey comcast owns MsNbc, no wonder they hire the freakshow that does nothing but support Obama and distort and bash Republicans... sounds alot like someone on this forum).

Two high-profile unionsthe United Food and Commercial Workers Union and AFL-CIO also played a key role in helping to elect Democrats and Obama in 2008, spending more than $900,000 on political communications and advertisements, according to CRP. The leaders of both groups, Joseph Hansen and Richard Trumka, also sit on Obamas council. (There he is again, the walrus Trumpka who visits obama weekly to give him his script to read.)

Yea, this is your party and your hero.... Are you really going to vote for this guy again ?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16850
Registered: May-04
.

Rick Perry's Manufactured Miracle

Rick Perry's Texas is a job-making, low-taxing oasis of prosperity. It's also pure fantasy.
By Jim Schutze Thursday, Oct 6 2011

... In the September 12 GOP presidential debate, Perry said he was "offended" by criticism from Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann that he "could be bought for $5,000" from Merck, maker of Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that Perry mandated by executive order in 2007 for all Texas teenage girls. Two days later the Houston Chronicle's Austin bureau laid bare a pattern of six-figure contributions by Merck to a middleman fund that has given millions to Perry.

Stanford, the campaign consultant Perry beat in 2006, agrees Perry botched the Gardasil moment, but he says it also illustrates why he might get himself elected president. The same traits that make him tone-deaf in office, Stanford says, can make him pitch-perfect on the campaign trail.

Before Perry unleashed his Gardasil order, Stanford says, "He hadn't done that hard government work that you have to do in building coalitions. He hadn't reached out to the people who already agreed with him and gotten them on board." ...

In 2008, Perry convened a "higher education summit." At it, he unveiled his ideas to make it easier, cheaper and faster for students to graduate from the state's top-tier universities. His "seven breakthrough solutions" — actually the handiwork of a former oilman and friend, Jeff Sandefer, who has donated $300,000 to Perry's campaigns since 2000 — would forbid universities from using academic research to decide whether to grant professors tenure.

Under the plan, which is nowhere near adoption, tenure decisions would depend heavily on "customer satisfaction ratings" — grades students give teachers. A professor would have to show that he or she has been teaching at least three classes of 30 or more students every semester for seven years, earning customer satisfaction ratings of at least 4.5 out of 5 possible points.

People who feel they helped bring the Texas economy back from the debacle of 1987, even some who are friendly to Perry otherwise, are horrified by Perry's "seven points."

"To me, it's a disgrace to the tradition of scholarship and discovery," says John Sibley Butler, a professor of entrepreneurship and small business at the University of Texas in Austin and director of an institute that studies and promotes economic growth in Texas ...




... Of the 50 states, Texas earned a second-tier overall ranking in the 2007 report — 14th place — but with low marks in the areas of workforce education (34th), high-tech manufacturing (35th) and desirability as a destination for knowledge industry immigrants (44th). The 2010 version reported that Texas had slipped from an overall national ranking of 14th place in 2007 to 18th in 2010. And while Texas got a much better mark as home to high-tech manufacturing, moving up from a national rank of 35th four years ago to 10th place in 2010, Texas' overall rank was dragged down by rankings in the 40s in two key areas: workplace education and the immigration of knowledge workers.

What if Perry's critics are right? What if a strong public school system and prestigious university research programs were keys to Texas' economic success? If those legs of the Texas miracle are being sawed off, what's left?

... The Council on State Taxation (COST), which represents large corporations on state tax issues, hires the accounting firm of Ernst & Young every year to study total state and local business taxes. Their 2010 study puts Texas at 19th for states with highest business taxes as a percentage of gross state product.

The Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank, gives Texas good marks for total state and local tax burden per capita — 39th place, with 50th marking the lowest tax burden. But the Tax Foundation ranks Texas fifth-worst for corporate taxes, a ranking that reflects a plethora of excise, licensing and other costs, taxes and negative incentives that businesses must deal with in Texas. The state also claims the third-highest effective property tax rate in the country after New Jersey and New Hampshire, according to the Tax Foundation ...








http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-10-06/news/rick-perry-s-manufactured-miracle/




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16851
Registered: May-04
.


Since contributing to a political campaign up to the legal limit is not breaking any law, since "cronyism" was one of the lesser crimes of the Bush II administration (except when his cronies really, really screwed up and cost innocent people their life - "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie.") and since this administration isn't affraid to let the public know who is advising them (anyone know who "advised" Cheney? on his so called "energy plan" back in 2001?) and since Bush II didn't listen to advice he didn't like or wasn't interested in ("Bin Laden Determined to Attack America"), let's try this another way.


The group of private-sector business leaders advising President Obama on how to create jobs and grow the economy include:

Mark Gallogy, co-founder of investment firm Centerbridge Partners

Penny Prtizker, president and CEO of Pritzker Realty Group

Robert Wolf, chairman of UBS Americas (Wolf ... recently played golf with the president during his vacation on Marthas Vineyard)

Ursula Burns, Xerox Corporation CEO

Roger Ferguson, TIAA-CREF CEO

Eric Lander, MIT/Harvard Broad Institute director

Richard Parsons, Citigroup chairman

Christopher Che, Hooven-Dayton Corp. CEO

Laura DAndrea Tyson, UC Berkeley professor

John Doerr, attorney and Amazon.com/Google board member

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO

Brian Roberts, Comcast Corp. CEO

Union leaders Joseph Hansen and Richard Trumka





So, the repubs attempt to slam Obama when they lie about the number of people amongst his advisors without business experience.

And they also try to slam him when he turns to CEO's and COO's for business advice.

Which is it?

You don't like it when he has no experience?

Or, you don't like it when he has experience?

You freak out when he asks a repub to be on his cabinet?

Or, you freak out when he asks Democrats to give him advice?

You claim he is incompetent?

Or, you don't like it when he asks those people who would appear to be very competent for their advice?

The repubs don't like it when he offers up Democratic ideas?

Or, the repubs don't like it when he offers up republican backed ideas in his Jobs Plan?

It's OK when the uber-rich repubs donate untold amounts (Koch Bros.) to repubs through anonymous donations to Super PACs and money laundering schemes which allow off shore and foreign corportations to invest in the election of an American President.

Or, it's not OK when successful Dems donate to Democratic candidates and announce the amount of their donations to the FEC?




Or, is that it?



You are against those in our society who are successful?

You hate the rich!

Why are you pitting one group of Americans against another?


CLASS WARFARE!!!






Flip, flop an' fly! Romney is your guy.





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16852
Registered: May-04
.

leo, you seemed to be complaining about the Federal probe into the practices of Gibson guitars and the raid of their plant as what? an over-reach by the Federal government? A waste of taxpayer dollars? I'm not sure. The case has become a cause celebre for the right wingnuts since Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz has been a large and consistent donor to the repub causes. No other major American guitar builder has been raided - or investigated - other than Gibson leading the shouters to proclaim "ploitical persecution" of a republican.

For your information, here's a bit more of the details surrounding the situation ..

For guitar makers, prized woods pose quandary
Gibson case pits rich sounds against ecological concerns

Two weeks ago, Gibson Guitar abruptly canceled plans for what was to have been a major business announcement: the launch of a partnership with Fiji to become the island nation's exclusive buyer of mahogany to make the Nashville company's high-end guitars.

Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz and his supplier had worked for months to pull off the deal, giving a $5,000 guitar to Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama last summer as a gesture of good will.

But the Fijian leader's trip to Nashville didn't materialize, the announcement was canceled and a hurried explanation from Gibson said the negotiations were continuing.

The on-again, off-again deal between Gibson and Bainimarama " a military strongman who has taken control of many of the island's resources and denied free elections since a 2006 coup, according to human rights groups" illustrates the uncertainties facing guitar makers such as Gibson.

With worldwide rain-forest acreage dwindling, stronger U.S. and international environmental laws, and consumers snubbing new guitar models made from alternative materials, Gibson and other guitar makers have had to hopscotch the globe in search of new sources for raretonewoods "mahogany, rosewood and ebony harvested from 200- and 300-year-old trees" to deliver the rich sounds musicians treasure.

"A musician can hear the difference when he's playing guitar made from certain woods," Juszkiewicz said. "These are the materials our customers value and expect."

For its efforts, Gibson has run afoul of both environmentalists and federal law enforcement officials. A federal probe continues into whether Gibson has violated environmental laws in its wood import practices, after two separate raids on the company: one on Aug. 24 and one in fall 2009.

The legal cases " which have spilled over into a conservative cause celebre" have pitted Tennessee congressional leaders, musicians and others who say the government raids put American jobs at risk versus environmentalists concerned about the sustainability of the world's rain forests.

The case has also served to cast a spotlight on Gibson's financial relationship with the international watchdog group that accredits its wood supplies as legitimate to ship after they're harvested ...



Guitar enthusiasts swear they can hear a difference in the quality and timbre of music from a guitar whose neck is made from Honduran ebony versus rosewood harvested in Madagascar.

Centuries of instrument-making traditions have led to certain wood source norms for the most valuable guitars. For example, Sitka spruce is best suited as a guitar top, says Joe Glaser, a Nashville-based luthier.

Mahogany and ebony are often the woods of choice for guitar backs.

For the fingerboard "the overlay of the guitar neck where fingers press strings for notes" players have come to expect ebony, an extremely dense wood that doesn't wear from constant finger pressure.

But sources of such woods are increasingly tough to find.

By 2006, when environmental groups including Greenpeace made their first overtures to major U.S. guitar makers, traditional sources of some of those woods had already begun to dry up.

Brazilian rosewood, valued for sides, had been placed on an endangered species list and was illegal to import.

Adirondack spruce trees had been all but logged to extinction to supply makers of Adirondack-style furniture. The Canadian government was closing British Columbia's Sitka forests to loggers. And environmentalists were looking at data that suggested the rate of Sitka spruce logging in the Alaskan panhandle would decimate the forests and timber supplies if not responsibly managed.

When Greenpeace approached the nation's largest guitar makers with an invitation for a trip to Alaska to meet with Native American logging interests, most accepted. In addition to Gibson, the activist group invited the U.S.'s other longtime guitar manufacturers - Fender, Taylor and Martin.

Confronted with clear-cut forests and data on depletion rates, the guitar executives appeared alarmed by what they saw, said Scott Paul, Greenpeace director of forest projects.

The episode created the beginnings of a working coalition among environmentalists and music instrument makers to ensure long-term supplies of old-growth forests to satisfy both industry interests and environmental ones.

In fact, the cooperative model was considered so successful that two years later a Switzerland-based international group - concerned about illegal logging in Africa - organized a fact-finding trip to Madagascar, an island nation off the coast of southern Africa.

The Tropical Forest Trust (TFT) took representatives from the same guitar companies (Fender was absent this time) on a two-week trip.

Madagascar was a mecca for tonewoods, with old-growth rosewood and ebony scattered in forests across the country.

It was also a place of critical concern to environmentalists. It is one of the most biodiverse places on Earth, with numerous unique species that exist nowhere else on the planet.

Guitar makers were taken on drive-bys past illegal logging operations inside what should have been protected national forests. They also were exposed to the lives of poverty of island people who had seen little benefit from illegal logging, according to TFT executive Scott Poynton.

Shortly after the trip, a military coup in Madagascar further soured some guitar makers on doing business there.

C.F. Martin Guitars CEO Chris Martin said his company immediately halted imports of wood from Madagascar.

Taylor Guitars CEO Bob Taylor said his company had never imported wood from Madagascar and decided not to start.

What he saw was "ravaged land and a tangle of national laws that made it impossible to figure out what was legal and illegal to export, even though it appeared that people were desperate to have us there," Taylor said.

Gibson Guitars, however, continued to import from the country, according to the federal case against the company.

Then, in November 2009, a year after the Madagascar trip, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents raided Gibson's factories in Nashville, confiscating pallets of Madagascan ebony on suspicion that Gibson had violated the Lacey Act.

In federal court filings since the seizure, U.S. attorneys have submitted emails from Gibson staffer Gene Nix, who went on the TFT trip, as evidence the company knew the wood had been illegally extracted.

"The true Ebony species preferred by Gibson Musical Instruments is found only in Madagascar," Nix had written soon after his trip.


"This is a slow-growing tree species with very little conservation protection and supplies are considered to be highly threatened in its native environment due to over exploitation. All legal timber and wood exports are PROHIBITED because of widespread corruption and theft of valuable woods like rosewood and ebony," the email said.

But, Nix wrote, a Chinese wood dealer living in Madagascar, Roger Thunam, might be able to help supply wood for the "grey market," a phrase that federal investigators said in court records means the material was contraband.

"Mr. Thunam on the other hand should now be able to supply Nagel (Gibson's German middleman) with all the rosewood and ebony for the grey market," Nix said.

Thunam has been singled out in separate investigative reports by National Geographic magazine and by international groups Global Witness and the Environmental Investigation Agency as engaging in questionable logging practices. According to the U.S. case against Gibson, Thunam's business dealt "almost exclusively in sawn wood or logs which at least as of 2006 were illegal to export from Madagascar."

Gibson denies any wrongdoing, and its attorneys say the Nix emails are being taken out of context. No criminal charges have been filed as a result of the 2009 raid or in the August case.

'We all bear responsibility'
While Gibson remains under federal scrutiny - the only American guitar maker currently the subject of Lacey Act probes - the quest for the best-sounding woods continues.

Bob Taylor of Taylor Guitars said his company hopes to be able to announce a new sustainable foresting project in Africa in short order, but he could offer no new details last week.

There may be more news on the Fiji deal soon, Gibson spokesman Ed James said.

The challenge for American guitar makers, Taylor said, lies in the fact that the the most valuable species for guitars often grow in the most politically unstable places, leaving companies little option but to make the best deals they can.

"We're not environmentalists, or lawmakers or policy people or forestry experts," Taylor said. "We're just guitar makers who now have to be more involved in our sources."

Meanwhile, musicians continue to value high-end guitars made from imported hardwoods.

British singer James Blunt said he believes those guitars can still be made without cost to the environment. He posted a clip on the Gibson Guitar UK Facebook page in support of the company, saying, "Not only do they make beautiful guitars, but on an environmental level, they do so with sustainable woods certified by the Forest Stewardship Council."

Some environmentalists say they are sympathetic to the guitar makers' challenges as they search for woods that musicians demand.

"While everyone might be pointing the finger at Gibson as the dodgy guys, the question is why is everyone buying this stuff?," said Poynton of the Tropical Forest Trust. "We all bear responsibility. Musicians bear responsibility."


http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111002/BUSINESS/310020051/For-guitar-makers- wood-poses-quandary






.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 724
Registered: Mar-04
WOLF: Barack Obama's remedial math lesson

Waving his finger at Americans, President Obama declared that income taxes must be increased, not on those who aren't even paying them, but rather on those who, despite already paying the whole of the bill, somehow still aren't paying their fair share. This is not class warfare, defended the redistributor-in-chief, this is math.

OK, Mr. President, l will bite. How about this math?

Under Obamanomics, the unemployment rate has increased from 7.8 percent to 9.1 percent, and underemployment has increased from 14.0 percent to 16.2 percent. The average length of unemployment has increased from 19.9 weeks to 40.3 weeks. Median income has dropped from $52,029 per year to $49,445.

Since Mr. Obama has taken office, the total number of jobs in America has decreased from 142.2 million to 139.6 million. Most schoolchildren with a calculator would say that's a loss of 2.6 million jobs, but not Barack Obama. The White House has claimed that the stimulus created - or saved - 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs. Off by 6 million, but close enough for government work, I suppose.

Now the administration claims that the presidents new jobs plan will create 1.9 million jobs. Please, Mr. President, the few Americans fortunate enough still to have jobs beg you: Stop creating away so many of their jobs.

How about this math?

Under Obamanomics, the poverty rate has increased from 13.2 percent to 14.3 percent. The number of Americans living below the poverty level has increased from 39.8 million to 43.6 million. The number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 31.9 million to 45.2 million.

This kind of poverty is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes of a campaign, Mr. Obama said in 2008. It is the cause that led me to a life of public service almost 25 years ago. After witnessing the devastation of Obamanomics, however, one wonders if his poverty cause has been to eliminate it or create it.

How about this math?

Since President Obama took office, the average familes annual health insurance premiums have climbed from $12,068 to a record $15,073. A gallon of gasoline has increased from $1.82 to a painful $3.66. And a gallon of milk has increased from $2.65 to $3.39. The inflation rate has increased from 0.7 percent to 3.77 percent.

To be fair to the president, however, not all prices have gone up since he has taken office. The average single-family home value has dropped from $180,449 to $171,900. So there is always that.

How about this math?

Since Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress took control of the national checkbook, annual spending has increased from an already mind-blowing $2.9 trillion to $3.8 trillion. The annual deficit has increased from an already shameful $438 billion to an unbelievable $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, the national credit card balance has increased from $10.6 trillion to a maxed-out $14.7 trillion.

In 2008, Sen. Obama complained that President George W. Bush added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. Its unpatriotic

Irresponsible, he said, before he tacked on another $17,000 for every man, woman and child. Unpatriotic. It's hard to disagree.

Or how about this math?

A CBS poll this week revealed that 7 in 10 Americans say President Obama has not helped the economy and just 35 percent approve of his handling of it. Gallup reports that a record-high 81 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the government, including 65 percent of Democrats who say the same. Americans believe on average that the government wastes 51 cents of every tax dollar and, sadly, 49 percent believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.

Perhaps this explains why, according to a recent IBD/TIPP poll, just 38 percent of independents think the president deserves to be re-elected.

I was not always the very best student that I could be, Mr. Obama told a high school audience last month. Of course, until he releases his college transcripts, we'll have to take his word that he eventually turned things around, but he did share an interesting insight. As for his list of favorite subjects, Mr. Obama said this: I don't think ethics would have made the list.

Hmm. I don't think math would have, either.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is President Obamas cousin. He blogs at MiltonWolf.com.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16853
Registered: May-04
.

" ... all nice and objective, until you see the butchers finger on the scale.
You seriously don't believe any of that BS, do you?

DON'T DRINK ANYONES COOLAID.
I simply can not believe that you would quote numbers of such awful provance.

DON'T DRINK ANYONES COOLAID."



leo stierer posted on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 05:41 pm





The numbers are what the numbers are for the past decades. They are hard facts that are open to interpretation. If the interpretation of past results were clear, we wouldn't have any discussion of future policies, would we? Otherwise, you're welcome to show me facts that dispute those I've provided but I tend to trust those from the government (and those such as Politifact who look at the government for its flaws and deceptions) here. I do not trust anything from some partisan think tank like The Heritage Foundation. As I said, facts are malleable and people lie to suit their own ends.


Jan_b_vigne posted on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 06:37 pm




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 725
Registered: Mar-04
Feel free to point out which figures are inaccurate.

Politifact...aka the St Petersburg times... but we already covered that didn't we.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16855
Registered: May-04
.

You do have a very small brain. And, I suspect, that article has more than consumed its available RAM for the week.


We have covered Politifact - they have statistics which indicate 76% of what any repub/conservative/TP/"I'm just in this for the money - ability to openly insult people - have my voice heard over all others - keep my mind off my unfinished macrame, etc" shouter puts out is purely worthless garbage.

As leo suggests, "DON'T DRINK ANYONES COOLAID" (sic).




If you don't spot "COOLAID" in that article, then you've already doubled down - as predicted you would by the research. I'd guess 95% of what doesn't come out of your head - and not much goes in - posted on this thread is a slam of Obama himself. Checking back over the copy/paste skills you've displayed here (), there's not much that isn't directly aimed at Obama. I can only conclude you have no capacity to see anything coming before nor existing after today's slam of Obama. You'll buy anything, from anyone, if it slams Obama and that's about all you care about.

Are you a racist, squiddy? It would appear you have an abnormal obsession with a black man and denying the fact overt racism exists in your chosen poltical party. What else would drive you to an obssession with those two topics?




You've already proven you are incapable of anything more, such as coming up with a list of current repub jobs bills or repub proposed replacements for Obamacare which do anything other than line the pockets of the insurance providers. And, rather than work on a jobs or healthcare bill, what are the repubs doing today? They are debating how Federal funding cannot be used for @bortions. That despite the fact this is settled law and has been so for the last fifteen years plus the fact they spent weeks on this same topic during the debates over the passage of the Health Reform bill. So the repubs - who promised jobs would be their first and highest priority after being elected in 2010 - are pounding political sand rather than doing the work they were sent to Washington to accomplish. Bravo!

And, if you cannot think beyond what is right in front of you as a negative toward Obama, then anything I say will be wasted on your already doubled down and overloaded little ROM. But, just for S&G's, consider that all the numbers reflected in that article indicate only Obama running against Obama. Not one repub has put forth a plan which would do anything to turn those numbers around? Have they? You are not able to say what that might be. I know of nothing presented by the repubs which would actually pass through Congress. Indeed! even the "Ryan Plan" was voted down by the Senate repubs and that "plan" didn't do anything for jobs. No, "We need to get the economy going again", is the best prescription they have for their "plans". Tell me, how specifially do they intend to perform this miracle? And, isn't that exactly what Obama and the Dems have been saying for the last three years as the repubs have obstructed every attempt at getting people back to work? If the repub message of vague promises divorced from the actual act of governing is that inconsequential, what are the American people to expect should one of your chosen - whoever that might be this week - assumes the title of "the one responsible for making this happen"? He!!, even Rick Santorum claims we need to get the economy running again! And he is a complete idiot! Perry hasn't had time - eight weeks plus a dozen years thinking about the job - to even come up with anything more than "do the same thing we did to Texas" - which would be a nationwide disaster. Gingrich would make throwing Democratic Senators in jail his frst priority and Bachmann is all about voting "no". "9-9-9"? () The person who suggested that to "black walnut" Cain isn't even an economist. Think for a moment about what that leaves as competition for Obama come next year. A second term for W proves the American people are willing to vote for what they know vs what they might get.

Rants about socialism and this and that aren't needed here. What you need to come up with is a solid, workable, pass through Congress plan any repub would/has/might push. You have to this point been vapidly unable to articulate such a plan that has even so much as passed under your "I hate Obama" nose. I doubt you care for what the repubs might really do, you just hate a black man.

What is the repub plan? That is, now that they have proven they aren't interested in repairing the infrastructure, building and repairing schools and retaining first responders - putting people back to work - if it might result in an equitable share of taxation for their hyper-wealthy donors. The American public is behind Obama on his jobs plan by an overwhelming majority * which means they are catching onto the repubs obstruction and back-walking of popular bills. repub poll numbers are tanking even more than they did after the debt ceiling debacle. You think the average voter isn't paying attention to the constant "not-Romney" parade of nincompoops the repubs are running up the flag pole this week? Should a party this incompetent, this disorganized even within their own ranks ever have power again, the world will shudder.

That's just the start of what is "innacurate" about that article. Combine that with a train running off the tracks without an engineer for two years and banging against the bumpers like an errant billiard ball for eight before Obama took office (all of those numbers in that article assume the world was just peachy keen and no one was paying any attention to the world up until January 21, 2009) and those numbers combined with the prospect of a "President Mitt" are ridiculously laughable as prognostication.







* ... when the legislation's details are included in a follow-up question -- that it would cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, extend unemployment benefits, and that it would be paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy -- 63 percent say they favor the bill and 32 percent oppose it. (32% - that's not even the entire repub base who dislike Obama's plan!)

What's more, 64 percent of respondents (well above the combined number of Democrats and independents who will be voting come next November) agree with the statement that it is a "good idea" to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, because they should pay their fair share and can afford to pay more to help fund programs and government operations.; http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/12/8288026-nbcwsj-poll-despite-defe at-obamas-jobs-bill-is-popular







.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 726
Registered: Mar-04
So once again you cannot answer a simple question. You are consistent I will give you that...

"What is the repub plan? That is, now that they have proven they aren't interested in repairing the infrastructure, building and repairing schools and retaining first responders - putting people back to work"


Wow the typical dEmocratic boilerplate line, you score no points on the utterly unoriginal emotional play... If you don't do it Barry's way (which by the way several in his own party don't subscribe to) then obviously you are against the middle class, want the elderly to eat cat food, unwilling to help cities leading to rapists and murderers running wild as hinted by "slow" joe Biden, and drown puppies in your spare time.

You have become a caricature of a caricature... Why is it in the nations best interest to re-elect your hero assuming of course that job performance matters ?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2592
Registered: Oct-07
From CNN
'Even if Iran's leaders did not have detailed operational knowledge of the alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador in the United States, "there has to be accountability with respect to anyone in the Iranian government" engaging in such an activity', Obama said.

Let's see how much traction this gets when applied to 'Fast and Furious'
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16856
Registered: May-04
.

"So once again you cannot answer a simple question. You are consistent I will give you that... "


OK, you've confused me and it's my own fault. When you asked for clarification regarding which numbers were inaccurate, for a brief moment I thought you might actually be willing to listen to an opinion other than the one you had already accepted as convenient to your racist cause.



no such luck.






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16857
Registered: May-04
.

"Let's see how much traction this gets when applied to 'Fast and Furious'"


I can't see it getting much "traction" at all. You really think Issa is going to call in W and Gonzo and ask them about their role in gun trades way back in 2006?


No way!


And, even if they did, W would insist he can only testify alongside Cheney - with a cribsheet - and neither could be under oath. \i


{Aaaah, just like the old days,eh?}

Listen to the CBS investigative reporter discuss the case at 2:02 into this video; http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Thursday-October-13/10737424737/

Two things here; 1) Issa is hoping like he11 this whole thing doesn't blow up in the repub's face and they come out looking alot worse than Holder, and 2) this and Solyndra boil down to yet another attempt to tie up the Obama administration with endless subpeonas just as the repubs did to Clinton in his second term to stall any legislative progress he might have made.

The gun trades were as dumb as could be but they share a bipartisan stupidity in this case and the repubs were completely silent about the affair - and W's complicity - up until they thought they could embarrass Obama. Solyndra is pretty much a non-starter since most of the repubs on the investigative panel - including Issa - are pretty deep in their own croney money deals with green energy companies. This is their way of trying to minimize green energy subsidies while shifting the cash to their friends in the oil and gas companies. The repubs refuse to give up any of the $40 billion a year the carbon based energy companies receive from the taxpayer's dollars. So minimizing green energy is a way to discredit the competition.

What they forget is the military - their friends and donors, right? - are establishing green energy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan as the superior way to supply less expensive alternatives to carbon based fuels. U.S. Military to Invest $10 Billion Annually in Renewable Energy by 2030, According to Pike Research; http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/U.S.+Military+to+Invest+%2410+Billion+Annually+in+Renewable+Energy+by+2030%2C+According+to+Pike+Research/6852924.html



There should be some very fancy tap dancing over both of these two bogus "investigations". And, if the media does their job, plenty of blame to go around.






.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2593
Registered: Oct-07
Bush folks discontinued their version of F&F when they found it didn't work.
Why did Holder inc. redo this?
If Iran is accountable for the latest transgression, so too, must the Washington folks.
Hundreds if not thousands of guns remain unaccounted for and will only be so accounted when found at the scene of a crime or in some dead guys hand.
Obama would almost doubtless pardon Bush, but who will pardon HIM?
If the category is 'Accountability....for 1000$' it's time to get 'em all taken to task. R? D? WTF and who cares?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16858
Registered: May-04
.

A new Time magazine poll asked respondents for their opinion of â€the Tea Party movement.†Just 27% had a favorable opinion. Then the poll asked about OWS.

â€[I]n the past few days, a group of protestors has been gathering on Wall Street in New York City and some other cities to protest policies which they say favor the rich, the government’s bank bailout, and the influence of money in our political system. Is your opinion of these protests very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or don’t you know enough about the protests to have an opinion?â€



A combined 54% had a favorable impression â€" exactly double that of the Tea Party.

The same poll went on to ask about a variety of specific OWS-related positions, all of which enjoyed strong support â€" 68% want the wealthy to pay more taxes; 71% want to see bankers prosecuted for the 2008 crash; 79% believe the gap between rich and poor in the U.S. has grown too large; 86% believe Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence.

It’s almost as if Occupy Wall Street concerns mirror the American mainstream’s concerns.

Now, it’s worth noting that the Tea Party folks have seen their support falter badly, but that’s after two years of often-incoherent complaints from its activists. Americans have had time to grow tired of the bizarre, far-right antics. In time, maybe sympathies for OWS will fade, too.

Or maybe they’ll grow. Time will tell. The larger point is, the establishment seems to assume Tea Partiers are sensible patriots, worthy of considerable attention, while Occupy Wall Street includes a bunch of hippies, not worth taking seriously.

Americans, in general, appear to believe otherwise.
; http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/679919/poll%3A_americans_like_occup y_wall_street_a_whole_lot_more_than_the_tea_party/#paragraph3




Q5. REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU USUALLY VOTE, OVERALL, WHICH PARTY â€" (THE DEMOCRATS) OR (THE REPUBLICANS) â€" DO YOU TRUST TO DO A BETTER JOB IN DEALING WITH THE MAIN PROBLEMS THE NATION FACES OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS?

DEMOCRATS 42%

REPUBLICANS 31%

BOTH 1%

NEITHER PARTY 18%

TEA PARTY *

OTHER 2%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 6%

Q6. IN POLITICS AS TODAY, ARE YOUR VIEWS BEST REPRESENTED BY THE (DEMOCRATIC PARTY), (REPUBLICAN PARTY), THE TEA PARTY, ANOTHER PARTY, OR DO NONE OF THE PARTIES REALLY REPRESENT YOUR VIEWS?

DEMOCRATIC PARTY 30%

REPUBLICAN PARTY 17%

TEA PARTY 12%

NONE 35%

OTHER 4%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 2%



Q8. ON ANOTHER ISSUE, IS YOUR OPINION OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE TEA PARTY TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 8%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 19%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 9%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 24%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 39%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

Q9. HAS THE THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT ON AMERICAN POLITICS TODAY, A NEGATIVE IMPACT, OR HAS IT HAD LITTLE IMPACT?

BASE: FAMILIAR WITH TEA PARTY (669)

POSITIVE IMPACT 34%

NEGATIVE IMPACT 40%

LITTLE IMPACT 25%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 2%



Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 25%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%



Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?

D. THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES

BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)

AGREE 68%

DISAGREE 28%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 4%



Q17. OVERALL, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT â€" BY CUTTING FEDERAL SPENDING, BY RAISING TAXES, OR BY A COMBINATION OF BOTH?

CUTTING FEDERAL SPENDING 29%

INCREASING TAXES 4%

COMBINATION 65%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 3%




Q25A. IF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY AND THE CANDIDATES WERE (BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRAT), AND (MITT ROMNEY, THE REPUBLICAN), AND YOU HAD TO CHOOSE, FOR WHOM WOULD YOU VOTE?

BASE: LIKELY VOTERS (838)

BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRAT 46%

MITT ROMNEY, THE REPUBLICAN 43%

OTHER/NEITHER 3%

WOULD NOT VOTE IN ELECTION 1%

UNDECIDED/DON’T KNOW/NO ANSWER 7%



Q25B. IF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY AND THE CANDIDATES WERE (BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRAT), AND (RICK PERRY, THE REPUBLICAN), AND YOU HAD TO CHOOSE, FOR WHOM WOULD YOU VOTE?

BASE: LIKELY VOTERS (838)

BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRAT 50%

RICK PERRY, THE REPUBLICAN 38%

OTHER/NEITHER 4%

WOULD NOT VOTE IN ELECTION 1%

UNDECIDED/DON’T KNOW/NO ANSWER 7%



Q25C. IF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY AND THE CANDIDATES WERE (BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRAT), AND (HERMAN CAIN, THE REPUBLICAN), AND YOU HAD TO CHOOSE, FOR WHOM WOULD YOU VOTE?

BASE: LIKELY VOTERS (838)

BARACK OBAMA,THE DEMOCRAT 49%

HERMAN CAIN,THE REPUBLICAN 37%

OTHER/NEITHER 4%

WOULD NOT VOTE IN ELECTION 1%

UNDECIDED/DON’T KNOW/NO ANSWER 9%



http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16860
Registered: May-04
.

Pants on fire:
"The IRS is already planning on 19,500 new employees to administer" Obama's health care mandate; John Huntsman


False:
"These 15 political appointees (on the IPAB) will make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans"; Michelle Bachman

"Says Bill Clinton opposes President Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans"; American Crossroads



Mostly False:
In the early 1960s, all levels of government were "consuming about 27 percent of the U.S. economy," a number that has risen to 37 percent today. With that trendline, "we cease at some point to be a free economy"; Mitt Romney

"Every worker pays 15.3 percent payroll tax"; Herman Cain

Says "any attempt to try to compare" the Massachusetts health care law with the federal health care law is "completely, intellectually dishonest. Governor Romney did not raise one tax in doing what he did"; Chris Christie

"Our unemployment rate has been higher than 8 percent for more than two-and-a-half years, far above what the Obama Administration promised with the 'stimulus.' "; John Boehner

Says someone earning $50,000 a year will fare better under his "9-9-9" plan than under the current tax system"; Herman Cain

"Romneycare has "killed 18,000 Massachusetts jobs."; Rick Perry



Half Truth:
When George W. Bush was governor of Texas, "the percentage uninsured went down." Under his successor, Rick Perry, "it's gone up."; Mitt Romney

The poverty rate for families in which a husband and a wife work is 5 percent, but in families headed by one person "it's 30 percent today."; Rick Santorum

Says he never called teachers "thugs" and has said nothing but "great things" about them during the fight over his curbs on unions; Scott Walker

Says Rick Perry co-chaired Al Gore's campaign for president; MIchelle Bachman

"I created a flat tax in the state of Utah. It took that state to the number-one position in terms of job creation."; John Huntsman




True:
The people of Massachusetts favor the state's health care law by a margin of 3 to 1; Mitt Romney


http://www.politifact.com/





Tales From New Hampshire
We check on Cain's murky tax plan, 'death panels,' Obama's alleged plot for a Medicare 'collapse,' and other dubious claims from the GOP debate in Hanover.

Our research has turned up some more dubious and misleading claims from the economic debate among Republican candidates in Hanover, N.H.

Cain claims his 9-9-9 proposal to overhaul the tax code is "simple, transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral." But his campaign has provided few details of how the plan would work, and a consultant hired by the campaign to analyze the plan could not provide evidence of how the plan would impact different income groups.

Gingrich left out important facts on a government-backed panel's recommendation that healthy men not get routine prostate screening tests. And he said that Sarah Palin's bogus "death panel" claim had merit.

Bachmann made the confusing and unsubstantiated claim that Obama secretly aims "for Medicare to collapse, and instead everyone will be pushed into Obamacare."

Perry claimed that a state program for small businesses offering health insurance has "driven down the cost of insurance by 30 percent." But the cost is lower because Texas taxpayers subsidize the plans.

Gingrich claimed that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had "spent hundreds of billions of dollars" on secret bailouts. But the Fed made loans, and actually reported billions in profits from interest income.

Perry misquoted Romney's economic adviser. Glenn Hubbard did not say that "Romneycare was Obamacare." Hubbard said the two laws were similar and that the "main components" were the same.


http://factcheck.org/2011/10/tales-from-new-hampshire/




Cain's Fiscal Hocus Pocus"; http://factcheck.org/2011/10/cains-fiscal-hocus-pocus/




Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate

At the latest debate, the Republican presidential candidates repeated several claims they've made before. The candidates participated in a roundtable-style discussion at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where they reiterated false and misleading lines about the federal health care law, the debt ceiling debate, job creation and more:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney repeated his talking point that the health care law in his state only affected 8 percent of the population - or just the uninsured - while the federal law"takes over health care for everyone." But that's wrong on several levels. Both laws affect everyone by requiring that all residents have insurance or pay a penalty; both also focus on helping the uninsured gain coverage. And, just like the federal plan, the Massachusetts law set up an exchange where individuals buying their own insurance can select from various private health plans. That affects more than just those who were uninsured when the law was passed.

Romney also made the misleading assertion that "raising taxes is one of the big problems, something we didn't do in Massachusetts." The state actually raised the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, but the tax was implemented by the current governor, Deval Patrick. Also, the original law instituted fines for residents who don't have insurance and businesses that don't provide coverage. Is such a "fine" a "tax"? Romney's camp thought so of similar provisions in the federal law, when they sent us a list of "taxes" in that legislation.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his job-creation boasting too far again, claiming that "while this country was losing two-and-a-half million jobs, Texas was creating 1 million jobs." That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Texas has created a little more than 1 million jobs during Perry's time in office, but the nation lost 1.4 million in that same time frame - not 2.5 million. To make the national picture look even worse, Perry goes back to January 2009. The nation has lost 2.4 million jobs since then, but Texas created only 95,600 jobs in that time period.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann once again claimed that the resolution to the debt ceiling debate gave President Obama a "$2.4 trillion blank check." But Obama can't spend this any way he wants. The money is used to pay obligations Congress already has authorized or will authorize. And besides, a check for a set amount is not a "blank check."

Bachmann falsely claimed that a Medicare advisory panel created by the federal health care law "will make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans." Hers is a new twist on a false Republican talking point that the Independent Payment Advisory Board will ration health care for seniors. The board is specifically barred from rationing care on page 490 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It's true that the board will consist of 15 "political appointees," as Bachmann said, and they will recommend ways to slow the growth of Medicare. But board members must be medical providers and other professionals with experience in health care finance, actuarial science, health care management and other related fields. And the board's recommendations can be rejected by Congress, as we have explained before.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman dredged up an old partisan exaggeration in claiming that the IRS was planning on hiring "19,500 new employees to administer that mandate" in the health care law. We knocked down this inflated claim in March 2010, when it was about 16,500 IRS employees. The truth is that the claim comes from a report by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee who made several false assumptions to come up with that number. Plus, the IRS' primary role isn't to "administer that mandate," as Huntsman claims. It will mainly administer subsidies and tax credits. And so far, the IRS has requested 1,269 full-time equivalent employees, according to its fiscal year 2012 budget request, to help implement the law.

Huntsman also repeated his claim that when he was governor, Utah was No. 1 in job creation, while Massachusetts ranked 47th under Romney. Huntsman's statistic is true according to data based on household surveys by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But according to the most commonly used yardstick for job growth, payroll data, Utah was actually No. 4. How common is the payroll data method? Huntsman cites a report that used the payroll data numbers to arrive at Massachusetts' No. 47 ranking under Romney.

Bachmann reiterated a common Republican exaggeration, claiming that the deficit is larger than it really is. She said: "We are spending 40 percent more than what we take in." That's not true. The actual figure is 37 percent, according to the most recent monthly statement of the U.S. Treasury, covering the first 11 months of the fiscal year that just ended. (Final figures won't be available for a few more days.) For the first 11 months, outlays were $3,296,399,000,000 and the deficit was $1,234,052,000,000 (rounded to the nearest million). So we spent 37.4 percent more than receipts. Furthermore, the deficit for the previous fiscal year was also 37.4 percent more than we took in.

Bachmann also said the deficit for the year was $1.5 trillion, which is untrue. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates (based on daily Treasury statements) that the deficit for fiscal 2011 was $1.294 trillion, just $3 billion less than the year before. The final, official Treasury figures may change those figures by a few billion, but not nearly enough to justify Bachmann's inflated claims.


http://factcheck.org/2011/10/recycled-spin-at-new-hampshire-gop-debate/





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16861
Registered: May-04
.



From Politico:}




House GOP embraces big-ticket bills

By: Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer
October 13, 2011 11:46 PM EDT

House Republicans are doing an about-face, breathing life into expensive legislation long considered dead in Congress, showing that, yes, they do believe the federal government should be spending money on domestic programs.

Speaker John Boehner is starting with the mother of all public works bills - directing top aides to work with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a six-year highway bill to rebuild the nation's transportation infrastructure. The last such highway bill cost $286 billion - House Republicans have not released cost projections for a new one.

That same committee is also looking for a permanent funding fix for the Federal Aviation Administration, a bill that has been extended 22 times without a fresh rewrite. The four-year authorizing cost on this one could approach $60 billion.

And Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee are pining for Congress to move a tariff bill that would give special breaks to a wide swath of foreign companies that produce things like obscure chemicals not available in the U.S. - legislation that has previously been dismissed because these measures qualify as earmarks, something Republicans have banned.

Altogether, the increased legislative maneuvering shows a Republican majority grasping for a more proactive agenda that stretches beyond their "cut everything" mantra that has dominated this year. But in taking up some pretty hefty government programs, Republicans also risk backlash from conservatives who have an innate distrust of things like highway pork and special interest tariff breaks ...




... "Sen. Collins (R-Maine) believes that Republicans have many good ideas for job creation, and Congress should work across the aisle to put together a consensus bill," Kelley said.



Perry to pitch energy plan for jobs
By: Reid J. Epstein
October 14, 2011 09:36 AM EDT

Rick Perry rolled out an energy plan in suburban Pittsburgh on Friday that hinges on proposing a massive expansion of energy exploration, including drilling for oil in Alaska and coastal waters of the East and Gulf coasts.

The drilling, which Perry said he would authorize by executive order upon being sworn in, would create 1.2 million jobs within his 100 days in office and could be implemented through executive orders.

"The plan I present will kick-start the economic growth of our country and will create 1.2 million jobs," he told a crowd of hard-hatted steel workers in West Mifflin, Pa. "It can be implemented quicker because it doesn't require constitutional, or should I say, congressional action."

Perry also said he'd seek to exploit the nation's coal reserves, a key issue in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

"America is the Saudi Arabia of coal," he said.

The speech followed several television interviews previewing the parts of the proposal. Perry framed the energy question as a jobs one while continuing his attack on the familiar conservative bogeymen, environmentalists.




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16862
Registered: May-04
.

House Passes Another Bill to Reduce Access to Ab0rtions
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
8:22 p.m. | Updated House Republicans have had a laserlike focus on dismantling various forms of federal regulations this month, the centerpiece of their job creation agenda.

But on Thursday the chamber pivoted back to another topic that has been the subject of various pieces of legislation this year: how to reduce access to ab0rtions though federal health insurance programs.

Under the Protect Life Act, which passed the House 251 to 172 Thursday night, no health insurance policy that offers ab0rtion coverage could be purchased with federal money made available through the new health care law. Current federal law prohibits plans in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program from covering ab0rtion. The new bill would apply the same rule to plans in the newly created health exchanges, which are subsidized with federal government tax credits.

The legislation has almost no chance of being brought to the Senate floor, and President Obama is certain to veto it should it ever pass both chambers. The House has brought a few bills aimed at limiting ab0rtion access to the floor since Republicans took control in January.

The bill presented Thursday also says that the federal government may not discriminate against health care providers that refuse to provide ab0rtions by refusing them federal funds under the health care law.

Opponents of the bill interpret that to mean that health care providers that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds would be permitted, under the law, to refuse ab0rtions even in life threatening conditions, essentially placing the rights of the hospitals to refuse over the existing rights of a patient for an abortion.

"I can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader. "I just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation."

Andrew Wimer, a spokesman for Representative Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, the sponsor of the bill, said there was no precedent of a doctor refusing an abortion to a woman who later died; they also argue that the point of the bill is to cut off all forms of federal funds for ab0rtion providers, not to deny ab0rtions in the case of a life threatening emergency.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/house-debates-bill-restricting-abo rtions/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16863
Registered: May-04
.

Rabbit-Hole Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Reading the transcript of Tuesday's Republican debate on the economy is, for anyone who has actually been following economic events these past few years, like falling down a rabbit hole. Suddenly, you find yourself in a fantasy world where nothing looks or behaves the way it does in real life.

And since economic policy has to deal with the world we live in, not the fantasy world of the G.O.P.'s imagination, the prospect that one of these people may well be our next president is, frankly, terrifying.

In the real world, recent events were a devastating refutation of the free market orthodoxy that has ruled American politics these past three decades. Above all, the long crusade against financial regulation, the successful effort to unravel the prudential rules established after the Great Depression on the grounds that they were unnecessary, ended up demonstrating - at immense cost to the nation - that those rules were necessary, after all.

But down the rabbit hole, none of that happened. We didn't find ourselves in a crisis because of runaway private lenders like Countrywide Financial. We didn't find ourselves in a crisis because Wall Street pretended that slicing, dicing and rearranging bad loans could somehow create AAA assets - and private rating agencies played along. We didn't find ourselves in a crisis because "shadow banks" like Lehman Brothers exploited gaps in financial regulation to create bank type threats to the financial system without being subject to bank type limits on risk taking.

No, in the universe of the Republican Party we found ourselves in a crisis because Representative Barney Frank forced helpless bankers to lend money to the undeserving poor.

O.K., I'm exaggerating a bit - but not much. Mr. Frank's name did come up repeatedly as a villain in the crisis, and not just in the context of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, which Republicans want to repeal. You have to marvel at his alleged influence given the fact that he's a Democrat and the vast bulk of the bad loans now afflicting our economy were made while George W. Bush was president and Republicans controlled the House with an iron grip. But he's their preferred villain all the same.

The demonization of Mr. Frank aside, it's now obviously orthodoxy on the Republican side that government caused the whole problem. So what you need to know is that this orthodoxy has hardened even as the supposed evidence for government as a major villain in the crisis has been discredited. The fact is that government rules didn't force banks to make bad loans, and that government sponsored lenders, while they behaved badly in many ways, accounted for few of the truly high risk loans that fueled the housing bubble.

But that's history. What do the Republicans want to do now? In particular, what do they want to do about unemployment?

Well, they want to fire Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve - not for doing too little, which is a case one can make, but for doing too much. So they're obviously not proposing any job creation action via monetary policy.

Incidentally, during Tuesday's debate, Mitt Romney named Harvard's N. Gregory Mankiw as one of his advisers. How many Republicans know that Mr. Mankiw at least used to advocate - correctly, in my view - deliberate inflation by the Fed to solve our economic woes?

So, no monetary relief. What else? Well, the Cheshire Cat-like Rick Perry - he seems to be fading out, bit by bit, until only the hair remains - claimed, implausibly, that he could create 1.2 million jobs in the energy sector. Mr. Romney, meanwhile, called for permanent tax cuts - basically, let's replay the Bush years! And Herman Cain? Oh, never mind.

By the way, has anyone else noticed the disappearance of budget deficits as a major concern for Republicans once they start talking about tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy?


It’s all pretty funny. But it’s also, as I said, terrifying.

The Great Recession should have been a huge wake up call. Nothing like this was supposed to be possible in the modern world. Everyone, and I mean everyone, should be engaged in serious soul searching, asking how much of what he or she thought was true actually isn't.

But the G.O.P. has responded to the crisis not by rethinking its dogma but by adopting an even cruder version of that dogma, becoming a caricature of itself. During the debate, the hosts played a clip of Ronald Reagan calling for increased revenue; today, no politician hoping to get anywhere in Reagan's party would dare say such a thing.

It's a terrible thing when an individual loses his or her grip on reality. But it’s much worse when the same thing happens to a whole political party, one that already has the power to block anything the president proposes - and which may soon control the whole government.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/opinion/rabbit-hole-economics.html?_r=1&nl=tod aysheadlines&emc=tha212&pagewanted=print




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 727
Registered: Mar-04
Charles Krauthammer
Opinion Writer

The scapegoat strategy


By Charles Krauthammer, Published: October 13

What do you do if you can't run on your record on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn't noticed that you've been in charge of it for nearly three years.

But above all: Find villains.

President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming Americas dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt and various acts of God.

Didn't work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obamas base lusts for above all.

Hence Obamas new strategy: Don't whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich and their Republican protectors for wrecking America.

In Obamas telling, it's the refusal of the rich to pay their fair share that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don't pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It's crude. It's Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it's ridiculous. Obamas most coveted tax hike an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making more than $200,000) would have reduced last years deficit (at the very most) from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a days federal spending. You could collect Obamas favorite tax loophole depreciation for corporate jets for 100 years and it wouldn't cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.

After three years, Obamas self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.

Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It's dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora's box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nations leader.

Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over Chinas currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.

Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5-a-month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It's perfectly transparent.

Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.

Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping,Levis-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government an@rch !sts will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. Whats the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.

And then what? Haven't gotten that far.

No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles and its failures on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.

From the Senate to the streets, it's working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring.

This is the "strategy" that barry and his drones (you know who you are) will use .... Sadly this is all you and yours have and it simply will not be enough to prop up the "boy king" and allow him to limp across the finish line a winner, he will pull up short the loser his is destined to be...
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 728
Registered: Mar-04
Women can die on the floor, said Pelosi during the press conference when asked by a reporter to comment on the bill the Republican controlled House was voting on Thursday night.

Under this [abortion] bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene, if this bill is passed. It's just appalling. It falls right into their -- all, it's a health issue, was Pelosis complete statement."

Perhaps the OnabotulinumtoxinA injections she has received have seeped into her brain. I shudder to think she was second in line to the presidency...absolute horror..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pFiCPgmgqE

By the way Barry doesn't mind if some folks "die on the floor".

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16865
Registered: May-04
.

"Bush folks discontinued their version of F&F when they found it didn't work."



That's what you've read, huh? Tell me, does the cop care if you say you stopped hitting your wife well over a half an hour ago and the blood is drying up? How about when you tell him you haven't had a drink since you left the bar?

The guns are still out there, leo! Stupid to start isn't excused by stopping. Read what you yourself posted later, "Hundreds if not thousands of guns remain unaccounted for and will only be so accounted when found at the scene of a crime or in some dead guys hand." The hundreds (thousands?) of guns sent when W was in office didn't just go away, not to be seen or heard from again, on 01/21/09.



"Why did Holder inc. redo this?"


Stupid to start, I suppose. But it's not the first or the last time something stupid gets down by either government or any other group. Stupid happens. There are certainly enough conspiracy theories floating around to explain the "why" of this plan. It's up to you to sort through them and see which makes the most - or least - sense to you. http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=alex%20jones%2ffast%20an d%20furious&type=


Or you could watch the CSPAN video for an answer from the CBS investigative reporter. But you'll have to do some legwork of your own. Sitting on a forum and not taking advantage of links provided won't get you there. That just keeps you as uninformed and as stupid as squiddy is. Watch the video, leo.



If Iran is accountable for the latest transgression, so too, must the Washington folks."


Well, first, that depends on whether you believe the conspiracy theory that claims this is all a cover up for Fast and Furious. That this is is all a fake report and Iran hasn't done anything - the Feds have arrested an innocent guy because that's what the Feds do - but the public is being misled by the Feds to get the Feds @ss out of a tight spot right now. And the guns were there to cover the tons of coc@ine being brought into the US by the Feds. And that the Feds were feeding this stuff to the people in their water supply and foods to make them more docile for the take over that has already begun - and that all of that has already been admitted to by the Feds - "look it up yourself", as Jones would say.

Then when you get beyond the lunatic fringe of those claims, you need to remember a very important disctinction you seem to be missing. Should Iran have been responsible for the assassination the Justice Dept claims, that would have been an act of international war perpetrated against the US by Iran - a neo-con wet dream to be sure.



"Obama would almost doubtless pardon Bush, but who will pardon HIM?"


I doubt any repub would. Why do you think the hearings are taking place right now anyway? Have you heard Issa or any repub even mention the history of this affair? Once again, from the repub perspective, there was nothing that existed in the world until the day Obama took offfice ... or the Dems took over Congress - whichever is more expedient to the story.



"If the category is 'Accountability....for 1000$' it's time to get 'em all taken to task. R? D? WTF and who cares?"


I'd say mostly no one. These "investigations" aren't getting any attention. The public wants jobs - and economic stability - not more do nothing crap from the people they have sent to Washington. Read the poll I provided above. Why do you think Congress' polling numbers are near single digits? Not because of the Solyndra investigation I can assure you of that. And F&F involves Mexico - you know, where the illegal brown people are until the come up here to "drop" anchor babies and take our jobs.





.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 729
Registered: Mar-04
Holder is a drag on the administration...as if they aren't making enough of their own problems. He was a flawed choice and it is coming back to bite barry on his rump... Sooner or later the choice will have to be made to cut him loose... I hope it drags out close to the elections highlighting the incompetence of barry and his band of merry fools.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16867
Registered: May-04
.

From the political party who cheered a record 235 state sponsored executions;

Florida lawmaker proposes firing squads for death row inmates
By Toluse Olorunnipa, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
In Print: Thursday, October 13, 2011

TALLAHASSEE â€" At least one Florida lawmaker wants to test the limits of cruel and unusual punishment with what he calls a "lead cocktail."

Rep. Brad Drake, a Republican from the Panhandle town of Eucheeanna, has filed legislation to introduce firing squads to Florida's death row.

The idea, Drake said, grew out of a recent controversy surrounding the state's new lethal injection practice. Last month, Manuel Valle was executed with a cocktail of drugs never before used in a Florida execution. The drug pentobarbital knocks inmates unconscious before a second drug paralyzes them and a third stops the heart.

Several activists and medical professionals, including pentobarbital's maker, protested its use prior to Valle's execution, arguing that the drug fails to adequately sedate inmates.

Drake said he was tired of all the talk about how to properly execute someone on death row, so he had an idea - get rid of lethal injection and let inmates choose between the electric chair or a firing squad.

He drafted the bill after overhearing lunchtime chatter at a Waffle House in support of execution by firing squad.

"I say let's end the debate. We still have "Old Sparky." And if that doesn't suit the criminal, then we will provide them a .45 caliber lead cocktail instead," said Drake, a marketing executive who was first elected to the House in 2008.

Here's how Drake, 36, put it in an interview with the Florida Current: "There shouldn't be anything controversial about a .45 caliber bullet. If it were up to me, we would just throw them off the Sunshine Skyway bridge and be done with it."

The bill would give a death row prisoner 30 days to opt for a firing squad execution after the Supreme Court affirms a death penalty sentence. If the inmate did not choose a firing squad, the inmate would be electrocuted. The prison warden would determine how many executioners would be on the firing squad.

Oklahoma is the only state where a death by bullet law remains on the books. Utah scrapped its firing squad provision in 2004, but a handful of death row inmates convicted before that time still face death by bullet because the bill was not retroactive.

The Florida proposal hasn't gone over well with anti-death penalty groups, who are using it as an opportunity to highlight their position against the state's use of the death penalty.

"The act of killing a captive prisoner is inhumane, no matter how it''s carried out," said Mark Elliot, executive director of Tampa -based Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

Drake said he hopes his bill starts a new conversation about the death penalty.

"You've got to start somewhere. There's been a lot of controversial issues that took years and years and years to pass," he said. "I say let's have this conversation."
; http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-lawmaker-proposes-firing -squads-for-death-row-inmates/1196540




He got the idea after overhearing a conversation at the Waffle House?!!!

This despite ...
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=dna%20clears%20death%20r ow%20inmates&type=




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16868
Registered: May-04
.

And, not to be outdone. Herman Cain gets his tax advice from an eight year old ... and eight year old video game, that is ...

Is Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" Coming from SimCity?

Republican presidential candidate and former pizza mogul Herman Cain is taking heat for his 999 tax plan, which would establish a corporate income tax at 9%, personal income tax also at 9%, and national sales tax at (you guessed it) 9%. Though Cain says his plan would fix the economy, there's some haziness about the plan's origins. Some say Cain got the 9-9-9 idea from the video game SimCity. In SimCity 4, which was released in 2003, residents of the game's virtual city also lived under a 9-9--9 tax plan (because of the 9% commercial, industrial, and residential taxes). Social media is buzzing about the similarity between Cain's tax plan and the video game. When asked about it, a spokesperson for Cain''s campaign said, "Well, we all like 9-9-9." But SimCity may not have the best real world applications. A producer of the game said, "Our game design team thought that an easy to understand taxation system would allow players to focus on building their cities and have fun thwarting giant lizard attacks, rather than be buried by overly complex financial systems."

On Twitter, @ddisabatino said, "Herman Cain took his tax plan from Sim City. Also, got war strategy from Halo, and music skills from Guitar Hero."






http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/herman-cain-9-9-9-plan-coming-simcity-1 60214953.html


.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 730
Registered: Mar-04
Apologies Not Accepted

Posted 10/11/2011 06:29 PM ET
In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor.

In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor. View Enlarged Image

Leadership: Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?

The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.

Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.

It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.

One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.

A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"

The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.


All the years at those universities and not only is he an economic illiterate but his is ignorant of history as well. The good news is we have only fifteen more months left of this ignoramus.... the bad news is we have only fifteen more months left of this simpleton.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2595
Registered: Oct-07
As someone with a little experience in Sim City, I know they biased it for 'playability' not technical accuracy.
However, manipulating tax rates is one of the knobs to turn to make a bigger / better city.
By turning residential taxes down, for example, you tend to cause a bump in residential demand. This leads to more commercial and industrial development.
In playing the game, you'll find a tipping point between too high a tax, which will temporarily raise public funds and too LOW a tax which will eventually cause you to deplete your funds.
While a high tax will raise money, it will also depress the market and cause either negative or stagnent population growth.
Of course, here in the United States, we are basically a captive audience so there is no place for the average (not really really rich) person to hide assets.

The simplicity of Cain's plan is that, at least at first, there will be NO EXCEPTIONS and thus no tax code to put up for sale to the highest bidder. (corporate doner?)
I for one, would be glad to experiment with a tax code which could be understood by any high school graduate and written on maybe 40 or 50 double spaced pages.
This as opposed to the current tax code of thousands of pages, exemptions and 'what ifs'.

Use Sim City as a model? Tell me why not? Simple stuff is predictable in certain ways and people love simple. It allows them to plan. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that if implimented the savings rate even went up.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16869
Registered: May-04
.

"Simple stuff is predictable in certain ways and people love simple. It allows them to plan."



That does help explain Herman "I don't have any facts to back this up with but ... " Cain.



"It wouldn't surprise me to hear that if implimented the savings rate even went up."


Among the very rich, I suppose that might happen under this plan. For virtually everyone else, not at all.

Checking Herman Cain's math on 9-9-9"

The more people learn more about Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan, the more questions they have.

One of the bigger ones is how it would affect poorer Americans. We had the chance to put the question to Cain directly during his recent swing through Florida.

"Most people are going to pay less in taxes," Cain, a former pizza chain executive, said Oct. 5, 2011, aboard his campaign bus stopped in St. Petersburg. "Why? Because we're expanding the base."

Cain told us he even worked out the math himself. Someone earning $50,000 a year would pay less in taxes under his 9-9-9 than they do under the current system, he said. Under the current system, a person who earns $50,000 a year "pays about $10,000 in taxes," Cain said. "A big part of that is the payroll tax." Cain then walked us through his 9-9-9 plan and said the same person would "still have $2,000 left over."

"I can't design a system for people who don't want to pay taxes," Cain added. "I can design a system so they can get a job."

Cain made a similar comment Oct. 12, 2011, during an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd.

"Today under the current system, ($50,000-a-year earners) will pay over $10,000 in taxes, assuming standard deductions and standard exemptions. I've gone through the math. $10,000," Cain said. "Now, with 9-9-9, they're going to pay that ... 9 percent tax on their income, so that's only $4,500. They still have $5,500 left over to apply to the sales tax fees. And if you go and look at what they -- how much of it they would probably spend on sales taxes for new goods -- not used. Used goods, they don't pay a sales tax. They are still going to have money left over."

We decided to take Cain's analysis that his plan was better for someone earning $50,000 to a trio of tax accountants ...


Final tally: Mostly false

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/13/herman-cain/herman-cain -says-someone-earning-50000-will-save-u/





"The simplicity of Cain's plan is that, at least at first, there will be NO EXCEPTIONS and thus no tax code to put up for sale to the highest bidder. (corporate doner?)"



He's already making exceptions as more people begin to give this "plan" even a cursory look. I've yet to see a serious economist - the guy who devised this for Cain is a "wealth management consultant" - say, despite the very lack of details provided by Cain, this will not result in a substantial "redistribution" of the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor and middle class. I believe that point was made in the Wall Street Journal.

The "999" plan does away with the payroll tax which funds Medicare and Social Security. While it is a repub wet dream to do away with these two social safety net programs, that is not a popular plan even in rank and file Republican circles. Perry can call SS a Ponzi scheme all he likes but his poll numbers have plummetted, haven't they? The TP's carried signs saying "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". Cain has dangled a plan of the ultimate "simplicity" and yet refuses to discuss its obvious shortcomings by waving off any criticism. He will have a team of "his advisors" who work out the details is what I understood him to say this morning. It will pass because the people will want it to pass is his reasoning for getting this through Congress.

He's also having "his people" get in touch with Hagendas to find out why (when?) they discontinued their black walnut ice cream. Hagendas' explanation is the flavor wasn't very popular. So, do call Herman Cain not the flavor of the month but "Hagendas black walnut" which was pulled from the shelves.



Really, leo? You swallow this stuff?



Half of the American people have never read a
newspaper.
Half never voted for President. One hopes it is
the same half.
- Gore Vidal



Wouldn't the more sensible way to get rid of a tax code that is up for sale be to get rid of politicians who are up for sale? The typical US Representative or Senator must raise a minimum of $1k per week to expect to win an election. Who do you think they call to get that amount of cash? You? Me? I don't think my $25 per quarter donation is going to sway anyone's opinion in my favor.



Get the cash incentive out of elections where the monied special interests can buy and sell who will win - in either party. End the cycle where 94% of the cadidates with the most money win. And make it possible for the average "few thousandaire" to compete against millionaire incumbents backed by billionaire contributors. End the Super PACs and the other 501/C-4's which do not require disclosure of who sourced the money. Stop the financing of campaigns as we now know them, establish a maximum amount of public contributions as done in, say, Britain, in total - that's all they have to spend and no one individual or group (other than the taxpayer) is the source - and that will be a large stride towards giving the public an elective voice they have lacked for decades.



Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I
have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance
to the first.
-Ronald Reagan



Then go at the tax code so it no longer favors the rich, the special interests and the corporations. No Michelle Bachman/repub backed "tax holidays" where corporations get to bring five years' worth of their profits back on shore without paying the correct amount of taxes owed on those profits. No mortgage deductions on any home beyond the first. Tax capital gains at a rate above 15% and tax the electronic transactions. Get rid of the corporate welfare/subsidies that were good in 1927 (oil and gas, coal for example) but no longer work today.

First, however, both sides must agree on a serious discussion not controlled by their own fringe groups and allow for a true compromise.


This short video explains it all ...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/398531/september-29-2011/ colbert-super-pac---trevor-potter---stephen-s-shell-corporation




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2597
Registered: Oct-07
I don't have time for a long answer now...BUT, a possible solution to the poor paying a regressive share of taxes? (my interpret of what you wrote....ok?) is to make the first X amount 'free'. Say 12000 per person or 25000 for a married couple and xx per child. This comes off the top.
INDEX the amount to inflation so people don't get 'inflated' into a higher tax bracket.
This isn't my 'final answer', regis, but just a thought.

And how many times have I suggested kicking them ALL out on to the street?
The tax code must be simplified. No question about it. NONE of those people in Washington are 'people of good will' which is necessary for a solution.
Get rid of 'corporate personhood', too, while you're at it. And stop the at-large election of senators. The Senate was supposed to guard the states while the House was to represent the people. Nobody seems to remember the 9th / 10th amendments.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16872
Registered: May-04
.


I see you and Cain are already making exceptions to the rules. And you end up cutting even more from the federal revenues. Plus you still haven't even begun to address the matters of SS and Medicare. That's largely how Cain gets around the redistibrution to the top aspect of his plan, he says no one will be paying payroll taxes. Well, that means no one will be financing those programs which payroll taxes now fund. You know, the ones you b!tch about already being in trouble with their funding. What happens to those programs, leo?. They just go away and then the repubs starting hacking at the rest of the social network? That should be a game winner with the electorate. Nor have you thought about the large tax cut this will admittedly and automatically give to the wealthiest individuals. This is trickle down economics - read; "voodoo economics" - on steriods! Makes Steve Forbes look like a populist!

Wealth redistribution is still at the heart of the 999 plan, with the benefits once more going to those who are in the top 5%. No tax on "used goods" for the less well off? That's what will make this fair? OK, let's have the poor buy used food, used pharmaceuticals, used clothing and school supplies, used gas, etc. Let's increase the price of a new car or new home by 9% - that should spur consumption, don't ya think?. He - once again - says we shouldn't "confuse" the issue by thinking about state taxes when we think about his plan. Well fine! how's that going to get you anything when you tell the retailer - or the state - you just aren't going to consider paying state sales taxes plus his 9%, which here in Texas would add an additional 17.5% to anything you buy new. Add another $4k to the price of that new Honda Civic? Not likely. What if you don't want to pay any other taxes/fees the state might tack on to make up their own lost revenues, what are you supposed to do? Just go without? What taxes/fees will be hit the hardest as the states need more cash? Oh, gas, food and beverages, utilities, toll roads, etc. This thing is so full of holes and so clearly not aimed at assisting the middle or lower classes or creating jobs that he will be wiped up by anyone who spends twenty seconds actually debating this BS. Sooner or later he can't be just like the repubs with anything that doesn't walk the repub walk and talk the repub talk - they can't all be liars or simply wrong.

If he stays at the top for another week, he's going to have to explain this plan and that's when Herman Cain goes back to just being on a book tour. Yep! nothing makes the poor feel like they are getting a better deal than having them buy something someone else doesn't want or seeing the wealthiest with what they can't have. But, as Cain says, if you're not rich, blame yourself. That's the repub message?!

And that is largely the problem with his plan, it sounds like it came off a pizza box. Beyond that, it has about as much chance at getting through Congress as Rick Santorum has of being the 45th President of the US.

Cain is blowin' smoke up your skirt, leo, and enjoying the momentary attention he's getting. He is a former Federal Reserve executive. How's that going to go over with the folks who are generally PO'd with the Fed, TARP, bailouts, money printing, etc. - you included, or so I thought. He can't explain his plan to anyone's satisfaction who really matters and it's unlikely he'll be around in another few weeks no matter how much money the Koch brothers dump into his campaign. He is running a book tour and, as George Will says, he intends to "stroll" toward the Presidency not run for it.



"And stop the at-large election of senators. The Senate was supposed to guard the states while the House was to represent the people. Nobody seems to remember the 9th / 10th amendments."





Then Perry's your man, leo. All state's rights, all the time and what a mess he and the repub state legislature have made of this one.




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16873
Registered: May-04
.

"According to Wikipedia, there are only five countries in the entire planet that are more unequal than the United States in the distribution of our wealth."
Alan Grayson on Monday, October 10th, 2011 in an interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show"


Our ruling

The peer-reviewed data backs up Grayson’s claim that "there are only five countries in the entire planet that are more unequal than the United States in the distribution of our wealth." Had Grayson used "income" rather than "wealth," the answer would have been much more mixed.

But Grayson was admirably careful in his phrasing. So we rate this claim True.


http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/14/alan-grayson/alan-grays on-says-united-states-has-fifth-most-une/






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16874
Registered: May-04
.

Long ties to Koch brothers key to Cain's campaign

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) â€" Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has cast himself as the outsider, the pizza magnate with real-world experience who will bring fresh ideas to the nation's capital. But Cain's economic ideas, support and organization have close ties to two billionaire brothers who bankroll right-leaning causes through their group Americans for Prosperity.

Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending. Cain credits a businessman who served on an AFP advisory board with helping devise his "9-9-9" plan to rewrite the nation's tax code. And his years of speaking at AFP events have given the businessman and radio host a network of loyal grassroots fans.

The once little-known businessman's political activities are getting fresh scrutiny these days since he soared to the top of some national polls.

His links to the Koch brothers could undercut his outsider, non-political image among people who detest politics as usual and candidates connected with the party machine.

AFP tapped Cain as the public face of its "Prosperity Expansion Project," and he traveled the country in 2005 and 2006 speaking to activists who were starting state-based AFP chapters from Wisconsin to Virginia. Through his AFP work he met Mark Block, a longtime Wisconsin Republican operative hired to lead that state's AFP chapter in 2005 as he rebounded from an earlier campaign scandal that derailed his career.

Block and Cain sometimes traveled together as they built up AFP: Cain was the charismatic speaker preaching the ills of big government; Block was the operative helping with nuts and bolts.

When President Barack Obama's election helped spawn the tea party, Cain was positioned to take advantage. He became a draw at growing AFP-backed rallies, impressing activists with a mix of humor and hard-hitting rhetoric against Obama's stimulus, health care and budget policies.

Block is now Cain's campaign manager. Other aides who had done AFP work were also brought on board.

Cain's spokeswoman Ellen Carmichael, who recently left the campaign, was an AFP coordinator in Louisiana. His campaign's outside law firm is representing AFP in a case challenging Wisconsin campaign finance regulations. At least six other current and former paid employees and consultants for Cain's campaign have worked for AFP in various capacities.

And Cain has credited Rich Lowrie, a Cleveland businessman who served on AFP's board of advisors from 2005 to 2008, with being a key economic adviser and with helping to develop his plan to cut the corporate tax rate to 9 percent, impose a national sales tax of 9 percent and set a flat income tax rate of 9 percent

"He's got a national network now that perhaps he wouldn't have had 15 or 20 years ago because of his work with AFP," said Republican Party of Wisconsin Vice Chair Brian Schimming, who has introduced Cain at events in Wisconsin. "For a presidential candidate, that's obviously helpful to have."

He said Cain was smart to hire Block.

Cain's recent victories in straw polls in Florida and Minnesota highlight the importance of organizing supporters and Block, who has a deep network in the tea party, "gets that side of it," Schimming said.

But Block has had his problems as well. He settled a suit in 2001 accusing him of illegally coordinating a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice's re-election with an outside group. Block agreed to pay $15,000 and sit out of politics for three years.

While Cain is quick to promote his career at the helm of the Godfather's Pizza chain, his ties to AFP aren't something the candidate appears eager to highlight. Cain does not include his AFP work on his biography on his website, but spokesman J.D. Gordon said Sunday that Cain was "proud of his business record" and his association with the group.

"He has made a lot of important connections through AFP," Gordon said, pointing to Block and Lowrie, among others.

And Cain continues to work with the group.

While several other candidates will be at an Iowa Republican Party dinner on Nov. 4, Cain is scheduled to be in Washington mingling with activists at AFP's annual "Defending the American Dream" summit. He is the only confirmed presidential candidate for the event.

AFP spokesman Levi Russell said Cain has spoken at dozens of AFP rallies and events over the years to support a number of the group's activities. AFP has often covered his travel expenses or paid a "pretty modest honorarium" but he has not been paid since becoming a presidential candidate, he said.

"He's a dynamic, pro-business speaker that connects well with our activists," Russell said. "AFP is a very large organization, and there is a natural overlap between Cain's message of fiscal responsibility and the basic principles that AFP advocates for."

A spokeswoman for the Koch brothers did not respond to The Associated Press's request for comment on Cain.

To some liberals, Cain's rise with the help of AFP shows the incredible influence that outside groups controlled by super-wealthy individuals with specific agendas can have on the political process.

"Herman Cain is the first presidential corporate spokes-candidate," said Scot Ross, a liberal activist who leads One Wisconsin Now, which has often mocked AFP as a front group for corporate interests. "The best way to have your issues talked about in the issue debate is to have a candidate in your pocket with snappy comebacks and easily branded policy papers which mask how destructive they would be."

AFP's agenda also includes weakening private and public sector unions, opposing environmental regulations and undoing Obama's health care reform law, among other policies. But before the tea party and Obama, Cain worked with AFP on more local issues.

In 2006, he campaigned all over Wisconsin in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have limited state government spending. A slew of officials and analysts said the plan would have ultimately devastated government services, and the Republican-controlled Legislature eventually backed off it.

In a statement announcing Cain's tour, AFP sent out a press release touting his "in-depth understanding of the battle to control out-of-control government taxes and spending." Block promised that Cain was a speaker that activists would not want to miss.


http://news.yahoo.com/long-ties-koch-brothers-key-cains-campaign-110518961.html




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2598
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=356321
Perhaps, a Uganda link. I simply can't figure out our 'national interest' in Uganda.
Maybe Soros knows?

The Supreme Court should nut-up and declare the War Powers Act unconstitutional. Their exists ample precident for such a move, going back to FDR and his efforts. Of course, since the Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court Justices, Obama could always drag out the 'pack the court' play which FDR ran afoul of.
A reasonable argument could be made for the President being 'commander and chief' ONLY in time of declared war.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16878
Registered: May-04
.

Identifying America's enemies ...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-october-18-2011-calvin-trillin




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2599
Registered: Oct-07
From Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

NOTE: the word 'actual'. Implied is 'declared war'. The Congress has the power to declare war...IE: 'calling'.
Now, how has this been stretched into the President using the military as his personal police force? Tell me again how the War Powers act is 'constitutional'?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2600
Registered: Oct-07
Please define:
'Social Justice'

Extra points for say......35 words or less.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16879
Registered: May-04
.

"Please define:
'Social Justice'

Extra points for say......35 words or less."





A (coded) term - now considered to be deragitory in much the same way "liberal" has been turned into a four letter word - used as a right wingnut hammer against those who represent the 99%.



34 words!


Why'd you ask, leo? You know what it means just as much as you know what "elite" and "dis-enfranchised" means to the rightwing; https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/695468.html#POST1970108


You get those same twitches in your toes and your ears when you hear or use the words, don't you?


I'm sure you do.


Don't like that definition? OK, how about; an (intentional) verbal strike to the superior posterior temporal lobe - better known as the "double down center" - which, when applied to United States "conservatives" translates into "class warfare".


28 words!



Still unhappy? Then I suggest you ask your question of a Native American. More than any other ethnic group I would say they have the best idea what "social justice" has meant.




leo, it appears as though you purchased that three corner hat a size too tight.




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16880
Registered: May-04
.

"Now, how has this been stretched into the President using the military as his personal police force? Tell me again how the War Powers act is 'constitutional'?"


What's your problem with the war Powers Act? It was intended to place a damper on Presidential over-reach. It was voted on by Congress with a two thirds majority which placed it above a Presidential veto. What problem do you find it the actual Act itself?



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2601
Registered: Oct-07
Article of interest to those following todays economic .... chaos.....

http://www.infowars.com/tyrell-corp-does-one-super-corporation-run-the-global-ec onomy/

I will (war powers) act out, later. However, I don't see the constitution giving Congress power for it to abrogate its own power and authority.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 3015
Registered: Oct-07
Is everybody happy?
Government going into seizure mode over sequestration.....which apparently the President suggested, never thinking anyone would take him up on it.

You know, of course that the US and the world HAVE NO monetary standard? We ALL have FIAT money....and not the kind used to purchase Italian cars. Every debt is met with further printing. Everyone with ANY savings is at risk when the (inevitable) inflation hits.....sometime sooner than later.

We have Nixon to thank for that when he 'temporarily' removed the US from the Bretton Woods agreement and stopped redeeming dollars for gold, which was than 'pegged' at 35 dollars per ounce. Since than? It would appear that large gold holding nations have taken steps to intentionally hold DOWN the price of gold. Best of luck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRzr1QU6K1o

More lies from the top!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17732
Registered: May-04
.


You forgot, "THEY" are coming for your guns.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 3017
Registered: Oct-07
I'm sure doctors just love the idea of becoming state employees.

I don't know if I hope we all live long enough to see todays excesses come home to roost or not.

16 TRILLION in debt and heading for ??? At some point I think the US should MAKE the Chinese float their currency to whatever the world thinks it should be valued at. right now? chinese keep an artificially low value to make their exports look good...and less expensive. I can hardly wait for the first Chinese cars to make it to our shores.....

Perhaps a taste of things to come?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/business/in-a-first-chinese-built-cars-arrive- in-north-america.html?_r=0

When the BIG bubble pops, those nutty types with hard metals....Gold and Silver, for example, will be looking good.

I find it funny that in a previous post in this thread the 'Fed' was listed as an accomplishment of the early 20th century....when in fact it has done none of the things it was chartered to do. We've been on borrowed time since Dick dumped the gold standard in '71. Look at his vid I posted. 'Temporary' has been 40+ years now and the dollar which he was 'defending' is now worth far less than EVER.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Add Your Message Here

Bold text Italics Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image Add a YouTube Video
Need to Register?
Forgot Password?
Enable HTML code in message
   

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us