Archive through August 04, 2011

 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16174
Registered: May-04
.

"Jan, it may be too 'low brow', but did you EVER see 'The Advocates' TV show?
This one was a keeper so it couldn't be left on the air.
The format was a gem. Start with a current issue. Have 2 'advocates'...a 'pro' and a 'con'....or however the 2 sides break down. Each advocate is allowed to call witnesses and present evidence.

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/advocates/204855

OR

http://wgbhalumni.org/profiles/k/kubany-susan/"




One more time with feeling!!!



Leo, you have me utterly baffled. What is the purpose or the point of that post? The show has been off the air for ... what? thirty years? You don't make any point other than the show existed. That would lead to what discussion?

This is like the "bunches of quotes from many people who are really smarter than you think you are" you claim I have blown off. If there is no meaning nor context to what you post, what do you expect me to say?


Seriously, leo, what's the point?




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2320
Registered: Oct-07
Perfect example.
Pelosi is asked a fair question and smarts off.
You blame the messenger.
Or, don't you think the Constitution matters when it comes to doing what you think is 'right'?
Remind me again who said 'The end justifies the means.'?

Let's include Nancy in the proposed Bachmann debate.

I think 'The Advocates' was a great show. Real issues and real discussion, lead by knowledgable people.
I once sent a note to Rush L. saying that if he wanted back into TV, a redo of the Advocates would be a good idea. He (Rush) could be the conservative speaker and they could probably get Tavis Smiley for the left. Guest moderator? I don't know who......
Do a limited number of shows. Top production values. Good spokesmen for each side. Do it like a courtroom where 'my' witness can be asked questions by 'the other side'.

Rush would NEVER allow himself into this position where his bombast couldn't propel him thru any tight spots.
Or do you prefer the current situation of people standing on opposite sides of the street screaming at one another? Don't you think better of people than that?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2321
Registered: Oct-07
Do you get the Documentary Channel?

View 'The Future of Water' if you get the chance.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16175
Registered: May-04
.

"Perfect example.
Pelosi is asked a fair question and smarts off.
You blame the messenger."



I have to wearily reiterrate Pelosi's question, "Are you serious? ... Are you serious?"


It was a hack question, leo. And only hacks would think it is a "fair" question. We've been through this all before.



"Or, don't you think the Constitution matters when it comes to doing what you think is 'right'?"


You're going to start this crap again, eh? Questioning whether I believe in the Constitution. I thought better of you. I don't know why but I did.

Here's the same answer I provided you the last time we got into this BS; where in the Constitution are corporations deemed the equivalent and protected rights of a single individual citizen?

There is no need for the Constitution to lay out in specific language exactly what laws can be allowed. If there were, there would be no need for a Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, slaves would still be 2/3 of a piece of property and women could not vote. I know you want to take this all back to the late 18th c/, leo, but it isn't going to happen. I suspect if it ever did happen, you'd still b!tch about the number of Federal employees.


Where did you learn basic civics, leo? A correspondence course?


Try this, how are the R's doing with including the specific language within the Constitution which would allow for the introduction of a bill? Along with promising jobs, they ran on this as a part of their "pledge" to America. Got any idea how well they've actually accomplished at least that portion of their promise since they've done nothing to actually stimulate job growth? How about an example, say, for the unemployment bill that came out of Ways and Means? Got a specific Constituitonal wording that covers unemployment?



"Remind me again who said 'The end justifies the means.'?"



You don't remember? Use a search engine, leo.


Once again, however, you have left me in the dark as to what you are saying and what you mean to imply. I am quite certain I don't actually want an explanation from you considering what you've resorted to posting of late.

No more references or links to BS rightwing blogs, eh?



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16176
Registered: May-04
.

This would appear to be the current Repub thinking on "Constitutional" powers;

Editorial

A Conflict Without End
Published: May 16, 2011

Osama bin Laden had been dead only a few days when House Republicans began their efforts to expand, rather than contract, the war on terror. Not content with the president's wide-ranging powers to pursue the archcriminals of Sept. 11, 2001, Republicans want to authorize the military to pursue virtually anyone suspected of terrorism, anywhere on earth, from now to the end of time.

This wildly expansive authorization would, in essence, make the war on terror a permanent and limitless aspect of life on earth, along with its huge potential for abuse.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force, approved by Congress a week after Sept. 11, 2001, gives the president the power to go after anyone who committed or aided in the 9/11 attacks, or who harbored such people, to prevent acts of terrorism. It was this document that authorized the war in Afghanistan and the raid on Bin Laden's compound.

A new bill, approved last week by the House Armed Services Committee and heading for the floor this month, would go much further. It would allow military attacks against not just Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also any 'associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.' That deliberately vague phrase could include anyone who doesn't like America, even if they are not connected in any way with the 2001 attacks. It could even apply to domestic threats.

It allows the president to detain "belligerents" until the "termination of hostilities", presumably at a camp like the one in GuantAnamo Bay, Cuba. Since it does not give a plausible scenario of how those hostilities could be considered over, it raises the possibility of endless detention for anyone who gets on the wrong side of a future administration.

The bill, part of the National Defense Authorization Act, was introduced by the committee chairman, Howard McKeon of California, who said it simply aligns old legal authorities with current threats. We've heard that before, about wiretapping and torture, and it was always untrue.

These powers are not needed, for current threats, or any other threat. President Obama has not asked for them (though, unfortunately, the administration has used a similar definition of the enemy in legal papers). Under the existing powers, or perhaps ignoring them, President George W. Bush abused his authority for many years with excessive detentions and illegal wiretapping. Those kinds of abuses could range even more widely with this open-ended authorization.

As more than 30 House Democrats protested to Mr. McKeon, a declaration of "a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations" could "grant the president near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further Congressional approval". If a future administration wanted to attack Iran unilaterally, it could do so without having to consult with Congress.

This measure is unnecessary. The Bush administration demonstrated how dangerous it could be. The Democrats were right to demand the House conduct hearings on the measure, which was approved with little scrutiny. If it passes, the Senate should amend it out of existence, and President Obama should make clear he will veto it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17tue1.html?nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl= 1&emc=tha211&adxnnlx=1305640814-5iei3VM1pqLSlZiGhpH4EA



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16180
Registered: May-04
.

Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt

By Lori Montgomery, Published: April 30

The nation's unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.

In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.

Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. 'In the end, the floodgates opened,' said former senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax-cut bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.

Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on- the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_print.html


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16181
Registered: May-04
.

Repubs like to tell us 47% of the people do not pay income taxes. Implying, of course, these are the "parasites", the "non-productive" spongers, who are feeding free off the public trough through the "confiscated" moneys of the working people. They don't mention how many corporations pay no taxes on large portions of their "income". Or that the US government actually provides some of that corporate income tax free and virtually no questions asked or regulation required.

How did this come to pass? Did the R's actually have anything to do with the laws which say an individual needn't pay taxes?



So, who among us pays no "income" tax? Or, a tale of look at this hand not that hand.

http://www.congress.org/news/2011/05/16/congress_qa_income_tax



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16182
Registered: May-04
.

Suggested viewing; 19144768-300-flash-s.105762483-,19144768-700-flash-s.105762484-,19144768-1000-fl ash-s.105762485-,19144768-700-wmv-s.105762486-,19144768-1000-wmv-s.105762487-,19 144769-6800-qtv-s.105762490-,19144769-10300-qtv-s.105762492-,19144769-2700-qtv-s .105762488-,http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810129253/video/19144768/20100414/148 /19144768-100-flash-s.105762482-,19144768-300-flash-s.105762483-,19144768-700-fl ash-s.105762484-,19144768-1000-flash-s.105762485-,19144768-700-wmv-s.105762486-, 19144768-1000-wmv-s.105762487-,19144769-6800-qtv-s.105762490-,19144769-10300-qtv -s.105762492-,19144769-2700-qtv-s.105762488-

I actually found this at my local Blockbuster.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1362
Registered: Oct-10
https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/680435.html

Here's a good read! The last post has an excerpt from another forum.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1375
Registered: Oct-10
Any doubts?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/Jan-Vigne-banned
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16186
Registered: May-04
.

A Low Bid for Fixing a Big Mess

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: May 14, 2011


... Clifford J. White III, director of the executive office of the United States Trustee, discussed some of the findings in an interview last week. But before we recount the ugly details, it's worth noting the immense pushback the banks have mounted against the trustee office.

Banks have repeatedly tried to thwart the program's actions, filing lawsuits and court motions to prevent officials from compiling evidence. Never mind that part of a trustee's job is to investigate possible improprieties in foreclosures to determine if they are poisoning the bankruptcy system.

'We have faced consistent opposition by all of the major servicers,' Mr. White said. 'We are currently facing 200 motions to quash our discovery requests. We also are facing upwards of 20 appeals either in district courts or in circuit courts.'

Those pushing back include Bank of America, Citigroup, G.M.A.C., JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, he said.

The banks typically make two arguments. First, they say the trustee program has no legal standing to delve into individual cases between lenders and borrowers because it is not a 'party' to these disputes. Every court has rejected this claim. Nonetheless, the tactic has allowed servicers to stall trustees' discovery requests.

In other cases, the banks agree to turn over information in specific matters of interest to the trustee program but refuse to provide details on their overall policies and procedures, which could show deep and systemic flaws.

Why are these institutions so afraid of a little sunlight?

To be sure, the nationwide investigation by the United States Trustee's office represents an aggressive tack that big financial institutions are unaccustomed to. 'The bankruptcy system provided an early warning sign of problems in mortgage servicing,' Mr. White said. 'We began looking a few years ago at some of the violations of mortgage servicers, on a case-by-case basis. What's different from the past is, if we find a facial discrepancy' '" something that's a problem on its face '" 'we are off the bat seeking discovery.'

When the banks have provided information, lawyers for the trustee program have often found extensive errors in amounts owed and charges levied. Needless to say, these mistakes do not typically favor the borrowers.

Mr. White declined to get specific. But the mistakes that his office has found fall into two broad categories. One involves inaccurate amounts that the banks say borrowers owe. The accuracy of these documents, which are filed with the courts, is crucial. Borrowers and bankruptcy judges overseeing their cases use them to determine payment schedules to cure defaults, for example.

Inaccuracies often arise because loan servicers fail to reflect that borrowers are in trial loan modifications, like those offered by the government, Mr. White said. As a result, though borrowers are paying the proper amounts, the servicer shows them falling behind. Then the bank moves to restart foreclosure.

IN other cases, proofs of claim filed by servicers are just wildly off base. In one matter, a bank claimed to the court that a borrower owed $52,043. After the borrower objected and a trustee asked for documentation, the amount owed dropped to $3,156.

Imagine what would have happened if the amount hadn't been questioned?

The other problematic area showing up in the trustees' inquiries relates to what Mr. White calls improper default servicing fees. These include charges for legal work, property inspections, insurance and appraisals.

Often, the fees charged to troubled borrowers are not even specified. Trustee program officials found a defaulted borrower who was charged $10,260.50 in 'prior service fees' with zero documentation. In another case, a borrower fell behind after the lender doubled his escrow payments with no explanation or justification. Then the bank filed a motion to lift the bankruptcy stay so that it could foreclose.

'In fewer than 20 judicial districts,' Mr. White said, 'we have identified hundreds of facial deficiencies, including cases in which we seek to investigate inflated or improper escrow charges and cases in which the mortgage servicer sought relief from stay so it could foreclose on a debtor's home' ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/business/15gret.html?_r=1&sq=a%20low%20bid%20f or%20fixing%20a%20big%20mess&st=Search&scp=1&pagewanted=all


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16188
Registered: May-04
.

Are the Uninsured Living Large?

In explaining why he once supported an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, Gingrich exaggerated when he said "a large number of the uninsured earn $75,000 or more a year" and are buying second homes or other luxuries instead of insurance.

Gingrich, May 15: And, and so a large number of the uninsured earn $75,000 or more a year, don't buy any health insurance because they want to buy a second house or a better car or go on vacation. And then you and I and everybody else ends up picking up for them. I don't think having a free rider system in health is any more appropriate than having a free rider system in any other part of our society.

Gingrich said "a large number of the uninsured earn $75,000 or more a year." How large? Matt Brault, a Census Bureau statistician, walked us through the agency's online data tools to calculate how many uninsured people earned more than $75,000. The answer: 1.1 million, or about 2 percent of the 50.7 million who were uninsured in 2009.

Gingrich didn't say family income, but we looked at that, too. Census figures show that in 2009 about 16.6 percent (8.4 million) of the 50.7 million of the uninsured lived in families earning more than $75,000. Yes, 8.4 million is a large number, but $75,000 a year '" while well above the median income of $49,777 in 2009 '" is generally well short of what's required for a family to own multiple homes. And about 83 percent of the uninsured have family incomes less than that.

Finally, we looked at a December 2010 Kaiser Family Foundation report, "The Uninsured: A Primer," which said 40 percent of all the uninsured in 2009 lived below poverty.


http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-06.pdf


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16189
Registered: May-04
.

If you listen to the rightwing talkers for more than a few minutes, you will find them validating those fears which the right feels makes them less appreciated and always in danger. The true conservative is always, in the words of the right wing pundits, the put upon group of citizens who are in danger of ... something! and they are always the persecuted group. Go listen to the Green Dragon video again; "they" are your enemy, "they" are seducing your children, "they" are power hungry and "their" power grab reaches to the highest elected offices. Pure Father McCoughlin, Joe McCarthy, John Birchers, Ronald Reagan "red scare" crap where "they" are ever present, always the serpent slithering through the grass and always about to destroy the right.

The right wing listeners are also in need of constant confirmation of their identity as humans ...
; https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1952155#POST1952155


Palin calls Gregory's food stamps question 'racist'

As a measure of just how much David Gregory's interview with Newt Gingrich has been driving the week, last night Sarah Palin attacked one of Gregory's questions during the interview as 'racist.'

Sean Hannity teed up the attack, playing a clip from last Sunday's 'Meet the Press' in which Gregory said to Gingrich, 'You gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people could be coded racially tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, the 'food stamp president.''

Hannity suggested this was an example of the 'gotcha' journalism that Republicans could expect to see more of in the campaign, and then Palin pounced.

'Well, talk about racism '" that was a racist-tinged question from David Gregory,' Palin said. 'He made it sound like that if you're black you're on food stamps and the president is referring to you being on food stamps. I think that's racist.'

When Hannity asked her what advice she'd give to other potential GOP candidates in the same position with the media, she offered one of the clearest iterations to date of her media manifesto.

'Well, I think to start with, we ignore some of these reporters and their requests for us to comment and be interviewed,' she said. 'We know going in to it what they are going to do to a conservative. So why participate in their game? Instead, candidates need to get their message out via new social media, via fair and balanced reporters who will just allow the facts to get out there. Don't participate in that goofy game that has been played now for too many years with the leftist lamestream media trying to twist a candidate's words and intent and content of their statement.'
; http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/




Just saying ...




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16191
Registered: May-04
.

Fact checking ...
Ron Paul; http://factcheck.org/2011/05/factchecking-paul/

Newt Gingrich; http://factcheck.org/2011/05/newt-vs-newt/

Barak Obama; http://factcheck.org/2011/05/factchecking-obama-2/

Mitt Romney; http://factcheck.org/2011/05/romney-off-base-on-health-care/

Paul Ryan; http://factcheck.org/2011/04/ryans-muddy-medicare-claims/


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16192
Registered: May-04
.

This forum and Tennessee have the same problem ...

... the "Don't say g*y" bill be signed into law.


The bill's backers tweaked it to ban only discussion of homosexualit* "in prepared materials and instruction," according to The Nashville Tennessean. Opponents had earlier criticized the bill for tying teachers' (and counselors') hands if a student asked him or her a question that touched on homosexualit*.

Teachers who violate the law could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor.

But the bill in its new limited scope seems a bit superfluous, since the state already prohibits teachers from instructing students on anything outside of Tennessee's family life sexu*l education curriculum, which emphasizes abstinence. (Parents can also opt not to have their children participate in sex ed instruction, and sex ed isn't required in schools.)

GOP Sen. Stacey Campfield, who has been pushing the bill for six years, says he wants to prevent teachers from inflicting their views on children, whether they are for or against g*y rights.



Sorry, I can't post the actual link to the article since it includes the word "g*y" which is not allowed on this forum - along with "sexu*l". You'll have to do some work to fill in the blanks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110520/us_yblog_thelookout/bill-prohi biting-g*y-mention-in-school-passes-tenn-senate-activist-protests-with-viral-vid eo



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16221
Registered: May-04
.


Geezo-beezo! Does anyone tell the truth nowdays?

http://www.politifact.com/




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16222
Registered: May-04
.

Then there's always Coulter to make even the liars look good; http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201106060029
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2378
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.dirtyspendingsecrets.com/?utm_source=DirtySpending&utm_medium=cpc&utm _content=AD1&utm_campaign=2011_Brand

How much of this would survive a session with fact check?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16230
Registered: May-04
.

Considering it seems to have been produced by The Heritage Foundation, why bother?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2382
Registered: Oct-07
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the
private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
You know what the private business sector is...areal-life business,
not a government job. Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt..........38%
Taft.......................40%
Wilson ..................52%
Harding................49%
Coolidge............... 48%
Hoover.................42%
F. Roosevelt.........50%
Truman................50%
Eisenhower...........57%
Kennedy..............30%
Johnson...............47%
Nixon....................53%
Ford.....................42%
Carter....................32%
Reagan.................56%
GH Bush............. 51%
Clinton ..............39%
GW Bush.............55%
Obama............... 8%
Here are some interesting percentages which if verified would be a 'tell' of why current businesses have little confidence in the Obama administration.
Both Dems and Rep are present on this list.

and:
JUST BECAUSE it is quoted by The Heritage Foundation does not mean it is not a fact.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16232
Registered: May-04
.

"JUST BECAUSE it is quoted by The Heritage Foundation does not mean it is not a fact."



My point in a nutshell. Ryan's projected budget and privatization of Medicare relies almost exclusively on assumptions made by The Heritage Foundation. Limbaugh hucksters for The HF. They are, according to Rushbo, a significant source for his "Facts". It takes about ten seconds to figure out The HF's political slant when you go to their webpage.

As with MoveOn.org on the left there are more than a few people who rely on these sites for their facts without making any attempt to see beyond the partisan rhetoric. As with MoveOn.org, there are actual facts presented - most often just not all the facts one person should need to make an informed decision.

One of my "favorites" nowdays is when I talk to a Repub and they tell me "both sides" are responsible for the shape the country is in. That's the new talking point for the right - don't blame the present for the most recent past, blame it on "both sides". And, more than anything else, don't let facts get in the way of the story.

While there's blame to go around I never will buy the idea both sides are presently equally culpable for the decisions made during the eight unfunded and underfunded years of Bush and, most importantly, the six when the R's were in charge of everything. Before W "both sides" had set a course that was dramatically different than what we saw after W flip flopped on why the top 1% should be rewarded with the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. Even in the years of Reagan there was never the regulation only if business wanted to watch over themself which occurred during W's tenure. Never in the history of the US had there been a group of K-Street lobbyists organized by DeLay and Rove which did more damage with the explicit approval and complicity of the R's. Watch that documentary on Abramhoff, leo. Never in US history did we have an administration that said give the financial sector a trillion dollars free and clear without any strings attached or they'll burn down the planet and it was all based on three pages of "reasons" Paulson came up with - until W tried it and pretty much got away with it.


"The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the
private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
You know what the private business sector is...areal-life business,
not a government job."



You know what that is, leo? Another right wing talking point just like "both sides" are responsible for the current mess. Gimme a break, leo! I get enough of this sort of crap just listening to daytime radio while I'm in the car. When the economy is bad and a R is in the White House, the President doesn't set the agenda for business. When the economy is good and a R is in the WH, the President should get full credit for the business economy. When we are going to invade a nation with "Shock and Awe" carpet bombing that hasn't harmed us, it's all about the weapons of mass destruction. When we can't find any WMD's and we're stuck there after eight years and 4000+ dead US soliders and another trillion dollars spent without paying for it, it's all about bringing democracy to the people. When a D is in the WH and anything happens, the R's will find some reason to claim the Dem's just don't understand business or the military and war or something that will score them points with their base when the base just doesn't care to look at the man behind the curtain.

Go back to the very first post in this thread, leo. It's all about job creation and historically the D's beat the R's 3:1. It's all about national debt at this point as driven by the R's and the R's ignore the basic fact each R adminsitration in the last forty years has the debt and deficits rising during their time in office while the D's have it decreasing. It's all about playing the political talking points game and it's all the same as the R's screaming for Weiner to resign after the R's giving a standing ovation to Vitter for not stepping down after he got caught with the h00kers, or a R "hiking the Appalachian Trail", or having a "wide stance".

"Hypocrisy", your name is Repub politician.



News flash, folks, I ain't no gerbil and I have an attention span longer than two seconds.

How about this, we tried "The CEO President" and look what it got us? W created more than his fair share of jobs; unfortunately, they were almost all in the business of bailing him out of out hot water and bankruptcy since the day he left nursery school. Oh, and he did a great job at keeping the death penalty suppliers in business during his six years a Gov. of Texas.

Enough with the right wingnut talking points, leo. Show me the statistics which prove the number of job creators in Reagan's administration suggested running up the highest debt and deficits in US history was a good idea. Or for the two Bushes to top Reagan's record. Then we can talk. As is - all you've got is more pure right wing BS.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16242
Registered: May-04
.

"The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the
private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
You know what the private business sector is...areal-life business,
not a government job ... "




As this right wing talking point begins to get lodged in the small, little, seldom used mental crevices of the "I don't want no facts" crowd, it might be worth taking a look at a few "real world" facts regarding "The CEO President's" performance when it comes to creating those jobs in "the real life business" sector ...


Using numbers supplied by the Bureau of Economic Research and the Bureau of Labor and Statistics it is fair to say Bush's total average monthly job growth record is the second worst since WWII. Even disregarding the 3/4 million jobs per month which were being lost during the last year W was in office, his net average job growth was a measly 68k per month between 03/01 and 12/07. It is generally agreed the US economy must add approximately 150k jobs per month just to stay even with market growth. By that particular metric Bush's policies and those of his advisors with "real world" business experience meant the jobs market left behind an average of 90k potential job seekers per month - 50% more were left behind than the "real world" knowledge managed to pick up. Those people who never found employment were never shown as "unemployed" since they had never entered the job market in the first place. Since Reagan, you must have had a job before you can be considered "unemployed". Therefore, the additional 90k job seekers per month needed to fulfill the basic requirements of growth in the market simply fell through the cracks and were never even considered "unemployed" until Obama took office. Want to know why the unemployment rate stayed so low during W's term? Pretty easy to figure once you have actual facts to work with.


From Politifact by way of Slate; In 2001, the Bush administration inherited a few years' worth of budget surpluses, so it decided to cut income tax rates, double the child-care credit, and sharply reduce the levies on investment income. The economy then slowed, even entering a brief recession. As a form of stimulus, the administration doubled down, expanding and hastening the 2001 changes. Bush promised that the tax cuts would do a whole lot more than put money in people's pockets—which, in fact, they did. He said they would "starve the beast," forcing Congress to reduce the size and scope of government. He promised they would increase the prosperity of all Americans. He also vowed: "Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities."

OK, a pitter-patter of applause for what the tax cuts did do effectively: Cut taxes and reduce overall payments to Uncle Sam. Low-income families benefited from the child-care credit jumping from $500 to $1,000. High-income families benefited from the top marginal rate falling. Billionaires benefited from lightly taxed dividend income. And government receipts, in turn, dropped.

But the benefits mostly accrued to the rich, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The think tank reports that between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts. The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.

What about the president's claims? Take his pledge that the cuts would spur job growth. To be fair, we'll ignore employment changes during 2008, the year the Great Recession seized the economy. During the 2001 to 2007 business cycle, America's economy enjoyed 52 straight months of job growth. But it was sluggish—in fact, the slowest rate of jobs growth on record since World War II, and just one-fifth the pace of the 1990s.

Then there's wealth. Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation: The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit. Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007. Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967. As documented by my colleague Timothy Noah in his series "The United States of Inequality," this did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires. Garden-variety high-wage earners saw their income go up. And incomes for the top 1 percent skyrocketed. For some people, obviously, the cuts "generated new wealth," in the president's phrase. But overall, inequality got worse.

That leads to the third metric: Did the cuts "open new opportunities"? It's a vague phrase, but one way to measure it is to look at job growth—and there's nothing to see there. Another way would be to say that the cuts benefited "job creators" (to use the current en vogue phrase), like the nation's start-up businesses. But the number of private-sector jobs created by young companies fell during the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, the tax cuts never translated into robust economic growth, either. Indeed, the aughts saw the worst growth since World War II. From 2001 to 2007, annual GDP growth averaged just 2.4 percent per year, lower than in any other postwar business cycle. The contrast is starker still when judging against the previous decade. In real terms, GDP grew half as much from 2001 to 2010 as from 1991 to 2000.




Looks like "The CEO President" and his group of "real world business" advisors didn't do so well when it comes to the most important metric any one individual sees as most important in their life - jobs. As far as "real world jobs" go - not "government jobs" ...


"You know what the private business sector is...areal-life business,
not a government job"



From Politifact/Slate and the above named bureaus;


OK, a final attempt at celebration. Did the tax cuts stimulate the flagging economy in the early aughts? Sort of. Tax cuts give a mild boost to the economy, but not a big one. "After the tax rebates in 2001, 2003, and 2008, households [spent] between 25 and 67 cents more for each dollar of tax cut," William Gale of the Tax Policy Center writes. That makes tax cuts "a relatively weak way to help the economy compared to increases in government purchases, for which each dollar of increased deficit turns into an additional dollar of spending."

So, to recap: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wage growth, and little job growth. Even before the Great Recession, growth in the Bush business cycle was the weakest since World War II. And the cuts cost about $2.6 trillion between 2001 and 2010, according to the Economic Policy Institute—adding to a debt future generations of taxpayers will pay for, plus interest.

By Bush's own metrics, then, the tax cuts were a failure. But perhaps that is because Bush chose such absurd metrics and made such silly promises about tax cuts' economic omnipotence in the first place. To state the obvious, tax cuts are not magic. They can help a strong economy get stronger or help a weak economy pick up some steam. They also have a direct impact on the government budget. But they cannot goose employers into adding millions of jobs, pay for themselves, and arrest the growth of government, all while delivering everyone cupcakes. So perhaps the best we can say about the Bush tax cuts is that they did exactly what we should have expected them to do.






From Politifact's Truth O'Meter;

Austan Goolsbee says current recovery beats job creation record of George W. Bush recovery

I would just emphasize, the president's plan is putting us on the right track," Goolsbee told Amanpour. "Over the last 15 months, we've added more than 2 million jobs in the private sector. That's far in excess of what it was in the comparable period after the last recession."

We thought it was worth checking whether the current recovery is strong by historical standards. So we turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government’s official source for employment numbers.

Between February 2010 and May 2011 -- the 15-month period Goolsbee was referring to -- the U.S. economy created 2.1 million private-sector jobs. By contrast, following the previous recession, the economy actually lost 60,000 private-sector jobs during the equivalent period, which ran from August 2002 to November 2003.



As we noted, using Goolsbee’s 15-month calculation, the economy produced a net of 2.1 million private-sector jobs. But if you count the full 23 months since the recovery officially began, this number shrinks to 980,000. (Using private-sector jobs in the first place also produces a more favorable number to the administration; over the full 23-month period, only 550,000 total jobs were created, due to major job losses in the government sector.)

Our second concern has to do with using the George W. Bush recovery as a point of comparison.

There’s little question that the Obama recovery is stronger than the George W. Bush recovery -- in large part because the Bush recovery was so anemic. Not only did the Bush recovery produce job losses during the 15-month period Goolsbee cited, but it also produced job losses over the full 23-month period. Over the first 23 months of the Bush recovery, the economy actually lost 757,000 private-sector jobs and 577,000 total jobs.

But comparing the Obama recovery to other recoveries in recent decades results in a more mixed picture. We looked at the aftermaths of recessions that ran from July 1990 to March 1991, President George H.W. Bush; from July 1981 to November 1982, under President Ronald Reagan; and from January 1980 to July 1980, under President Jimmy Carter.

The recoveries following the George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan recessions were more notably robust in both private-sector and total jobs created than the current recovery has been. The recovery after the Reagan recession was especially strong, with 6.5 million private-sector jobs created.

For additional context, it’s also worth looking at what percentage of the recession-related job losses were gained back during the first 23 months of the recovery.

By this measure, the Obama recovery has gained back 12.7 percent of the private-sector jobs lost during the recent recession (and 7.3 percent of all jobs lost in the recession). This is far better than the George W. Bush recovery -- which, as we noted actually produced job losses -- but when it comes to private-sector jobs, the current recovery has been weaker than the three earlier recoveries.

You get a similar assessment if you compare job creation statistics during the recovery to the size of the labor force. The total job gain over the first 23 months of the current recovery amounts to about one-third of 1 percent of the size of the labor force at the start of the recovery. Once again, the George W. Bush recovery produced job losses, and the recovery from the Carter recession was also low, at two-hundredths of 1 percent.

But the recoveries from the Reagan recession (6.1 percent of the labor force) and the George H.W. Bush recession (1.1 percent) were significantly stronger than the current recovery.

Where does this leave us? Goolsbee’s facts are correct -- job creation during the past 15 months far exceeds the job creation seen in the previous recovery.
; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/austan-goolsbee/a ustan-goolsbee-says-current-recovery-beats-job-cr/


So much for a very lousy and extremely misleading right wing talking point. But, hey, even half facts and no facts shouldn't get in the way of a good story and the righties love to hate Obama anyway they can. So, ignoring all facts to the contrary, it's unlikely we'll see this bit of partisan, fictional BS go away any time soon.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16243
Registered: May-04
.

For a good laugh, check out Colbert's report on another Repub with "real world" business acumen and a repeat of the talking points about "real world" experience and Obama ...

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/thu-june-9-2011-tom-ridge






Stick around for the interview with Tom Ridge for a nauseating look at a bought politician.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2405
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

list of lobbyists and amounts with political 'leaning'.....
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2407
Registered: Oct-07
People forget how much crazy stuff Congressmen have been involved with over the years;
A brief history lesson.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/31029.html

has everyone forgotton my personal favorite? ABSCAM?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16253
Registered: May-04
.

Once again, you've lost me, leo. We all know about Congressional scandals. They are a "both parties" affair. I don't know what that has to do with jobs.

Open Secrets? We've been down this road before too. Koch Brothers and Walmart are still giving to Repubs and the Unions are still fairly reliable for the Dems. So what's the point?



I suppose, since you brought up how many people have experience creating jobs in the "real world" with your last ... uh ... "whatever", that we could talk more about one of those people who was in the BushII administration; Paul O'Neill. He was the Chairman and CEO of ALCOA before being chosen on Cheney's advice to be the money man for W. This is someone who understood how to create jobs. When he made it known he did not agree with the fiscal or military policies of W's team, instead of listening to someone who understood how to create jobs, they got a different Treasury Secretary.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ZAKARIA: And we are back with two secretaries of the Treasury, one Republican, one Democrat -- Paul O'Neill and Robert Rubin.

So we were talking about what we would do going forward to get this economy moving. One thing that has to be decided right now, or very soon, is what to do about the Bush tax cuts.

Now, Paul, this happened under your watch, but this is a famous moment in your relationship with your client, the president. You were not really in favor of those tax cuts.

O'NEILL: No. In fact, I was strongly opposed to the Bush tax cut that was enacted in 2003, and it's one of the reasons I got fired. You know, between that and saying there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, those were pretty significant causes to get fired, which I was happy to get fired for, because I was pretty convinced that the third tax cut didn't make sense for a number of reasons.

First of all, I believe we needed the money to smooth the way for fundamental tax reform, for fixing Social Security and Medicare, with the prospect of another 9/11 -- this was a year after 9/11 -- and with the then active prospect of going to Iraq. I didn't think we could afford another tax cut. And so, you know, I got dismissed, which was, as I said, OK with me.
; http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1008/08/fzgps.01.html



He presently feels the Repubs are a threat to the US on a par with terrorists; Bush Treasury Secretary: Republicans Are Like "Al-Qaeda Terrorists"; http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-oneill-republicans-are-putting-our-entire-so ciety-at-risk-2011-4


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-oneill-republicans-are-putting-our-entire-so ciety-at-risk-2011-4#ixzz1PCLghHIG


His 2004 book is an interesting read; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Loyalty



So, tell me, leo, how important is it to have people with business experience if you totally blow off their advice?


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2410
Registered: Oct-07
The principle is to have an expert/knowledgabel person in the subject matter giving advice.
Not heeding it is your problem. Than the downstream effects set in. So, to answer your question, it is of ZERO importance to have experts in subject matter giving advice if you are going to do what you want to do (or are told to do) anyway.

I doubt reversing the Bush tax cuts would cure what's going on now. We're in a 3rd conflict, now in N.Africa. This one to promote regime change, which we've known the character of for 20 years or more, I can think of no reason. Helping Europe secure oil? I'm at a loss.

Back to Bush. I've not been a fan and as I watch news items I remain convinced GWII was led around by his troika of subordinates. Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld really held the wheel of the ship of state. I'm not even worried about GWII being unable, in a public speech, to put 10 sentences together without some flub. I'm not prepared to say Bush was evil, either, but maybe just a guy in way over his head and trusting the wrong people. The other possible interpretations make me ill. Wasn't Cheney head of Haliburton? So much for business experience.

O'neill said: (good interview, BTW)
You know, and ideally, if you think about how you get capital formation, you get fairness in the distribution of paying for public goods, if we had something simple instead of the current income tax and corporate income tax, something simple like a VAT or a consumption-based tax, I think that would give reassurance to the markets that we're coming back and we're creating the basis for capital formation and savings, as opposed to consuming everything in sight.

VAT instead of an income tax? Can Washington wean itself from the punshments and rewards it can dish out via the tax code with all the little loophole provisions....which add up to quite a tidy sum, I'm sure?
Who was it? Paul Ryan? Who said we should get rid of tax entitlements? I thought he meant that we don't necessarily need higher taxes, but some more equity in distribution of taxes.
Inflation will be here soon. The US bond rating is slipping and buyers, mainly foreign, will be looking for interest comensurate with the perceived risk. China may not be in a position to fund further US debt.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2411
Registered: Oct-07
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10297/06-25-LTBO.pdf

Please look at chapter #5
Ref'd is a CBO document on long term budget outlook. Projections are made with and without the 2 Bush tax cut of 2001 / 2003. The laws in question are EGTRRA and JGTRRA.
I think the AMT is up for revision, too....Alternative Minimum Tax.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16259
Registered: May-04
.

"The principle is to have an expert/knowledgabel person in the subject matter giving advice."


And, some how, the idea is that only someone from the private sector can create jobs and give advice? Is that it? OK, let's set aside the fact that BushII didn't do a very good job of putting the middle class on a course to prosperity and concentrate on how jobs are created. The talking point is Obama has people around him who are predominantly not from the "real world" of business.


I'm confused.


First, even if Obama nominates a highly qualified individual - someone like, say, Nobel prize winner Peter Diamond - the Repubs block the nomination and call a Nobel Prize winner "unqualified" - and worse.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=diamond%20withdraws%20no mination&type=

If Obama nominates someone like Elizabeth Warren, the R's are afraid of what she might actually do and they block her nomination; http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7nQQjvdNYjEA3n5XNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyMTQyMz U3MDg5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARjc3JjcHZpZAMyZGdsVlVvRzd2NUQ4bWR1VExReld3T3hSRjYwTEUzM2poQU FBU2tRBGZyA3NsdjgtaHB0YjUEZnIyA3NidG4Ebl9ncHMDMARvcmlnaW4Dc3JwBHF1ZXJ5A09iYW1hIG 5vbWluYXRpb24gdG8gY29uc3VtZXIEc2FvAzEEdnRlc3RpZANNU1kwMDY-?p=Obama+nomination+to +consumer&fr2=sb-top&fr=slv8-hptb5&type_param=


The R's aren't going to give an inch to Obama for the rest of his first term. Anyone he sees as fit to serve will be shot down if for no other reason than the R's are looking forward eighteen months and they see keeping the economy stagnant or worse is one of their best weapons against Obama. So, where is Obama suppose to get these people with "real world" experience if the R's won't allow their nominations to pass?


Second, where did most of "those people" who served in previous administrations receive their training in business which supposedly gives them this magical ability to create "real world" jobs? Didn't most of "those people" have formal training from an educator? So, what's the difference between getting the people who taught "those people" how to create jobs and getting "those people"?


This is all just more Repub BS. Gimme a break!



"I doubt reversing the Bush tax cuts would cure what's going on now."


It would save another trillion dollars in debt over the next decade compared to what the R's want to do. And that's just if the tax rates actually stay the same and aren't reduced further as in the Ryan plan, the Pawlenty plan, the Romney plan, etc., etc., etc. Or, don't the news sources you read/watch tell you these things?


"Back to Bush. I've not been a fan"


Yeah, that's what all the Repubs say - now! Where the he11 were you in 2004? Geeez!



"O'neill said:"

Yeah?

Keep in mind where O'Neill works now, the RAND Corp. Partially funded by the US government - that makes him a government employee and that means he doesn't have a "real world" job.

The RAND Corp. is quite an outfit. You don't like the idea of being in another war? RAND Corp. might not be your cup o'tea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation#Criticism

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

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=source%20watch%20rand%20corp&type=




"VAT instead of an income tax? Can Washington wean itself from the punshments and rewards it can dish out via the tax code with all the little loophole provisions....which add up to quite a tidy sum, I'm sure?"


The "flat tax" was about the only thing I ever agreed with Steve Forbes on when he ran for President years ago. No, we'll never get to that point in this country. The various committees which have studied the possible economic solutions available to the US have suggested major reform in the tax codes. In the end, the people who would have to put any changes in effect have to be re-elected because nothing will get done between any two elections. You should be able to figure out what that means to the chances of any revisions in the tax code that don't just take more from the middle and lower classes.


"Who was it? Paul Ryan? Who said we should get rid of tax entitlements?"


PR said we should get rid of lots of "entitlements". PR became a very unpopular guy in a few short weeks. It's all political gamesmanship now but even the Senate wouldn't get behind the Ryan budget; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=senate%20votes%20on%20Ry an%20budget&type=

I suspect about now Paul Ryan is sooooooooo happy that Anthony Weiner is in the House of Representatives.


"Please look at chapter #5
Ref'd is a CBO document on long term budget outlook."




Uh, ... the 2009 budget projections haven't been valid for the last twenty some months, leo.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2412
Registered: Oct-07
Agree.....and DISagree.

First, about budget projections. Isn't that part of the point? I'd love to know how well CBO does at projections. Look at what they have done since the founding in '74. When you agree with the numbers, it's all about YEAH! When you don't like the numbers, you try to bury them. In an open system, most projections are good for about a month. Than, something changes and you'll have to start over. I would LOVE to know the CBO 'accuracy rating'.
Jan Quote: Uh, ... the 2009 budget projections haven't been valid for the last twenty some months, leo.
100%
I saw Weiners name, too. Well, he's out of the picture for now, so wait until he's been 'rehab'd' for another round hof abuse in the press and halls of Washington. He may have broken new ground in public offical weirdness, but fire him? I'd leave it up to the voters. But if you can turn him into a distraction by tossing him under a bus? Why not?

I believe it was Alan Simpson, NOT Paul Ryan who made the remark I spoke to. That of tax entitlements. my bad:
Colorful Simpson Quotes:
http://www.mediaite.com/print/alan-simpson-will-not-take-your-guff/

I'd hope we can agree that a simpler tax code with fewer 'line item' exemptions and specials would be a good thing. With the tax code being essentially up for sale every few years, what chance do regular people have? Flat Tax? why not? Too bad it doesn't have enough 'wiggle room' to make the payoffs necessary to get it passed.
You and everyone else knows you can only squeeze an Orange so much before you run out of juice. Are we (basically middle class) to be taxed into oblivion? If I were paranoid, I'd be taking this personally.....

Now, how does the government create anything but government jobs? They (government) don't run bakeries. or make any products. The job of government, IMO is to enable a climate of growth. That will let private concerns make jobs. But I know it's not that simple. SBA loans are part of a government program. They are getting tough to find and fund.
http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/loans-grants/small-business-loa ns/sba-loan-programs
If you've never taken an SBA class, they are very good and to the point. One day style, some may be offered in 2 and 3 parts so you get stepped thru the subject matter in small bites. Reasonably priced, too.

That is why I am in principle not in favor of 'big government'. Every bit of resourse consumed by politians, leaves less for everyone else. Rules? Regs? New requirements? Haven't these been floated as reasons why so much money is sitting out?

I've got a lot of work to do.......I fixed the lawnmower yesterday and it's calling my name.....and a half dozen other projects, too. At what point do Christmas Lights cross over from 'not being taken down' to 'they are just up early'?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16301
Registered: May-04
.

Bill Clinton; It's Still the Economy, Stupid!

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/06/19/it-s-still-the-economy-stupid.print.html
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2428
Registered: Oct-07
Go Bill, Go!

Point #4 is very interesting to me.
'Copy the Empire State Building'.
Indeed. How many people realize it took <600 days to build? We can't even get a DECISION that fast today.....let alone a complete building. It was a wonder to build it that quickly and an early example of 'just in time'.

Now, I hate to use Red China as an example, but they seem pretty good at cutting thru the 'Red Tape', if you'll pardon the expression. The problem is obviously unforseen downstream consequences. A good example of that is the Three Gorges Dam project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16315
Registered: May-04
.

No personal contact with (Red?) China but, yeah, I'd say from all I've heard, that's not the place I would be holding up as an example of "free markets". Human rights abuses are legendary; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=china%20human%20rights%20abuse&type=



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2430
Registered: Oct-07
No, I guess Red China is still a command economy with fascist overtones. A good example of a bad example. ('Peoples Republic'? My A**)
But, they sure don't waste any time when they want to build something. Consequences? What are consequences?

Today, if someone wanted to build The Empire State Building, it'd take a decade +. Just getting the permits / plans and approvals would take 5 years. Building? Who knows how long?

It has been said that we couldn't duplicate the Great Pyramid today for almost any cost.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16322
Registered: May-04
.

We haven't been able to rebuild on Ground Zero for ten years now. I don't see that so much as a failure of procedure as a failure of those involved being willing to take a chance on loosing a single dime. The Pentagon was repaired in less than a year's time. Government efficiency? You need to stop believing the government is all bad, leo. The public sector could not and would not have built Hoover Dam. If they had, you would be at the mercy of the owners as to how much water you could have and how much it would cost. Deregulation? Remember Enron? Private commerce - the free markets - shutting off power to "grandma" and laughing about it. There are simply somethings and some jobs the government is best suited to deal with. Quite often those deal with "the commons" we all enjoy but corporations use to their advantage. I don't want the Post Office privatized and I end up paying $5 to mail a letter down the block. I don't want the Parks and the rivers to be privatized. I think the Secret Service, FBI and the CIA should all stay where they are and keep Immigration there too. All for profit hospitals? Don't think so. I want private businesses who will pitch in and build the planes and the boats required to go to war if that ever happens. If we had allowed the auto industry to fail, who would have done that for the US? The Japanese or the Koreans?

I think it's a really lousy idea to sell Utah to raise revenue; http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0511/Sell_Utah.html



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16323
Registered: May-04
.

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Less than 10 percent of Obama's Cabinet appointees "have any experience in the private sector."

Beck says less than 10 percent of Obama Cabinet has worked in private sector

Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck has seized on a claim circulating on the Internet to argue that the Obama administration has little understanding of American business and is too focused on expanding government.

"History has proven over and over again â€" and so has the post office, for that matter â€" that government is not the answer," Beck said on his Nov. 30, 2009, show. "You need to unleash the people. The entrepreneurs. And if you are wondering how it is that the government can't see that â€" how they can be pondering even bigger stimulus packages as they stare the failure of the first one right in the face â€" I'll show you. Here are the past presidents and the number of appointees in their Cabinets with private sector experience â€" folks that have done more than write on the chalkboard; they've been out there, in the real world. Let's compare President Nixon â€" he's over 50 percent â€" with President Obama: Under 10 percent of his appointees have any experience in the private sector."

We did a little digging and found that the claim is based on a study by Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer for J.P. Morgan Private Bank. In a Nov. 24, 2009, column titled "Obama's Business Blind Spot" and published on Forbes.com, Cembalest wrote, "In a quest to see what frame of reference the administration might have on this issue, I looked back at the history of the presidential Cabinet. Starting with the creation of the secretary of commerce back in 1900, I compiled the prior private-sector experience of all 432 Cabinet members, focusing on those positions one would expect to participate in this discussion: secretaries of State; Commerce; Treasury; Agriculture; Interior; Labor; Transportation; Energy; and Housing & Urban Development."

He continued, "Many of these individuals started a company or ran one, with first-hand experience in hiring and firing, domestic and international competition, red tape, recessions, wars and technological change. Their industries included agribusiness, chemicals, finance, construction, communications, energy, insurance, mining, publishing, pharmaceuticals, railroads and steel; a cross-section of the American experience. (I even gave [one-third] credit to attorneys focused on private-sector issues, although one could argue this is a completely different kettle of fish.) One thing is clear: The current administration, compared with past Democratic and Republican ones, marks a departure from the traditional reliance on a balance of public- and private-sector experiences."

In an accompanying chart, Cembalest reported that in the Obama administration, fewer than 10 percent of the Cabinet appointees counted under those rules had private sector experience. According to the chart, all other administrations going back to Theodore Roosevelt's had rates in at least the high 20s, with the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations approaching 60 percent. (He wrote in a footnote that the data came from a number of sources, including capsule biographies of Cabinet members posted on the Web site of the University of Virginia's Miller Center for Public Affairs.)

The chart â€" typically reprinted by itself, without Cembalest's accompanying narrative â€" circulated in the conservative blogosphere for a couple of days before eventually being picked up by Beck.

We wondered if the claim was right, so we did some math of our own.

In Obama's Cabinet, at least three of the nine posts that Cembalest and Beck cite â€" a full one-third â€" are occupied by appointees who, by our reading of their bios, had significant corporate or business experience. Shaun Donovan, Obama's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, served as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., where he oversaw its investments in affordable housing loans.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu headed the electronics research lab at one of America's storied corporate research-and-development facilities, AT&T Bell Laboratories, where his work won a Nobel Prize for physics. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in addition to serving as Colorado attorney general and a U.S. senator, has been a partner in his family's farm for decades and, with his wife, owned and operated a Dairy Queen and radio stations in his home state of Colorado.

Three other Obama appointees had legal experience in the private sector.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke spent part of their careers working as lawyers in private practice. Clinton and Vilsack worked as private-sector lawyers at the beginning of their careers, while Locke joined an international law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, after serving as governor of Washington state. At the firm, Locke "co-chaired the firm's China practice" and "helped U.S. companies break into international markets," according to his official biography. That sounds like real private sector experience to us.

Finally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm that advises international corporations on political and economic conditions overseas.

The occupants of the two remaining Cabinet posts cited in the chart do not appear to have had significant private-sector experience: Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Obama's Cabinet has even more private-sector experience if you go beyond the nine. Two of the Obama appointees could be considered entrepreneurs â€" the very people Beck would "unleash." Vice President Joe Biden, officially a Cabinet member, founded his own law firm, Biden and Walsh, early in his career, and it still exists in a later incarnation, Monzack Mersky McLaughlin and Browder, P.A. (The future vice president also supplemented his income by managing properties, including a neighborhood swimming pool.) And Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag founded an economic consulting firm called Sebago Associates that was later bought out by a larger firm.

It's also worth noting that if you examine a larger group of senior Obama administration appointees, you'll find that more than one in four have experience as business executives, according to a June study by National Journal . That compared with the 38 percent the magazine found eight years earlier at the start of George W. Bush's administration. That's at least three times higher than the level claimed by Beck.

We tracked down Cembalest to ask about his methodology. He said any effort to address the topic is heavily subjective, and he expressed regret that his work had been used for political ends, saying that it was not his intention to provide fodder for bloggers and talk show hosts.

Cembalest said that he did discount the corporate experience of the three lawyers we identified â€" Clinton, Vilsack and Locke â€" and added that he awarded nothing for Donovan, Chu or Salazar, even though we found they had a fair amount private sector experience. Cembalest acknowledged fault in missing Salazar's business background, saying he would have given him a full point if he had it to do over again. But he added that the kind of private-sector experiences Chu and Donovan had (managing scientific research and handling community development lending, respectively) did not represent the kind of private-sector business experience he was looking for when doing his study.

"What I was really trying to get at was some kind of completely, 100 percent subjective assessment of whether or not a person had had enough control of payroll, dealing with shareholders, hiring, firing and risk-taking that they'd be in a position to have had a meaningful seat at the table when the issue being discussed is job creation," Cembalest said.

Cembalest said he has "written 250,000 words in research over the last decade, and every single thing I've ever done â€" except this one chart â€" was empirically based on data from the Federal Reserve" or another official source. "This is the one time I stepped out into making judgment calls, and I assure you I won't do it again. ... The frightening thing about the Internet is that people copy one chart from what you write and then it goes viral. So I've learned a lesson here that these kinds of issues are best left addressed by the people who practice them day in and day out."

Which brings us back to how Beck used Cembalest's data. We'll acknowledge that rating someone's degree of private-sector experience is an inexact science, and it's true that Beck accurately relayed the information contained in Cembalest's chart. But at PolitiFact we hold people accountable for their own words. So we rate Beck's claim False.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-s ays-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16324
Registered: May-04
.


Fox News False Statements

Jon Stewart's PolitiFact segment: The annotated edition
By Louis Jacobson
Published on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 at 6:00 a.m.

As many of our readers already know, a certain late-night comic aired a five-minute-plus segment last night featuring our work. We thought our readers might appreciate a one-stop-shopping source for all the Fox News-related fact checks that Jon Stewart cited on his June 21, 2011, show. So we created one.

Below are the 21 claims Stewart referenced in his comedy bit -- two "Lie of the Year" awardees, five Pants on Fires and 14 False ratings.

Here is the full list, with links to our original item, in the order in which Stewart named them.

Glenn Beck: Less than 10 percent of Obama's Cabinet appointees "have any experience in the private sector." â€" False (December 2, 2009)

Steve Doocy: White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the "right-hand man" for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN. â€" False (September 30, 2009)

Gretchen Carlson: Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks. â€" Pants on Fire! (March 12, 2010)

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care' (December 16, 2010)

Glenn Beck: The Muslim Brotherhood has "openly stated they want to declare war on Israel." â€" False (February 15, 2011)

Karl Rove: "American troops have never been under the formal control of another nation." â€" False (March 29, 2011)

Brian Kilmeade: Says Gov. Rick Scott's approval ratings are up. â€" False (April 15, 2011)

Laura Ingraham: The Massachusetts health care plan is "wildly unpopular" among state residents. â€" False (May 16, 2011)

Sarah Palin: "Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years. It's more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined." â€" False (June 1, 2011)

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels' (December 18, 2009)

Kimberly Guilfoyle: If you log into the government's Cash for Clunkers Web site (cars.gov) from your home computer, the government can "seize all of your personal and private" information, and track your computer activity. â€" False (August 3, 2009)

Sarah Palin: "We're going to be looking at $8 billion a day that we're going to be pouring into foreign countries in order to import that make-up fuel that we're going to need to take the place of what we could have gotten out of the gulf." â€" Pants on Fire! (June 3, 2011)

Sarah Palin: "Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history." â€" Pants on Fire! (August 4, 2010)

Bill O'Reilly: "Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges" against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation â€" False (July 23, 2010)

Sarah Palin: "Barack Obama had 150 days in the U.S. Senate where he was able to vote quite often 'present.' " â€" False (February 8, 2010)

Glenn Beck: John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." â€" Pants on Fire! (July 29, 2009)

Glenn Beck: Labor union president Andy Stern is "the most frequent visitor" at the White House. â€" False (December 7, 2009)

Glenn Beck: "Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We're the only country in the world that has it." â€" False (June 19, 2009)

Bill O'Reilly: Says he didn't call Dr. George Tiller a baby killer, as liberal groups charge, but was merely reporting what "some prolifers branded him." â€" False (June 5, 2009)

Bill O'Reilly: When White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Mao Tse-tung was "one of her favorite philosophers, only Fox News picked that up." â€" False (October 27, 2009)

Bill O'Reilly: "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ever said it." â€" Pants on Fire! (April 27, 2010)


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/jon-stewarts-politif act-segment-annotated-edition/




And here's the segment as it appeared on The Daily show; http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16362
Registered: May-04
.

This is crap! Pure judicial activism from the bench!

The D.A. Stole His Life, Justices Took His Money
By LINCOLN CAPLAN
In an important prosecutorial-misconduct case this term, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority threw out a $14 million jury award for a New Orleans man who was imprisoned for 18 years, including 14 on death row, for a robbery and a murder he did not commit. One month before John Thompson’s scheduled execution, a private investigator discovered that prosecutors had hidden evidence that exonerated him.

After his release, Mr. Thompson won a civil lawsuit against the Orleans Parish district attorney’s office, which had been led by Harry F. Connick, for its gross indifference to the incompetence of the prosecutors who violated his constitutional rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 5-to-4 majority in Connick v. Thompson, said the D.A.’s office was not liable for failing to train its lawyers about their duty under the Constitution to turn over evidence favorable to the accused.

The lawyers had kept secret more than a dozen pieces of favorable evidence over 15 years, destroying some. That failure to provide training, the court said, did not amount to a pattern of “deliberate indifference†to constitutional rights.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a powerful dissent, which she read from the bench.

The Thompson ruling tore down an essential bulwark for ensuring that prosecutors are properly trained, and severely diminished the right of citizens everywhere to hold them accountable. The Supreme Court’s decision to shield the district attorney’s office from having to pay a monetary award for stealing 18 years of Mr. Thompson’s life is shameful.

Innocence Project New Orleans found that in 9 of 36 death penalty convictions while Mr. Connick was chief prosecutor, his office suppressed exculpatory evidence. It had one of the worst records in America on that score.

The New Orleans district attorney’s office is by no means alone in its failure to ensure justice in capital cases. Failure to turn over evidence is a chronic problem. Its consequences are magnified by the government’s advantage over the inexperienced and inept defense lawyers who are often assigned to indigent defendants. Many of these violations are exposed. Many other instances may never be uncovered.

The capital punishment system in this country has put many innocent people on death row. It cannot be fixed and should be repealed everywhere. With this ruling, the court made it even more likely that innocent people will be railroaded by untrained prosecutors â€" with the terrible prospect of their being put to death for crimes they did not commit.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/opinion/sunday/03sun5.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadl ines&emc=tha211&pagewanted=print


Unfortunately, the on line version of this article does not include the dissent written and read by Justice Ginsburg. It makes exceptionally clear the Constitutional rights of the jailed man have been taken away from him for no reason other than political expediency.



.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 551
Registered: Mar-04
Jan Vigne, Rachel Maddow, Sonya Sotamayor, and Arianna Huffington: the new golden girls....

I told you what would happen on November 2nd.... Wait until November 6, 2012.. After that we will get some more conservative (not activist) judges on the supreme court.

I will come back to this thread on November 7th 2012 Jan.... see you then.
Until then keep tilting at those windmills.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16367
Registered: May-04
.

id, you sound amazingly similar to the vast majority of rightwing nuts who never miss an opportunity to rant. There would appear to be a right leaning, abnormal compulsion to leap at the chance to write to web pages and to magazines and newspapers to say silly things that are nothing more than imaginations of your warped perspective on the world at large. Like those others, your posts are loaded with "I told you so's" "wait till your father comes home's". I won't ask where you guys come up with this crap, I know where you are fed this BS. And I realize you don't bother to seek out any alternative viewpoints which might actually introduce some facts into your worldview. But I still don't know why you and those like you - when you have nothing constructive to say - all feel so d@mned compelled to spew it over everyone else's table.

Letters: The 6.19.11 Issue
Published: July 1, 2011

From the E-Mail In-box of Bill Keller:
Palin and the Press


I appreciated your Sunday column titled “The Tom and Jerry Problem.†While I am confident of Sarah Palin’s disdain for the so-called mainstream media, I think you may be overanalyzing her comment that “it is our vets who we owe our freedom â€" not the politician, not the reporter â€" it is our vets, so that’s why we’re here.†In this case, I believe she is simply paraphrasing a famous poem. I know the poem well; I was made to memorize it while a cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy several years ago. In it, the poet proclaims, “It is the Soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.â€
NATE VAN LOON, Tampa, Fla.


As is clear with most people who’ve never been around the military, you missed something of great significance. Sarah Palin rolled that phrase out so easily because it’s repeated 10,000 times a day in conservative circles. It’s part of our culture that you don’t know much about. When I say “our culture,†I mean conservative culture. It is so completely foreign to folks like yourself we often wonder if we’re even in the same country. I would recommend any journalist, before looking at diversity outside our borders and in our cities, look at the diversity in their own people who don’t think like them. Take a year off and live in the South near a military base. Become immersed in conservative culture, and you just might find your ivory tower is a rather lonely place to live.
KRIS BRADDOCK, Belleville, Ill.


Are all you liberal pseudo-elite journalists really this stupid? Or have you all just deluded yourselves into thinking the American people are the stupid ones?
MARTIN FEE, Vero Beach, Fla.


You write that only 21 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Sarah Palin. If you had the press constantly attacking you and putting you under the magnifying glass and all that was reported was negative press, perhaps no one would find favor with you, either. Had your fellow media colleagues given Barack Obama the same treatment as you have given Mrs. Palin, no one would care for him either.
DAVID FLORES, Tucson



I really enjoyed that one. As if Fox doesn't spend their time "constantly attacking ... and putting (Obama) under the magnifying glass" and making certain "all that was reported was negative press".




I am just a semiretired accountant in central California. You are an elitist twit, pouring out bile because you cannot stand Sarah Palin. You quite obviously feel imperiled by her ability to connect with people in fly-over country. We in fly-over country get it. Why don’t you?
R. D. VOGL, Fresno, Calif.


I love the way Palin is always painted as nonsignificant yet you guys can’t stop writing about her. Too funny how she gets you guys to write about her almost every day. In fact you could almost say she outsmarts you.
ANNA, Elk Grove, Calif


As a man, replaced by a woman, you might think you were bitter.
THADDEUS P. VANNICE SR., Cary, N.C.


The writers of the following did not respond to attempts to contact them:


I am beyond repulsed at people like you and your ELITIST, pseudo-intellectuals who feel you are justified at spitting in the face of Mrs. Palin. A woman who has contributed more to the human race than you or your ilk could ever hope to achieve spewing pointless, nonproductive words. The problem for you is, your opinion has no worth. ZERO, NADA, NOTHING. It does not create jobs, it solves none of the problems of humanity. Unfortunately, for you, Mrs. Palin has proved herself to have created jobs and made a difference to her community, her state and her country.


You’re a propagandist. You write fiction designed to dupe imbeciles.


I have lived in N.Y.C. for 55 years. I grew up reading the N.Y.T. Having seen my contracting business destroyed because of the housing crises brought on by the policies of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton (Cuomo at H.U.D.) and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Obama, all APPLAUDED BY THE N.Y.T., I now have the great joy of never buying your paper ever again. I have even added a codicil to my will that my obit should not be run in the N.Y.T. Let me explain something to elitist [expletive] like you who are running down Palin. I and millions of Americans will support Palin. We will support MICKEY [expletive] MOUSE to eject Obama from the WH in 2012.


Did your daughter really make that comment about Palin being cool? I would have thought you would have indoctrinated her, but if you didn’t, good for you.


Did you attend a university? Have you always been so weak-minded, or was this due to indoctrination from your education? I find you to be a mindless Liberal robot and a bit of a joke. Have a nice day.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/letters-the-6-19-11-issue.html?_r=1&r ef=magazine




Such pleasant people to be around I'm sure.










.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16402
Registered: May-04
.

"There are actually half a million fewer government employees now than there were when (President Barack) Obama took office."
Paul Krugman on Monday, July 11th, 2011 in a "New York Times" column

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/11/paul-krugman/paul -krugman-says-government-jobs-have-fallen-half/




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 552
Registered: Mar-04
Much like the left Jan you operate on emotion and that will be your downfall.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16405
Registered: May-04
.

Oooooooooh! I've fallen and I can't get up! Oooooooooooh!



ROTFLMAO!



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14317
Registered: Dec-03
half a million fewer because when he took office, they were smart enough to quit.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16406
Registered: May-04
.

Brilliant, ... just brilliant.


With that sense of humor you should go far, Glasswolf.


And I find myself wishing you would.



The thread is - as the title clearly states - about political facts, gentlemen, not slamming either side or a member with opposing political views just because you can. No "facts" from partisan blogs or webpages are welcome. If Hannity says it and you want to post it, you have to provide proof of the validity of Hannity's claims. Quoting Limbaugh saying the same thing is not proof of anything. OK? No partisan hacks quoted without proving they are not pulling a Brietbart and no partisan BS just because you can. Those have been the rules since the inception of the thread -you can check page one for more information. Please do not abuse the privileges of the forum just because you can. Stick to provable facts. Politico, Politifact, Factcheck.org, newspapers, journals and magazines of record, etc are welcome. The Drudge Report and the Cato Institute etc. are not.












.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1634
Registered: Oct-10
With your sense of humor Jan, I find myself wishing you would go far, as in as far away as possible. I hear Jupiter is lovely. Why don't you go there Jan?

 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 553
Registered: Mar-04
Jan says what the facts are so do as Jan says.... or as the guy with the ears said "eat your peas".
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1381
Registered: Jul-07
Great. Just great. More people hanging around with nothing to do but take pot shots.....just what the board needs.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1637
Registered: Oct-10
Lol Unbridled! "eat your peas." Good one!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16493
Registered: Jan-08
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14327
Registered: Dec-03
At least Jan realized my comment was meant in jest :P
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16501
Registered: Jan-08
Glasswolf

He needs new friends take advantage of it!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16457
Registered: May-04
.

Hope you're not planning a flight into DesMoine's regional airport ...



FAA funding fight: A cautionary tale

To anyone watching the debt ceiling and deficit reduction debate, the scenario that has played out at the Federal Aviation Administration the past few weeks mostly below Washington’s own radar might seem eerily familiar:

The normally routine appropriations process for the agency that oversees the nation’s passenger travel bogs down in a divided Congress because of partisan bickering. Legislative gridlock ensues and urgent warnings are issued about the dangers of failing to act. But in this case, the doomsday clock for passing a bill approving the FAA’s funding hits zero, there is no eleventh-hour solution, and suddenly there are real consequences.

The stalemate that began over a plan by House Republican to slash subsidies to rural airports â€" and Senate Democrats’ anger over a bill that guts a pro-union mediation ruling â€" is now costing the government roughly $30 million a day in uncollected taxes. And it led the FAA to furlough thousands of employees in 35 states as well as shut down dozens of much-needed airport projects, like upgraded control towers and expanded runways, just weeks before summer construction season ends.

The snafu over the FAA’s funding led Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to deliver a tongue-lashing to Congress on Monday that echoed the eat-your-peas scolding his boss, President Barack Obama, gave lawmakers about the debt ceiling impasse just a few weeks ago.

“Congress needs to work out their differences so that 4,000 people can go back to work,†LaHood told reporters on a conference call.



... Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said he was “appalled†Republicans made good on “dangerous threats last week to hold the entire FAA bill hostage†to their pro-management politics, calling the provision raising the hurdles for unions a “nonstarter.â€

Rockefeller â€" whose home state had a rural airport on the Republicans’ hit list â€" called on House Speaker John Boehner to reopen talks with the Senate and make “a good-faith effort to get going here in order to restart funding for the FAA, help the thousands of workers around the country who are going without a paycheck and keep vital airport renovation projects moving forward.â€

Woodie Woodward, an aviation consultant and a former FAA administrator supervising airports, said a partial shutdown over the agency overseeing the nation’s commercial air traffic “can be tolerated†for a few weeks. If the stalemate drags on, she warned, “it creates instability and uncertainty†that could damage the anemic economy and further jeopardize a robust recovery.

“A lot of this is about creating jobs and going forward on capital projects†that put people to work, she said â€" projects that won’t go forward if the FAA remains crippled. For that reason alone, Woodward said, “I’m optimistic that they can come together and resolve it. There’s a lot at stake. And they all know it.â€


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59875.html



More anti-union BS from the Repubs. Can anyone tell me which bill they have passed, allowed to pass or just renewed approval of since their ascendence in January which might actually create jobs?






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16458
Registered: May-04
.


"The Spiders of Wall Street"


ON LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

Let me tell you, gentlemen, if you destroy the labor unions in this country, you destroy liberty when you strike the blow, and you would leave the poor bound and shackled and helpless to do the bidding of the rich . . . It would take this country back . . . to the time when there were masters and slaves.

I don't mean to tell this jury that labor organizations do no wrong. I know them too well for that. They do wrong often, and sometimes brutally; they are sometimes cruel; they are often unjust; they are frequently corrupt. . .But I am here to say that in a great cause these labor organizations, despised and weak and outlawed as they generally are, have stood for the poor, they have stood for the weak, they have stood for every human law that was ever placed upon the statute books. They stood for human life, they stood for the father who was bound down by his task, they stood for the wife, threatened to be taken from the home to work by his side, and they have stood for the little child who was also taken to work in their places--that the rich could grow richer still, and they have fought for the right of the little one, to give him a little of life, a little comfort while he is young. I don't care how many wrongs they committed, I don't care how many crimes these weak, rough, rugged, unlettered men who often know no other power but the brute force of their strong right arm, who find themselves bound and confined and impaired whichever way they turn, who look up and worship the god of might as the only god that they know--I don't care how often they fail, how many brutalities they are guilty of. I know their cause is just.

I hope that the trouble and the strife and the contention has been endured. Through brutality and bloodshed and crime has come the progress of the human race. I know they may be wrong in this battle or that, but in the great, long struggle they are right and they are eternally right, and that they are working for the poor and the weak. They are working to give more liberty to the man, and I want to say to you, gentlemen of the jury, you Idaho farmers removed from the trade unions, removed from the men who work in industrial affairs, I want to say that if it had not been for the trade unions of the world, for the trade unions of England, for the trade unions of Europe, the trade unions of America, you today would be serfs of Europe, instead of free men sitting upon a jury to try one of your peers. The cause of these men is right.

DARROW'S FINAL APPEAL:

I have known Haywood. I have known him well and I believe in him. I do believe in him. God knows it would be a sore day to me if he should ascend the scaffold; the sun would not shine or the birds would not sing on that day for me. It would be a sad day indeed if any calamity should befall him. I would think of him, I would think of his mother, I would think of his babes, I would think of the great cause that he represents. It would be a sore day for me.

But, gentlemen, he and his mother, his wife and his children are not my chief concern in this case. If you should decree that he must die, ten thousand men will work down in the mines to send a portion of the proceeds of their labor to take care of that widow and those orphan children, and a million people throughout the length and the breadth of the civilized world will send their messages of kindness and good cheer to comfort them in their bereavement. It is not for them I plead.

Other men have died, other men have died in the same cause in which Bill Haywood has risked his life, men strong with devotion, men who love liberty, men who love their fellow men have raised their voices in defense of the poor, in defense of justice, have made their good fight and have met death on the scaffold, on the rack, in the flame and they will meet it again until the world grows old and gray. Bill Haywood is no better than the rest. He can die if die he needs, he can die if this jury decrees it; but, oh, gentlemen, don't think for a moment that if you hang him you will crucify the labor movement of the world.

Don't think that you will kill the hopes and the aspirations and the desires of the weak and the poor, you men, unless you people who are anxious for this blood--are you so blind as to believe that liberty will die when he is dead? Do you think there are no brave hearts and no other strong arms, no other devoted souls who will risk their life in that great cause which has demanded martyrs in every age of this world? There are others, and these others will come to take his place, will come to carry the banner where he could not carry it.

Gentlemen, it is not for him alone that I speak. I speak for the poor, for the weak, for the weary, for that long line of men who in darkness and despair have borne the labors of the human race. The eyes of the world are upon you, upon you twelve men of Idaho tonight. Wherever the English language is spoken, or wherever any foreign tongue known to the civilized world is spoken, men are talking and wondering and dreaming about the verdict of these twelve men that I see before me now. If you kill him your act will be applauded by many. If you should decree Bill Haywood's death, in the great railroad offices of our great cities men will applaud your names. If you decree his death, amongst the spiders of Wall Street will go up paeans of praise for those twelve good men and true who killed Bill Haywood . In every bank in the world, where men hate Haywood because he fights for the poor and against the accursed system upon which the favored live and grow rich and fat--from all those you will receive blessings and unstinted praise.

But if your verdict should be "Not Guilty," there are still those who will reverently bow their heads and thank these twelve men for the life and the character they have saved. Out on the broad prairies where men toil with their hands, out on the wide ocean where men are are tossed and buffeted on the waves, through our mills and factories, and down deep under the earth, thousands of men and of women and children, men who labor, men to suffer, women and children weary with care and toil, these men and these women and these children will kneel tonight and ask their God to guide your judgment. These men and these women and these little children, the poor, the weak, and the suffering of the world will stretch out their hands to this jury, and implore you to save Haywood's life.


Clarence Darrow, 1907



.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 563
Registered: Mar-04
Yawn..... So now you are not only enlightening us on all things audio but informing us on all things political...

The Dems need the unions and their due money.... they are tied together. Too bad all the folks who pay dues don't know where their money goes. Fat slobs like Trumka visits the white house weekly to inform president ears on what he should do....



www.teachersunionexposed.com/dues.cfm
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16459
Registered: May-04
.

What a great website that was!



Full of the type of BS you can only get from someone with no capacity to think for themself.



I'll tell you what, id, you no longer like my audio advice? Seems that wasn't always the case. But after you returned with fishy in tow and you playing his faithful sidekick, "li'l squid", you seemed to want to be a nasty SOB to most everyone on this forum. OK, no problem, if you don't like my advice, stay away from my posts. They are very easy to spot before you ever read a word. Same goes for this thread. This thread doesn't need the sort of mindless, partisan BS you wish to post.


"According to the Heritage Foundation ... " is all anyone needs to see to know what's coming.




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 565
Registered: Mar-04
Ha ha, Jan I knew you couldn't forget John Ashman. You still resent my inviting him here instead of appreciating the fact that you could have learned from him. What was even more enjoyable was watching you lose self control after each of his posts. Jan your insecurity was on display for all to see. You have little self control but are very self righteous. By the way the partisan jab towards me sounds like projection on your part.

As far as where I will go on this forum, you don't tell me where I can or cannot go. Do not attempt to brow browbeat me by assuming your Norma Bates persona, because it simply will not work. This unhinged left wing crusade you are on has no place on an audio forum. So get off of your soap box and stick with what you have some knowledge about and that is audio.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16462
Registered: May-04
.

Two posts and nine hours later you still can't supply an answer to, "Can anyone tell me which bill they have passed, allowed to pass or just renewed approval of since their ascendence in January which might actually create jobs?"


We are in agreement! I can't think of a d@mn thing they've done about jobs either.


Stay away from me, lil' squid, 'cause you got nothing but BS to spout and I'm not interested. This thread wasn't started just for little jerks like you to f*ck with it. Yeah, I remember fishy, not a soul on this forum liked him and we all celebrated the day I finally drove his @ss off this forum. When you showed back up on this forum with him leading you around like a little pet squid, you two were a perfect match.


Awww, now did I just loose my self control?




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16463
Registered: May-04
.


My, my, my! How the worm turns once it has been the squid sidekick to a forum troll ... "Thanks mr Vigne, your knowledge on audio matters is impressive... I try to basically listen to those with more knowledge and learn what I can"; https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=207609#POST207609







.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 567
Registered: Mar-04
Jan.... I never said you don't know about things audio. Of course you do, we all know you do... But the way you bridled when Mr. Ashman came on the forum was quite revealing as to what kind of a person you are.

I also said regarding some of your posts that "audio is a hobby not a hammer to beat people over the head with".

Stick with audio Jan, and leave the politics for another forum. If you want to continue betting on a losing horse that is your prerogative, but I will call you on it.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16464
Registered: May-04
.

Call me?!!! You will "call me"?!!!


ROTFLMAO!!!


You show up here after almost 600 posts in this thread, ignoring everything that has come before you, and suddenly you think you are going to write the rules to suit yourself and you are going to "call me on it"?!!! What a f*cking buffoon you are, squiddy!



Play another game, squiddy, I'm pretty sure your knowledge of politics is even more shallow than your knowledge of audio - you not being known as a "deep thinker" and all. This thread wasn't established for anyone who thinks the truth comes from The Heritage Institute, the Cato folks or Rushbo et al. It certainly wasn't set up for the likes of you if you only care to insult someone who disagrees with your opinions on politics. That's what political blogs are for and this is still an audio forum and this thread has been conducted with that distinct difference in mind. The thread is about provable items of interest, not partisan slamming of the other side - no matter which side you happen to be on. Go on, look at what has been posted here before you slid into first base thinking you knew it all and you could call someone out. Do what you should have done before you opened your yap in the first place.




The Repubs have, for the first time in decades, shut down that portion of the FAA which deals with improvements to the infrastructure of airway facilities and those which deal with the safety and convenience of commuters at smaller airports. 4,000 people are now unemployed due to this failure of the Repubs to govern. That's a provable fact. The information was pulled from a non-partisan source - which, as you've been told, is the preferred method of communication on this thread. The Repubs are simultaneously screaming about deficits while manuevering with purely political intent to deny additional revenues to the government. That is both hypocritical and stupid. The sole reason for the shutdown is language in the bill which is intended to disable unionization of employees which was inserted into the bill by the Repubs. That too is a provable fact which can be found in multiple non-partisan sources. Since the Repubs took office in January, they have had a miserable record of doing anything which does not appeal to their ideological base. That is a provable fact also. Their desire to actually do work which will provide jobs for the people is invisible to anyone with a non-partisan outlook. What is visible to the independent middle is their obstruction of Obama in all things which relate to actually governing. The House Repubs/TP's are appartently incapable of governing, they are digging in their heels on yet another partisan, ideological stance which will prove to embarrass them and damage the Nation just as it did when the Gingrich led House overplayed their hand. They are led by the likes of Ron Paul who prefers to remove major civil rights legislation and Allen West whose only answer to governing its to tear everything down and to insult those with whom he disagrees. Those are all provable facts, squiddy. Forget what Limbaugh tells you for once and look at the facts, that's what this thread is about.

The question was, "Can anyone tell me which bill they have passed, allowed to pass or just renewed approval of since their ascendence in January which might actually create jobs?"


Your response was a ridiculous, "Yawn..... So now you are not only enlightening us on all things audio but informing us on all things political...

The Dems need the unions and their due money.... they are tied together. Too bad all the folks who pay dues don't know where their money goes. Fat slobs like Trumka visits the white house weekly to inform president ears on what he should do.... "




After yet a second post where you were obviously unable to recall the original question, you therefore decided - as usual - your best tactic was to insult me again - me?! insulted by the likes of lil' squiddy?!!! - rather than engage in a productive discussion, you proved you have nothing and you know nothing which you could use to "call me out" other than your delusional fantasies about what you and fishy proved - that between the two of you lil' squiddy don't know very much when the likes of fishy is his "leader".


OK, you want to be a completely ingorant caged monkey throwing sh!t at everyone? That's your only way to communicate an opinion about how the government is being run? Then you have absolutely nothing to say that you didn't get from some BS right wingnut blog that doesn't need to be in anyone's mind. And that's why this thread exists, to be a place where issues can be discussed rationally without the BS of idiots who believe insulting your opponent is the best way to call them out. It's not going to be just another place where someone with nothing original in their head can come to take a dump.


I can't make you play by reasonable rules of engagement - you haven't seemed to have that in your way of thinking ever since you teamed up with fishy. Either you have respect for yourself and what people see coming from you or you do not. I can't give you respect, squiddy, you lost that on this forum years ago. However, the fact remains you have no answer for a very simple question which reflects poorly on the Repubs. Therefore, do not consider yourself capable of "calling me" out. Calling me names and making up lies is hardly "calling me out". But, lil' squiddy, you wouldn't know the difference, would you?

The rule here is basic civility, squiddy, not beating people over the head. You obviously do not understand when either is being played. Either you want to play like an adult when you enter this thread or you join that long list of forum trolls who had nothing more to say than did fishy and you will eventually be judged just as he was - unable to play well with others. You'll be left behind to play with your own sh!t - which I see you have nearly mastered. I don't care which you select, but you will not be "calling me" out by posting the sort of crap you've come up with so far. Wise up or get left behind.


Pretty simple, huh? Even for a squid.


.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 568
Registered: Mar-04
Jan droning on and on doesn't accomplish anything. Your party had control of both the house and senate in addition to the presidency. What has happened while they had total control (including a filibuster proof majority in the senate). What was the major accomplishment: Obamacare... Which according the Nancy (eyes) Pelosi would create 400,000 jobs. How has that worked out.


Again Jan, you are a fool and the more you drone on doesn't change that. You are little more than a left wing hack. The other side is full of right wing nuts but your side is full of reason and logic and this is exhibited by you and your behavior.

Stick with audio because you are little more than a drone who follows a losing party. Jan I respect myself but I don't respect you and your attempt to push the left wing agenda on an audio forum. What is wrong with you anyway to push that garbage here ?

The rules are to be civil yet you engage in childish name calling. What are you 60 years old and you have nicknames for people who don't even come to this board anymore. I know Ashman made you act like a fool, I can pull out the posts but those who were here know what I am talking about. Jan, get off your left wing soap box and stick with audio.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16466
Registered: May-04
.




Thanks for proving my point, squiddy. I knew you had it in ya.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 569
Registered: Mar-04
Jan stick with audio... I know you live to get the "upper hand" but the elections coming up will again prove you wrong. What happens in 2012 when your party loses again ?

Is it the ignorant masses who don't have the information you do ? Are they brainwashed or simply read things you consider to have no value.

Jan go eat your jello and enjoy your twilight years. The progressive movement is being rejected by the public and you have to accept that.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 570
Registered: Mar-04
Jan what % of NEA political contributions go to the Dems ?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16467
Registered: May-04
.

Stop it, squiddy! Stop it!



Gemeneeeee Christmas! Where'd you get this stuff? And when was the last time you had an actual original thought of your own?



Now you just have me ROTFLMAO at what you think is "political debate".




Geez, what a stupe!



sh!t, just sh!t. You're a riot, squiddy, you really are. Call me on it"!!!

Yeah, right! You did that, didn't you?


ROTFLMAO!








.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 571
Registered: Mar-04
Jan what % of NEA political contributions go to the Dems ?
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 572
Registered: Mar-04
Jan why did the dems lose the way they did in the last election ?

No more articles I want your "original" thoughts.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16468
Registered: May-04
.

Hey, squiddy!

What newspapers do you read?






ROTFLAMO!!!




OH, LORDY, THAT STUFF MAKES MY SIDES HURT FROM LAUGHING SO HARD.




.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 573
Registered: Mar-04
Jan what % of NEA political contributions go to the Dems ?

Jan why did the dems lose the way they did in the last election ?

No more articles I want your "original" thoughts.

This should be a walk in the park for someone as erudite as yourself.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16469
Registered: May-04
.

Whoa! Hold on there, squiddy.


Your insecurities are showing and you are beyond the point where you are loosing your self control. And you are oh, soooooo self righteous about all of this! Why?! D@mn! That's exactly what you accused me of being.




See, here, squiddy? This is what made you such easy little item on the lower end of the food chain for an idiot like fishy to gobble up. You don't have the ability to see what is in front of you unless it already agrees with what you want to think. Your self righteous insecurities cause you to loose your self control. That's a bad habit you've developed since the days of, "Thanks mr Vigne, your knowledge on audio matters is impressive... I try to basically listen to those with more knowledge and learn what I can".



How'd you put it? Oh, yeah, "What is wrong with you anyway?"



lol at your expense, squiddy. lol


.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 574
Registered: Mar-04
Jan what % of NEA political contributions go to the Dems ?

Jan why did the dems lose the way they did in the last election ?

No more articles I want your "original" thoughts.

This should be a walk in the park for someone as erudite as yourself.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2455
Registered: Oct-07
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government
cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's
reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here.'
Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem
and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

In the interest of fairness, it must be pointed out that Boehner and others voted FORE all previous debt limit increases.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2295-A-Brief-History-of-Debt-Limit-Vot es-in-the-House

If all you do is increase the limit when reached, why BOTHER to have a debt limit at all?

We're all being played for suckers. Once the 'big inflation' hits, every retired person with a 401 plan will wonder why they bothered.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16471
Registered: May-04
.

If all you do is increase the limit when reached, why BOTHER to have a debt limit at all?"


Most industrialized nations do not have a "debt ceiling" - again, to be fair, most industrialized nations had until recently borrowed from the US. We are really the only country that manages our obligations in such a stupid way. However, raising the debt ceiling has never before been more than a one page bill which passed with bipartisan consent - often times with nothing more than a "yea" or "nay" up or down voice vote.




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2456
Registered: Oct-07
We may 'manage our obligations in such a stupid way', but we are also the origin of the worlds currency of choice for exchange. US debt is considered sacred.
We are putting that status at severe risk with the gymnastics now going on in Washington.
After 14 TRILLION in debt has been racked up....and I simply don't care 'who dunit'.....I am now in hock for over 44,000$, as is every man woman and child in the country.
By the time these rats get done with all the dealing and pseudo budget cuts, my retirement will not even be worth face value.
That silver quarter I've got saved will STILL be worth a gallon of gas, even after the price hits 10$ (New Dollars).
Next step? Make Gold ownership illegal....again.

We're ALL being played for suckers.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16473
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/in-the-name-of-the-fodder

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop---special-victims-unit



.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 575
Registered: Mar-04
The Obama recovery is alive and well.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/07/second-quarter-gdp-economic-gro wth-.html
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16476
Registered: May-04
.

Don't you understand how to make a useable link on the forum, id?

And, no, the recovery is not doing well. No one, not even Obama, has suggested the economy is not struggling. What he and the Dems are trying to do is keep the economy from sinking back into recession. And they're not getting any assistance from the Repubs who would prefer to paint the President as trying to destroy the US. As I had asked earlier when you went off on your little squiddy bender, "Can anyone tell me which bill they have passed, allowed to pass or just renewed approval of since their ascendence in January which might actually create jobs?"

That was their platform last November and that was, for many voters, why they were put in office. What have they done as far as legislation which would further the jobs recovery? Preaching about how g@ys have an agenda and opposing the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell doesn't create jobs. Laying off 4,000 airway and infrastructure workers doesn't create jobs or bring in revenue to aid the deficit.


.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 576
Registered: Mar-04
No Jan he wants to put the car in D remember (D is for Democrat and D is for drive). We don't need to put the car in R (R is for reverse and Republican). One thing I can say about Barry, he sure is a wordsmith.


Oh, Jan you have yet to answer my questions above.... I am waiting. You answer mine I will answer your "question".
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2468
Registered: Oct-07
I've still to figure out HOW the government is supposed to 'create jobs'.
Other than simply get out of the way of private industry.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16484
Registered: May-04
.

Let's see, I ask a question and get insults in return. That person now wants me to answer their questions which have nothing to do with my original question. Then the ultimatum is laid down, "answer all of my questions about what I want to discuss first and then I'll considering answering your original question."

And that is why there are no actual negotiations on the debt ceiling. One small faction of one party which controls one third of the US government wants everything done their way or they will do blow up everything. That is hostage taking at its worst.



The answer is no, squiddy. You don't get to come into this thread and immediately start dictating what you want done. Read the title of the thread, this is about facts. It is not about your little child's game of making up BS and, as you say, beating people over the head. If you care to play that game, there are plenty of other forums where that is the intent. I suggest you head over to one of those forums for your jollies.

And the link you provided didn't go anywhere. Please learn how to make useable links on this forum if you intend to stay here.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16485
Registered: May-04
.

"I've still to figure out HOW the government is supposed to 'create jobs'.
Other than simply get out of the way of private industry."



You wouldn't, leo, with your perpetual contemp for government workers, you wouldn't understand no matter who explained it to you.

Leo, are you good friends with John Galt? I'll bet where Dems have a picture of JFK on their wall, you have a picture of Herbert Hoover.



.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 577
Registered: Mar-04
It's all the Republicans fault huh... How pathetic to not accept responsibility for what happens except when it works to Barry's advantage. I understand the best defense is a good offense Jan.
This is why barry and his party with help from his sycophants in the media will raise close to 1 billion to destroy anyone and anything that opposes his "transformative agenda".

"the sad and tragic economic facts are now undeniable, and they have absolutely nothing to do with ideology or party affiliation:

Every fifth man you pass on the sidewalk does not work.

Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk is now on food stamps.

The average time an unemployed America remains out of work is now a jaw-dropping nine months (36 weeks). The pre-Obama average: just three months (13 weeks).

The price for a gallon of gas has risen 104% from the time of Mr. Obamas inauguration to today.

Unemployment has risen from 7.8% to 9.2% since Mr. Obama inauguration.

Incredibly, black Americans"who voted some 98% for Mr. Obamas election are now suffering their lowest levels of economic prosperity since the civil rights era of the 1960s; the black middle class is vanishing and setting back black economic gains at least a generation if not more.

Recent college graduates are now experiencing record unemployment all but ensuring that their freshly minted skills will rust and grow stale as they struggle to find work. In 2006 and 2007, 90% of all college graduates found a job. In 2010, just 56% of college graduates were able to find a job.

Mr. Obama has added more to the national debt than all U.S. presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan combined. "

Hard facts that even far left kool aid gulping ideologues cannot deny. Wait I have an original idea: blame George Bush.... What courageous leadership. Time for barry to go back to being a community rabble-rouser . While the wife with a caboose as wide as a refrigerator can tell us all to eat carrot sticks while she lives the good life.... Nero playing his fiddle has nothing on these two.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2476
Registered: Oct-07
Jan,
I really wonder WHY you continue to mis-characterize AND mis-represent my opinion of government workers? Not True.
I don't like POLITICIANS who spend entire lives trying to win votes. Career pols are going to be the death of this country. For quite a number of years, the replacement rate in Congress was less than that of the Politbureau of the Soviet Union.
You maybe correct, however, in one regard. The correct word for my feelings about politicians, especially the current Congress, may indeed be 'contempt'.

If I had a picture on the wall it sure wouldn't be Hoover.....Herbert OR J.Edgar.
Nope, I'd tend toward the Milton Friedman end of the scale.

A friends of mines Irish parents had 3 pictures on the wall. JFK, The Pope and Mickey Mantel.

And Id, GWII added well over 4 Trillion to the national debt, borrowing plenty of the future to pay for wars his HACK advisors, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove goaded him into.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16487
Registered: May-04
.

"Mr. Obama has added more to the national debt than all U.S. presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan combined."


Unfortunately, what you've been told by the talking heads on the right is not a fact. If you had taken the time to read this thread rather than trying to turn in on its head, you would have seen the facts which disprove what you have - without any factual backing - stated.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16488
Registered: May-04
.

"Jan,
I really wonder WHY you continue to mis-characterize AND mis-represent my opinion of government workers? Not True"



Well, gee, leo, let's think about this.






OK ...



Because of what you've said.







.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16489
Registered: May-04
.

Time to visit Politifact again; http://www.politifact.com/
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 578
Registered: Mar-04
Ok Jan, if you say it to be true than it must be true . By the way Jan do you think JFK would be able to be nominated for president by the Dems today?

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased â€" not a reduced â€" flow of revenues to the federal government."

â€" John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort â€" thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

â€" John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

I don't think Barry would see that as being "fair". In the end it is all about the implementation of policies which Barry and his handlers feel are "fair".
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2477
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, show me where I've said bad stuff about government workers.
You are using that as a 'distraction' from real issues.......and I call BS on that.



ID, It is all about equality of outcome, NOT equality of opportunity.
The tax code is periodically up for sale while the commission report of 2010 is almost universally ignored.
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMo mentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16490
Registered: May-04
.

"By the way Jan do you think JFK would be able to be nominated for president by the Dems today?"


Once again, squiddy, look at the thread. Do you know what the top tax rate was when JFK took office? Do you know the rate of job growth for the Democratic vs the Republican Presidents over the last sixty years? How about the GDP vs tax revenue vs national debt? Those are things that matter and you would be wise to learn.

In 1961 there were virtually no tax loopholes for individuals or for coporations. CEO's paid far higher more tax rates than did their secretary did in 1961. No one thought a corporation producing record profits would get tens of billions of tax payer dollars in the way of subsidies. If a corporation had a good to great year and they paid no taxes, they would have been considered unpatriotic. No corporation filed a 27,000 page tax return. We were a booming economy with not a single idea what the word "off shoring" would come to mean. We were a nation that produced most of the world's goods and were the innovators for the world. And, by the way, union participation was in the neighborhood of 37% of the work force. We were still building interstate highways and about to send a man to the moon on more than one occasion. Communications satellites and the companies who designed and built them for the government were beginning to grow. The GI Bill helped hundreds of thousands of vets get a better education and a better way of life. A college education in California was free and Ronald Reagan was a B movie actor hosting a western on TV sponsored by GE. Reagan was being paid about $70k per year and he employed his mother for about $75 per week to help with his fan mail. The average CEO was being paid about 4-5 times what the average worker was making. The TV's were black and white and about 12" diagonal measurement. The wars we had fought and were about to fight were all paid for by taxation and the sale of bonds. One person in a household held a job outside of the house and there was typically one car in the garage which averaged about $2,000 when new. Gas could be had during a "gas war" for about 15 cents a gallon and the Middle east wasn't producing a drop of it. Approximately 10% of the working age adults had a share in the stock market which was in the neighborhood of just about 1, 000. There were no derivatives or hedge funds and no leveraged buyouts. If you weren't at home and you wanted to make a telephone call, you had to find a booth and hope the party line wasn't busy. Sports stars held second jobs in the off season and America had actual heroes we looked up to because we didn't know what they were doing 24/7. Rush Limbaugh was a snotty nosed kid failing in school. Hispanics and blacks were the migrant farm workers and Chavez was years away. Hispanics and blacks rode at the back of the bus - if they rode at all and they ate at counters where no white would sit and slept in hotels were no white would sleep. Nat King Cole, Ray Charles and Harry Belafonte were national stars but they were harrassed for wanting to live in a "white neighborhood". Elvis had just returned from a stint in the US Army - as a draftee. The great migration was coming to an end as blacks left the Mississippi plantations and headed to better paying jobs in what would eventually be the Rust Belt of the US. The US sent another round of "advisors" to South Vietnam. Eisenhower had given his final State of the Union Address to Congress. In a Farewell Address the same day, he warns of the increasing power of a "military-industrial complex."



http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=what%20happened%20in%20the%20year%20of%201961&type=



Squid, you don't seem to know very much and you don't seem to have any interest in learning anything. What you're being fed by Hannity and the like is pure BS.


This ...
"While the wife with a caboose as wide as a refrigerator can tell us all to eat carrot sticks while she lives the good life...."

... and this ...
"Fat slobs like Trumka visits the white house weekly to inform president ears on what he should do...."

... along with the constant insults thrown at me are exactly what this thread was meant to avoid.


Grow up, squiddy. The thread is about civility and facts. If you have neither, you don't belong here.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16491
Registered: May-04
.

"Jan, show me where I've said bad stuff about government workers.
You are using that as a 'distraction' from real issues.......and I call BS on that."



Ok, leo, I'll take your word for it - you love government workers but hate who they work for.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2478
Registered: Oct-07
Of course Jan's list of wrongs righted and observations about and comparison of modern life to that 100 years ago has NOTHING to do with the passing of the 16th amendment and subsequent growth of the federal government.
Like tossing fertilizer into a pond with a lilly pad.......It'll grow and choke off the pond.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16492
Registered: May-04
.

I can always count on you to take us back to the 19th century, leo.
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 579
Registered: Mar-04
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/08/01/obamacare-free-birth-c ontrol-decision-is-about-raw-politics

Obamacare.... and personal responsibility...
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2481
Registered: Oct-07
ID,
Please go to the 'forum help' section and read up.....
I can't get your link to work, either. It's fairly easy once you get the hang of it.
I have no idea where this sites software comes from, but it asks for a little more involvement from users.....
 

Silver Member
Username: Unbridled_id

ChicagoUsa

Post Number: 580
Registered: Mar-04
Barry O's 50th B-day bash !!! Taking place at the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago.. The 1,700 tickets are reported to be going for $200 to $35,800 each. About 100 heavy rollers get to stick around after the concert for a dinner with the president. Jan, I assume you have your ticket in hand and will stick around for dinner. Our fundraiser in chief celebrates as the nation flounders. Nero would blush, but it seems as if life is good for some more than others... is that fair ???
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16502
Registered: May-04
.

Did Bush ever find those WMD's under the desk in the Oval Office? That video was a hoot and a half, eh? Send the military in to die and drop bombs to kill Iraqis and then make a joke of it all. Funnnnnnie-stuff, I'll tell you!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16504
Registered: May-04
.

July 30, 2011
Concealed Weapons Against the Environment
By ROBERT B. SEMPLE Jr.
While almost no one was looking, House Republicans embarked last week on a broad assault on the nation's environmental laws, using as their weapon the 2012 spending bill for the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. When debate began Monday, the bill included an astonishing 39 anti-environmental riders - so called because they ride along on appropriations bills even though they have nothing to do with spending and are designed to change policy, in this case disastrously.

Riders generally are not subjected to hearings or extensive debate, and many would not survive on their own. They are often written in such a way that most people, even many Capitol Hill insiders, need a guide to understand them. They are, in short, bad policy pushed forward through a bad legislative process.

A rider can be removed from the bill only with a vote to strike it. The Democrats managed one big victory on Wednesday when, by a vote of 224 to 202, the House struck one that would have gutted the Endangered Species Act by blocking the federal government from listing any new species as threatened or endangered and barring it from protecting vital habitat - a provision so extreme that even some Republicans could not countenance it.

Here are some of the other riders that were still pending as of Friday, and a guide to what they really mean:

ROBERT B. SEMPLE Jr.



Greenhouse Gases
Sec. 431. (a) During the one year period commencing on the date of enactment of this Act - (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall not propose or promulgate any regulation regarding the emissions of greenhouse gases from stationary sources to address climate change.

What It Means: With Congress unable to pass climate change legislation, the E.P.A. is planning to issue new regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industrial sources. This rider would force the agency to sit on its hands for one year and do nothing.




Fuel Economy
Sec. 453. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be used - (1) to prepare, propose, promulgate, finalize, implement, or enforce any regulation pursuant to section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521) regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that are manufactured after model year 2016 to address climate change.

What It Means: The White House announced on Friday a major agreement between automakers and government agencies to produce cleaner, more efficient vehicles for the model years 2017-25. This rider would stop the agreement in its tracks, barring the E.P.A. from spending even a dime on paperwork or enforcement.



Mountaintop Mining
Sec 432. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to develop, carry out, implement, or otherwise enforce proposed regulations published June 18, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 34,667) by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement of the Department of the Interior.

What It Means: Two riders in this bill weaken protections against mountaintop mining, the destructive practice that has already ruined much of the Appalachian landscape. This one halts work on a "stream buffer rule" to protect waters from industrial activity.



Grand Canyon
Sec. 445. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the approximately 1,010,776 acres of public lands and National Forest System lands described in Public Land Order No. 7773; Emergency Withdrawal of Public and National Forest System Lands, Coconino and Mohave Counties; AZ (76 Fed. Reg. 37826) may be withdrawn from location and entry under the General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) except as expressly authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act that refers to this section.

What It Means: This would nullify a moratorium on new uranium mining on one million acres near the Grand Canyon. The moratorium is intended to protect the Colorado River aquifer, the source of drinking water for roughly 27 million people. The rider also blocks the review process that could lead to permanent protection, or "withdrawal", of those lands.



Clean Water
Sec. 435. None of the funds made available by this Act or any subsequent Act making appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce a change or supplement to the rule dated November 13, 1986, or guidance documents dated January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

What It Means: Over the last 25 years, court decisions and administrative rulings have steadily weakened protections for wetlands and small streams under the Clean Water Act, exposing them to commercial development. This would block the E.P.A. from going ahead with its proposal to strengthen those protections.



Coal Ash
Sec. 434. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop, propose, finalize, implement, administer, or enforce any regulation that identifies or lists fossil fuel combustion waste as hazardous waste subject to regulation under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) or otherwise makes fossil fuel combustion waste subject to regulation under such subtitle.

What It Means: This one is a gift to industry. By preventing the E.P.A. from labeling the toxic ash from coal-fired power plants as hazardous waste - which it is - businesses would be spared the expense of storing or recycling it safely.



Florida Waters
Sec. 452. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule entitled "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency on December 6, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 75762 et seq.).

What It Means: This would prevent the E.P.A. from enforcing a long-overdue rule limiting runoff of pollutants like phosphorus and nitrogen into Florida's lakes, rivers and, ultimately, the Everglades. That means industry and agriculture would not have to invest in pollution controls.



Wilderness Protections
Sec. 124. None of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 22, 2010.

What It Means: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar wants to use his legal authority to limit oil, gas and commercial development on public lands that may someday qualify for permanent wilderness protection by Congress. This rider would block him from spending any money to do so.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/concealed-weapons-against-the-e nvironment.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print



Someone really should tell these House Repubs that Rand's style of John Galt Objectivism is nothing more than Romantic fiction and not an actual working philosophy of governance.





.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16505
Registered: May-04
.

74,000 workers laid off without pay and $1billion in revenues lost due to House Republicans union busting efforts. Airports affected are in Democratic districts.


The FAA impasse: A primer

Considered a minor subplot of the months-long debt ceiling/deficit melodrama, the ongoing standoff between House Republicans and Senate Democrats over the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill - a partisan fight that has caused a partial FAA shutdown, sidelined 74,000 government employees and construction workers and is costing the government as much as $30 million a day - has now taken center stage.

For those consumed by the debt ceiling, here's a primer on what you missed:

What's the issue?

Depends on whom you ask.

House Republicans blame pork-addicted Democrats*, who they say are insisting on keeping millions in subsidies to rural, lightly traveled airports, while Democrats say the GOP's cost-cutting argument is a smoke screen to hide its goal of gutting a rule that makes it easier for airline employees to unionize.

... in July, the GOP-controlled House passed a long-term reauthorization bill that also neutralized a National Mediation Board ruling allowing airline employees to unionize with a simple majority vote. Then it passed a temporary bill slashing the small-airport subsidy funding, which helped entice big air carriers to fly into rural communities ...

When a July 23 deadline came and went without a temporary bill, the FAA was forced to shut down, at least partially. The agency sent home 4,000 "nonessential" employees - basically, anyone who isn't responsible for keeping planes from falling apart in the sky or crashing into one another.

"Let me be clear: Flying is safe", declared Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman who has been pushing hard, in public and in private, for a compromise.

The partial shutdown forced the FAA to sidetrack a slew of airport infrastructure and safety upgrades, ranging from runway extensions and new control towers to installation of the badly needed NextGen cutting-edge air-traffic system, which is designed to make flying safer, more efficient and productive ...

How does it affect ordinary people - also known as voters?

Airports and airlines have continued day-to-day operations without much impact, and the standoff is all but invisible to passengers - until they check their ticket bills.

Say you buy an airline ticket for $350. Normally, the government would collect a $50 surcharge off the top and the airline gets the rest. In the partial shutdown, however, the FAA lost its ability to collect that surcharge, giving airlines an unintentional tax holiday - and leaving about $30 million a day on the table, money wasted in a time of government belt-tightening.

But instead of passing on that savings to the consumer, some airlines have kept the money, outraging LaHood and consumer advocates.

"The irony/hypocrisy is, since the tax holiday began, this is the same airline industry that vociferously argued that the taxes and fees suppressed demand", Mann said ...


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60636.html




* Repubs and pork - https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/642674.html#POST1926583



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16506
Registered: May-04
.

"I've still to figure out HOW the government is supposed to 'create jobs'."


There you go, leo, that's one instance of how the federal government "creates" 74,000 jobs - and how partisans and hypocrits then yank them out from under the workers who are expected to pay their mortgages, car payments, child care and college tuition, health care, etc. That is how House Repubs have made tax paying citizens who only want effective government their pawns in an ideological war.

Here's how the Republicans "created jobs" over the last decade... "In October 2006, I noted in Washington Monthly that Bush Republicans allowed the federal government to explode at record rates, with spending for the education bureaucracy up 101% under Bush, the Justice Department up 131%, Commerce up 82%, HHS up 81%, State up 80%, the Department of transportation up 65%, and the four agencies targeted for elimination by my 1994 class averaging 85% increases in Bush's first term."; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46325.html


Many of the agencies created during that period are duplicates of other agencies doing similar if not identical work as Rumsfeld and Cheney, among others, distrusted the agencies the other had created or which were already in place in the government and then established their own agencies to provide them the information and services they wanted. Do a search engine request on how many intelligence and security agencies now exist in the US, how and when they were established and what their goals are to be.

"During Bush's eight years in office -- January 2001 to January 2009 -- the nation actually gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs, the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.)"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/03/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-8-million-jobs-lost-during-george-/




So, yes, let's shrink government but not just the government the House Repubs don't like.




.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us