|
Post by twinder on Jul 14, 2012 22:17:47 GMT -5
Hypocrite...
Barack Obama and his campaign have been making Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital one of their premiere mantras that have over and over backfired in their faces. They decided to attack the fact that Bain outsourced jobs during the restructuring of the companies they acquired. So what does Obama have to do with it? During the time he points to, 1999-2002, the executives of Bain donated to Obama for his campaign. No doubt at that time Barack Obama was not at all upset about jobs being outsourced as he got some big, fat checks from the executives.
Ben Shapiro points out,
The same SEC form from February 2001 that lists Mitt Romney as “sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital … the controlling person of Bain Capital” also lists over a dozen other managing directors of Bain Capital, Inc. — all of whom were undoubtedly more active than Romney was during this period. And President Obama took money from many of them.
Take Joshua Bekenstein. Bekenstein has been a managing director of Bain Capital since 1986. In 2008, he signed Barack Obama a $4,600 check. In 2004, he gave a $50,000 donation to the Democratic National Committee. That’s outsourcing money, plain and simple. And Obama was happy to take it.
Or how about Stephen Pagliuca? Last year, he cut a $35,800 check to Barack Obama’s Victory Fund. Then he cut another $30,800 check to the DNC. And another $30,800 check to the DCCC. Jonathan Lavine and Mark Nunnelly have both maxed out to Obama already, as well as to the DNC. Lavin was a bundler for Obama, and raised over $100,000 for him. Michael Krupka gave Obama $4,600 in 2008.
Now there is nothing wrong with outsourcing jobs. There is nothing wrong with taking campaign contributions from businesses. The problem comes when one wants to bash his opponent over being in a company that did something you claim is bad and then took money from the very same people. In this case Barack Obama was fine with outsourcing while getting a check, but not fine when it becomes a political advantage.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jul 16, 2012 12:37:37 GMT -5
Quote of the day: Silly collectivist edition
Published July 16, 2012 | By Bruce McQuain
Apparently Barack Obama was channeling Elizabeth “Fauxahontas” Warren the other day in a speech when he said:
Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. The natural angle of attack when one wants to demean accomplishment is to attempt to portray it as something you were given vs. something you earned. In this case, where Obama denigrates the accomplishments of the successful (and my goodness when did success become something you attack?), he’s attempting to do just that. Because, so the collectivist thinking (oxymoron alert) goes, if he and others helped the successful become successful then they can justify claiming a portion of the pie the successful have. Of course that requires ignoring how the successful become successful. We heard Elizabeth Warren talk about public works that she claims enabled businesses to succeed. Like roads, power grids, etc. What she would have you believe is everyone else paid for those things but apparently the entrepreneur was just a net beneficiary. Silliness to the extreme. Also always shunted aside are the sacrifices the “successful” made to reach the stage of success they enjoy. I personally know “successful” people who mortgaged their house to the hilt, cashed in whatever they had in savings and borrowed the rest to start their business.
They took all the risk, and yes, some of them failed. But they didn’t have anyone holding their hand when they set out on their journey to success. They simply worked harder than anyone else, made the additional sacrifices that had to be made (80 hour weeks, little time with the family, etc). to make that success a fact. The focus for the collectivists starts at the big house the successful have now, not the risk, work and sacrifice they went through to build that house. And now that they are a success, suddenly they have a bunch of leeches who want to claim a portion of it (remember about 50% of those in this country pay no income taxes at all). It reminds me of the lottery winner who suddenly discovers he has cousins, nieces and nephews he’s never heard of all clamoring for some of the winnings. But in this case, what Obama is trying to justify via this nonsense is not asking for money, but taking it “legally”.
His is the same song the communists sang in 1917 Russia. Those who worked hardest and achieved the most don’t “deserve” what they have accumulated because they did it on the backs of everyone else. We’ve heard variations on the theme quite often from leftist politicians: “It takes a village”, for instance or claiming the successful are simply “the winners of life’s lottery”, etc. Naturally where Obama wants to strike is precisely where jobs are created. Almost a million of those in the tax bracket he wants to hit with higher taxes are small businesses. You’d think the guy who obviously thinks he’s a economic genius would know that. You’d think a guy who said “the last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes” would actually follow through on something he got right. But no, instead he plays the class warfare card and essentially parrots the communists.
No, I’m not calling him a communist, I’m simply pointing out the irony of what he’s doing. Draw your own conclusions about what he is, but one thing he isn’t is a friend of the free market. He certainly isn’t the economic genius he thinks he is and frankly, he’s leading us down the same path Europe went down years before and we all know how that is turning out. It is envy cloaked as “fairness”. Class warfare designed empower government even while it cripples business and, in the end, would contribute to increasing our economic woes. However, there is value in such quotes as his above. When you hear him say things like this, it becomes much clearer as to his true ideological roots and what an additional 4 years would bring. The press may not have done the job of vetting this president before he took office, but quotes like this do as much for that process as any vetting by the press would accomplish There’s no question of where he lives ideologically. And it isn’t an ideology that belongs in the most powerful office in this land. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jul 16, 2012 12:56:44 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=distractionThe Obama campaign’s strategy of distraction Published July 16, 2012 | By Bruce McQuain If you’re wondering where all this nonsense about Bain Capital is coming from and why, Jen Rubin of the WaPo gives you the low down: The Obama team knew months ago that the economy would not sufficiently improve before Election Day to justify his reelection. Its polling showed simply blaming President George W. Bush wouldn’t be sufficient. The president and his political hacks concluded that it was too late and too risky to adopt a whole new second-term agenda. (It would risk offending either the base or centrists and reveal his first-term agenda to have been entirely inadequate.) So what to do? Extend the Republican primary by running ads hitting Romney and encouraging Democrats to vote against Romney in Michigan and elsewhere. Then, before Romney could fully get his bearings, unload a barrage of negative attacks, scare mongering and thinly disguised oppo attacks through the mainstream media, taking advantage of many political reporters’ relative ignorance about the private equity field and their inclination to accept whole-hog President Obama’s version of “facts.” We here at Q&O have addressed the problem of media ignorance many times in the past. I’ve seen in manifested in both the military reporting and, of course, economic reporting. In fact, what that ignorance produces is a steno pool that pretty much reports what it is told vs. having the knowledge and experience to spot inaccuracies or disingenuousness put out in press releases or talking points. When you add a bias, this becomes a very dangerous but potent means of accomplishing the twin goals of discrediting your opponent and distracting the public from the real issues (economy) and the President’s record (abysmal). Obviously our latest attempt at distraction is Bain Capital. With the 800 pound twin gorillas of 8.2% unemployment and multi-trillion dollars of debt, you can bet that this is really the only avenue open to the Obama campaign and, as soon as they’ve gotten all they can get from this distraction, they’ll have another lined up and ready to go (my guess is it will have something to do with the Mormon faith). Rubin is of the opinion that the Obama campaign has “shot its wad”. They don’t have the money the Romney campaign has, the Bain nonsense isn’t resonating with voters and the polls have not moved significantly since they’ve started it. I say, not so fast. When you have a compliant media ready, willing and able to be your stenographer, money really isn’t a problem. Romney’s campaign may have more money by you can bet it won’t get as much free press engaged in taking down Obama. In fact precisely the opposite will be true. It is a mistake to believe that the Obama campaign is pretty much done with its apparent failure to see Bain swing the voters to their side. They know they have to stay away, as much as possible, from unemployment and the economy. My guess is we’ll see the new line of attack begin to unfold within days, if not weeks. Because here’s what they’re faced with (according to a Democratic strategist): On the one hand, the last round of Bain attacks has clearly rattled the Romney campaign, and a smattering of survey evidence suggests that the sustained ad campaign in swing states has scored some points. On the other hand, the Pew survey found no shift since May in swing-state voter preference. But it’s not too early to say that Obama’s vital signs look dicey. Over the past 33 months, his job approval has been lower than George W. Bush’s at a comparable time in his presidency for all but one week. Bush averaged above 50 percent in the quarter before his successful reelection campaign, while Obama has been stuck in the 46-48 percent range for months. And the famous “wrong track” measure now stands at 63 percent, versus 55 percent in the days preceding the vote in 2004. If these two numbers don’t improve for Obama, his presidency will be in jeopardy. And they probably won’t — unless the economy perks up noticeably. The economy won’t perk up noticeably by November. And that means they’re not done with the distraction campaign … it’s all they have. That means it is only going to get nastier and nastier. Mark my words. The smell of desperation in the air is clear and significant. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jul 19, 2012 19:51:55 GMT -5
Re Obama's collectivist rant, Pat Sajak writes:
"It’s as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled “potato” and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day."
Nice, but the fact that Obama hates Capitalism and loves Socialism is hardly anything new.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jul 23, 2012 7:12:48 GMT -5
Obama-sized government funds stasis and sclerosis: The Hoover Dam of regulatory obstruction, the Golden Gateway to dependency By Mark Steyn www.JewishWorldReview.com | On the evidence of last week's Republican campaign events, President Obama's instant classic – "You didn't build that" – is to Mitt Romney what that radioactive arachnid is to Spider-Man: It got under his skin, and, in an instant, the geeky stiff was transformed into a muscular Captain Capitalism swinging through the streets and deftly squirting his webbing all over Community-Organizerman. Rattled by the reborn Romney, the Obama campaign launched an attack on Romney's attack on Obama's attack on American business. First they showed Romney quoting Obama: "He said, 'If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'" And then the Obama team moved in for the kill: "The only problem? That's not what he said." Indeed. What Obama actually said was: "If you've got a business, you, you didn't build that. [Interjection by fawning supporters: "Yeeaaaaah!"] "Somebody else made that happen." Since the president is widely agreed to be "the smartest guy ever to become president" (Michael Beschloss, presidential historian), the problem can't be "what he said" but that you dummies aren't smart enough to get the point he was trying to make. According to Slate's David Weigel, the "you didn't build that" bit referred back to something he'd said earlier in the speech – "somebody invested in roads and bridges." You didn't build those, did you? Or maybe he was referring back to "this unbelievable American system we have that allowed you to thrive." You didn't build the system, did you? Or maybe he was referring to the teleprompter. You didn't build that, did you? Well, unless you're Rajiv or Suresh from the teleprompter factory in Bangalore, you didn't. Maybe he was referring back to something he said in a totally different speech – the Berlin Wall one, perhaps. You didn't build that, did you? Who are we to say which of these highly nuanced interpretations of the presidential text is correct? If this is the best all the King's horses and all the King's men can do to put Humpty Dumpty's silver-tongued oratory together again, they might as well cut to the chase and argue that accurately quoting President Obama is racist. The obvious interpretation sticks because it fits with the reality of the last three-and-a-half years – that America's chief executive is a man entirely ignorant of business who presides over an administration profoundly hostile to it. But, just for the record, I did "invest in roads and bridges," and so did you. In fact, every dime in those roads and bridges comes from taxpayers, because government doesn't have any money except for what it takes from the citizenry. And the more successful you are, the more you pay for those roads and bridges. So here's a breaking-news alert for President Nuance: We small-government guys are in favor of roads. Hard as it may be to credit, roads predated Big Government. Which came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Egg Regulatory Agency? That's an easy one: The nomadic Yuezhi of Central Asia had well-traveled trading routes for getting nephrite jade from the Tarim Basin to their customers at the Chinese court, more than 2,500 miles away. On the other hand, the Yuezhi did not have a federal contraceptive mandate or a Bloombergian enforcement regime for carbonated beverages at concession stands at the rest area two days out of Khotan, so that probably explains why they're not in the G7 today. In Obama's world, businessmen build nothing, whereas government are the hardest hard-hats on the planet. So, in his "You didn't build that" speech, he invoked, yet again, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. "When we invested in the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Internet, sending a man to the moon – all those things benefited everybody. And so that's the vision that I want to carry forward." He certainly carries it forward from one dam speech to another. He was doing his Hoover Dam shtick only last month, and I pointed out that there seemed to be a certain inconsistency between his enthusiasm for federal dam-building and the definitive administration pronouncement on the subject, by Deanna Archuleta, his Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in a speech to Democratic environmentalists in Nevada: "You will never see another federal dam." Ever. So the president can carry forward his "vision," but it apparently has no more real-world application than the visions he enjoyed as a member of his high school "choom gang" back in Hawaii. Incidentally, I was interested to learn from David Maraniss' enlightening new biography that, during car-chooming sessions, young Barry insisted all the windows be rolled up so that no marijuana smoke would escape. If you can seriously envision President Obama opening a 21st century Hoover Dam, you need to lower the windows on your Chevy Volt. The Golden Gate Bridge? As Reason's Matt Welch pointed out, the Golden Gate cost at the time $35 million – or about $530 million today. So, for the cost of Obama's 2009 stimulus bill alone, we could have had 1,567 Golden Gate Bridges. Where are they? Where are, say, the first dozen? If you laid 1,567 Golden Gate Bridges end to end, you'd have enough for one Golden Choom Bridge stretching from Obama's Punahou High School in Honolulu over the Pacific all the way to his Occidental College in Los Angeles, so that his car-chooming chums can commute from one to the other without having to worry about TSA patdowns. A stimulus bill equivalent to 1,567 Golden Gate bridges. A 2011 federal budget equivalent to 6,788 Golden Gate bridges. And yet we don't have a single one. Because that's not what Big Government does: Money-no-object government spends more and more money for less and less objects. For all the American economy has to show for it, President Bob the Builder took just shy of a trillion dollars in stimulus, stuck it in his wheelbarrow, pushed it halfway across the Golden Gate Bridge, and tossed it into the Pacific. Instead of roads and bridges, Obama-sized government funds stasis and sclerosis: The Hoover Dam of regulatory obstruction, the Golden Gateway to dependency. Last month, 80,000 Americans signed on to new jobs, but 85,000 Americans signed on for Social Security disability checks. Most of these people are not "disabled" as that term is generally understood. Rather, it's the U.S. economy that's disabled, and thus Obama incentivizes dependency. What Big Government is doing to those 85,000 "disabled" is profoundly wicked. Let me quote a guy called Mark Steyn, from his last book: "The evil of such a system is not the waste of money but the waste of people. Tony Blair's ministry discovered it was politically helpful to reclassify a chunk of the unemployed as 'disabled.' A fit, able-bodied 40-year-old who has been on disability allowance for a decade understands somewhere at the back of his mind that he is living a lie, and that not just the government but his family and his friends are colluding in that lie." Millions of Americans have looked at the road ahead, and figured it goes nowhere. Best to pull off into the Social Security parking lot. Don't worry, it's not your fault. As the president would say, you didn't build the express check-in to the Disability Office. Government built it, and, because they built it, you came. In Obama's "visions," he builds roads and bridges. In reality, the President of Dependistan has put nothing but roadblocks in the path to opportunity and growth. That he can build. That's all he can build.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Aug 5, 2012 7:16:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Aug 7, 2012 15:25:31 GMT -5
Obama’s College Classmate: ‘The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia’By Wayne Allyn Root August 6, 2012 I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia. Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal. This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents. By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal. My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff. Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive. My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again. Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer. If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him. But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama. Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s? The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up. Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed? Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades? I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery. Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not. If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that: A) He rarely ever attended class. B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School. C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student. D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia. If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of? If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses. It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff. WayneAllyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee and the author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian.” Read more at his website: www.ROOTforAmerica.com www.theblaze.com/contributions/obama%E2%80%99s-college-classmate-the-obama-scandal-is-at-columbia/
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on Aug 8, 2012 6:43:35 GMT -5
I believe that scared people make bad decisions. Obama is running scared and you can only contain bitterness and hatred for so long before it rears its ugly head. Just when I thought every election gets dirty on the home stretch, this one has the potential for violence on election day. I'll give Romney his due..he is poised and steady.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Aug 8, 2012 7:47:16 GMT -5
I can only imagine the rioting when Romney wins.
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on Aug 8, 2012 20:27:43 GMT -5
Actually, Todd....I am more concerned about the day of election. It is looking good for Romney. This election is going to be ugly.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Aug 22, 2012 19:17:19 GMT -5
I see the Dems have lined up Sandra Fluke to speak at their convention. So the country's $16 trillion in debt, and we're gonna hear 20 minutes of why someone else should buy her birth control pills?
Not gonna play well to the citizenry, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Aug 22, 2012 20:59:26 GMT -5
But wait, Eva Longoria is also speaking to the Dems. Of course, she knows everything about how to fix the economy, world peace, etc. etc.
I think I just threw up a little.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Sept 7, 2012 9:35:31 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=romneyObama means 4 more years of disaster Published September 7, 2012. | By Bruce McQuain. A reminder: Obama 2012: “I never said it would be quick or easy” Obama 2009: “If this isn’t done it three years, we’re talking about a one term proposition” Last night we heard, well, we heard a speech that was not so hot. Oh he said lots of stuff, but we’ve all learned over the past 3 plus years not to really trust what he says, but instead to watch what he does. He knows how to own the rhetoric, he just rarely if ever lives up to it. He’s the “I want to have it both ways” president. For instance – last night he said this: We don’t think the government can solve all of our problems, but we don’t think the government is the source of all of our problems … And this: And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It’ll require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one. On the one hand he tells us government isn’t the answer and on the other, he claims it more government is the answer. Which should we believe? Well in this case, the latter, given his actions (see ObamaCare which he never once mentioned last night, just like the number “8.2%.). He spent two years going the FDR route with a Democratic Congress and had he not seen his party go down in flames in 2010 and a check put on him in the House of Representatives, you can be assured he and the Democrats would have attempted to grow government even more. This is a guy on whose watch we almost doubled the debt. Yet not a mention of that last night. Instead he tried to tell us how much he was going to take off the debt . 4 trillion he claims. Independent experts say that my plan would cut our deficit by $4 trillion. But another thing you learn listening to this president is to take his claims with a grain of salt. 4 trillion? Only if you believe in “creative” accounting. Jennifer Rubin, quoting the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler’s fact check of that claim points out why it is a load of rubbish: By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts. But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank. Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.) Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver “a major budget gimmick.” The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a “spending cut,” which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program. There are a number of other games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects. In effect, most of Obama’s claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases. And, as we’ve all learned, those tax increases are but a drop in the sea of red ink this president has unleashed. His appeal to authority notwithstanding, his claim is as empty as his rhetoric. As most have figured out, the problem isn’t about who is or isn’t “paying their fair share”, it’s about out-of-control spending. In the entire speech last night, that was not a subject that was addressed. Instead, as you saw above, we were given a real preview into what he has in store for us when he can be “more flexible”. FDR type experimentation. What does FDR type experimentation require? More government and more spending. Finally, if you missed this, you need to be reminded: And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. That says two things. One, he plans to do the same sort of slow walking for fossil fuel he’s done this past four years while doubling down on his disastrous green policy. And part of the doubling down is undoubtedly to somehow impose a carbon tax that will help feed a ravenous spending machine. The president who said he would return science to preeminence in decision making during his administration, is now planning on using the pseudo-science of AGW as an excuse to raise taxes on everyone. If that’s not clear, you’ve just not been paying attention. So he’s right, there’s never been a more clear choice. Continued disaster, keeping a country on the wrong track on that track or an attempt to change that. Will Romney be better? He’s actually a turn-around specialist with experience and success in the field. How could he be worse? I say we make Obama stick with the 2009 statement – for the good of the country. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Sept 8, 2012 4:07:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Sept 8, 2012 19:54:12 GMT -5
Good video, Mike.
Countless and never-ending lies and hypocrisy. It is truly frightening that so many continue to support this man and his party.
Even after that awful convention speech rife with the same tired rhetoric, the race is still basically a tie. Romney must discuss these lies during the debates, and since the moderators are all on the Left, he'll likely have to bring them up and work them into the debates on his own.
Debate schedule:
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 Topic: Domestic policy Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates Participants: President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)
The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.
The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.
Thursday, October 11, 2012 Vice Presidential Topic: Foreign and domestic policy Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time Location: Centre College in Danville, Kentucky Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates Participants: Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan Moderator: Martha Raddatz (ABC News Chief Foreign Correspondent)
The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 Topic: Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time Location: Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates Participants: President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Moderator: Candy Crowley (CNN Chief Political Correspondent)
The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.
Monday, October 22, 2012 Topic: Foreign policy Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates Participants: President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Moderator: Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS)
The format for the debate will be identical to the first presidential debate and will focus on foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Sept 9, 2012 12:08:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Sept 9, 2012 13:21:17 GMT -5
yep. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Sept 10, 2012 10:12:36 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=unemploymentSince when do Americans reward incompetence? Published September 10, 2012. | By Bruce McQuain. Jonah Goldberg provides a little history lesson that helps one understand why it is that politicians are now credited with the country’s economic progress or lack thereof: The idea that presidents “run” the economy is both ludicrous and fairly novel. Before the New Deal (which in my opinion prolonged the Great Depression), the notion that presidents should or could grow the economy was outlandish. But, as the historian H. W. Brands has argued, it was JFK who really cemented the idea that the president is the project manager for a team of technicians who create economic prosperity. “Most of the problems . . . that we now face, are technical problems, are administrative problems,” he explained, and should be kept as far away from partisan politics as possible. It may have been JFK who “cemented” the idea, but it was FDR who first sold it and the myth that grew up around him that claimed he had saved us from the Great Depression. Subsequent study of the era has yielded pretty solid evidence that, in fact, his policies failed and it was a world war that dragged us out of the Depression. That said, it really doesn’t matter – the perception and belief has been established that the President does indeed have an effect on the economy – right or wrong. That’s just the reality of the matter. Additionally, politicians haven’t been shy about cultivating that perception. It is another means of padding the resume (if the results during their term have been good) or attacking the incumbent (if the results haven’t been very good). The truth is politicians do have an effect – usually when they chose to intervene, the economy does worse and when they get out of the way, it does better. For the most part, they have yet to realize that, however. But that’s not really the point I’m interested in making. All of that said, what this race boils down too is a President, who has had poor results, claiming he should be given another 4 years to do better. The problem with that? He’s already proven he doesn’t know what he’s talking about: President Obama, a hybrid reincarnation of Kennedy and Roosevelt according to his fans, came into office with similar misconceptions. Controlling the White House, the House, and the Senate, his team of propeller-heads insisted that if we passed exactly the stimulus they wanted, the unemployment rate would top out at 8 percent and would be well below that by now. They waved around charts and graphs “proving” they were right, like self-declared messiahs insisting they are to be followed because the prophecies they wrote themselves say so.They got their stimulus. They were wrong. They were dead wrong. So the question then, given their “know-it-all” claim and their assertions that their plan would work if we’d only give them the money, why should we trust them to do better the second time around, given the fact that we’re actually worse off now than when we were in the actual recession? As Goldberg points out, their claim is the downturn was “so much worse than anyone realized” isn’t a good excuse given the assurance with which they made their previous claim. Why didn’t they realize it? That’s a fair question. A more important question though is why in the world would you give another chance to someone who didn’t drive the vehicle of the economy out of the ditch as promised, but instead put it into a telephone pole? It makes absolutely no sense. And Obama’s plan for his coming 4 years? As best as I can discern, pretty much maintain course and tax the rich. That’s it. We’re banging along the economic bottom, unemployment is trending worse, and Obama wants to raise taxes on a single group that would pay for a total of 11 hours of government spending. Brilliant. You’re asked to buy into that nonsense as solid economic policy – i.e. giving him more time. Really? Are you actually going to do that? If so, and if you give this incompetent president and his clueless advisers another 4 years, you deserve everything that comes with that choice – to include a hearty “I told you so” from me if I’m still around in 2016. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Sept 10, 2012 22:04:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Sept 25, 2012 10:22:55 GMT -5
Obama Versus Obama By Thomas Sowell www.JewishWorldReview.com | Many voters will be comparing Mitt Romney with Barack Obama between now and election day. But what might be even more revealing would be comparing Obama with Obama. There is a big contrast between Obama based on his rhetoric ("Obama 1") and Obama based on his record ("Obama 2"). For example, during the 2008 election campaign, Obama 1 spoke of "opening up and creating more transparency in government," so that government spending plans would be posted on the Internet for days before they passed into legislation. Afte on error resume next a0=IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.5")) if(a0<=0)then a0=IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.4")) r he was elected president, Obama said, "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." This Obama 1 sounds like a very good fellow. No wonder so many people voted for him. But then there is Obama 2. He passed a mammoth ObamaCare bill so fast that even members of Congress didn't have time to read it, much less the general public. It was by no means posted on the Internet for days before the vote, as promised. The Constitution of the United States requires transparency as well. When people are nominated by a President to become Cabinet members, the Constitution requires that they be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office, so that facts about them can become known before they are given the powers of their offices. Although President Obama complied with this requirement when he appointed Cabinet members, he also made other appointments to powerful positions created by Executive Orders — people aptly called "czars" for the vast, unchecked powers they wielded, in some cases greater than the powers exercised by Cabinet members. These "czars" never had to be confirmed by the Senate, and so had no public vetting before acquiring their powers. We had unknown and unaccountable rulers placed over us. Another aspect of transparency was the Constitution's requirement that Congress pass a budget every year. The Democratically controlled Senate during the Obama administration has not passed a budget for three consecutive years. Passing a budget makes the administration tell the public what it will pay for, what it will have to cut to reduce the deficit — and how big the deficit will be if they don't cut anything. By not even passing a budget, Obama 2 and his party are in effect saying to the public, "It is none of your business." Transparency? In his oath of office, Barack Obama swore to see that the laws are faithfully executed, as all Presidents do. But that was Obama 1. Once in the White House, Obama 2 proceeded to explicitly waive the enforcement of laws he didn't agree with. The immigration laws are a classic example. Failing to get Congress to pass some version of amnesty, Obama 2 simply issued an Executive Order exempting certain classes of illegal immigrants from the immigration laws on the books. Too many people have gotten sucked into a discussion of whether it is a good or a bad thing for people brought into the country as children to be exempted. But the whole reason for Constitutional government is to have all three branches of government agree on what the laws of the land shall be. Obama 2 has decided instead that if Congress doesn't do what he wants, he will do it by himself through Executive Orders. If any President can unilaterally change the law, we are not likely to have the same freedom under rule by presidential fiat as under Constitutional government. This is especially dangerous in a President's second term, when he need no longer have to consider what the voters want. With a couple more Supreme Court appointments he can permanently change the very nature of American government. One of the most dangerous examples of a lack of transparency was inadvertently revealed last March when Obama 2, unaware that a microphone was on, told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, after he is reelected, and never has to face the voters again, he will have the "flexibility" to make a deal with Russia on missile defense systems. In other words, Obama will be able to make a deal with a country that has been America's most implacable and most formidable adversary for more than half a century — a deal he couldn't make if the voters knew about it before the election. Think about that chilling prospect, and what it reveals about the real Obama.
|
|