PoliticsLiberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: calgal who wrote (134242)6/2/2012 12:57:21 AM
From: calgal
   of 209590

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: calgal who wrote (134243)6/2/2012 12:57:36 AM
From: calgal
   of 209590

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: calgal who wrote (134244)6/2/2012 12:58:00 AM
From: calgal
   of 209590

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: calgal who wrote (134245)6/2/2012 12:59:12 AM
From: calgal
   of 209590

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: calgal6/2/2012 1:15:36 AM
   of 209590
and then there is Trump. Will he seriously run?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: calgal who wrote (134247)6/2/2012 1:40:55 AM
From: calgal
1 Recommendation   of 209590

As Predicted Democrats Abandoning Obama

  • Love is always being able to tell liberals I told you so.

    Ok, I don’t know if it’s love exactly, but man it sure does feel good.

    A few weeks ago, after West Virginia’s Democrat governor and US Senator both refused to endorse Obama for reelection in 2012, I wrote:

    Scores of Democrats running for reelection will defect from Obama before the campaign is done. And scores of Democrat voters will reject him too.

    Why? The same reason voters will likely vote to kick Obama out of the White House: self-interest, if not outright self-defense.

    Democrat Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia has announced that he isn’t sure that he will be supporting Barack Obama for reelection.

    “Tomblin said in statement released by his campaign that he was a ‘loyal member of the Democratic Party’ but was concerned by fellow Democrat Obama's ‘misguided policies,” reports the Charleston Daily Mail.

    I also observed that West Virginia’s newest Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin has been a little more direct about his distaste for Obama.

    “If that means I have to break with my party to do what's best for the country,” wrote Manchin in an op-ed in the Gazette-Mail, “I will. If it means I take on a sitting president to protect West Virginia interests, I have and I will.”

    Manchin’s bow-shot on SS Obama was returned by advisor David Axlerod on CNN’s State of the Union: "I think he was very candid there,” reported the National Journal. “His concern is about his own political well being. He's running for the Senate in that state. We didn't win the state the last time. It's going to be a tough state for us again, and he's making a political judgment about himself."

    Well according to the official tally released today by the RNC, the number of Democrats slapping down Obama isn’t quite yet a score.

    It’s only 14.

    That will do for now. It’s early.

    In an email titled “14 and Counting,” the RNC details 14 Democrats who have disavowed Obama’s “attacks on free enterprise in his campaign.”

    The list includes some we already know about, but it also includes some names that should worry Obama- like for example Senator Dianne Feinstein (LIB, CA) who has told Obama to get on with more fertile campaign territory.

    From the RNC:

    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

    To: calgal who wrote (134248)6/2/2012 1:45:06 AM
    From: calgal
       of 209590

    Stupidity Laws Could Have Stopped Obama

  • Democrats have been crying for the last few weeks because the official bank of the Obama administration, JPMorgan Chase, lost $2 billion dollars in a hedging strategy that will likely get a few more folks fired from the firm.

    Democrats have used their deepest Vox Populi to decry loose bank regulations that allowed this outrage to happen.

    Their argument would be especially good if the bank regulations they are criticizing weren’t the result of large Democrat majorities and signed into law by President Occupy Wall Street himself just as the Democrat majorities unwound.

    As Reuters notes “The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law was enacted in response to the financial crisis includes the Volcker rule, which bans banks from making speculative bets with company money. But it includes an exemption for trades done to hedge risk.” Nice loophole there guys; must have raised a ton on money for Democrat campaigns on that exemption.

    House Republicans meanwhile are taking a more pragmatic and ultimately correct position that these losses are best left to shareholders and board of directors to figure out.

    "There's no law against stupidity. No law against stupid trades," said House Speak John Boehner.

    Because here’s where Democrat logic really falls apart: If there were laws against stupid investments, we could have used it the last three years to protect the taxpayers from Obama.

    How come Dodd-Frank is silent on the stupidity of a president whose past investment management expertise consists mostly of ordering t-shirts for the marches he conducted in Chicago neighborhoods?

    If you want to talk about really solving too-big-to-fail, or systemic risk in financial markets, you can start at the White House.

    Obama’s been the Typhoid Mary of the investment business since Democrats gave him an unlimited check book.

    It’s just possible that because of Obama the solar industry won’t recover from his government-imposed investment strategy for a decade. Solar investments- like the Guggenheim Solar ETF- which once traded above $250 before Obama was elected, trade very close to an all-time low at $17.74 during this historic, green Renaissance that Obama has ushered in.

    Looking only at the high-risk/no reward green company investments Obama’s made, he’s lost about $6.5 billion so far out the $34 billion in Department of Energy loans, according to CBSNews via Hot Air’s Ed Morrisse

    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

    To: calgal who wrote (134249)6/2/2012 1:45:28 AM
    From: calgal
       of 209590

    The Great Liberal Explains the Bible

  • Ericynot wrote: Part of what Buffett proposed in the so-called Buffett Rule is raising the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to the level of ordinary income. Re-read my original post from 11:19 AM. You're confused and so, apparently, is John Ransom.- Obama’s Campaign about Nothing

    Dear Comrade Eric,

    No, I’m not confused. I think perhaps you don’t understand how tax law actually operates in real life.

    Even assuming that the Buffett rule raises taxes on capital gains, there are easy ways for rich people to avoid paying capital gains taxes.

    Unlike income taxes, a person can choose when to incur capital gains taxes.

    The way Buffett chooses is by buying stocks and holding on to them for a really long time. Until he sells, there is no capital gain event- hence no taxable event. This is a common way that financial advisors routinely minimize the tax burden of people who fall into upper incomes. They buy companies and hold for long periods of time and much more rarely seek to realize capital gains, because the tax makes a big difference in total return.

    You may say so what? The “so what” is that by punishing the realization of capital gains you stop the market from being more liquid, thereby not utilizing capital more often. In other words, you need more capital to get the same amount of liquidity.

    You also raise less money with higher capital gains taxes.

    From Heritage:

    In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced. Rather than expand by 36% as the Congressional Budget Office projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.

    The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline.

    Here’s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes:

    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

    To: tonto who wrote (134224)6/2/2012 2:20:02 AM
    From: Hope Praytochange
    2 Recommendations   of 209590
    Holder's Racial Incitement When looking for the Attorney General's motives, think lower.

      The United States of America has a black President whose chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, is also black. They have a lot of political power. So how are they using it? Well, one way is to assert to black audiences that voter ID laws are really attempts to disenfranchise black Americans. And liberals think Donald Trump's birther fantasies are offensive?

      "In my travels across this country, I've heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from citizens, who—often for the first time in their lives—now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation's most noble ideals," Mr. Holder said Wednesday in a speech to the Council of Black Churches. Voter ID laws and white discrimination, he added, mean that "some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance."

      That's right. The two most powerful men in America are black, two of the last three Secretaries of State were black, numerous corporate CEOs and other executives are black, and minorities of many races now win state-wide elections in states that belonged to the Confederacy, but the AG implies that Jim Crow is on the cusp of a comeback.

      It's demeaning to have to dignify this argument with facts, but here goes. Voter ID laws have been found by the courts not to be an undue burden under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. The landmark Supreme Court opinion, upholding an Indiana law in 2008, was written for a six-member majority by that noted right-winger, John Paul Stevens.

      Enlarge Image


      Associated Press Attorney General Eric Holder

      Black voter turnout increased in Georgia and Indiana after voter ID laws passed. Georgia began implementing its law requiring one of six forms of voter ID in 2007. According to data from Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, the black vote increased by 42%, or 366,000 votes, in 2008 over 2004. The Latino vote grew by 140% or 25,000 votes in 2008, while the white vote increased by only 8% from four years earlier.

      No doubt Mr. Obama's presence on the ballot helped drive that turnout surge in 2008, but then the black vote in Georgia also increased by 44.2% during the midterm Congressional races of 2010 from 2006. The Hispanic vote grew by 66.5% in 2010 from four years earlier. Those vote totals certainly don't suggest that requiring an ID is a barrier to the ballot box.

      As for public opinion, an April 2012 Fox News survey found that a majority of Democrats (52%), Republicans (87%) and independents (72%) support voter ID laws. This is no doubt because Americans understand intuitively that ballot integrity is as important as ballot access to democratic credibility. Everyone's franchise is devalued if an election turns on the votes of the quick and the dead.

      All of this honors Mr. Holder too much because the real key to understanding his speech is to think lower. A May 4 story in the Washington Post got to the heart of the matter: "The number of black and Hispanic registered voters has fallen sharply since 2008, posing a serious challenge to the Obama campaign in an election that could turn on the participation of minority voters."

      In the 2008 heyday of hope and change, strong minority turnout helped push Mr. Obama to victory, especially in such swing states as Virginia and New Mexico. But as another election approaches, the minority thrill is gone. According to the Census Bureau, Hispanic voter registration has fallen 5% across the U.S., to about 11 million. The decline is 28% in New Mexico and about 10% in Florida, another swing state. Black registration is down 7% across the country.

      The likeliest explanation is economic, as job losses and mortgage foreclosures lead to dislocation and migration to new areas. But it's also possible that many minorities are as disappointed as everyone else with the lackluster recovery. For all of Mr. Obama's attempts to portray Mitt Romney as out of touch, no one has suffered more in the Obama economy than minorities.

      Which explains Mr. Holder's racial incitement strategy. If Mr. Obama is going to win those swing states again, he needs another burst of minority turnout. If hope won't get them to vote for Mr. Obama again, then how about fear?

      Mr. Holder's Council of Black Churches address is merely the latest of his election-year moves that charge racial discrimination of one kind or another. These include voting-rights lawsuits to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, intervention in immigration cases in Arizona, and various housing and lending discrimination suits. Whatever the legal merits of these cases, their sudden proliferation in an election year suggests a political motivation.

      The courts will eventually expose much of this as meritless, but it's a shame the media won't call Mr. Holder on this strategy before the election. Imagine the uproar if a Republican AG pursued a similar strategy. It's worse than a shame that America's first black Attorney General is using his considerable power to inflame racial antagonism.

      A version of this article appeared June 1, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Holder's Racial Incitement.

      Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

      To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (134129)6/2/2012 5:35:32 AM
      From: FUBHO
      3 Recommendations   of 209590
      President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

      (MY NOTE: Pelosi was much of the problem. She should be in prison for what she did to the budget.)


      June 1, 2012

      President Obama has shelled out more in federal spending than the five presidents that came before him.

      A new chart by the Comeback America Initiative (CAI), a non-partisan group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility by policymakers, shows federal spending by president as a percentage of GDP, and it doesn't reflect well on Obama.

      "There has been a dramatic increase in spending under the Obama administration," David Walker, Founder and CEO of CAI, told Whispers. "Most of it is attributable to year one of his presidency and the stimulus... but President Obama has continued to take spending to a new level."

      Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade.

      Federal spending is also higher this year than any year since 1949. The last time spending was higher— in 1946, it was 24.8—the country was just coming down from the exorbitant rates of spending during World War II.

      GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he would cut federal spending down to just 17 percent of GDP.

      President Obama is facing some heat over the economy Friday after a depressing job report showed the jobless rate climbed to 8.2 percent in May.

      Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
      Previous 10 Next 10 

      Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.