Now this is funny. Four "more" years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZgQhnNRSuw
Printable View
Now this is funny. Four "more" years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZgQhnNRSuw
Here's another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SOx9jtpqA
And some say that the democrats have a platform.......
President obama clearly had a bad debate. Joe biden on the other hand clearly had a better grasp of the issues and of course the facts.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...323.html?hp=l1
DANVILLE, Ky. — Whatever Joe Biden was drinking Thursday night, Barack Obama ought to order a case of it.
Biden took on Paul Ryan in the one and only vice presidential debate and did what Obama had failed to do last week in his debate with Mitt Romney: Biden not only won over the audience, but got under his opponent’s skin.
Biden smirked, sneered, and openly laughed at many of Ryan’s responses. It could have looked rude, but Biden made it look tough.
After all, Biden was the 69-year-old defender and Ryan was the 42-year-old challenger. But by the end of the evening, Joltin’ Joe had done real damage to his opponent.
In fact, as the 90 minutes flew by - - it was the rare debate where one actually wanted it to go longer - - Ryan began looking younger and younger. And not in a good way.
Both men have been in politics most of their adult lives, but Biden’s adult life has been longer. Biden was in the Senate so long, he knows a dozen ways of observing outward forms of politeness, while sticking a knife in your ribs and twisting it.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz293x570Me
Now why does this sound familiar? Oh yeah its mr. siriuslyWrongs favorite economic theory espoused by none other than Mr. Peter Schiff who has gotten just about every economic call
WRONG tha he has made in the past 4 years and beyond.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...ustrian-School
I was completely unsuprised when the New York Times wrote back in August that Paul Ryan is a fan of the economist Friedrich von Hayek, a member of the Austrian school of economics. After all, the Ryan budget takes from those mooching poors and gives to the rich übermenschen who've earned the upward redistribution of wealth because CAPITALISM! Ayn Rand couldn't have designed a more sociopathic budget herself, and we're talking about a woman who thought there was something praiseworthy about William Edward Hickman.
But in the same way that libertarians generally espouse Rand's ideas about the evilness of traditional values like altruism and equality, they've also decided to endorse yet another fantasy world where the rules are made up and the facts don't matter. If you don't know much about the Austrian school, they're so far up their own asses that they think Milton Friedman is a socialist. That's not even the looniest part about the Austrian school, the favored economic system of most Randists and Libertarians.
If you're like me, you may have found yourself yelling some version of "there are four lights!" or "Two Plus Two Equals Four!" at republicans on television over the past few months. You may have loved Bill Clinton's mathtastic takedown of the Republican party at the DNC. But Paul Ryan's economic theory is much harder to rubble, because it relies on special magic math that is immune, in the eyes of its beholders, from any kind of outside criticism.
"Evilness of traditional values like altruism and equality". Very dramatic indeed.
I know math is hard for you, so statistics will be even harder yet, but if you google the term "standard normal curve" you will learn that not everyone can or will be equal. Some accept that, and recognize that government is certainly not the solution to this natural phenemonon.
I think Thomas Sowell touches on this point very well in the link supplied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88
Now in your world, if you critize Sowell, then you are a racist.
Those horrible Austrians...
Ron Paul - September 10, 2003 (I will highlight the important parts for you)
"Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."
You still want government to be the solution to altruism and equality? Of course you do.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html
Ron Paul knew the devistation of failed government policy before it failed. Silly Austrian School.
And who defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Maxine Waters (D-CA) for one, "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae...."
Gregory Meeks (D-NY), "I'm just pissed off for being here"
Lacy Clay (D-MO), "...Political lynching of Franklin Raines..."
Artur Davis (D-AL)
Barney Frank (D-MA), "I don't see anything wrong."
Failed government policy brought to you by DEMOCRATS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPoksfSf2nA
And did you see those salaries? 1%'ers for sure.
At least Bill Clinton admits it.
We've heard it all before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZgQhnNRSuw
Four more years?
Bush cares about the little guy. You should be happy. I wonder if he was too caring??Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Remember when SiriuslyWrong tried the same argument as Romney about the 47% not paying taxes?
Siriuslywrong argued it extensively. Under political pressure Romney eventually declared it to be a mistake. This article explains again just how much a Republican talking point the 47% became despite the fact that the Republicans were involved in creating the tax environment to make this so.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89I08T20121019
By Kim Dixon
WASHINGTON | Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:04am EDT
(Reuters) - Mitt Romney has distanced himself from his remarks lamenting the nearly 47 percent of Americans who do not owe federal income taxes, but his fellow Republicans helped engineer the very tax breaks that have put many in that category. And little change is expected soon.
A key reason: The breaks in question - the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit - are based on core Republican philosophies of encouraging work to lift people out of poverty, Republican aides and many conservatives say.
The number of Americans not owing federal income taxes has been growing since the mid-1980s, and the increase largely stems from expansion of these two tax credits - championed by Republicans from conservative economist Milton Friedman to former President Ronald Reagan.
"It is absolutely true - there is some degree of disconnect between complaining about the 47 percent and yet supporting the policies that brought it about," said economist Alan Viard of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/op...omic-plan.html
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Romney’s Economic Model
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 24, 2012
Mitt Romney’s best argument on the campaign trail has been simple: Under President Obama, the American economy has remained excruciatingly weak, far underperforming the White House’s own projection.
But Obama’s best response could be this: If you want to see how Romney’s economic policies would work out, take a look at Europe. And weep.
In the last few years, Germany and Britain, in particular, have implemented precisely the policies that Romney favors, and they have been richly praised by Republicans here as a result. Yet these days those economies seem, to use a German technical term, kaput.
Is Europe a fair comparison? Well, Republicans seem to think so, because they came up with it. In the last few years, they’ve repeatedly cited Republican-style austerity in places like Germany and Britain as a model for America.
Let’s dial back the time machine and listen up:
Keep reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...c_story_1.html
Washington Post endorsement: Four more years for President Obama
Editorial Board
Barack Obama’s clear-eyed view of the road ahead makes him the better choice for president.
With no time to catch his breath, Mr. Obama designed and won approval for a stimulus bill that slowed job loss and helped restore confidence. He engineered a rescue of the auto industry. The steady experts he put in charge of economic policy, notably Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, navigated between the Democratic Party’s left, which urged populist measures that would have been expensive and ineffectual, and an obstructionist Republican Party, which at times seemed content to inflict great harm on the country. The industrial-policy element of the recovery plan, favoring high-speed rail where it’s not needed and electric cars that consumers won’t buy, wasted a lot of money. But on balance the administration, working with the Federal Reserve, succeeded in its core mission. The rebound of the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 6,626 in March 2009 to above 13,000 today is no comfort to the many Americans who remain unemployed or poorer than before the crisis. But it reflects a recovery of the faith upon which every economy depends.
The article continues....
And here you think conservatives aren't compassionate......Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
How about all that investment in green energy? Now I hear that not only was Abound's technology the same as the market leaders, First Solar, but the product actually sucked. Great investment!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
"We heard from one employee, a whistleblower employee, who made the statement; the solar panels worked fine as long as you didn't put them in the sun," said Republican Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2AiVdgy6C
Obama was really "clear eyed" on that. Lloyd, if you "invested" as well as Obama did, you'd be brought up on charges.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ot-initiative/
Bill Clinton Throws His Support Behind Michigan’s Renewable Energy Ballot Initiative
By Stephen Lacey on Oct 29, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Michigan is playing host to a major battle over renewable energy this fall. On one side are clean energy proponents promoting a ballot initiative that would increase the state’s renewable electricity targets to 25 percent by 2025. On the other side are large coal-dependent utilities fighting to prevent any new increases.
In the middle are Michigan voters who are getting bombarded with millions of dollars in advertisements from utilities opposed to new renewable energy standards. Even so, a majority of Michiganders say they support new targets that would diversify the state’s electricity mix — stimulating billions of dollars in renewable energy investments while only adding about 50 cents per month to the average residential utility bill.
Backers of Proposal 3 might not have the spending power of the state’s largest utilities. But they now have a major heavy hitter on their side: Bill Clinton.
Former President Clinton — a man well-versed in the benefits of clean energy — has officially put thrown his support behind the 25 percent renewable electricity target.
Hurricane Sandy Shows We Need To Prepare For Climate Change, Cuomo And Bloomberg Say
Posted: 10/30/2012 1:29 pm EDT Updated: 10/30/2012 1:49 pm EDT
Cuomo said on Tuesday that he told President Barack Obama it seemed like "we have a 100-year flood every two years now."
"These are extreme weather patterns. The frequency has been increasing,” he said.
Of protections like levees in Lower Manhattan, Cuomo said, "It is something we’re going to have to start thinking about … The construction of this city did not anticipate these kinds of situations. We are only a few feet above sea level."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...energy-in-Iowa
Romnesia: With 11 days to go, Mitt Romney changes position on subsidies for renewable energy in Iowa
byJed LewisonFollow
Remember how Mitt Romney hurt himself in Iowa by coming out against subsidies for wind power? Well, now that it's 11 days before the election and he desperately needs to win Iowa, he's apparently having a change of heart, because today he said he would support subsidies for renewables:
Mitt Romney says he's the change candidate ... and to prove it, he changes his positions.
We're going to support nuclear and renewables, but we'll phase out subsidies once an industry is on its feet.
Now this might not actually be a flip-flop, because Romney doesn't specifically say that he supports wind energy tax breaks. Instead, he goes with a vague pledge to support "renewables." But make no mistake: He wants Iowans to at least think he supports wind energy tax breaks.
The only question here is whether Romney is making a crass eleventh hour political flip-flop ... or if he simply wants people to think he's flip-flopped. Maybe we could get an answer if he actually took questions from the media, but that's not happening anytime soon. Actually, it probably doesn't even matter, because if there's one thing we should know by now about Mitt Romney, the only thing that you can truly believe about him is that he'll say whatever he thinks he needs to say in order to get what he wants to get.
To borrow some words the President spoke in 2012, "Mr. Obama, you didn't build that road."
3.5-mile stretch of road in Los Angeles renamed President Barack Obama Boulevard
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/st...ard/ar-AAATIE7