Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
These liberal morons actually believe that if the gov't would just take over control of all of these companies, there would be enough money to pay everyone $50,000 salaries to stock shelves, hold flags on the side of the road, and ask if people want "fries with that."
Even more pathetic is their total lack of understanding on why $20,000 is now poverty. The FED and the FED GOV'T working together as sociopaths and psychopaths is so beyond their understanding, that nothing can be said.
What they want, but will not admit, is a Communist country, because they, once again, believe that the TEFLON king and the sociopaths in Congress actually care about them, and they think life would be better than in an evil, capitalistic society. You can't reason with a moron.
Taxpayers only pay it because we have a gov't that extorts money from all working Americans, because they think THEY know better how to spend OUR money. And the FIRST thing they ALWAYS spend it on is THEMSELVES! Sociopaths and psychopaths, and you think 50% of them are wonderful, caring "folks," because the TEFLON king tells you that.
You obviously think that private ownership and capitalism should be done away with completely, and a massive federal gov't should CONTROL everything -- what companies make, how they make it, who they hire, what they pay, what they can charge for their products, and on and on. That's living in the Soviet Union. There is no middle ground. You cannot pick and choose the parts of capitalism you like best. Life is not fair in any system, but you can be damn sure that life in a 100% capitalistic society is 1000 times better than life in a 100% communist society for most of the population.
You want to always focus on the bottom 20% and change the rules to accommodate them, no matter that it will make things worse for the other 80% -- except the top .01% who will be unscathed no matter what, because they CONTROL things, and the people at the top in the Federal gov't ARE IN this .01%! Nothing is perfect, but if you destroy capitalism, you WILL eventually get a form of communism. Capitalism or Communism makes NO DIFFERENCE to the .01% at the top! Why is that so hard to understand? But the choice makes a huge difference to the 99.99%
You would rather have 99.99% living just above the poverty line, rather than 80% of that group living nicely above or well above, and 20% living at or below the poverty line. That, in my opinion, is stupidity, even for the 20% in poverty. Bring the 80% down far enough, and I guarantee you life will get worse even for those already in poverty, because charity will disappear, and charities do more good in the country than any federal program ever thought of doing, and they do it without WASTING 50-75% of the money! How was life for the 99% in the Soviet Union?
If people don't like Wal Mart's practices, they don't have to work there, and they certainly don't have to buy their products. Those complaining the most do all their shopping at Wal Mart! Morons. Sheeple. Low IQ idiots who could only make $13 an hour if the gov't FORCES a company to pay them!
You actually believe the gov't can force away poverty, but what you will get is the destruction of a decent life for MOST people. When it all collapses, enjoy the mess you cheered on.
You asked for it -- lol. The only thing that carries weight around here is the ability to "stick it to the man." And by "the man," they do not mean the government. They see the government as a simple middle man, charged with raping and thieving from anyone who might be working hard to get ahead. RAISE TAXES! MORE REGULATIONS! MORE WELFARE PROGRAMS!
Anything that will remove money from the pockets of those the entitled see as "rich" is considered fair game and worthy of praise and adoration.
If you had said, "I've not held a real job in years, but I'm on 5 kinds of federal aid, you'd be a god here.
If you were a divorced or single mother with 6 kids from 6 different men, you would be worshiped here!
You are WRONG again! Does it get old to let your biased hatred of a group, based on inaccurate information and prejudice, keep coming back to haunt you?
If you care to read, you'll see that the "tea party," which you seem to have some weird and INACCURATE hatred for, are the VERY ONES who are pushing for MORE CUTS to the farm subsidy programs.
If you'd remove those liberal hate glasses, you might see things a bit differently.
Tea Party groups take aim at farm bill, Republicans
WASHINGTON — In the aftermath of the partial government shutdown, some Tea Party-aligned groups that helped push a conservative revolt in Congress over President Obama's health care law are readying for Round 2.
Their top target: the sweeping legislation that will set federal farm policy for years to come. Next week, a group of lawmakers will meet to begin hashing out differences between the Senate and House versions of the farm bill. Conservative groups, such as Heritage Action for America, are lobbying to jettison any compromise, saying neither version does enough to slash taxpayer subsidies to agribusiness.
"You are using taxpayer money to subsidize industries that are making record profits," said Dan Holler of Heritage Action. His group is urging lawmakers to approve a one-year extension of existing farm policies rather "than locking in bad law for another three to five years," he said.
The latest confrontation over the farm measure underscores the rift between the pro-small-government Tea Party faction of the Republican Party and the business community. Grassroots Tea Party activists, whose opposition to the health care law helped fuel the budget fight that led to a 16-day partial government shutdown this month, say they won't back down from efforts to reduce government spending and will make their displeasure known in next year's midterm elections.
"We think gridlock is a good thing," said Diane Cox, a Tea Party activist from Valdosta, Ga., who is one of 6,000 Heritage Action "sentinels" who pushed to defund the Affordable Care Act and is closely watching developments on the farm bill. "It's called the balance of powers."
"I don't think politicians understand that we are serious about stopping wasteful government spending," said Cox, 68. "We are going to have to bring a few more of them home."
Already this year, skirmishes over spending have delayed efforts to complete a new, five-year farm law, now more than a year overdue. In the past, farm bills enjoyed bipartisan support, in part because the measures paired pro-farm policies with continued support for food stamps, guaranteeing "yes" votes from lawmakers representing both rural and urban areas.
After rejecting an earlier version of the farm bill in June, the GOP-led House broke the legislation into two pieces, first approving a chunk that dealt with farm subsidies along with other agriculture policies and then passing the food-stamp portion. The House-passed bill cuts food stamps by roughly $40 billion during the next decade, dropping benefits to 3 million people.
The Senate measure cuts far less from food stamps — about $4 billion over 10 years.
Both versions eliminate $5 billion in subsidies known as "direct payments" to farmers, long criticized because they pay certain types of farmers the same amount each year regardless of need or whether they plant crops.
Conservative advocacy groups want more. They are challenging an array of provisions, including taxpayer-funded subsidies for crop insurance.
"If you are a Republican and you say social welfare programs are wasteful, you are hypocritical if you turn around and give subsidies to corporations," said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a group backed by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
The group was not among those that urged lawmakers to defund Obamacare during the recent budget showdown, but it has made repealing the health care law among its top priorities. The group also wants deeper cuts to the food stamp program, which has grown dramatically. More than 47 million people now receive food stamps, up from 21 million a decade earlier.
Mary Kay Thatcher, a lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau, said the House and Senate measures contain "significant reform."
"The elimination of direct payments is a big deal," she said. "It might not be enough reform for Heritage, but it's real reform."
She said the measure has drawn conservative attention, in part, because so few bills have any chance of winning approval in a gridlocked Congress. "You have more Tea Party members in the House," she said. "There are more reformers, and they want to reform whatever comes along."
What happens next will be a test of the clout of the Tea Party, derided by the party establishment for helping to engineer a budget showdown that shuttered parts of the government and threatened a debt default without winning any significant concessions on the health care law.
So far, top Republicans and Democrats on the agriculture panel appear eager to move forward on a compromise. Last week, President Obama said the farm bill was one of three priorities for Congress to resolve before year's end. The others are a budget agreement and an overhaul of the nation's immigration system.
Even as they sound alarms on the farm measure, conservative advocacy groups say they do not plan to retreat from efforts to dismantle the health care law. FreedomWorks, another Tea Party-aligned group, wants to force lawmakers to vote on a measure that would eliminate the employer contribution on health care for members of Congress and is urging more votes on measures that would delay the health law's mandate that uninsured Americans buy health insurance starting next year or pay a fine.
On Wednesday, meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity launched a $2 million advertising campaign highlighting four vulnerable House members over their votes on the health care law. It also is working to keep states from expanding Medicare, the government's health-insurance system for the poor.
"Repealing Obamacare is a long-term effort," Phillips said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/23/tea-party-farm-bill-showdown/3172141/
OBOY Mixes Politics and Religion
Problem is, it's not the primary religious roots that helped found America.
20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam
#1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”
#2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”
#3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”
#4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”
#5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”
#6 “Islam has always been part of America”
#7 “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”
#8 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
#9 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
#10 “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”
#11 “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”
#12 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”
#13 “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”
#14 “throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
#15 “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”
#16 “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”
#17 “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”
#18 “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”
#19 “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
#20 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”
20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Christianity
#1 “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”
#2 “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”
#3 “Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”
#4 “Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”
#5 “The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”
#6 From Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”
#7 Obama’s response when asked what his definition of sin is: “Being out of alignment with my values.”
#8 “If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.”
#9 “This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.”
#10 “I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.”
#11 “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”
#12 “I’ve said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell.”
#13 “Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God’s will–they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths.”
#14 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.”
#15 “You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
#16 “In our household, the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology”
#17 “On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.”
#18 “we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own”
#19 “All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)”
#20 “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”
Obamacare laid bare
By Charles Krauthammer
November 4, 2013
Every disaster has its moment of clarity. Physicist Richard Feynman dunks an O-ring into ice water and everyone understands instantly why the shuttle Challenger exploded. This week, the Obamacare O-ring froze for all the world to see: Hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters went out to people who had been assured a dozen times by the president that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.”
The cancellations lay bare three pillars of Obamacare: (a) mendacity, (b) paternalism and (c) subterfuge.
(a) Those letters are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s repeated you-keep-your-coverage claim was false. Why were they sent out? Because Obamacare renders illegal (with exceedingly narrow “grandfathered” exceptions) the continuation of any insurance plan deemed by Washington regulators not to meet their arbitrary standards for adequacy. Example: No maternity care? You are terminated.
So a law designed to cover the uninsured is now throwing far more people off their insurance than it can possibly be signing up on the nonfunctioning insurance exchanges. Indeed, most of the 19 million people with individual insurance will have to find new and likely more expensive coverage. And that doesn’t even include the additional millions who are sure to lose their employer-provided coverage. That’s a lot of people. That’s a pretty big lie.
But perhaps Obama didn’t know. Maybe the bystander president was as surprised by this as he claims to have been by the IRS scandal, the Associated Press and James Rosen phone logs, the failure of the Obamacare Web site, the premeditation of the Benghazi attacks, the tapping of Angela Merkel’s phone — i.e., the workings of the federal government of which he is the nominal head.
I’m skeptical. It’s not as if the Obamacare plan-dropping is an obscure regulation. It’s at the heart of Obama’s idea of federally regulated and standardized national health insurance.
Still, how could he imagine getting away with a claim sure to be exposed as factually false?
The same way he maintained for two weeks that false narrative about Benghazi. He figured he’d get away with it.
And he did. Simple formula: Delay, stonewall and wait for a supine and protective press to turn spectacularly incurious.
Look at how the New York Times covered his “keep your plan” whopper — buried on page 17 with a headline calling the cancellations a “prime target.” As if this is a partisan issue and not a brazen falsehood clear to any outside observer — say, The Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler, who gave the president’s claim four Pinocchios. Noses don’t come any longer.
(b) Beyond mendacity, there is liberal paternalism, of which these forced cancellations are a classic case. We canceled your plan, explained presidential spokesman Jay Carney, because it was substandard. We have a better idea.
Translation: Sure, you freely chose the policy, paid for the policy, renewed the policy, liked the policy. But you’re too primitive to know what you need. We do. Your policy is hereby canceled.
Because what you really need is what our experts have determined must be in every plan. So a couple in their 60s must buy maternity care. A teetotaler must buy substance abuse treatment. And a healthy 28-year-old with perfectly appropriate catastrophic insurance must pay for bells and whistles for which he has no use.
It’s Halloween. There is a knock at your door. You hear: “We’re the government and we’re here to help.”
You hide.
(c) As for subterfuge, these required bells and whistles aren’t just there to festoon the health-care Christmas tree with voter-pleasing freebies. The planners knew all along that if you force insurance buyers to overpay for stuff they don’t need, that money can subsidize other people.
Obamacare is the largest transfer of wealth in recent American history. But you can’t say that openly lest you lose elections. So you do it by subterfuge: hidden taxes, penalties, mandates and coverage requirements that yield a surplus of overpayments.
So that your president can promise to cover 30 million uninsured without costing the government a dime. Which from the beginning was the biggest falsehood of them all. And yet the free lunch is the essence of modern liberalism. Free mammograms, free preventative care, free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Come and get it.
And then when you find your policy canceled, your premium raised and your deductible outrageously increased, you’ve learned the real meaning of “free” in the liberal lexicon: something paid for by your neighbor — best, by subterfuge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamacare-laid-bare/2013/10/31/d229515a-4254-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html
Barry's Job Policies Really Working Well
Whopping 932,000 Americans Drop Out Of Labor Force In October; Participation Rate Drops To Fresh 35 Year Low
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-08/whopping-932000-americans-drop-out-labor-force-october-labor-participation-rate-drop
Borrowed from another board:
However.....I find the pieces of the puzzle fit together much better and explanations become clearer if we begin with the premise that Obama really dislikes America (as he has openly stated).....
Then, Obama is not an "afflicted" person or some bumbling incompetent with an inability or unwillingness to comprehend.....
rather, he knows exactly what he and his leftist cronies are doing....
if we begin with my premise, then, reality suggests, Obama is a brilliant subversive....
and, I firmly believe what is happening....
(the lack of private sector jobs, increase in poverty, disparity between rich and poor, burgeoning national debt, expansion of government, government as the "grantor of rights", an apologetic, retiring, or 'non-existent' foreign policy)....
is part of a plan to diminish the US and it's economic and military might thereby relegating this nation to subservience and ultimate influence/control by a coalition of socialist/Marxist foreign powers and 'wannabes'.
What power taken by government FROM the People has ever been returned TO the People willingly and without struggle?
All governments fear for their own existence.
Obama’s Dismal Record on Jobs, Captured in a Single Chart and Explained with Common Sense
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/obamas-dismal-record-on-jobs-captured-in-a-single-chart-and-explained-with-common-sense/
While it means things move very slowly, the ONLY reason there is a middle class, and not a .01% and a 99.99% yet, is due to the two sides holding on to some power. Their greed stops them from moving to their most loved goal of total control. Unfortunately, the liberal side saw the benefit of handing out free crap and getting the vote out and getting in bed with the MSM, and now, you may get your wish, if you are not too old . . . the chance to see a country lose its moral base, its cling to the Republic way of gov't, and a party in TOTAL power. You think this will be a good thing, or even a perfect thing, and I know it will reveal what total power always reveals -- total corruption.
Winston is drawn to the revolutionary "Brotherhood" because, well, they’re revolutionary.
At last, O’Brien sends him to the dreaded Room 101, the final destination for anyone who opposes the Party.
His spirit broken, Winston is released to the outside world. He meets Julia but no longer feels anything for her. He has accepted the Party entirely and has learned to love Big Brother.
I'm not speaking of philosophies. I'm talking about those IN POWER. I think there are many valid things in liberal philosophy, if they are administered properly. I'm confounded that you cannot see the evil and manipulation of both sides in DC, and you actually seem to believe they will work things out to the benefit of most of the people if given total control.
Your use of words is most interesting. For the vast majority of the world, the opposite of "nihilism" would involve God, morals, truth, traditional values . . . yet the liberal way is to assign everything good to a gov't filled with the opposite of God, morals, truth, and traditional values.
You choose to accept only the smallest definition, as one who is simply fed up with life in general, and then you assign that limited viewpoint to your perceived most bitter enemy, told to you by the very evil gov't machine you worship, the conservative . . . who actually represents all that is not nihilistic by using the true definition.
Your liberal theology is most confounded and mixed up.
See what I mean, Dale? They are drunk with liberal theology that was conceived and foisted upon them, yet they have not a clue. Those in power control them, by design, and those on this board are the poster children for its effectiveness. They tune out all truth and only open their ears if there are promises of "hope and change," no matter that the facts betray their sociopath leaders daily. Facts be damned! Man is good. Liberals care for the poor. A liberal leader will bring about a paradise for everyone. Just give them total control of all sheeple lives and all you evil, rational, negative people will see! Please Teflon King, take my very soul. Oh, I forgot, the mindless do not believe in souls.
I think you would find most normal conservatives would readily admit the flaws in the human condition and the evil in the gov't all around, but as demonstrated on this very board, those who suck at the gov't teat and drink its kool-aid cannot see reality. They sit in a sociopath-induced stupor just waiting from gov't handout to gov't handout totally oblivious to the decay that is happening around them, being directed by the very ones they worship in a cold and calculated manner.
Just curious why you always want the faults of the conservative side pointed out and debated and made fun of and torn apart, yet when faced with the reality that the left side of gov't is really no better, even in the areas you champion, you simply shut down, ignore, and refuse to accept the truth?
I readily admit the Republicans in gov't are 90% scum, and they only are there to gain for themselves. Why is it that you liberal sheeple keep clinging to your misguided Teflon King and the minions of sociopath Democrats in Congress? Can it be that the sheeple forgive, or turn a blind eye, because they, too, are parasites, feeding off the American taxpayer host, so they simply accept all the EVIL in exchange for their blood money and silence?
Legislative Lowdown: Obama Officially Endorses corporate Welfare
First same-sex marriage, now corporate welfare. What will President Obama come out in favor of next?
This week, President Obama proudly signed into law legislation granting the Export-Import Bank an extension to 2014. The law will put taxpayers on the hook for another $40 billion in loan authority for the government-run “bank.”
Back on Sept. 22, 2008, then-Sen. Obama said, “I am not a Democrat who believes that we can and should defend every government program just because it is there. There are some that don’t work.” For the Obama of 2008, the Export-Import Bank, which he described as “little more than a fund for corporate welfare,” was one of those programs. Now, however, President Obama is thanking Congress for “authorizing the Ex-Im Bank for its extraordinary mission.” The mission is corporate welfare and crony capitalism.
Conservatives need to take another run at killing the Export-Import Bank when it comes up again for reauthorization in 2014.
A cap-and-trade treaty?
The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) may be a backdoor for the Obama administration to implement “cap-and-trade” regulations. Conn Carroll at The Washington Examiner has written that LOST may be part of Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) plan to pass cap-and-trade greenhouse gas restrictions without Congress ever taking a vote to implement them.
“President Obama’s plans to pass economy-killing cap-and-trade regulations may have died in the Senate in 2010,” Carroll writes. “But if Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., gets his way, they will be resurrected after the presidential election.” Carroll cited a statement made last week by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing where she argued that LOST “contains no obligations to implement any particular climate change policies.” Carroll argued that Clinton’s statement “is technically true, it is also completely non-responsive to the binding arbitration threat LOST poses to the U.S. economy.”
That fear is shared by Steven Groves at The Heritage Foundation, who maintains that LOST “would expose the U.S. to baseless climate change lawsuits.” Groves writes that if the Senate ratifies the treaty the “U.S. would be exposed to climate change lawsuits and other environmental actions brought against it by other members of the convention. The economic and political ramifications of such lawsuits would be dire.”
The Senate needs to further study this issue before it rubber-stamps a treaty rejected by President Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.
Transportation overspending
Right now, the House and Senate are conferencing on differing versions of a highway bill. The legislation being debated would fund highway programs at higher levels than money coming into the Department of Transportation-administered Highway Trust Fund (HTF) can support.
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) pushed a vote in the House this week requesting that House members of the conference only vote for spending levels existing in the HTF. Heritage Action for America put out an alert last week arguing that “taxpayers, as opposed to users, are left on the hook when spending on highway and transit programs outpace revenues coming into the HTF.” They referenced the fact that the 2005 transportation bill bailed out the HTF with $30 billion of your tax dollars.
This Congress should not engage in any further Highway Trust Fund bailouts — or any other bailouts, for that matter.
Shakil Afridi
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has put forward an interesting idea. He wants to suspend all foreign aid to Pakistan and grant citizenship to Shakil Afridi, who was sentenced to 33 years in prison for helping the United States capture and kill Osama bin Laden.
Paul has promised to force a Senate vote on his idea as soon as next week.
Obama’s irresponsible veto threat
According to The Hill, “The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a military spending bill that is slated to come to the House floor this week,” because the president has “adopted a policy of rejecting all 12 House annual appropriations bills until Republicans abandon their budget, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).”
This is an outrageous position, because the Senate refuses to take up and pass any budget. The president’s budget has been unanimously rejected by both the House and Senate, yet he is threatening a veto on every single appropriations bill until they abandon the only budget that passed one chamber of Congress. This is nothing more than election-year politics.
No wonder Americans are disgusted with Congress and the president.
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/06/legislative-lowdown-obama-officially-endorses-corporate-welfare
ALL in DC are the SAME sociopaths! When will liberal sheeple see this? Been happening since the beginning of politics. Here's one from 2008:
How The Democrats Love Their Corporate Welfare Policy
What is it we hear echoing in the left-o-sphere? Don't we hear all the time that the left is chock-full-o-nuts on how those eeeevil capitalists are so in love with what they call "corporate welfare"? Aren't the nutrooters always railing about how the right is so in bed with business, giving them oh so many tax breaks? Of course, the left loves their corporate welfare, too. So much so that they've gone back to slipping it into play even when it was defeated not only by the right, but deplored and castigated by the left's pals in Europe and the international community.
I am talking, of course, about the infamous (and infamy is the proper word) Byrd Amendment. This little bit of poison was repealed by Congress in 2005, but the decrepit Byrd and his shifty friends snuck it back into law by camouflaging it in a recent spending bill. So now it's back as law even though many countries in the world are upset about it, even though it harmed our trading reputation the last time this dose of hemlock was forced on our trading partners world wide, even though all it really ends up being is corporate welfare.
So, what is it? It’s a nasty piece of protectionist policy -- the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act -- that makes it quite lucrative for American businesses to claim that they are put at an unfair advantage by foreign products. How it works is a U.S. company will file paperwork with the federal government claiming that they are being harmed by unfair business practices from a foreign product. The government then slaps a high, punitive tariff on that foreign product and pays the American business the amount of the increased tariff. That's it. The business doesn't have to prove anything. There is no inspection agency, accounting agency or compliance agency to check the claims. They just get paid.
It was also meant to take some investigative burdens off the federal government. Instead of the government doing the investigating, it was up to the US business to file the complaint and any punitive tariff fees would go directly to any US company making the complaint instead of into the US treasury where tariffs are supposed to go. This made it quite lucrative for big business to suddenly find that they were being treated meanly by foreign companies... whether it was true or not. After all, big business had the prerequisite large legal department to file the paperwork. Then, they could take their large windfall and use that to beat the competition even here in the US, driving smaller companies to the brink of bankruptcy with a different form of unfair trading practices; government subsidy.
In August, the Wall Street Journal reported the costs of this thing.
As of 2007, some $1.9 billion had been handed out to thousands of supplicants, from bee keepers to steel manufacturers. The lion's share has gone to big business. A GAO report found that between 2001 and 2004, more than half of Byrd money went to five companies, and 20% went to just one, an Ohio bearings maker named Timken. In the 2007 rankings of 1,982 payees, Idaho's Micron semiconductor company won the jackpot, with $37,938,402.
In September, the warning that the Journal gave in August came to pass. Foreign nations are beginning to slap high tariffs on our own exports because of the unfair tariffs they are suddenly facing.
Specifically, Japan's cabinet decided late last month to slap a 10% tariff on ball bearings and tapered roller bearings that could knock U.S. producers out of competition in Japan. The decision cited what Japan's Ministry of Finance accurately calls "illegal disbursement under the 'Byrd Amendment.'" That follows a European Union decision in May to extend punitive duties on a range of other American products. The tariffs hit just as U.S. exports have become the main source of American growth amid the housing slump and credit crunch.
What we have here is the Democrats giving free money to big business. This is called corporate welfare. This also means that Democrats and their henchmen on the left are not telling the world the truth when they say they are against such things.
When even their pals in Europe are steamed, one would think the American left would take notice. But, when it means filling their pockets, there is no ideology, no principle but greed by which they live.
So, nice going Byrdies. But, I sure hope you tell your voters in America's manufacturing sector why they are losing their jobs and seeing their plants close down.
Democrats are voting for corporate welfare more than Republicans
Conservative deficit hawk Sen. Tom Coburn tried yesterday to shrink a federal program that uses taxpayer money to help U.S. companies advertise and sell agricultural products overseas. I’m all for U.S. companies advertising and selling things overseas, but I don’t see why the taxpayer or the federal government should get involved.
Tad DeHaven at Cato tells the story:
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced an amendment that would have cut the $200 million Market Access Program by 20 percent. MAP uses taxpayer money “to help U.S. producers, exporters, private companies, and other trade organizations finance promotional activities for U.S. agricultural products.” In other words, it’s textbook corporate welfare.
According to a new report produced by Coburn’s office, promotional activities that MAP has subsidized include advertising for pet food and animal spa products, wine tastings, and reality television shows. To make a point, Coburn’s amendment would have also prohibited MAP from funding those four items in particular.
Coburn’s amendment, of course, failed, just as almost all efforts to kill pork and corporate welfare fail. But look at the vote breakdown: Republicans voted 28 to 18 to cut the program. Democrats voted 51-to-2 against the cuts, thus siding with the agribusiness lobby.
Recent votes on corporate welfare have broken down similarly.
Of the 20 Senators who voted against reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, 19 were Republicans.
On the sugar subsidy program, Dems voted 36-17 in favor of Big Sugar, while Republicans voted 29-17 to kill the subsidy.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-are-voting-for-corporate-welfare-more-than-republicans/article/2500271
Do you still believe that it's only the rich, white Republicans who keep corporate welfare going and contributing to the demise of the country?
This is just one example below, but I would bet on deep investigation, what I have said forever is absolutely true . . . once in DC, the good leave, and the truly evil stay and thrive, no matter which political party they belong to.
How can liberals continue to believe that Democrats are any different than Republicans when it comes to destroying the country economically? Can you find a reputable source that shows the voting records on corporate welfare for all of Congress, so we can actually see WHO is more to blame?
How can liberals be so naive to think Obama any different than Bush when it comes right down to what they care about? They ALL care about #1 first and foremost. Nothing they do will ever impact THEIR billionaire lifestyles, and you know it. I just don't understand how the MSM and the sheeple can be fooled into thinking liberal politicians are any different, other than in WORDS that mean NOTHING, than conservative politicians.
"First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly to continue to subsidize commercial interests. And here I thought Democrats were concerned about the have and have-nots."
Republicans Join Democrats to Save Corporate Welfare (Again)
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) introduced three amendments to the recently passed Energy & Water appropriations bill that would have eliminated a slew of business subsidies at the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, House Republicans once again teamed up with their Democratic colleagues to keep the corporate welfare spigot flowing.
From The Hill:
The largest spending cut proposal came from Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), which would have eliminated the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account at the Department of Energy and used the $1.45 billion in savings toward deficit reduction. Like other Republicans, McClintock argued that this account needlessly spends money on questionable private investments that have not led to any measurable returns. But the House rejected McClintock’s amendment in a 113-275 vote, in which 113 Republicans voted for it but 107 Republicans joined every Democrat in opposition.
From a second article from The Hill:
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) proposed ending all nuclear energy research subsidies to private companies, which would have saved $514 million and used that money to lower the deficit. But the House rejected that amendment in a 106-281 vote that divided Republicans 91-134. McClintock also proposed language cutting fossil energy research subsidies, which would have saved $554 million. But the House killed that amendment 138-249, as Republicans split again 102-123.
A few comments:
First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly to continue to subsidize commercial interests. And here I thought Democrats were concerned about the have and have-nots.
Second, Rep. McClintock deserves a round of applause for his efforts. These votes speak volumes about a member’s beliefs about the proper role of the federal government. A lot of members—especially Republicans—talk a good game when it comes to spending, limited government, free markets, etc. However, when the time comes to put their money where their mouths are, many choose to instead put other people’s money in the mouths of special interests.
For those taxpayers who are interested in seeing how their member voted, the following are the roll call tallies for McClintock’s amendments:
Reduce the energy efficiency and renewable energy account by $1.45 billion: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll311.xml.
Reduce the construction and expansion account of nuclear energy by $514 million: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll315.xml.
Reduce the fossil energy research and development account by $554 million: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll317.xml.
Update: Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense alerted me to an amendment introduced by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and McClintock that would have shut down the Department of Energy’s Title 17 loan guarantee program. That’s the program that gave us Solyndra. The amendment failed 136-282 with 127 Republicans joining 155 Democrats to defeat the amendment. That the Republican-led House couldn’t get rid of the program that begot Solyndra is about as low as it gets.
http://www.cato.org/blog/republicans-join-democrats-save-corporate-welfare-again
How many are benefiting? Last I heard, it was 1 from one state, 3 from another, 4 in another, and so on -- LOL.
And liberals will still blame Bush when the country goes bankrupt under liberal rule.
We keep asking each other, "Are you really that dumb?" So, I suppose we just disagree. I know dozens of people who have insurance they are perfectly happy with, yet the ACA DOES affect them, and it WILL make them change companies or plans AGAINST THEIR WILL. So, I ask again, why are these people different than OBOY and Congress? Just because Congress has a Cadillac plan (courtesy of the American taxpayer held at gunpoint by the IRS) that goes WAY beyond the ACA requirements does not remove the FACT that the ACA DOES affect people who do NOT want a different plan, and they certainly do not want a plan looked over or controlled in ANY way by the govt.
What part of this do you not understand?
To adapt H.L. Mencken, nobody ever went broke underestimating the cynicism and self-dealing of the American political class. Witness their ad-libbed decision, at the 11th hour and on the basis of no legal authority, to create a special exemption for themselves from the ObamaCare health coverage that everybody else is mandated to buy.
The Affordable Care Act requires Members of Congress and their staffs to participate in its insurance exchanges, in order to gain first-hand experience with what they're about to impose on their constituents. Harry Truman enrolled as the first Medicare beneficiary in 1965, and why shouldn't the Members live under the same laws they pass for the rest of the country?
That was the idea when Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley proposed the original good-enough-for-thee, good-enough-for-me amendment in 2009, and the Finance Committee unanimously adopted his rule. Declared Chairman Max Baucus, "I'm very gratified that you have so much confidence in our program that you're going to be able to purchase the new program yourself and I'm confident too that the system will work very well."
Harry Reid revised the Grassley amendment when he rammed through his infamous ObamaCare bill that no one had read for a vote on Christmas eve. But he neglected to include language about what would happen to the premium contributions that the government makes for its employees. Whether it was intentional or not, the fairest reading of the statute as written is that if Democrats thought somebody earning $174,000 didn't deserve an exchange subsidy, then this person doesn't get a subsidy merely because he happens to work in Congress.
But the statute means that about 11,000 Members and Congressional staff will lose the generous coverage they now have as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead they will get the lower-quality, low-choice "Medicaid Plus" of the exchanges. The Members—annual salary: $174,000—and their better paid aides also wouldn't qualify for ObamaCare subsidies. That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket insurance costs.
The result was a full wig out on Capitol Hill, with Members of both parties fretting about "brain drain" as staff face higher health-care costs. Democrats in particular begged the White House for help, claiming the Reid language was merely an unintentional mistake. President Obama told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that he would personally moonlight as HR manager and resolve the issue.
And now the White House is suspending the law to create a double standard. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that runs federal benefits will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest that Congress will receive extra payments based on the FEHBP defined-contribution formula, which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that's about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.
How OPM will pull this off is worth watching. Is OPM simply going to cut checks, akin to "cashing out" fringe benefits and increasing wages? Or will OPM cover 75% of the cost of the ObamaCare plan the worker chooses—which could well be costlier than what the feds now contribute via current FEHBP plans? In any case the carve-out for Congress creates a two-tier exchange system, one for the great unwashed and another for the politically connected.
This latest White House night at the improv is also illegal. OPM has no authority to pay for insurance plans that lack FEHBP contracts, nor does the Affordable Care Act permit either exchange contributions or a unilateral bump in congressional pay in return for less overall compensation. Those things require appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed by the President.
But the White House rejected a legislative fix because Republicans might insist on other changes, and Mr. Obama feared that Democrats would go along because they're looking out for number one. So the White House is once again rewriting the law unilaterally, much as it did by suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate for a year. For this White House, the law it wrote is a mere suggestion.
The lesson for Americans is that Democrats who passed ObamaCare didn't even understand what they were doing to themselves, much less to everyone else. But you can bet Democrats will never extend to ordinary Americans the same fixes that they are now claiming for themselves. The real class divide in President Obama's America is between the political class and everyone else.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548
Yes, this ACA is a WONDERFUL thing for the country. Pure evil ALWAYS exempts itself and builds in backdoor protections for themselves when foisting something developed by sociopaths on the people.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/11/05/obamacare-is-exempt-from-antifraud-statute-n1737967
Don't you think Obama, at the very LEAST, owes the American people the courtesy to not treat them like small children? When you do something your kids don't understand and looks to be hypocrisy, they ask "Why?" When you believe them to be of such INFERIOR intelligence and so IMMATURE that they cannot understand your reasoning, you say, "Because I'm the Daddy, and I say so!"
But then, something magical happens. They grow up. And sometime, for most kids, they reach an age of let's say 13, and that pat answer no longer satisfies. You, as their role model and leader, HAVE to explain WHY you tell them to never drink to excess, yet you get drunk once a week and beat their mother. Or why you tell them that they must finish their broccoli, while you sit stuffing your fat ass on Big Macs and fries. And for most kids, if you refuse to give satisfactory answers, or meaningless BS answers, they LOSE ALL RESPECT for you, eventually tell you to shove it, and they usually do the opposite of what you want them to.
With the ACA, Obama is essentially treating the entire country like small children. They ask, "If this is supposed to be not just good for us, but the BEST way to handle insurance and health care for US, then WHY did you EXEMPT yourself, Congress, and all the people who work FOR YOU guys?
This President OWES it to the people to come on national TV and CLEARLY explain this conundrum he has placed upon the entire nation of those he wants to view him as a leader they can TRUST and LOOK UP to, don't you think?
And if he does not give a very RATIONAL and CLEAR answer that makes sense to most people, and does not prove hypocrisy exist, shouldn't they, like clear-thinking teenagers, tell him to shove it and do the opposite of what he wants? Shouldn't they say, "You are not behaving like a moral and caring leader who wants the best for me, so I am done listening to you? I will no longer give you the jar of Vaseline and bend over willingly."
Love how he speaks about state sponsored terrorism, yet now we have proof that Barry has continued, and in some cases, EXPANDED, the very same things. But the Teflon King remains blameless!
Love how he uses "ain't" and "nigger" to show his "intelligence" and sincerely try to bring about harmony and not MORE hatred among races.
Love how he blames the "rich white" for Barry growing up in a single parent home. Could it be that his father was scum? Or was he simply an entitled and abused man of the rich and white too?
Love how he implies the American white system is impenetrable, yet Barry seems to have risen through its ranks very easily and very quickly.
Sure, there is truth in his sermon. ALL governments, once they get power, become corrupt, so why would anyone think the most powerful one would not be corrupt? Ask a native American how corrupt!
The point, which STILL eludes the "hope and change" brigade is, has Barry changed things for the better for all Americans and people around the globe, or has he BECOME one of the inner circle? Do young black men face a better fate today than 6 years ago? Do drones make killing impersonal and therefore moral? Does spending our children's future away make a person or a gov't a good one?
Nothing has changed in all Rev. Wright says but he players.
Finally, there would be ways to say the same things to a black congregation without inspiring more hate, but then, liberals lose the real point of this little tirade, I suppose. I wonder if Rev. Wright gives Barry an "A" or an "F" for performance so far?
Don't you think Obama, at the very LEAST, owes the American people the courtesy to not treat them like small children? When you do something your kids don't understand and looks to be hypocrisy, they ask "Why?" When you believe them to be of such INFERIOR intelligence and so IMMATURE that they cannot understand your reasoning, you say, "Because I'm the Daddy, and I say so!"
But then, something magical happens. They grow up. And sometime, for most kids, they reach an age of let's say 13, and that pat answer no longer satisfies. You, as their role model and leader, HAVE to explain WHY you tell them to never drink to excess, yet you get drunk once a week and beat their mother. Or why you tell them that they must finish their broccoli, while you sit stuffing your fat ass on Big Macs and fries. And for most kids, if you refuse to give satisfactory answers, or meaningless BS answers, they LOSE ALL RESPECT for you, eventually tell you to shove it, and they usually do the opposite of what you want them to.
With the ACA, Obama is essentially treating the entire country like small children. They ask, "If this is supposed to be not just good for us, but the BEST way to handle insurance and health care for US, then WHY did you EXEMPT yourself, Congress, and all the people who work FOR YOU guys?
This President OWES it to the people to come on national TV and CLEARLY explain this conundrum he has placed upon the entire nation of those he wants to view him as a leader they can TRUST and LOOK UP to, don't you think?
And if he does not give a very RATIONAL and CLEAR answer that makes sense to most people, and does not prove hypocrisy exist, shouldn't they, like clear-thinking teenagers, tell him to shove it and do the opposite of what he wants? Shouldn't they say, "You are not behaving like a moral and caring leader who wants the best for me, so I am done listening to you? I will no longer give you the jar of Vaseline and bend over willingly."
Don't you think Obama, at the very LEAST, owes the American people the courtesy to not treat them like small children? When you do something your kids don't understand and looks to be hypocrisy, they ask "Why?" When you believe them to be of such INFERIOR intelligence and so IMMATURE that they cannot understand your reasoning, you say, "Because I'm the Daddy, and I say so!"
But then, something magical happens. They grow up. And sometime, for most kids, they reach an age of let's say 13, and that pat answer no longer satisfies. You, as their role model and leader, HAVE to explain WHY you tell them to never drink to excess, yet you get drunk once a week and beat their mother. Or why you tell them that they must finish their broccoli, while you sit stuffing your fat ass on Big Macs and fries. And for most kids, if you refuse to give satisfactory answers, or meaningless BS answers, they LOSE ALL RESPECT for you, eventually tell you to shove it, and they usually do the opposite of what you want them to.
With the ACA, Obama is essentially treating the entire country like small children. They ask, "If this is supposed to be not just good for us, but the BEST way to handle insurance and health care for US, then WHY did you EXEMPT yourself, Congress, and all the people who work FOR YOU guys?
This President OWES it to the people to come on national TV and CLEARLY explain this conundrum he has placed upon the entire nation of those he wants to view him as a leader they can TRUST and LOOK UP to, don't you think?
And if he does not give a very RATIONAL and CLEAR answer that makes sense to most people, and does not prove hypocrisy exist, shouldn't they, like clear-thinking teenagers, tell him to shove it and do the opposite of what he wants? Shouldn't they say, "You are not behaving like a moral and caring leader who wants the best for me, so I am done listening to you? I will no longer give you the jar of Vaseline and bend over willingly."
DADDY IS A GAY DANCER
The fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up - fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman... and so forth. However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied:
"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money."
The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside to ask him,
"Is that really true about your father?"
"No," the boy said, "He works for the Democratic National Committee and helped to get Obama elected, but it's too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids."
Wright was "smart" and "told the truth?" I rest my case on the "magic-7" on this board. LOL
You can blame anyone you want to release the Teflon king of all responsibility for the massive crap he has been responsible for. My point was sarcasm . . . not agreeing with your "logic." OBOY and liberals should be men, and not pansies, and OWN up to everything that has happened since he walked into the office. And that includes spending more money the country does not have than any other President in history, including shrub!
Haven't heard anything audible, but I do believe He lays impressions and feelings on people's minds and hearts. You'd call it "intuition," and I'd call it God's voice for a Christian.
Calling out Wright is one thing, but shouldn't his disciples (like Barry) also be called out?
Another major Obamacare failure
Only 5 in D.C. have enrolled in president's health plan
Garth Kant
Friday, November 08, 2013
WASHINGTON — A pair of senators have dug up another report of an Obamacare failure so dismal it is hard to believe.
Among four major insurance companies, a total of only five people have enrolled in the president’s health plan in Washington, D.C.
While the Obama administration has so far refused to provide enrollment numbers to the American people, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, obtained the Washington, D.C., enrollment numbers from the four companies participating in the district’s health care exchange.
They show:
•CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield: two enrollees from Oct. 1 through Oct. 30.
•Kaiser Permanente: three enrollees from Oct. 1 through Oct. 31.
•UnitedHealthcare: no enrollment data from the exchange as of Nov. 4.
•Aetna: no enrollment data as of Oct. 24.
“With numbers like these, it’s no wonder the Obama Administration hasn’t wanted to release how many people have signed up for ObamaCare,” said Hatch.
“Whether it’s significant problems with the website, people being forced off the coverage they had or skyrocketing costs, these numbers are even more proof of what a disaster ObamaCare is and why it should be delayed.”
Grassley said many Americans are getting cancellation notices from their current health care provider but they haven’t been able to enroll in a new plan.
“The limbo and uncertainty are stressful for them, as they’ve been describing in emails to my office,” he said. “The chaos imposed on so many people is reason to at least delay the individual mandate, if not outright repeal it.”
The revelation follows a series of similarly shocking reports of low enrollment figures across the country.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said only three people in her state had been able to enroll, as of Monday.
Delaware reported only four people had enrolled in Obamacare as of Tuesday, even though the state used a $4 million grant to hire four community organizations to provide marketplace guides. That worked out to $1 million spent on each enrollee.
The worst numbers from any state to report is actually just a single number, as in the number one. Just one person has reportedly enrolled in Obamacare in North Carolina. And even that person is technically still not enrolled, having yet to pay. So, the Tar Heel state actually had zero people enrolled in Obamacare as of Oct. 15.
And there was the flabbergasting news that on the first day the Obamacare website went online, only six people in the entire country were able to successfully enroll.
If any politician believes in Reverend Wright, who also "talks to God" and spews hate speech, shouldn't they have been avoided like the plague as well?
Yes, Barry is simply cleaning up Bush's messes. Will it take 100 years?
The labor force participation rate fell to 62.8 percent, down from its previous 63.2 percent, the worst showing since March 1978.
GO OBOY!
Once again, it's ONLY Republicans who vote for benefits to corporations, right? It's only Republicans who receive special favors and "things" to make their lives easier from corporations, right? Barry and Democrats spend their days on their knees in prayer and mourning for the poor, right? They never court the wealthy corporate donors or give favors or vote accordingly, right?
Geez, grow up and open your eyes and see that DC in TOTAL is the problem. 99% in that cesspool are pure evil.
But Barry and his group have ZERO culpability, right? It's all those evil Republicans. Poor Barry could make a utopia if we could just remove the last conservative voters, right?
We are on pace to more than double the national debt during the Obama years.
In other words, the U.S. government will take on more new debt during the 8 years of Obama than it did under all of the other presidents in U.S. history combined.
Oh yeah, this is going to end really well, isn’t it?