ridin' the storm out
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.
so you are too much of a phony to show us where the chart came from?
Rmoney is already on record for proposed lowering the top tax rate to 20-25%
you are voting for a person and you are absolutely CLUELESS of what he stands for... pitiful
no shit, what's your point?
where is the link that chart came from?
you need to learn to do your own fact-checking
it gets old spoon-feeding, especially when you will just divert to another lie
Census workers blip! how many times must you be told???
still posting lies i see... no wonder you are for Rmoney... you are as big a LIAR as his pathetic ass
Spot the socialists
Jul 25th 2012, 12:05 by Buttonwood
BCA Research produced this fascinating chart in its latest research note which showed the growth in public sector employment in the first four years of recent Presidencies. As you can see, it has contracted under Barack Obama, as it did under Ronald Reagan; the real "big government" types were the two Bushes.
a real birth certificate that hasn't been modified!
LMAO!... dick milde is a birther
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77604703
doesn't get much more stupid than that
congrats
i think u need to get in touch with CONix
she seems to need a stress reliever
you can meet up with her and she can bring her life-size romney blow up doll
have yourselves a threesome
good gawd, that's even stupid for you
"Solyndra" WAS started under Bush
and the sad thing is that ranks about 999 in the worse 1000 things under Bush
you and benzoid are the posterchildren for idiot-americana
congrats
stop repeating lies and maybe people will stop "cussing"
telling lies is much worse than using "colorful language"
stop your "cussing" of lies
move to N. Korea
you won't have to worry about paying any taxes
and take benzoid and diaper-boy and the rest of the spoiled brat whiners with you
get the FUCK out
Elizabeth Warren does a much better job than I
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77826662
sorry if you cannot comprehend
okay here's a hint
"If you've got a business…you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
note the three dots ...
that means there are words left out that change the context
and in this case the total meaning
hence the LIE
i hope this helps your ability to "comprehend"
are u smoking a crack pipe?... if you cannot COMPREHEND the lie you posted then i cannot help u further... try a lobotomy, who knows, it might help
good god, do you not read your own posts?
or are you really this dense ??
"If you've got a business…you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." - CONix
you didn't invent the lie but like a robotic fool u happily repeat it
Vouching for Failure in Louisiana Schools
By Charles P. Pierce
at 11:45AM
Governor "Bobby" Jindal of Louisiana, the designated brown person on the Short List to be Willard's coatholder, knows as much about education as he does about volcano-monitoring. (This puts him in the mainstream of the education "reform" movement, right there with Michelle Rhee and the other people who are Waiting for Superman, so they can cut him a check.) Of course, "Bobby" is going to make sure that his experiment in starving the public-school system to make sure kids have the right to go to Ancient Aliens Junior High is going to succeed even when it fails:
State money will continue to flow to scores of private and religious schools participating in Louisiana's new voucher program even if their students fail basic reading and math tests, according to new guidelines released by the state on Monday.
Let us examine how this works. One wave of education "reform" demands almost continual high-stakes testing. Another wave of education "reform" demands that public money go to private for-profit "schools." Now, the new wave of education "reform" demands that the high-stakes testing not count in the new for-profit "schools." But this never has been about education. It's been about destroying the public schools and protecting the right of people to marinate in superstition and nonsense.
More than 10,000 students across Louisiana have applied for vouchers to attend private schools. A handful of seats are open in the state's most prestigious private schools, but most of the available slots are in small Christian schools with scant track records. The new guidelines permit state officials to boot private schools from the voucher program if they demonstrate "gross or persistent lack of basic academic competence." But White said he did not intend to micro-manage the private schools' curricula or approach to teaching. Some of the schools the state has approved for voucher students use Bible-based science textbooks and other controversial teaching approaches.
"Bobby" Jindal is the next generation of great Republican politicians. Tell me again how they're going to moderate themselves if they lose this year.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/#ixzz21lxRvBhR
yes, we are bigoted against hateful bigots
with all the problems in the world why do you ass-wipes have to hate on gay people?... of course that's only ONE on the long list of people you hate
by the way,, in your bloated condition i hope they have something semi-healthful to eat because by your photo you appear to be a huge lard-ass
well it could happen again in Florida... the idiots in FL elected as their governor Rick Scott, the CEO of medicare fraud who used much of his ill-gotten gains to buy his election... and now he's busy purging the voters who don't vote his way
could be deja vu all over again
thanks for proving how shallow you are by repeating the pitiful lies of wingnuts
but of course you don't "cuss", because that would be rude... instead you just repeat stupid fucking lies
Romney Ignores Questions from American Press
At a press conference in London this morning, First Read notes that Mitt Romney answered questions from British reporters but did not take any questions from the American reporters, "which isn't protocol."
"In fact, it's considered a bit of an insult to the U.S reporters who are following the presumptive GOP presidential nominee overseas. Even bringing this up will lead some to say, 'There goes the media, whining again.' But folks, those of us that have traveled overseas and been involved in these VERY limited press avails have rarely seen heads of democracies TOTALLY ignore their own press corps but answer ANOTHER press corps' questions. Sure, it would have looked REALLY bad had Romney ignored the U.K. questions. But is the campaign so intent on limiting media access that the candidate won't call an audible when standing next to a leader from another country who DOES want to take questions?"
"This is a bipartisan challenge for the press corps. Every president in the modern era has decided to pick up on some aspect of limiting media access to the president from their predecessor. The public never cares, because most of them distrust at least half of the press corps. But folks, it's a slippery slope."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/26/12968214-first-thoughts-london-calling?lite
Obama Hate Speech Spreads on Facebook
by Leslie Meredith, Senior Writer, TechNewsDaily
19 July 2012 12:09 PM ET
Racism is alive and well on Facebook, despite the social network's policy banning hate speech.
A new study from Baylor University shows how anti-Obama and just plain racist groups use Facebook to spread their messages. And we're not talking about politics, but Ku Klux Klan-style hate speech using old stereotypes updated with do-rags and golden grills.
"Some people have declared the present a "post-racial" era in that U.S. citizens elected a black president, maintaining that policies to address racism are no longer necessary," Mia Moody, Ph.D., who led the Baylor study, said in a statement. "But depictions of minorities in new media show otherwise."
More than 20 Facebook groups and "pages" were analyzed, using the keywords, "hate," "Barack Obama," and "Michelle Obama" to identify them.
Although historical stereotypes that portrayed blacks as animals, evil or shiftless have all but disappeared from mainstream television shows and movies, fans of Facebook hate groups have revived them and use doctored photos of the President as a chimp or sporting a bandana and a mouth full of gold teeth, according to the study.
"The growth of Facebook groups from a fringe activity to a significant communication source illustrates the recent evolution in the spread of hate speech," Moody said. Study findings indicate Facebook hate groups/pages differ from the hate groups of old. Today's groups don't have to be a part of a traditional faction such as the Ku Klux Klan — Anyone can create a Facebook group or page anywhere, and then recruit members from all over the world, the study said.
Moody found that even groups that claimed to be politically motivated used racist rhetoric, contained racist posts and comments. The page for the group, "No! I don’t hate blacks! I just think Barack Obama is a terrible president," was peppered with racial slurs, such as "Obama needs to step down and go back to Africa with the rest of the coons!! He’s nothing but a jigaboo and spear chucker!! (sic)." This site was later removed from Facebook.
Some hate groups have avoided Facebook policy-keepers by using slur-free titles for their groups and "official" pages, along with photos without captions — neither of these examples would turn up in a Facebook keyword search. "Because slurs are not in the official title, Facebook is not as quick to shut them down," she said.
Many groups emphasized the Obamas’ dietary habits, the report said. One photo featured Mr. Obama holding a can of Welch’s grape soda and wearing heavy gold jewelry and a baseball cap — obviously Photoshopped into the photo. The photo’s caption asked, "Where all the white wimmin at (sic)?"
Facebook prohibits hate speech that "attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease." However, it allows "clear attempts at humor or satire that might otherwise be considered a possible threat or attack. This includes content that many people may find to be in bad taste (e.g. jokes, stand-up comedy, popular song lyrics, etc.)."
Facebook did not respond to our request for comment, leaving us to wonder, "Are racial slurs ever funny?"
http://www.technewsdaily.com/4584-obama-hate-speech-spreads-on-facebook.html?cmpid=492405
i'm sorry you cannot see the point of the post
it not my fault that you find everything "incoherent"
try some herbal remedies for your slowness
no need for you to apologize for making a fool of yourself
Willard Romney
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Romney_Talks_Tough
Bolstered by the roaring cheers of dozens over the past week, the newly butched-up Willard Romney went before the VFW convention in Reno today and gave what was thought to be an “important” speech on “foreign policy.” He needed one of those because, as even the guys at the VFW hootenanny must know by now, Willard worked very hard in his youth not to be a V of the FW that was going on at the time. So, what was Willard’s take on foreign policy that he sought to share with the people who’d fought elsewhere while he was keeping luxury Parisian apartments safe from Viet Cong infilitration?
Well, basically, he is a bigger, tougher man than the president is, and he’s got the speechwriters to prove it…
The rest of the speech was an aria of elaborate dick-waving because, frankly, on these difficult issues, that’s all Romney has. His experience in foreign policy is decidedly limited to finding new places to hide his fortune.
“I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of America.”
Which I did my level best not to pay for.
you could have disagreed with DD's post but to call it incoherent proves you just could not respond in an intelligent way or you have a mental illness which leaves you unable to comprehend reality
it was a definite personal attack on your part and then you proceed to do nothing but whine about personal attacks and "name-calling"
standard hypocritical operating procedure for clueless wingnuts
your mental illness is glaring... Obama Derangement Syndrome
every time Romney opens his mouth he's beginning to make George Bush look like a mensa... and yet you think this liar would make a good leader... maybe try some herbal remedies for your mental slowness
move to N. Korea if you don't like paying taxes
taxes are the lowest if 50 years but you whine like a spoiled brat
hopefully your daughter doesn't grow up with your pitiful attitude
The godfather of too-big-to-fail banking renounces his life work. Big banks are now bad!
By Andrew Leonard
I’m having trouble thinking of the proper simile to describe the news that Sandy Weill — the creator of Citigroup, the ur-mastermind of Too-Big-To-Fail banking, the man most responsible for repealing Glass-Steagall — now thinks that the big banks should be broken up.
Genghis Khan, on his deathbed, declaring that pacifism is the way to enlightenment? Karl Marx embracing the invisible hand of the free market as the best possible way to organize society? Ronald Reagan announcing that, guess what, government is the solution?
Am I exaggerating? You make the call. On CNBC’s SquawkBox Wednesday morning, Weill effectively renounced his life work.
“What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking, have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not too big to fail.”
Why is this so outrageous? Let’s go to a presumably reliable source, Sandy Weill’s own memoir: “The Real Deal: My Life in Business and Philanthropy.” Weill recounts at length his Herculean effort to get Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law separating investment banking and commercial banking, repealed. His view of his own role in the passage of the law that ended Glass-Steagall, commonly referred to as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was not modest. In his memoir, he recalls that years after the repeal, he and Senator Phil Gramm used to joke that it should have been called the “Weill-Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.”
But Weill wasn’t the kind of guy to wait around for a law to get repealed before he started making his move. His merger of Travelers Group and Citigroup, (which he achieved, by the way, with a big assist from his protégé Jamie Dimon, now CEO of JP Morgan Chase) actually happened before combining investment banks and commercial banks was technically legal.
As summarized by Robert Scheer:
Those [Glass-Steagall] restrictions were initially flouted when Weill, then CEO of Travelers, which contained a major investment banking division, decided to merge the company with Citibank, a commercial bank headed by John S. Reed. The merger had actually been arranged before the enabling legislation became law, and it was granted a temporary waiver by Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve. The night before the announcement of the merger, as Wall Street Journal reporter Monica Langley writes in her book “Tearing Down the Walls: How Sandy Weill Fought His Way to the Top of the Financial World … and Then Nearly Lost It All,” a buoyant Weill suggested to Reed, “We should call Clinton.” On a Sunday night Weill had no trouble getting through to the president and informed him of the merger, which violated existing law. After hanging up, Weill boasted to Reed, “We just made the president of the United States an insider.”
Well, I guess everybody has the right to change their mind, huh? The last few years have offered ample evidence — not least of which is the $45 billion in taxpayer dollars used to bailout Citigroup — that big banks do not serve the public interest. But let’s give Bloomberg’s Donal Griffin special credit for twisting the knife at the close of his article reporting the about-face:
Weill said today he altered his view about the industry because “the world changes.” He has been thinking about it a lot over the last year, he said.
“The world we live in now is not the world we lived in 10 years ago,” Weill said. “Good things are simple.”
Former President Bill Clinton said when he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall that it was “no longer appropriate” for the economy.
“The world is very different,” Clinton said at a White House signing ceremony.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/sandy_weill_sees_the_light/
Fox & Friends: Why Is History’s Greatest Monster Barack Obama Picking On These Little Girls?
http://wonkette.com/479017/fox-friends-why-is-historys-greatest-monster-barack-obama-picking-on-these-little-girls#more-479017
Ever on the cutting edge of political thought, Fox & Friends has a simple, commonsense reply to Pres. Obama’s insane notion that a modern economy depends on a combination of public and private investment: Oh, yeah? Mr. Big Government? What about little kids’ lemonade stands, which are a perfect metaphor for capitalism? Here is Brian Kilmeade interviewing two adorable little girls, Clara and Eliza Sutton, aged 7 and 4, who have clearly not been prepped at all by their Fox-viewing parents. Asked to “tell us about your lemonade business,” Clara replies, “Well, our lemonade is actually homemade but I can’t tell you our recipe because it’s proprietary…the investors actually sign a confidentiality agreement.” Proprietary ingredients, huh? Is it people? We bet it is people.
But let us get on to the meat of the interview, in which young Clara defends liberty:
Kilmeade: Clara, how do you feel about the President saying that you needed help to start this business. And just speak from — speak from within…
Clara: I would say that’s rude because we worked very hard to build this business. But we did have help.
Kilmeade: And your help came from?
Clara: Our help came from our investors, our dad and stepmom, along with other friends and family.
If only those Washington Politicians would just look at the world with such level-headed common sense, huh? Because, really, these girls didn’t need Government to build their lemonade business, they just needed their dad and stepmom to go to the store and buy ingredients which didn’t travel on public highways or have to meet any safety standards, and then mix up their lemonade using water from a privately developed water system, and then set up next to a privately built road in a community kept safe by private security guards, to sell to the public! (To be fair, maybe they do live in some hellish exurban development governed by a dictatorial Homeowner’s Association, and they have a lemon tree in their backyard, and a sugar plantation on the back 40, so yay freedom.)
Leaving aside the ethical quibbles about using 4 and 7 year olds to push political talking points, or the usual Fox News recycling of a “story” generated within the Fox News organization, or even the story’s eerie resemblance to the plot of one of the worst children’s books ever published, we have to ask if any of the Fox producers involved have actually helped children run a “lemonade business,” which usually involves parents spending a small chunk of money for ingredients and children having fun for an afternoon or two, pocketing a few dollars but never coming close to earning back the original “investment,” let alone turning a profit. Most lemonade stands are maybe more like Solyndra, we would say, HA HA! Then again, considering the failure rate of small enterprises over the long term, perhaps it is an apt metaphor.
Deficit will decrease under Obama's health care law, budget office says
Published: Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 6:30 AM
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s health care overhaul will shrink rather than increase the nation’s huge federal deficits over the next decade, Congress’ nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said Tuesday, supporting Obama’s contention in a major election-year dispute with Republicans.
About 3 million fewer uninsured people will gain health coverage because of last month’s Supreme Court ruling granting states more leeway, and that will cut the federal costs by $84 billion, the Congressional Budget Office said in the biggest changes from earlier estimates.
Republicans have insisted that "Obamacare" will actually raise deficits — by "trillions," according to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But that’s not so, the budget office said.
The office gave no updated estimate for total deficit reductions from the law, approved by Congress and signed by Obama in 2010. But it did estimate that Republican legislation to repeal the overhaul — passed recently by the House — would itself boost the deficit by $109 billion from 2013 to 2022.
"Repealing the (health care law) will lead to an increase in budget deficits over the coming decade, though a smaller one than previously reported," budget office director Douglas Elmendorf said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
The law’s mix of spending cuts and tax increases would more than offset new spending to cover uninsured people, Elmendorf explained.
Tuesday’s budget projections were the first since the Supreme Court upheld most of the law last month but gave states the option of rejecting a planned expansion of Medicaid for their low-income residents. As a consequence, the budget office said the law will cover fewer uninsured people.
Thirty million uninsured people will be covered by 2022, or about 3 million fewer than projected this spring before the court ruling, the report said.
As a result, taxpayers will save about $84 billion from 2012 to 2022. That brings the total cost of expanding coverage down to $1.2 trillion, from about $1.3 trillion in the previous estimate.
The Congressional Budget Office has consistently projected that Obama’s overhaul will reduce the deficit, although previous estimates aren’t strictly comparable with Tuesday’s report because of changes in the law and other factors.
At the time it was approved in 2010, CBO estimated the law would reduce the deficit by $143 billion from 2010 to 2019. And CBO estimated that last year’s Republican repeal legislation would increase deficits by $210 billion from 2010 to 2021.
That may sound like a lot of money, but it’s actually a hair-thin margin at a time when federal deficits are expected to average around $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future.
When the law is fully in effect, 92 percent of citizens and legal residents are estimated to have coverage, as compared to 81 percent now.
Democrats hailed Tuesday’s estimates as vindication for the president. "This confirms what we’ve been saying all along: the Affordable Care Act saves lots of money," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Actually, the government will spend more. It just won’t go onto the national credit card because the health care law will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
Republicans said they remain unswervingly committed to repealing what they dismiss as "Obamacare." When combined with other budget-cutting measures, GOP leaders say that repeal will ultimately reduce deficits. Romney says that if elected, he will begin to dismantle the law his first day in office.
Medicaid has been one big question hanging over the future of Obama’s law since the Supreme Court ruled.
Some GOP-led states, such as Texas and Florida, say they will not go forward with the expansion. Others are uncommitted, awaiting the voters’ verdict on Obama in November.
Although the federal government would bear all of the initial cost of that expansion, many states would have to open their Medicaid programs to low-income childless adults for the first time.
CBO analysts did not try to predict which specific states would jump in and which would turn down the Medicaid expansion. Instead, they assumed that many states would eventually cut deals with the federal government to expand their programs to some degree.
As a result, the budget office estimates that more than 80 percent of the low-income uninsured people eligible under the law live in states that partially or fully expand their programs.
The big coverage expansion under the law doesn’t start until 2014, with middle-class uninsured people signing up for subsidized private plans and more low-income people picked up through Medicaid.