So, how is he such a radical now? What explains the sudden turnaround? What explains the fact that people who have had dealings in the past with this specific person, with the imam behind the proposed Islamic center in downtown Manhattan and know him to be a moderate and who have said so out loud—what explains why they suddenly have decided that the man is so dangerous?
The difference is that now, this moderate imam‘s community center has been declared this month‘s new “scare white people” story. So, the truth about the imam doesn‘t matter anymore. The truth about the cultural center that they want to build downtown doesn‘t matter anymore. It‘s time to scare white people for political profit.
And this formula should be pretty familiar by now. We‘ve been through episodes of “scare white people” game recently. That was—one about Van Jones who was smeared on FOX News as a violent convicted felon. Of course, that wasn‘t true, but he still lost his job as a White House environmental adviser. Be afraid—be afraid of policy wonk, dorky guy Van Jones.
Of course, there was also ACORN, a mostly minority community-based organization attacked as a group of criminal thugs based largely on cooked-up deceptively edited videotapes created by right wing activists. Be afraid—be afraid of the minority community-organizing group made up of poor people.
Now, there was the completely ginned up New Black Panthers episode. White people, be afraid of two whacked out guys who braid their beard hair and hung out outside a polling station on Election Day a year and a half ago. We dug up the old tape so you can be afraid.
And, also, don‘t forget Shirley Sherrod, who, thanks to again to video-editing designed to be misleading, was portrayed as a racist Obama administration official—racist in that she was out to make sure white people didn‘t get any help from the Department of Agriculture. White people, be afraid—be afraid of Shirley Sherrod.
After all of these other very recent chapters in the scare white people political playbook: “A,” we should have been ready for it, but, “B,” it‘s quite clear that it‘s time for a new one. So, the Ground Zero mosque controversy was born.
What‘s worth noting about all of these different “scare white people” stories is that they‘re not really actual news stories. I mean, no real news organizations started running with this story as actual news. The best “scare white people” stories are invented out of whole cloth, from inside the media world, so they can be just the right kind of scary in just the right kind of way in order to drive just the right political consequence.
So, ultimately, if the conservative media drives this to make it big enough, then normal news organizations pick it up, too, sometimes because they‘re gilded (ph) into it by conservatives. But no non-FOX, non-conservative media outlet ever starts these things.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
OOOPS looks like The Big O messed up
It seems like a miracle that our leader was able to convince BP to establish a $20 billion escrow fund to compensate those hurt by the ongoing oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico .After all, he had no constitutional power to force them to do so.Let us take a closer look at the effect on BP’s 2010 finances:1. BP will establish a $20 billion fund, but will pay only $7 billion into it during 2010.2. BP is a British corporation, but has a very large operating entity in the US .3. By Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), BP must book the entire $20 billion expense in the year accrued, i.e., year the liability is incurred. Therefore, they will book a $20 billion expense in 2010, reducing their US tax liability by $7 billion.4. Our anointed leader also convinced this massive corporation to show their concern for the “small people” by withholding dividends to their shareholders for the last 3 quarters of 2010. This reduces their outward cash flow by about $7.5 billion, including approximately 40% of that amount to US citizens. Assuming that the Bush tax cuts will survive through the end of 2010, the US Treasury will lose another $450million in taxes on that amount. We won’t even discuss the effect on the US economy.Let us put the results into a table easily understood by the "small" people:BP Cash Flow:· Escrow funding ($7 billion)· Dividend saving $7.5 billion· Tax savings $7 billion· Net favorable cash flow for 2010 to BP : $7.5 billionUS Treasury Tax Receipts/Reductions:· BP Corporate income tax (-$7.5 billion)· BP Shareholders (-$0.45 billion)· Net unfavorable tax receipts ($7.95 billion)I guess we really should expect this. After all, our anointed leader is the most inexperienced man in any room he enters.Scorecard:· BP Corporate Bean Counters - 1·· Washington Tax Smart Guys - 0·· American People - We Get BP (Bean Poop)This isn't so hard to understand - BP made their largest political contributions to Obama's campaign. Obama plays politics acting tough on BP. We pay.Frankly, I admire BP for their deal making ability. They must have brought their accountants to the table. After all, BP is not a fly by night operation and Obama thought he and his minimal business experience tax people and accountants could take on BP.WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!!
Monday, August 9, 2010
Text of One Republican and One Democrat Secretary of Treasury
O'NEILL: Exactly, because I kept saying, you know, the tax code we have is proof that we're not an intelligent people, and it's worse now than it was 10 years ago, when I was singing this song. So I think the president could earn a lot of credit and could make a huge difference if he would lead the charge for fundamental tax reform.
You know, and ideally, if you think about how you get capital formation, you get fairness in the distribution of paying for public goods, if we had something simple instead of the current income tax and corporate income tax, something simple like a VAT or a consumption-based tax, I think that would give reassurance to the markets that we're coming back and we're creating the basis for capital formation and savings, as opposed to consuming everything in sight.
ZAKARIA: One of the things that you that mentioned to me in the green room which I think is striking is that one of the advantages of the VAT, or the national sales tax, is there's very efficient tax collection. You said that when you were at Treasury, the estimate was that the United States did not collect $400 billion in taxes? Is that --
O'NEILL: Per year.
ZAKARIA: Per year.
O'NEILL: Per year. And it cost us $300 billion across the society to administer the colossal mess we've got. No intelligent people would invent this if they were given a chance to create a tax system that was worthy of people who need to free up resources that are being wasted.
ZAKARIA: Bob, if you had a magic wand, what would you do to get this economy moving? People look at your tenure as secretary of Treasury, where with all the controversy, you created 22 million jobs. Now, maybe you would say that government doesn't create those jobs, and I agree. But those jobs were created on your watch.
So do you want to share the magic sauce with us?
RUBIN: Well, I'll respond to your question in the current context, but I will say this -- it was a remarkable period in the '90s, and I think President Clinton was terrific on economic policy. And I think that made a real contribution.
But let's now talk about the current context, which is quite different. Here's what I would do, Fareed. And it's been this debate that's going on right now.
I think what you I would do is I would stay on, roughly speaking, the current fiscal track, because we still have large fiscal deficits, and that does create demand, although those deficits are coming down, so you're actually reducing the demand.
ZAKARIA: So you mean you won't spend more on a second stimulus right now?
RUBIN: I wouldn't do a major second stimulus because I think -- and I think Paul said the same thing. I wouldn't do a major second stimulus because I think we run a risk that it could be counterproductive in creating a lot of additional uncertainty and undermining confidence.
But at the same time -- and what I'm about to say is easy to say and very hard to do -- at the same time, I would try over the next six months to put in place a very serious beginning of deficit reduction that would take effect at some specified time in the future. And I would guess something like two years.
So it wouldn't take effect right now, when the economy is still so vulnerable, but if you could do it and it was credible, and people believed it, and it was real, I think that could do a lot for confidence. The problem is that's very easy to say and very hard to do.
ZAKARIA: And on that note, we will be right back to speak with both of the secretaries of Treasury.
To get the full text go to Paul O.Neill on Fareed Zakaria CNN
You know, and ideally, if you think about how you get capital formation, you get fairness in the distribution of paying for public goods, if we had something simple instead of the current income tax and corporate income tax, something simple like a VAT or a consumption-based tax, I think that would give reassurance to the markets that we're coming back and we're creating the basis for capital formation and savings, as opposed to consuming everything in sight.
ZAKARIA: One of the things that you that mentioned to me in the green room which I think is striking is that one of the advantages of the VAT, or the national sales tax, is there's very efficient tax collection. You said that when you were at Treasury, the estimate was that the United States did not collect $400 billion in taxes? Is that --
O'NEILL: Per year.
ZAKARIA: Per year.
O'NEILL: Per year. And it cost us $300 billion across the society to administer the colossal mess we've got. No intelligent people would invent this if they were given a chance to create a tax system that was worthy of people who need to free up resources that are being wasted.
ZAKARIA: Bob, if you had a magic wand, what would you do to get this economy moving? People look at your tenure as secretary of Treasury, where with all the controversy, you created 22 million jobs. Now, maybe you would say that government doesn't create those jobs, and I agree. But those jobs were created on your watch.
So do you want to share the magic sauce with us?
RUBIN: Well, I'll respond to your question in the current context, but I will say this -- it was a remarkable period in the '90s, and I think President Clinton was terrific on economic policy. And I think that made a real contribution.
But let's now talk about the current context, which is quite different. Here's what I would do, Fareed. And it's been this debate that's going on right now.
I think what you I would do is I would stay on, roughly speaking, the current fiscal track, because we still have large fiscal deficits, and that does create demand, although those deficits are coming down, so you're actually reducing the demand.
ZAKARIA: So you mean you won't spend more on a second stimulus right now?
RUBIN: I wouldn't do a major second stimulus because I think -- and I think Paul said the same thing. I wouldn't do a major second stimulus because I think we run a risk that it could be counterproductive in creating a lot of additional uncertainty and undermining confidence.
But at the same time -- and what I'm about to say is easy to say and very hard to do -- at the same time, I would try over the next six months to put in place a very serious beginning of deficit reduction that would take effect at some specified time in the future. And I would guess something like two years.
So it wouldn't take effect right now, when the economy is still so vulnerable, but if you could do it and it was credible, and people believed it, and it was real, I think that could do a lot for confidence. The problem is that's very easy to say and very hard to do.
ZAKARIA: And on that note, we will be right back to speak with both of the secretaries of Treasury.
To get the full text go to Paul O.Neill on Fareed Zakaria CNN
Friday, August 6, 2010
Obama Motors
Hey Baxter...I heard that General Motors in building a new 500 million dollar plant to help out all the workers that have lost their jobs in Michigan and the US...that is great...but I heard they are building it in MEXICO....OOOPS guess Obama does not have his boarders straighten out on which side the US is on
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
I hate to go above Terry now that he apparently has found a computer in Chicago...but
Does not a moment of thought of your Liberal whack jobs idiots mind ever enter, even for a moment, to just consider that your "man" acutally might be a Nazi? While you were cheering for his success with health care, didn't the idea that the "man" would be able to tell you to "buy" insurance ever give you a minute of pause? Really, it didn't? Then you are stupid, almost as stupid as Krugman. Terry, you want to be compelled to buy Scottsdale sparkle bonds to improve the efficiency of the erotic industry because it is important to the economy of Scottsdale? How do you not get this?
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Last November, a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if it was constitutional for Congress to require Americans to buy health insurance. Ms. Pelosi responded, "Are you serious?"
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson got serious. He denied Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia challenging the new health law. His ruling stated that it is far from certain Congress has the authority to compel Americans to buy insurance and penalize those who don't.
Judge Hudson's ruling paved the way for a trial to begin on October 18, with possible appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, a lengthy process. Some states will likely delay creating insurance exchanges and slow down other costly preparations for ObamaCare until its constitutionality is determined by this case.
If mandatory insurance is declared unconstitutional, the entire health law could collapse like a house of cards. Most complex legislation states that if one part of the law is struck down, other parts remain enforceable. But authors of ObamaCare chose to omit that clause, suggesting that the health overhaul won't work without mandatory insurance.
The law's defenders say the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance will solve a national problem by reducing the number of uninsured and spreading the cost of care over a larger insurance pool.
Critics say that the requirement tramples the Constitution. Twenty-one states and several individuals are already suing to overturn it. Virginia went one step further, enacting a law that makes it illegal to require any resident to purchase health insurance. The Virginia measure won solid support from both Republican and Democratic state legislators. Despite what Mrs. Pelosi tried to suggest, questioning the constitutionality of ObamaCare is not partisan posturing. A fundamental principle is at stake.
On July 1, before a packed courtroom, attorneys for the state of Virginia argued that if the federal government can require you to buy insurance, it could also force you to buy any product to solve any national problem: a new GM car to bolster Detroit, or stocks to prop up Wall Street.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Last November, a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if it was constitutional for Congress to require Americans to buy health insurance. Ms. Pelosi responded, "Are you serious?"
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson got serious. He denied Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state of Virginia challenging the new health law. His ruling stated that it is far from certain Congress has the authority to compel Americans to buy insurance and penalize those who don't.
Judge Hudson's ruling paved the way for a trial to begin on October 18, with possible appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, a lengthy process. Some states will likely delay creating insurance exchanges and slow down other costly preparations for ObamaCare until its constitutionality is determined by this case.
If mandatory insurance is declared unconstitutional, the entire health law could collapse like a house of cards. Most complex legislation states that if one part of the law is struck down, other parts remain enforceable. But authors of ObamaCare chose to omit that clause, suggesting that the health overhaul won't work without mandatory insurance.
The law's defenders say the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance will solve a national problem by reducing the number of uninsured and spreading the cost of care over a larger insurance pool.
Critics say that the requirement tramples the Constitution. Twenty-one states and several individuals are already suing to overturn it. Virginia went one step further, enacting a law that makes it illegal to require any resident to purchase health insurance. The Virginia measure won solid support from both Republican and Democratic state legislators. Despite what Mrs. Pelosi tried to suggest, questioning the constitutionality of ObamaCare is not partisan posturing. A fundamental principle is at stake.
On July 1, before a packed courtroom, attorneys for the state of Virginia argued that if the federal government can require you to buy insurance, it could also force you to buy any product to solve any national problem: a new GM car to bolster Detroit, or stocks to prop up Wall Street.
HOW SOON WE FORGET
“We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” -Pres. Eisenhower, 1961.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” -Pres. Eisenhower, 1961.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Greenspan & Stockman Oppose Tax Cut Extension
Greenspan stated firmly on Sunday's MTP that tax cuts DO NOT pay for themselves and opined that extension of Bushes cuts could be "disasterous". He went on to say that he favors tax cuts but not with borrowed money (duh!).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html
David Stockman was far more aggressive in his criticism of today's GOP. Damning words from Reagan's budget director.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=stockman&st=Search
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html
David Stockman was far more aggressive in his criticism of today's GOP. Damning words from Reagan's budget director.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=stockman&st=Search
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)