E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jeff Haynes / Reuters
Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney speaks at his Illinois primary night rally in Schaumburg, Illinois, March 20, 2012.
Yesterday’s feeding frenzy highlights these problems for Romney: He gets no benefit of the doubt… And he doesn’t have a base that will defend him when the going gets tough… Overshadowed by all the attention to “Etch A Sketch”: Romney’s TARP comment… Romney campaign goes up with new TV ad in Wisconsin… Gingrich admits he’ll come in 3rd place in GOP race… Day 2 of Obama’s energy swing… And defending dysfunction.
*** Not getting the benefit of the doubt: While the Romney campaign finds itself mired in yet another feeding frenzy over a top aide’s “Etch A Sketch” comment, it is important to take a step back here. One, Romney never said the remark (senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom did). And two, a lot more good for the campaign happened yesterday (aftermath of winning Illinois, getting Jeb Bush’s endorsement) than bad (“Etch A Sketch”). Yet the feeding frenzy highlights a bigger problem for Romney, especially as we begin transitioning to the general election: He gets almost no benefit of the doubt. Every gaffe becomes a story; every mistake become fodder for late-night comedians. And more importantly, this is what happens when you don’t have a solid base of support that can serve as a cocoon of protection during the toughest of times. Successful presidential candidates (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama) had grassroots supporters rushing to their defense, even in the toughest of political times. Romney -- right now -- doesn’t have this. In fact, it was notable during yesterday’s “Etch A Sketch” controversy that we didn’t see many prominent conservatives railing against media bias or unfairness. Instead, they were either standing on the sidelines or piling on. And that’s a problem for Romney.
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is on the defensive after one of his top aides likened Romney's likely journey to the general election to an Etch A Sketch, where "you can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."
*** Shake it up: But a silver lining to Team Romney’s day yesterday: His Republican rivals jumped on the “Etch A Sketch” remark so fast and so gleefully that there was almost an air of desperation to it. Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich understand that the math and momentum isn’t on their side, and their critique yesterday -- that Romney isn’t a true conservative and he’ll become the moderate Romney, circa 2003, in a general election -- is their last-ditch effort to stop him.
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd talks about Jeb Bush's endorsement of Mitt Romney and the conservative stances that may hurt the GOP presidential candidate's campaign in November, if he becomes the nominee.
*** Romney’s TARP comment: Strikingly, both Santorum and Gingrich jumped on the “Etch A Sketch” remark, but they missed a more substantive opportunity to pounce on Romney’s conservative credentials -- over his full-throated defense of TARP yesterday. “There was a concern in this country that all the banks were going to go out of business. That there was going to be run on the banks,” Romney said yesterday. “In that circumstance, President Bush and Hank Paulson said we've got to do something to show we're not going to let the whole system go out of business. I think they were right. I know some people disagree with me. I think they were right to do that." Romney then added, “I keep hearing the president say that he's responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression. No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush and Hank Paulson that stepped in and kept that from happening.” So a defense of the bailouts from Romney, but also an attempt to take credit away from the president as the economy recovers. We’ll see if that works.
*** Romney’s new TV ad in Wisconsin: Perhaps in response to yesterday’s kerfuffle, Team Romney is going up with a new TV ad in Wisconsin that highlights his conservative credentials; in fact, the ad is called “Conservative Record.” In the ad, Romney says, “I spent my career in the private sector. In Massachusetts, when I came in we faced almost a three billion dollar budget gap. And there were some that said why don’t we just raise taxes. Or why don’t we just borrow money? We actually cut spending. I balanced the budget every single year and by the time I left we had established over two billion dollars of a rainy day fund.” Yet here’s what Romney DOES NOT mention in the ad: His administration balanced the budget, in part, by raising revenues and fees.
*** How to stop a candidate’s momentum: Yet if Romney and his campaign want to know why they’ve had a harder-than-expected time wrapping up the GOP nomination and putting away Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, part of the answer can be found in their bathroom mirrors. Indeed, every time they’ve had momentum in this Republican race, they’ve committed a gaffe highlighting a chief Romney weakness. So right before Romney’s blow-out win in New Hampshire, the candidate uttered the words, “I like being able to fire people” and “There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip.” Right after Romney’s big win in Florida, he told CNN, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” And then yesterday, senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said this in response to a question about whether the GOP primary has forced Romney too far to the right: "Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."
*** Out-Drudging Drudge: We’ll make one final point about yesterday’s “Etch A Sketch” story: The first to capitalize on it was the liberal site Think Progress. In fact, liberal and progressives have begun to out-Drudge Drudge (which has been VERY friendly to Team Romney during this campaign) when it comes to pushing out oppo and amplifying gaffes. By the way, are we really at the portion of the campaign that the political community is simply in search of the next gaffe to generate the next feeding frenzy? The most striking thing about this cycle -- compared to other ones -- is the concerted effort by EVERY SINGLE campaign and by EVERY SINGLE entity related to politics to create the “next viral moment.” The campaigns do it big time, the partisans do it and have sophisticated tracking operations, and even the press gets caught up in it. It’s the campaign in front of us, and it’s become a vicious cycle.
*** Gingrich admits he’ll come in third: Newt Gingrich said this in an interview with NPR, per NBC’s John Bailey: “Santorum's not going to get to a majority. I'm probably going to come in third with-- in terms of total delegates. But the question is, until Romney actually has an absolute majority, I don't think anybody is inclined to give him the nomination.” More: “I think the possibility is very real that we could get to an open convention. I think in an open convention, nobody knows what it would produce and in that process, I may well end up being there as the nominee or having a significant influence on the nominee.”
*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Santorum heads to Dallas, TX for a fundraiser…Gingrich stumps in Louisiana, making a stop in Houma and later participating in a Tea Party Presidential forum and straw poll in Baton Rouge… Romney is off the campaign trail.
*** Day 2 of Obama’s energy swing: While Romney had a rough day yesterday, President Obama’s trip out West to promote energy hasn’t been a smashing success, either. First, critics panned Obama for speaking for just 10 minutes while in New Mexico yesterday -- before moving on to Oklahoma. Second, a new Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans (57%) say the U.S. government should approve of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obama again talks energy in Cushing, OK at 10:55 am ET and in Columbus, OH at 4:25 pm ET.
*** Team Obama’s memo on Medicare, Social Security: Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is out with this new memo – from Harvard economist David Cutler -- pegged to the release of Paul Ryan’s latest budget. “President Obama believes that every American, after a lifetime of work, should be able to look forward to the security and dignity these programs assure. In contrast, plans from Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and other Republicans would end Medicare as we know it and devastate Social Security, under the guise of saving them -- even as they propose trillions in tax cuts tilted to the most fortunate. On Friday, Vice President Biden will discuss the importance of protecting Social Security and Medicare in Florida, a state where Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries make up about 20 percent of the population.”
*** Defending dysfunction: Last night at the Bipartisan Policy Center’s tribute to two great American statesmen -- former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker and Bob Dole -- there was a lot of talk about the “good old days” of finding common ground when the senate “worked.” In fact, it was those moments where Dole and Baker worked across the aisle that were lionized last night, as they usually are for ANY politician of ANY party. You’ll rarely find a politician that won’t want THOSE moments talked about before others. There were a slew of speakers at the tribute, mostly ex-senators -- from Vice President Biden (who was very good and surprisingly short) to Bill Frist to Tom Daschle -- to current ones like Pat Roberts (who brought the house down) and of course the two CURRENT senate leaders, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. And it was THEIR remarks that deserve highlighting. Both clearly realized they were walking into a lion’s den of ex-senators who whisper complaints about the current senators REGULARLY around town. Their remarks were as much about defending the Senate’s current dysfunction by claiming the two of them are really friends and that they do somehow get things done. They tried their best but judging by the response afterwards, there weren’t a lot of believers.
Countdown to Louisiana primary: 2 days
Countdown to DC, Maryland, Wisconsin primaries: 12 days
Countdown to Election Day: 229 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Karl Rove's American Crossroads SuperPac bought up the big media markets in Albuquerque, Las Vegas and Columbus, around the 3 locations where President Obama spoke about his All-of-the-Above Energy strategy for America yesterday.
THEY DID THIS SO THEY COULD LIE. IS THAT OK WITH YOU?
The ADS LIED and said Obama had somehow made the price of gas go up.
The ADS LIED that Obama is blocking the Keystone Pipeline.
Firstly, the Keystone Pipeline is stalled because Nebraska Governor said NO to the route through the Ogallala Aquifer. Nothing to do with the President. No alternative has been identified so far. Nothing for the President to approve or block.
Secondly, global gas prices aren't set by any President, Prime Minister, Parliament or Congress. They couldn't do it if they wanted to, because gas prices are set by world markets and tied to the price of oil. The chart linked below demonstrates clearly: No matter how much oil any country of any size produces, its gas prices will follow the exact same pattern of rise and fall as world gas prices.
There are lots of great figures right now. Under President Obama, domestic demand for oil is at a fifteen year low. We're importing only 45% foreign oil, down from 60% in 2005. Oil production is at an 8 year high. Yet even at this level of drilling, we will not bring down prices at the pump. It's just not possible, because oil is a global commodity.
Karl Rove knows the truth about the oil and gas prices. GOP leaders know very well, because they've watched the gas price drama happen like clockwork every year. Nothing new.
The point is - Do you want a GOP/Koch party in control of America's future that cannot even tell simple truths like these, about gas prices? Truths accepted as FACT by the rest of the industrialized world?
To see chart: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/03/17/opinion/sunday/0318-web-edit1.html?ref=sunday
Here’s a headline you won’t see on FR, or anywhere in the lefty liberal MSM:
Barry Obama’s “Buffet Rule” Tax on “Millionaires and Billionaires” Would Take 11 YEARS to Collect What He Wastes on Deficit Spending in 10 DAYS!!!!!”
That’s right FR lefty liberals. Barry, with his 4th Trillion dollar budget deficit is spending the country’s children’s and grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s money at a rate of $3.2 billion a day ($1.2 Trillion/365) and his beat-up-on-the rich tax will only cover less than 10 days of his reckless spending AFTER 11 FREAKIN’ YEARS.
Let’s face the facts FR lefty liberals: Raising taxes only on the “rich” may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but, it’s NOT a solution to ANYTHING. That means the real solution is to cut federal govt spending big time, or raise taxes on everyone, including the 47% of freeloaders that don’t currently pay any income taxes, or both.
And this proves the “pay your fair share of taxes” nonsense promoted by lefty liberals and MSDNC Lean Leftward commercials is nothing more than class warfare propaganda intended to fool the low information voters that vote for Dems.
March 20, 2012 2:42 PM
Buffett rule would garner $31 billion in taxes
(AP) WASHINGTON -- A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama's plan for a "Buffett rule" tax on the wealthy would rake in just $31 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress' official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.
That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period.
It is also miniscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama's budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.
The alternative minimum tax, originally aimed at ensuring that wealthy Americans pay taxes despite deductions and other breaks, has begun affecting upper middle-class families. Congress acts every year to minimize its impact.
The Buffett rule has become a leading symbol of Obama's and congressional Democrats' election-year efforts to persuade voters that they are the party championing economic fairness. Republicans have mocked it as one aimed at scoring political points that would have little real budgetary impact.
The Flat Earth Society
In Obamaland, that would be folks who offer even a hint of challenge to the president's love affair with alternative fuels. Folks like Newt Gingrich who is chatting up the idea of $2.50 gasoline. Yes indeed, in Obamaspeak the only way Newt could do that would be to "wave a magic wand." Jay Carney goes even further, he basically says Newt is just not telling the truth. Good grief, for a guy whose campaign isn't going anywhere it seems like Newt sure has touched a nerve.
So what's up with all that? Why is Newt pitching $2.50 gas and why are the Obama people having such a fit about it? And we're not talking about some minor hissy fit, we're talking about an administration that has attacked Newt and promoted it's own "energy policy" for something like two weeks now – a veritable eternity in the 24/7 news cycle. The answer is actually fairly straightforward: because the real flat earthers on this issue are the alternative fuel zealots. And they know they're losing the energy argument because the facts aren't on their side.
Obama likes to preach to us that the U.S. with 20 billion barrels has only about 2% of the world's proven oil reserves while we consume 20% of the oil the world produces. Therefore, oil is the "fuel of the past" and we can't "drill our way out" of this problem. So we better get used to nurturing failures like Solyndra, Ener1 and the Chevy Volts no one wants to buy. This man's disdain for demon oil knows no bounds.
And it's this disdain that leads the president to make the point about our oil reserves that is technically correct – but HIGHLY misleading. Misleading because proven reserves do not constitute all of our oil resources, not even close. In fact, Obama is being absolutely shameless in ignoring the modern supply side of the oil equation, namely the technological revolution that is allowing us to produce previously inaccessible "tight oil" locked in tar sands and shale. The 2% number he tosses out significantly understates the amount of oil the U.S. actually has because the Energy Information Administration's definition of proven oil reserves only counts the oil that companies are drilling in existing fields. What remains uncounted are additional reserves which are currently off limits to drilling such as the shale deposits in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Indeed, according to the USGS the Green River Formation in Wyoming alone could contain a mind boggling 1.4 TRILLION barrels of oil – enough oil to meet our energy needs for the next 200 years!
That's a heck of a lot of uncounted oil. Now, it's true that not all of this oil can be recovered economically at today's prices. And it's also true that even if oil companies started drilling in these areas today it would take years for the output to come on stream. But those aren't excuses for turning our backs on these enormous resources. To the contrary, from any rational perspective it's an argument for the government to get out of the way and stop excluding vast oil rich areas from production.
The global oil market is complex and most folks may not know all the ins and outs of why the prices of oil and gas are what they are. But they instinctively understand that more supply is better than less supply -- and hence, more drilling is better than less drilling. That's a simple yet powerful idea that resonates with anyone who takes even a moment to think about it. As well, it's a simple but powerful idea that shows the utter lunacy of Obama begging the Saudis to pump more oil at the same time he refuses to let states like Wyoming, Utah or Alaska do the same. And Newt's $2.50 gas pitch is a teaching moment that exposes the moral and economic bankruptcy of this president's ideologically driven refusal to exploit our own energy resources.
That's why a guy whose campaign is on life support has been getting so much attention from the Obama crowd these days.
I hope you all won't mind if I don't shed a tear or two at the FR pity party here this morning for Willard!
For crying out loud, the man is running for the most powerful position in the world NOT prom king!
Disappointing to see the fourth estate having to 'prop' him up so early!
Gonna be a long hot summer guys... Pace yourselfs!
Backhouse
Karl Rove's American Crossroads SuperPac bought up the big media markets in Albuquerque, Las Vegas and Columbus, around the 3 locations where President Obama spoke about his All-of-the-Above Energy strategy for America yesterday.
THEY DID THIS SO THEY COULD LIE. IS THAT OK WITH YOU?
No Backhouse
Nothing turd blossom does is okay with me. I like your post though be cause it tells the truth about Karl Rove's likeness to his corporate master-- the Koch roaches and ALEC
Flip Romney is the biggest liar than anyone who has ever run for President.
Me either, Feisty. The guy is a liar, plain and simple. Even his damage control attempts further damaged him. Romney can say what he wants about what his staffer meant, but he shouldn't assume that people won't then listen to the staffer's interview for themselves.
Taken out of context my eye. And any Romney supporter who repeats that lie is, just like their candidate, lying about it.
Bev, hi,
In the GOP/Koch party there is no truth.
The GOP strategy is to swamp the airwaves with lies, using folks like Limbaugh who earns $50 million a year to lie and mislead millions of Americans. Fox News turns everything upside down = Good is bad and bad is good.
In the GOP/Koch party right now, there is no truth. Their angle is the truth is suspect. Their game is that there no true facts - that reality and facts are two separate entities.
When we buy their big lie, who does it serve?
Are we going to KEEP ON buying it?
(I need a)Job1- Thank you for that very insightful post. You're the King Of The One-Liners! But at least Henny Youngman was funny and served some purpose.
Secondly, global gas prices aren't set by any President, Prime Minister, Parliament or Congress. They couldn't do it if they wanted to, because gas prices are set by world markets and tied to the price of oil.
____________________________________
Outhouse: If what you say is true, does it mean the lefty liberals that blamed GWB for high gas prices in 2008 were liars and morons??
Sounds like you are giving a big "YES" answer to that question.
A simple "Yes" response will confirm your position on this issue.
Mitt last night was kind enough to remind us that it was Bush and Paulson at the helm for economic collapse.
Thanks Mitt for brining Bush back into the conversation.
Child's Play
Romney's AIDE “Etch A Sketch” comment was so typical of the whole of GOP/Tea bagger clowns. Every thing they do and say is filled with childishness.
The only thing missing in the picture were the trees and lakes Romney loves.
Romney, the last and final pick for a prom date.
Exactly Paul!
I found this comment by Willard to be most curious;
Bold added for emphasis.
I see someone (Bill) who lives in a tunnel has crawled out to give us his spin on things. Hope he saves his energy next time. Those us living in the real world know the world is round and innovation is a good thing.
Looks like Obama inadvertently kept one of his promises- we have another issue with bipartisan consensus.
Yep, another nine to nothing decision against his administration just came down from the SCOTUS.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TL3ABO1.htm
Now, before anybody screams about the date of the EPA ruling-2007- please remember that the case was heard this term- which means that the EPA was represented by Obama's Soliciter General.
Who lost.
Nine to nothing.
The EPA has been getting away with violating the Fifth Amendment right to access the courts for YEARS. It took a couple of landowners- not a corporation, big developer, or anybody else harmed by this unConstitutional blocking of access- to get a ruling in favor of the people against the government. Good for them.
Actually, this case epitomizes what is wrong with big government- told that dry land is, actually, wet, this couple were informed that they had no recourse unless they submitted to killing fines FIRST. It is exactly that kind of abuse of power that needs to be taken from government, but there are few, it seems, willing to stand up and fight this kind of abuse.
We all gained a little more freedom today.
So Romney says it was okay for Bush to bail out the banks, but it was wrong for Obama to bail out Detroit. Hmm.
Running as a conservative... even his own word construction seems to indicate its all an act to him. Not that he's a conservative by conviction. He just says he'll run as a conservative, just as when an earlier situation called for it, he ran as a significantly different candidate.
Bill, Fairfax:
The price of oil is based purely on supply and demand. Mountains, of evidence show that moneyed interests are doing everything they can to screw around with pricing outside the framework of true market-based pricing. That is to say the people who openly praise free enterprise are doing everything they can behind the scenes to crush free enterprise.
A four-billion-dollar annual subsidy can only be explained within that reality. Where do government subsidies fit in a free market? What value does speculation have in a free market? Explain that.
The President is being kind when he merely mocks Gingrich and his $2.50 per gallon BS. Gingrich is a liar - a damned liar - who knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected and thus has a pass on making any outrageous statement he likes. Worldwide demand for petroleum products guarantees that prices will continue to rise regardless of who sits in the White House. That's the reality of supply and demand.
Yeah, there really are countries outside our borders. Yeah, the earth really isn't flat, and on the other side of the globe, you'll find two nations in particular that dwarf the U.S. population. India and China both are demanding an ever larger share of the world's oil production. Demand, Bill. It's the other side of that supply equation.
As far as "light oil" locked in tar sands and shale, well, you'd better come up for some air. It may be light oil after its extracted, but it's only economical if you pretend there are no negative impacts on the water, air, and soil. The fact is there are incredibly huge and negative impacts on the water, air, and soil. When those costs are factored in to the TRUE cost of that "light oil", it's far more expensive than the oil that is now on the market. Or is that another one of those "Let's privatize the profits, and let the taxpayer pick up the damage at a later date" programs?
So, to answer your question as to why the Administration is responding to this nonsense with a bit more steel than you have come to expect, I'll give you two answers.
First, the message has to go out that not only are Republicans being disingenuous with their messages - THEY'RE LYING. Truth to power, Bill. The lie-fed ignorance has to be crushed.
Secondly, it has to be clear that the right-wing does not have a lock on number-crunching. To the contrary. Republican economic policy makes snake oil look like a wonder drug.
IF - a great big IF - supply and demand is put into play, where ALL true costs are figured into the supply side of the equation, all energy prices - not just gasoline - will rise. That's reality.
My heart bleeds for Mr. Romney. "They don't love me. I don't understand. But, it's my turn." His problem with his BASE is that he's got them so confused as to who and what he is and what does he stand for.
How can you stand up for this guy and back up what he says he stands for, when he changes his mind all the time and flip flops on every subject. No wonder his fellow Republicans shy away from supporting him. They'll look like fools.
And this guy wants to be President? I don't think so. God save us if he does.
Obama in 2012.
The cause of high oil (and, therefore gasoline), and food prices no longer has anything at all to do with supply and demand. Supply and demand cause and effect were abrogated when several investment banks received letters that exempted them from the Commodities Exchange Act requirement that they be either a user or seller to exceed certain restrictions on speculators. It is simply another price bubble that we are going through, that is being caused by speculators bidding the price on futures up to make a profit, while the CFTC sits on their butts and does nothing about enforcing the rules that are still being violated, beyond the exemptions granted by the letters (that should not have been issued in the first place).
And then there was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act . . .
US supply is up, US consumption is down, and we are now an exporter of gasoline.
Supply and demand my a$$.
But Romney will run as a Conservative Moderate...or is it a Moderate Conservative or is it the middle of the road moderately conservative or a middle of the road conservative moderate....or will it depend on the day of the week, what city state and which way the wind is blowing.
Excellent rebuttals David and Matthew!
This is not a friendly game of golf with a bunch of buddies. You shouldn't be getting "mulligans" at will. Romney is asking the people of this country to elect him as our leader. How does anyone vote for a person to be their leader when he fails to demonstrate good leadership skills? Romney would have done better if he had fired Fehrnstrom within moments after that statement, hours at the outside. Has he done that? The guy may have done irreparable harm to Romney and he still on his team? Not a team I want to be associated with.
If this (Fehrnstrom) is Romneys idea of who he would place in an important position of his staff, could you imagine the choices he would make for his cabinet as the president? Staggers my imagination.
Feisty - I had one good laugh last night reading your spars to the Etch-A-Sketch thread. Good job on that one - you were on fire. I'm still chuckling.
Paul M and Job1:
It's a basic tenet of liberal-minded types to reserve judgment until we feel comfortable that we have marshaled sufficient facts to warrant at least a tentative conclusion.
Perhaps there are times we wait too long. During the President George W. Bush Administration, we looked at Dick Cheney as the arch villain. We could see Paulson's fingerprints on the economic meltdown. There was a nagging feeling that while the President wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, surely he wasn't a bad man. Well, when you look at his policies, after a point you come to the inescapable conclusion that, yes, he wasn't too bright, but that he was also a mean, calloused, and unprincipled man - A true Republican. No pass for George W. Bush. He owned that presidency and he was horrible for this country.
So it is with Romney. We keep seeing this man who seems to have no warmth, who seems to have no connection with the vast majority of citizens, who seems unable to understand the needs of the country, and who seems to be generally unaware. We see a man who seems to flip-flop, who seems to try to tailor his message for the crowd at hand, and who seems to be dishonest.
Well, that's enough for me. I've seen enough. There's more than sufficient evidence to support what you say. I join in agreeing with you. Mitt Romney is a LIAR.
Let me clear it up for you, Paul-
Romney is a fiscal conservative, social moderate.
I prefer social libertarians myself, but you can't have everything.
And, let's face it, we desperately need a fiscal conservative. Having fiscally profligate, social conservative in the White House has not worked out so well.
Hi Backhouse
When we buy their big lie, who does it serve?
Are we going to KEEP ON buying it?
Apparently, the people in Wisconsin and the states who voted against the "War on Women" and contraceptives are not buying it either. That cross eyed badger, Scott Walker is delusion to think running over to FOX NOISE begging for help legitimatizes his LIES.
I got the feeling a lot more people won't buy the Koch Roaches & ALEC's lies either. But, it is a good thing to let the Koch Roaches and ALEC waste their money; and to see people pushing back against the lies.
A four-billion-dollar annual subsidy can only be explained within that reality
____________________________________
David: Barry runs up another $4 billion dollar deficit increase every 30 hours. ($1.2 Trillion/365/24*30)
Let's try to focus on the BIG issues and ignore the lefty liberal talking points for low information Dem voters.
The Baggers are going the way of the dinosaur anyhows (so screw them!)..
The Romney advisor is just telling it like it is...
Time to face facts!
Joe in Albany
Here’s a headline you won’t see on FR, or anywhere in the lefty liberal MSM:
Barry Obama’s “Buffet Rule” Tax on “Millionaires and Billionaires” Would Take 11 YEARS to Collect What He Wastes on Deficit Spending in 10 DAYS!!!!!”
Joee
You won't see it because FOX LIES!!!
AWWW Shucks Red - it was nothing! ;o)
Thanks for the shout out!
You won't see it because FOX LIES!!!
_____________________________________
Bev, you are a MORON. It was an AP story, not Fox.
[We all gained a little more freedom today.]
And you, NoJo, gained a little more ignorance for thinking that this is a loss for his administration solely because Obama's Soliciter General represented the EPA.
You know, you should really quit trying to piss up that rope.
[Yep, another nine to nothing decision against his administration just came down from the SCOTUS.]
The EPA was around long before this administration, and your failed attempt to tie the two together is noted, but lacks any real siginfigance.
That being said, I do agree, however, that this IS a victory for the "little guy", but attempting to tie it to this administration is just plain ignorance.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
I agree completely. I expressed the same sentiments in post #21. The media is giving Romney a pass for his serial lying. The person that First Read DID blame was the Romney aide who made the Etch-A-Sketch comment, and he shouldn't be blamed at all. It's impossible for anyone working for a scoundrel like Romney to avoid speaking the truth about him every once in a while.
Oh leave her alone Mickey - she's busy playing her *grasp meet straw* game! ;o)
Over the years, I have seen plenty of desperation out of old Donna, but today might possibly be historic ...
Mitt Romney could be the most unpopular nominee ever. Currently he has the worst favorable-unfavorable split of any major nominee in 36 years.
Umm, if you want to see what snake oil really looks like, then check out the cost estimates for Obamacare that were sold to us a few years ago. Now THAT was snake oil.
David Walker
Paul M and Job1:
It's a basic tenet of liberal-minded types to reserve judgment until we feel comfortable that we have marshaled sufficient facts to warrant at least a tentative conclusion."
*************
David, I'm ROFTLMAO at that one. You and others on here jump on things without sufficient info everyday on this site. And, that's why there are so many people who can never add a meaningful conversation but just write filthy, nasty t hings about the opposition. Please spare us the lie that liberals only make "educated" statements.
Joe:
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
Of course you won't believe this, after all, you voted for the nutsack Caarl Paalidino, right?
You two Libs need to talk.
And careful Matthew, Mr. Walker will call you a liar as he's known to do with anyone that disagrees with him.
Good luck gents.
Something smells funny with Bill's snake oil. Factcheck.org debunked the garbage Bill is peddling.
http://factcheck.org/2012/03/health-care-costs-didnt-double/
Also, notice Bill did not refute any facts either.
Hi David,
A Great Point.
OK, let me get this straight. The U.S. is potentially sitting on an ocean of oil that rivals Saudi Arabia. If the U.S. were to pursue an energy policy too aggressively extract that oil, it would send an unmistakeable message to world oil markets that we were serious about putting significant additional oil supply in play. And you're trying to tell me that evil speculators and other buyers would ignore that new reality and continue to bid up prices cuz that's what they do??
Tell that to George Bush. When oil prices spiked he opened additional areas for drilling and oil prices fell dramatically. And tell that to players in the natural gas market. The same fracking concept that is just beginning to be used to extract tight oil has been used to extract natural gas in recent years -- and the price of natural gas has fallen bigtime.
It might be helpful if you people put ideology aside and actually considered what goes on in the real world -- the round one we live in, not the flat one you're wedded to.
Thank you Dave and Matt for replying to Bill so I dont have to.
I think an important part of the article above is the part pertaining to the Congress. I find it funny how First Read presented it. The idea of shame and guilt, that both Reid and McConnel were left there trying to defend the current situation only to gain no traction. The past leaders don't approve, the public doesnt approve why is it still going on?
I hope the awful job congress has done rececently may actually spark our citizens to elect true change, and I dont mean the promises that come out of the mouth of an ambitious politician I mean a fundamental shift of how we choose who will represent us in Washington. Many would call me and optimist and that I am asking for too much. I don't mind it at all.
I would rather go to bed thinking tommorrow will be a good day where we progress as a country rather than another awful day in the new America of oxymorons. You know the Facist/Marxist/Corporation favoring, Church bashing/Feminst/Freedom crushing/Gay Loving, Deficit Ridden/Tax Abundant, Socialist/Democracy we now live in. I mean it just wasn't like that you know 4 years ago.
***This is irrelevant, but I too have decided to ignore Damage, it is clear to me that he will continue spewing hate only with the hope of getting a reaction. It is all he wants he is not here for educational purposes nor debate, it is only to cause hate. He will spew nonsense comb through your responses just so at some random point he can yell GOTCHA!
Yep, Romney gets Doubt with NO benefits,...I bet there will be a movie about it! ha ha
couldn't happen to a more deserving fella', eh?
Bill -
You do realize that the major reason the cost estimates for the AHA went up is because the period they were being evaluated for (10 years rolling) changed?
Republicans and conservative media are cherry-picking a figure in a new Congressional Budget Office spending estimate (PDF) to assert that the cost of “Obamacare” has nearly doubled to $1.76 trillion. But the claim ignores the corresponding savings during the additional period of the spending projection, thus distorting the actual cost estimates of the law.
“The new CBO projection estimates that the law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years — well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed,” Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), the No. 4 House Republican, declared in a press advisory. Republicans on the powerful Energy & Commerce Committee said the CBO report “reveal[s] a shocking new sticker price of $1.8 trillion.”
Fox News and other conservative outlets have trumpeted the out-of-context number as vindication for those who warned that the Affordable Care Act will cost far more than advertised.
CBO’s actual revised estimate is that the “gross costs of the coverage provisions,” — the money used to provide people Medicaid or private insurance — has risen by about $50 billion over the 2012-2021 period since its previous estimate, from $1.445 trillion to $1.496 trillion. That’s the only relevant change to spending projections in the report.
So where are conservatives getting the idea that the cost of the law doubled? When it passed in 2010, CBO said its 10-year outlays would be about $940 billion. But because the law isn’t set to be fully implemented until 2014, when the coverage expansion takes effect, that initial estimate included several years in which the law cost very little. Now that it’s 2012, CBO’s 10-year outlook captures more years during which the law will be in full effect. The law’s price tag appears higher, but its costs in no way doubled.
Conservatives, however, want to use the effect of this sliding window to make it appear as if the health care law is a budget buster. But this latest CBO report focuses exclusively on the law’s spending provisions, and ignores its savings — the taxes and spending cuts, that also mostly take effect in 2014.
Indeed, CBO still holds that the law reduces the deficit by billions of dollars over 10 years. That’s just not in this report.
“CBO and JCT have not estimated the budgetary effects in 2022 of the other provisions of the ACA; over the 2012-2021 period, those other provisions were previously estimated to reduce budget deficits,” the CBO report reads.
All of which means that the cost projections have only experienced minor changes in the CBO report, a far cry from the conservative claims that the Affordable Care Act’s price tag has skyrocketed or doubled.
Another example of either distortion of facts or outright lies.
Comedy hour starts early around here.
Here Mr. Walker - please observe the following liberal-minded types talking about gas prices in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLP12X3EgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjigcS8gN04
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/video-flashback-obama-and-dems-blast-bush-for-gas-prices-in-2008/
Today, many of these same pols are silent. To them the President has nothing to do with oil prices. Would you say these liberal-minded types reserved their judgment until they felt comfortable that they had marshaled sufficient facts to warrant at least a tentative conclusion? Or would you say they jumped to conclusions without sufficient facts, and in the process, broke the basic tenet of liberal-minded types?
Joe in Albany
You won't see it because FOX LIES!!!
_____________________________________
Bev, you are a MORON. It was an AP story, not Fox.
Joee, you cannot call any one a moron. You are the ultimate "Village Idiot"
The AP is a shameless tool and a mouthpiece for the right wing as far as I'm concerned just like your Politico stories .
Much of what the AP reports is akin to what Secretary of State Colin Powell said about Iraq in his famous United Nations presentation on February 5, 2003.
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/03/08/satellite-intelligence-iran-2012-iraq-2003/
Proof; They'll print anything to fill space and have a story:
AP: Millionaires Already Taxed More Than Their Secretaries
September 21, 2011
AP: "The Data Say" Millionaires "Are Already Taxed At Higher Rates Than Their Secretaries." From an Associated Press "fact check" by Stephen Ohlemacher:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201109210019
Houston!
Any day you & I are on the same page is gonna be a good day!
I couldn't believe what I read above from FR - let me whip out the world's tiniest violin for Willard!
PUHLEESE!
Romney's base is the 1%. The joke on them is that they've only got one percent of the vote.
Not even the corporate fatcats are steadfastly loyal to Romney because they can't get a handle on him.
All we know for sure is that he abuses dogs.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
Another point I hate the tactic by the right, everytime someone bring up a point of a small measure that can be used to reduce the deficit, they compare how large the deficit is and call it a drop in the bucket. They never do the simple job of aggregating all the solutions so we can move forward. They would rather stay where we are and complain. Yes, 4 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket, but guess what? Now the bucket isn't empty. To piggy back of my last post of optimism, its do you want to see the bucket half empty or half full? That's up to you just don't go turning the bucket upside down because that does no one any good.
And Bill I can't say you are right or wrong because your statement is a guess. Do not present it as fact becasue we both know we can do exactly what you said and the opposite can happen. The administration would not want to go through all that strain of what would amount to years of work off the idea oil prices MIGHT go down.
Akeem
Ignoring Damage is a wise strategy.
Yep, when all else fails, just
prayLIE....and then pray for the lie to become true or for people to be dumb enough to believe the lies.That's GOP new christian family values on display.
God help us.
Akeem - You are so right about this Congress - it's pretty bad when your predecessors on both sides of the aisle are ashamed to be associated with the shambles you've turned the institution into.
And I also have placed a few people on ignore - on both sides of the aisle - some people get off on such vitriol - you can't hear the discussion of the issues
So how can this proposed tax increase have no impact and be just a "drop in the bucket" AND yet be a "job killer", "class-warfare", and "socialist wealth distribution"?
Well, which is it?
Hi Feisty! Am I still one of your Minions!
That'll never happen. His phone lines are jammed with meaningless call traffic from Tebow, Perry, Santorum and Newt, not to mention that forgiving the indiscretions of the latter was already a full time job.
Good grief, here's part of what CBO actually said on Obamacare costs:
"The ACA's provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012–2022 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources). The addition of 2022 to the projection period has the effect of increasing the costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA relative to those projected in March 2011 for the 2012–2021 period because that change adds a year in which the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges will be in effect."
The core issue is Obamacare was structured so that benefits kick in early while the costs kicked in later. The whole idea was to game the system to enable Democrats to get a favorable cost score from CBO's standard ten year analytic timeframe at the time Obamacare was being debated. But Republicans and other critics pointed out at the time that the ten year period used to score Obamacare was not an honest accounting BECAUSE the costs were backloaded. Now that time has passed and CBO drops early years from their scoring window (years where big costs were deliberately excluded) and added the years where the costs actually appear (years where the costs were backloaded), we get a truer insight into the actual costs of the program.
The fact of the matter is CBO's current cost estimate includes years of full implementation of the law that were not included in their original cost estimate. And when these years are included, we get a more accurate insight into what Obamacare actually costs.
TNSEVOL,
I sure hope so - I don't want you wandering off the ranch! ;o)
Yeah right. It makes much more sense to pi$$ away taxpayer dollars on the Solyindra's of the world.
LOL Red!
Feisty -- Many collapsed posts last night. It proves one thing. You have a great sense of humor and the right are too uptight to laugh. Keep on keeping on girl!
Good Grief, He's (Bill) Baaaaack!
Etche-Sketch comment of the decade... "My plan will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year. It’s a plan that lets the uninsured buy insurance that’s similar to the kind members of Congress give themselves. And if you can’t afford that, you’ll get a subsidy to pay for it."
So, apparently he must raise the cost by $2500 a year before he can cut it by $2500. I blame bush.
To me it just seems like we're living in la-la-land. Conservatives freak about the deficit, but then support candidates who's tax plans add to it. They support starting another war, like we can get three for the price of one???? They hate spending, but won't touch our largest cash incinerator, the DOD.
By their own standards, they are everything they hate.
There is no question that Mitt Romney is a flat out liar. He has changed positions on anything a human can think of, not only now but when he ran against McCain!
Etch-a-sketch or not, to think this guy is going to get away with all he has said and distorted and lied about is schoolgirl brinkmanship. It's not going to work.
With all the sideshows going on in the Party of No's national election and local state legislation in the past two years, The Democrat Party has so much ammunition to go after all these Commieservatives it's hard to believe this won't be another change election! Boner will most certainly have to give the gavel back to Hoyer or Pelosi in January!
Both sides lie, why cant people just be honest.
FactCheck.org
Misleading Claims in Obama’s First 2012 Spot
Dissembling on ethics, jobs and oil imports
President Obama’s first 2012 campaign ad misleads on ethics, “clean-energy” jobs and U.S. dependence on oil imports.
DCIA,
Right? LOL
What a mess - man, they were all OVER the place...
Never did find the roach spray!
The AP is a shameless tool and a mouthpiece for the right wing as far as I'm concerned just like your Politico stories .
__________________________________
Bev, you are a MAJOR MORON.
Here’s the article from HuffPo. Are they “lying” too???
LMFAO@U Bev:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buffett Rule Would Only Bring In $31 Billion Over The Next 11 Years: Report
WASHINGTON — A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama's plan for a "Buffett rule" tax on the wealthy would rake in just $47 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress' official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.
That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama's budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.
The alternative minimum tax, originally aimed at ensuring that wealthy Americans pay taxes despite deductions and other breaks, has begun affecting upper middle-class families. Congress acts every year to minimize its impact.
The Buffett rule has become a leading symbol of Obama's and congressional Democrats' election-year efforts to persuade voters that they are the party championing economic fairness. Republicans have mocked it as one aimed at scoring political points that would have little real budgetary impact.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/buffett-rule_n_1367591.html
That's right you sly fairFaux - and we should have channeled (pi$$sed) more funds into solar development. Because we didn't, the Chinese now control the solar business, and as we slowly convert, they will be the beneficiaries. Will you be pi$$ing and moaning then?
Bill -
If you read my post above, I agree that the main reason for the cost increase was the "sliding window" which replaced years of no costs with year swith costs. The CBO also stated that they did not include the additional savings in 2022 because they haven't been calculated yet.
Indeed, CBO still holds that the law reduces the deficit by billions of dollars over 10 years. That’s just not in this report.
“CBO and JCT have not estimated the budgetary effects in 2022 of the other provisions of the ACA; over the 2012-2021 period, those other provisions were previously estimated to reduce budget deficits,” the CBO report reads.
So not an outright lie, just a distortion of the facts. The CBO counts the new costs but does not count the new savings. The bottom line:
The ACA reduces the deficit by billions of dollars over 10 years
Fiesty, I am still on the ranch.
It takes a lot of us good "cowpokes" to ride those fences!
Hey Feisty, try getting a job.
Waaaaa! Oh I'm sooooo sorry no one likes Mitt.
Eric Fehrnstrom just put into words what is exactly Mitt's problem with the GOP base, the Independents and the Tea Bags. He will do and say anything if he thinks it will get him elected, including throwing his supporters under the bus.
He makes $20,000,000.00+ a year! The President's annual salary is $400000 per year, including a $50000 expense allowance. He must want the power pretty darn bad. Sounds like he wants to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.
joe-2849984
Hey Feisty, try getting a job.
Wow, Joe, that is what we like to see here on FR - snappy comebacks and well-thought-out political discourse.
Isn't that the same line YOU use when you see a homeless man on the corner?
Bill in Fairfax,
You lie, and you do not know what you are talking about.
The price of oil did not drop because Bush opened up more drilling (if that were true, then why hasn't oil dropped since US production has increased over 300% in the last 3 years?), it dropped because the commodities bubble burst. Just as the all previous economic bubbles eventually burst, and the one that is currently building will burst.
I am not at a computer where I can check the timing of the bursting bubble compared to the opening of more drilling, nor do I have my sources at hand to give a fuller answer, but from your past posts, I can say, with a 99.9999% chance of being right, that you are wrong.
Go crawl back into your fact-free hole, Bill. You bore me.
Actually, no joe is correct, this is a loss for the Obama administration. Prior to this ruling, the EPA acted like it was a law unto itself and did not have to submit to any kind of court review.
This does not bode well for FBI "letters of inquiry" or whatever they call them, which are effectively warrantless searches. I was not surprised to see the vote on this, the Court does not like to see the Executive or Legislative branch arbirtrarily deciding what it can and can not review. The Court feels very strongly that its primary purpose is to review Executive and Congressional decisions, outside of policy and politics.
Willard "Wiley" "Willy" "Etch-A-Sketch" 1%er "I don't care about the poor" "Let Detroit die with GM and Chrysler" "Multi-Millionaire via Exporting U.S. Jobs to India" Cayman Island Checking and Swiss Secret Savings Accounts, Romney, is the best that the GOP has to offer? Well, don't be . . . Let the celebration begin 8 months before the election because when you stick a fork in them, it is obvious that the Republicans are done!
“I keep hearing the president say that he's responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression. No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush and Hank Paulson that stepped in and kept that from happening.”
Indeed. And even job loses peaked in the week of December 20, 2008 - a month before Obama took office, by which time the job loss picture had improved by about 25% - long before Obama's 'stimulus', which did little to improve things - being designed mainly to retain government sector jobs.
The 'great recession' had already bottomed out before Obama was sworn in.
Actually, that's not what the latest CBO report says. What it says is:
"CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."
The phrase "has not been updated" means that the current CBO is silent on this point. It does not necessarily mean analysis of the 2013-2022 period will show a reduction in the deficit as you state.
But I'm picking nits on that point, and would concede their analysis may well show deficit reduction in the updated window. But deficit reduction per se is not the main issue here, it never was. The main issue has always been the costs of the program – costs that would need to be financed by new penalties and taxes. The fact that penalties and taxes will bring in revenues that might lower the deficit is a testament to the magnitude of the revenues required, not an argument for the fiscal rectitude of the folks who designed this turkey.
The bottom line is overall spending on Obamacare is projected to be substantially higher today than it was a few years ago – and the fact that increased penalties and fees offset those costs does not obviate the fact that the cost projections have increased. That's the basic point critics are making.
And while we're talking about increased penalties, let's peel the onion back a little on that idea. Because a key aspect of this dynamic is lower estimates for how many folks will be covered by employer provided coverage – and hence an increase in the penalties those employers are projected to pay. The CBO states:
"Revising down the number of workers projected to receive insurance coverage through an employer relative to the previous estimates, by between 3 million and 4 million in most years, leads to an increase in estimated revenues because…that revision increases the estimated number of employers who will be required to pay penalties."
So much for the idea that "if you like your current health insurance you can keep it." That was just more snake oil sold to us by the same folks who said the program would cost under $1 billion.
Gee, there are a bunch of novelist that like to write on here. However, fiction does not create facts. The facts are -
Mitt Romney is running to be the next WORST PRESIDENT EVER. If Democrats do not support Romney - and - Republicans do not support Romney - what hope does Romney have of being an effective President?
How does that help Republicans overcome the perception that they are ineffective?
RedDev - Got me laughing! From their lips to God's ear. (they're hoping not)
On July 12, 2008 the price of West Texas Intermediate crude hit its peak at around $147 per barrel. On July 14, 2008 George Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore drilling. The price of WTI immediately declined and stayed in decline until bottoming in December 2008 at just under $34 a barrel.
It's fair to say that this dramatic decline was driven largely by the deteriorating global economy during this period. But it's also fair to say the decline was initiated by an American president who forcefully embraced an energy policy that included more domestic drilling.
One thing the loony tunes on the left just don't get is the players in the oil markets get spooked very easily. When the fear of lower supply hangs in the air due to tensions in the Middle East or whatever, the buyers become frenzied and the price of oil goes up. But the other side of the coin (and there are TWO SIDES to this coin) when the prospect of additional supply is advanced by a major oil consumer, then the players get wobbly knees and their selling drives the price down. It doesn't matter that any new oil supply that might have ensued from Bush's action wouldn't come on line for years and wouldn't have had an appreciable impact on the global supply-demand equation at the time. What matters is the fragile psychology of a market that hangs on expectations of the future, a market psychology where even small adjustments in future expectations can have an outsized impact on price movements.
Now, in post #1.73, the courageous Matthew sits behind his computer and calls me a liar – a serious charge he bravely makes without need of proof or fear of adverse consequence. Well Matthew, I've already spent more time refuting your slander than a low life POS like you deserves. Good day.
http://quotes.post1.org/historical-crude-oil-price-chart/
Nerm_L,
There is no way he can be as bad as the current president.
One of the ways a borrower can better handle paying back debt is to make the balance of what he or she owes worth less relative to today's value. Inflation is how this is accomplished.
I simply cannot see a way for our nation to get its fiscal house in order that doesn't involve a long, painful period of high inflation.
Not only dd we lack the political will, the citizens of this nation simply do not possess the necessary vocabulary to hold an honest and meaningful public debate about our fiscal matters. We know how to say things like "contraception" or "Obamacare" or "liberal democrat vs. conservative republican", but we have basically zero understanding of economic principals that drive just about every aspect of our world.
As the old saying goes: "A fool stares at the finger that points to the sky." Well, Ron Paul is pointing, and most Americans are foolishly staring at his finger.
No Statesman Has Ever Confronted the FED and Lived To Tell About It
Many people who don't know Ron Paul see him as only a gentlemanly person who for instance might mistake him to be soft on terrorism.
People need to know Ron Paul is risking his life so that every American can be unshackled from the slave masters at the FED/IRS Complex.
They confuse the meekness that cloaks his ability to contend with and attack the most horrific darkness on earth.
People need to know the reign of terror Ron Paul would unleash on the darkest forces of our time.
We need to spread the message. Otherwise the next generation like every generation since 1913 will never know liberty from the debt slavery & tax bondage of the FED/IRS Complex.
No elected official in our time has ever been so courageous and agressive in confronting the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank as Dr. Paul.
Take a look;
Ron Paul questions Alan Greenspan in 2000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTx-GbCdoJE&NR=1
Ron Paul Leading Redux 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64BCvvKKXjQ
http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden.html
Submitted by highwithaltitude on Sun, 11/27/2011 - 11:41.
Abraham Lincoln, James A Garfield, & John F Kennedy and they were all assassinated in office! And to note; Andrew Jackson had many attempts on his life but were unsuccessful.
Google it.
Any statesman that has ever gone after ther FED has either had attempts on his life or more often been killed by the FED authorized hitmen. Whatever it takes. Secret Service stand downs, conspiracy theory smoke screens... the wilder the better. Because the more audacious they are the more unbelieveable they are. They actually count on the cognitive disonance of the population as an integral part of the cover-up.
Hey! ☛2012 Is About Abolishing Economic Slavery In America
We're on the verge of abolishing economic slavery in America.
Ron Paul's aim is to abolish the debt slavery & tax bondage of the FED/IRS Complex.
Over the last 100 years of slavery we have gradually lost most of what America set out to be, do and have.
☛We are not free. ☛We are slaves.
Put aside all of the non-essential issues and focus on abolishing slavery.
Let's start there.
☛Our first priority is to regain our liberty, peace and prosperity.
This is the narrative, the context for all of my campaign communications with others. It shuts down all of the nattering and competitiveness between the staus quo candidates.
☛~~No other candidate is cognizant of, or focused on abolishing the crushing debt slavery and tax bondage like Dr. Paul.
☛Without our liberty, nothing else matters.~~
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
and before he was shot in March 1981, Ronald Reagan was very critical of the Fed and a proponent of "sound money". After the assassination attempt the Fed didn't seem to come up anymore in Reagan's rhetoric..............
Andrew Jackson publicly challenged the second U.S. national bank, lived through an assassination attempt, cancelled the banking agreement the government had with the private bankers, and eventually balanced the federal budget, and lived to tell about it.
Wow. What a day! I was already in a bad mood... dang Conservatives!
Derek,Your economic plan is foolish, I'm sorry. High inflation leaves EVERYONE worse off. You would solve ONE issue and that is reducing the cost of obligations made before the period of high inflation.
Now lets talk about everything else.
Wages, wages are "sticky" meaning it is very hard to see wages move especially upwards with high inflation you have employees who are not being paid the true value of their work all across America. Every time they sign any type of contract for employment or salary they are instantly losing wealth.
Increased prices of goods. The thing is the value of goods not so sticky, they will rise much faster than wages and what you would create is a situation where no one can buy anything. We are all to poor only the very rich can afford the normal goods and the poor, well we might as well forget about them.
The rich? oh don't worry they get their's too. See all those obligations that are now worth less in today's currency guess who lent it out? They did. Now because they made fair debt agreements (in a perfect world) where all they asked was for interest paid on a principal they now have less value than they started with. Also now any money we owe in foreign currency are now MORE expensive as it takes more of our currecny to pay them in their currency.
Speaking of foreign nations, guess what else? The rest of the world wont play along. As inflation presses upwards other countries will grow weary of dealing with them. Every second they hold American dollars they are devalue themselves. Because of that everytime they deal with us they will factor the risk of exchange changes and that would be given through us paying a premium on goods to hedge their losses. So now every item from foreign nations would increase substantially.
I say these crazy doomsday theories because you mention nothing but inflation as your solution to debt and plan on devaluing the debt. The amount of inflation alone to make the debt be able to paid back easily would cause all of the following. Don't just listen to what is told to you, sit back take it in and then make a response please. Economics is a complex game one I know fet answers to. The thing is if it was THAT easy it would already be done.
Roy Wilson
You're either lying or you're gullibly repeating someone else's lie. The jobless rate peaked in Februrary 2009, the same month the stimulus bill was passed and then began dropping, as this chart on Maddow's blog shows. (And just because you hate Maddow doesn't mean she makes stuff up like you do).
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/22/10809050-jobless-claims-figures-just-keep-getting-better
sarah
And in 2006 The democrats were feaking out of over the deficits (even though they were actually shrinking) and Amercians put the democrats in control of the House and Senate & added over $200 billion over what Bush's budget, blamed it all on the republicans and Bush. Then America gives them supermajorities and they spend even more. UNTIL 2010, When the Repbulicans took over the house and FORCED spending cuts.
Bill, you didn't refute anything I said. Not one little thing. You even helped prove my assertion that supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Again, if more supply would cause the price to drop then why hasn't it dropped despite a domestic supply increase of over 300% in the last 3 years, and a drop in domestic consumption?
You can't answer that because you don't know what you are talking about, you ignorant POS.
All you offered was an opinion that doesn't hold water because, as you, yourself, noted, the oil wouldn't enter the market for many years. And why would it take the price 6 months to drop to it's low as a result of one statement?
Your arguments sound good, but it only takes the smallest amount of critical thinking to see that all you spread are lies and BS. You are the worst kind of fool, you've convinced your self you know what you are talking about, spin a good yarn, present opinion and misinterpretation as fact, and then call others idiots because they don't believe the crap you spew.
If the Nation had a nickel for every time Ron Paul and Rand Paul said the sky is falling we'd be back at budget surpluses like under President Clinton before the GOP gave us the failed reign of King George, II. After a while, when they keep saying the Federal Reserve is ruining the economy but the facts show the economy is improving then where I'm from when you keep making "dire warnings" but none of them ever come true then it makes them wrong. All you Ron Paul supporter need to go back and read what he has been saying for the past three years about Chairman Bernanke and you will see that Chairman Bernanke was correct in his assessment and implementation f his plan to bring the Nation out f the Second Great Depression that the failed economic policies of the GOP caused our Nation to endure. Chairman Bernanke was correct and Ron Paul and Rand Paul were flat wrong. For their insolence they should be forced to eat crow on the floor of Congress. This doesn't even take into account that they are both bigots and extremely racist. President Obama was correct to save Detroit and the GOP candidates were wrong that Detroit should go bankrupt. The GOP candidates should be hauled out to eat some crow too. After they eat their crow if they had any honor whatsoever which they don't they would apologize to Chairman Bernanke and to President Obama for such misguided and wrongful criticism.
DB Akron
Thanks for the historical rewrite... very entertaining! It seems that if the Dems were alive... if they even existed at the time... then "it" was their fault, whatever "it" was! You would swear that the Dems just rolled right over your man Bush and any other legislator that got in their way... poor souls. Between Newt taking full credit for the Clinton balanced budget and you blaming the Dems for the national debt, I find it hard to blame anything on a president since they are obviously just pawns with respect to Congress (sarc).
No, if you remember, Cheney himself said "deficits don't matter". Bush himself pushed to keep Afghanistan, Homeland Security, Iraq, and Medicaid "off budget" and blatantly unfunded. No, the Dems didn't stop him, and yes, they probably SHOULD HAVE... but are you seriously fixing blame based on their lack of power to stop Bush? That's twisted logic at best, a pure lie at worst.
The stimulus is the Republican's fault because they didn't stop Obama... LOL.
The ACA is the Republican's fault because they didn't stop the rest of Congress from creating it... LOL.
Poor Obama... like Bush in the past he's just at the mercy of the opposition.
Bullsh!t.
Of course it was $200 billion more...it included TWO WARS! George W Bush never included the war in Iraq or Afghanistan in his budget (all emergency supplemental) ...so go ahead and weave us another republican fairy tale...you know how much we enjoy them.
The man blocking America’s recovery
By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Published: March 19
He is the most powerful federal employee you’ve never heard of. Edward DeMarco has slowed the economic recovery with the stroke of a pen. His actions are costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, forcing millions of homeowners to lose their homes, and contributing to the falling housing prices that are a brake on the recovery.
Edward DeMarcoheads the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). He’s a temp, in office only because — no surprise — Senate Republicans, led by Richard Shelby (Ala.), refused even to allow a vote on the man President Obama nominated for the post.
And DeMarco is philosophically opposed to the common-sense solutions needed to deal with the housing crisis.
When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — holders or guarantors of about 60 percent of housing mortgages — were bailed out, the FHFA was tasked with supervising their activities, with a mandate to minimize taxpayer losses. That gives DeMarco extraordinary power.
Millions have lost their homes already, and millions more are on the verge. A stunning 12 million homeowners — one in five with mortgages — are “under water,” meaning their homes are worth less than their mortgage.
So a growing chorus of voices — from Obama to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke — have called for programs that would refinance underwater loans, particularly by reducing the principal owed so homeowners can stay in their homes.
Small-scale experiments have shown this approach can save creditors money. But the banks want to avoid putting a real price on the mortgages they own for as long as possible, while loan servicers are set up to manage loans, and often have neither the staffing nor the incentive to deal with homeowners in trouble. One aim of the multibillion-dollar settlement just inked by attorneys general of several states and five big banks was to require the setup of procedures to facilitate refinancing and principal reduction.
Fannie and Freddie hold over 20 percent of underwater mortgages, so Bernanke, President Obama and leading senators and legislators have called on DeMarco to let Fannie and Freddie move on principal reduction. The Treasury Department even offered to provide 63 cents for every dollar of principal reduction to subsidize the process.
According to the FHFA’s own reports, done carefully, this might save taxpayers $28 billion, compared to the cost of foreclosures. But Edward DeMarco says no. He even shut down a test program in principal reduction before it got started.
DeMarco argues that he has no authority to allow principal reduction because his mandate is to minimize taxpayers’ losses. But Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and John Tierney (D-Mass.), both members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms, noted that the FHFA’s own figures show a sensible program could save taxpayers billions — to say nothing of the benefits of buoying housing prices, keeping other homeowners above water, and helping the economy get going.
Clearly DeMarco should go. Without Shelby’s obstruction, he’d already have been gone. Now the pressure is building
A recess appointment would trigger a partisan brawl with Republican senators that the White House has little appetite for. But to save taxpayers billions, to help families keep their homes and to give a boost to the economy, getting rid of the most destructive man we’ve never heard of is a small price to pay.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-man-blocking-americas-recovery/2012/03/19/gIQAYoLKOS_story_1.html
___________________________________________________________
Is this one of those Nameless Faceless Bureaucrats that are coming up with those Job Killing Regulations that you’ll Yahoo’s are always talking about?
Well it looks like we’ve got Bipartisan Agreement. Let’s remove him from office forthwith and install the President’s choice. Shouldn’t be allowed to stifle progress now should he?
Or is this one of those National problems that Mr. Romney is going to shake his Etch-a –Sketch at and make it magically disappear?
Hey Liberal (fake) Redneck- You know how all you people immediately dismiss ANYTHING that comes from FOX NEWS? Well, maybe you shouldn't be using Katrina Van Damn She's Ugly to try to make a point. She's a liberal Feminazi.
You aware that every single person with a car loan is underwater? That's right- the minute you drive the car off the lot, it's worth less than you paid for it.
Should those be reduced?
The fact of the matter is that, when the economy declines and demand for housing drops, house prices drop along with demand.
With an economy as anemic as this, of course there has been no recovery.
Everything Obama has done has PROLONGED the housing slump. Well, except for one- his First Time homebuyers tax credit goosed it a little- he never even asked that it be extended.
Why on earth does anyone in their right mind think that people should be able to get the principal amount owed reduced? When you sign a contract, it must be honored. If you wait a couple of years, the mortgage will no longer be underwater. It's as simple as that.
You think the banks are going to pay for this? On what planet? All that will happen is that bank fees will skyrocket- and mortgage loans will become scarcer than hen's teeth, to use one of your homey little phrases.
Everytime
Independent Redneck Va.
Is this one of those Nameless Faceless Bureaucrats that are coming up with those Job Killing Regulations that you’ll Yahoo’s are always talking about?
Or is this one of those National problems that Mr. Romney is going to shake his Etch-a –Sketch at and make it magically disappear?
Good point IR,
I'm assuming since Romney lives in a child's world, it probably would will be shaken up in his new toy; his Etch-a –Sketch
I agree with DeMarco on not getting into principle reduction. Please tell me how people who are current on their mortgage but are underwater will benefit from getting rid of some of the principle? True, they may have some interest reduction and a lower payment but the problem isn't that they can afford the payment. They just want somebody else to pay for part of their mortgage. And, that's exactly what will happen. WE the taxpayers will be paying. And, that infuriates me. I worked hard to get my home. And, I paid it off many years early to keep it safe. So, you reward somebody like those mentioned for buying an overpriced home but people who did it right are screwed over.
People wail they'll never get the full value of their home back. You know what? That's a risk you take when you invest. It's just like investing in the market; there's no guarantees.
If this is how this country operates now, I need some money for my car. I bought it new two years ago; it isn't worth as much as it was so I want paid for the value that's been lost.
NJNB & dirt - the car market doesn't fluctuate unexpectedly like the housing market, as you well know a car's value declines at almost the same rate no matter what.
dirt - if we don't give some relief to those who ARE still paying their mortgages, they may decide the easier route is to give up. This means more foreclosures, lost revenue to the banks, and decreased housing prices.
Plus you both act like people should have known better, when in reality housing prices have almost always gone up. A house is not an investment like the stock market, it was always considered a safe investment.
The unfortunate thing is that a major part of the housing collapse was caused by banks making risky investments (with mortgages as collateral) that turned out to be uninsurable.
The idea is Dirt and NBNJ is that these people bought their homes at an inflated price that was not the real value. When the economy and housing market tanked the value of the homes did, incomes as well, yet that contract does not. It stays the same. These are all things I am sure you already know. The idea to reduce the principal is rather than the owner not being able to afford the mortgage/ isincetivizing them from walking away is to reduce the principal. Less money is better than no money.
I understand the controversy behind it, it comes of as a punishment those who are going to tough it out and honor the contract and those who already lost their homes. Trust me I know my mother recently bought our home and does not qualify for one of the programs only because she has never missed a payment.
I personally don't like it but I understand the concession. This has impacted so many families that we have to do something. Forclosures in a market with too much supply helps no one. The banks lose money and so do the home owners. Until you have a better solution for the economy, not yourself I am not sure there is an argument against it.
Buying a home is much different than buying a car and we all know that. It is a foolish comparison to compare the two assets.
Fact is those bankers and Wall Street guru's lost trillions of dollars of wealth that didn't belong to them. They went on a gambling binge and lost it all. Yes, I'm still pissed.
IR:
This housing issue is such a can of worms, it boggles the mind, and has destroyed others. In the destroyed minds department, I include no jo.
Come on woman, if I were to look for the epitome of a false equivalency, I'd compare the depreciation of a car with the appreciation of a fixed asset like a home. Really? Seriously?
Back in the real world, which is still in danger thanks to the thieves who control the financial services sector, we remain on the brink of disaster. It's a shame that so many honest people were caught up in the bubble. It's also a shame that so many treated their homes as speculative commodities. It's not smart to gamble with your home.
However, the gamblers who used those homes as poker chips were, and still are, the scumbag bottom feeders who were reimbursed for their gambling. With their CDO's and Credit Default Swaps, their losses were covered by taxpayers. (As an aside, that is reason enough to claw back the enormous salaries and bonuses these thieve stole from taxpayers.) The Bush/Paulson bailout rewarded and indeminified incompetent bankers/thieves.
Why bail out bankers and not homeowners? Not all of the holders of underwater mortgages originated NINJA and Liar Loans. Many of those loans went to fully-qualified liars who have watched home prices plummet as a direct result of speculation.
To make matters worse, bankers are still holding mortgages they refuse to mark to market. They are holding paper that is grossly overvalued, maybe the dirtiest secret out there. They flatly refuse to follow GAAP to falsely inflate their balance sheets.
Still, I'd sure like to know why taxpayers are footing the bill for defending the likes of Franklin Raines. That incompetent cretin, and many others similarly situated should be stripped of every last dollar they hold. They may have been in the secondary market, but does that mean they have no responsibility to examine the "assets" they purchase?
I really want to see a lot of these folks dispossessed and spend a bit of time in public housing - I can think of a couple of prisons that fill the bill.
Seems to me the larger point of this article is even more important---how dysfunctional our Congress has become. In this case it is the Senate, with arcane rules that allow one person to hold the whole country hostage and there never seem to be any repercussions from it. We can argue over which party is more abusive and why but is it any wonder that Congress has a 9% approval rating?
TNSEVOL, an investment in a property is a risk. Please don't say "most" of the houses were due to predatory lending. I do financial counseling. Yes, there was some predatory lending but I can tell you I've seen many people who knew upfront 55% of their income had to go to a house payment and THEY made the choice to go ahead. Nobody held a gun to t heir head and made them sign it. If we can detect those who were truly a victim of predatory lending, as it currently going on, then help them. But, paying down the mortgage for somebody who has been making the payment is just more wealth redistribution IMHO.
Your equating a car (a machine which will eventually end up on the scrap heap) with a house and the land it sits on is a specious argument, dirt.
Historically the value of real property increases over time while the value of machinery does not.
The true monetary value of any object--old or new-- is the price for which it can be sold.
Just admit you're scared of any woman that leaves the kitchen.
David Walker -
I agree with your post.
Those who blame the homeowners or Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae for the housing crisis probably blame the New England Patriots for the money they lost on the Super Bowl. Except in this case someone bailed them out for their gambling losses.
They bet on the mortgages, and the insurance companies insured the CDOs and CDSs. They lost their bet, and the insurance companies couldn't cover their losses - so "we the people" bailed them both out.
dirt - Yes, buying a house is a risk. But historically up until that point in time the risk of the home losing so much value, so quickly, was not part of the "risk/return" equation. A home was seen as a "safe" investment with a long-term appreciation.
Gee David, defender of facts, you may have just caused NJNB to spin out of control. Hopefully she shoots back out to space. : )
dirt -
And I did not mention predatory lending anywhere. I do think that the relatively recent rise of the mortgage broker had a big part to play in the housing crisis.
In the past, both parties to a mortgage had a vested interest in making sure the terms of the loan was equtible and reasonable. The bank didn't want to loan more than they could afford to lose, and the homeowner didn't want to borrow more than they could afford.
Mortgage brokers changed that equation. They got paid either way, and since it was normally based on the size of the loan they had no vested interest in either pary being successful. Their motivation was to get both parties to agree to the largest loan possible. This is not predatory lending, but it certainly added to the problem.
Banks also went from using the mortgages as a cash flow vehicle to using mortgages as collateral for riskier investments.
Yeah!
My heart just bleeds for those lenders who never bothered to verify INCOME!
Damn those greedy bastards who only wanted to own a piece of the American dream!
*plays world's tiniest violin again*
DCIA,
Are you kidding she's not welcome in space... lost is more like it! ;o)
DANGER... DONNA ROBINSON - DANGER...
dirt:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Here's what you wrote:
55%? Are you kidding. That is the essence of predatory lending. Sound banking practices require annual incomes that range from one-fourth to one-third of the mortgage. A review of the prospective borrower finances would include a thorough examination financial obligations and income.
In far too many cases that did not happen. That is not meant to excuse the borrower. However, to pretend that mortgagors were not passing trillions of dollars in the form of worthless paper to the secondary markets with a wink is to ignore reality.
Home prices in any sane market do not appreciate at double-digit rates year after year after year. However, thanks to Clinton's signing of the twin Modernization Acts, "too big to fail" became the guiding principle. You don't insure gamblers and that is precisely what taxpayers were forced to do.
DCIA - Stay pissed. I'm am hoping that if President Obama wins a second term, and the Senate stays in Democratic hands and they have guts enough to change the filibuster, and Dems can take back Congress, these guys will stand up and beat the hell out of the Wall Street thieves.
Traditionally, since FDR changed- by government fiat- the terms of home mortgages, (more on that later), the mortgage default rate has averaged 5% of all loans.
Last year, that percentage was below the historical rate.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45338778/Third_Quarter_US_Mortgage_Delinquency_Rate_Eases
Read the whole article- not just the opening paragraph. There is a difference between "late payers" and full defaults.
Now, the pure NUMBER of defaults is up- because the number of mortgages is up. Five percent of a million is more than five percent of a hundred thousand, after all. Still, the same percentage of mortgage holders default. Why?
Probably for the same reason that, every late April, we get numerous stories of taxpayers not getting all the giveaways to which they are entitled when filing their taxes. That is to say, the vast majority of people hold deep convictions about what is honorable.
So, who will be "helped" by the government giving away money to reduce their mortgages? Not the majority- but the minority who stand in line to "get" what others are "giving".
When you sign a contract, you are legally as well as honor bound to fulfill said contract. Would you applaud banks who demanded that the homeowners' mortgages be increased because the home is worth MORE than the mortgage? Of course not- but, because the value of the home has gone down, you now demand that the banks decrease the principal owned.
Talk about a double standard.
As to FDR- one problem with mortgages prior to his presidency was the terms. Mortgages existed, but the capital requirements were onerous. A fifty per cent down payment, then interest payments for five years, at which time full payment of the remaining fifty percent was demanded. If that amount was not on hand, home"owners" had two options- default, or get a mortgage for the remaining fifty percent- fifty percent down, five years of interest, lather, rinse, repeat.
Foreclosure rates were sky high. Addressing it was a win for everybody- including the banks.
Even FDR did not attempt to get principal reductions enforced- nor did he attempt to undo foreclosures for those who lost homes despite owning half the value of the home.
A contract is a contract.
Deal with it.
This is not applicable. This does not create a situation of less money vs no money that I stated above. This is just greed. Is what situation would a banker stop accepting payments because they are not getting enough? The point of the bills are to stop foreclosures and people walking away from homes, actions that hurt everyone.
Perhaps homeowners should be granted the same rights and privileges that realtor investor's or landlords enjoy. We would then be able to write- off the losses, be compensated for capital improvements, etc.
David -- Ha! That would be music to my ears!
Weren't they PAID to write off the assets? Toxic Asset Relief Program,...any of THAT ringing a bell?
Why didn't they write off when they had a chance? hmm,...could it be GREED?
http://www.aier.org/article/7549-housing%E2%80%99s-ominous-shadow
glutting the market with inventory will be bad; but look at the double win for banks,...assets written down and now available for sale?
That's my take on it,...
Spot on Clara!
They also took advantage of the loss carryforward benefit and spread it out over six or seven years. They will be finished either this year or next, depending on what their classification is. It certainly improved their bottom line and stock.
Double dippers!
Unfortunately, DeMarco is absolutely correct, he does not have the authority to require banks rewrite loans to reduce the principal balances. Fannie and Freddie are not the originators of the loans, they generally are a buyer or investor in the loans.
Requiring the banks to adjust the principal balances would require that the banks take losses on many loans which are being paid, on time, currently.
Many banks, during the foreclosure process, do negotiate with their borrowers. The issue with many of the loans is that they were purchased with a long term adjustable rate mortgage (7 years) with the expectation that near the end of the term, the property would be sold or the loan would be refinanced. Until all of these loans work their way through the system, the mortgage finance market will not recover.
When the bottom fell out of the housing market, what had been responsible loans with the loan amount of less than 80% suddenly became a bad loan with the loan amount in excess of 100% of the value of the property.
Aside from no longer qualifiying to refinance because the value of the property will no longer support the loan, the rules for qualification have changed. Borrowers now have to qualify to pay the maximum amount under the terms of the loan. The expectation of refinance or sale no longer applies.
Thus, utilization of an ARM to allow a borrower to pay a lower interest rate early in the mortgage process is no longer is available to encourage new borrowers. The ARM becomes available only for the higher earning borrowers. Because this tool is no longer an option, many borrowers are locked out of the market. Fewer buyers results in lower prices further exasperating the problem.
For those of you who argue that the mortgage principle can not be changed - how do home owners get away with lowering their property taxes because the value of the home has decreased? If you can get your taxes reduced, why can't you get your mortgage reduced?
Nothing the President... or ANY President... can do will fix the overall housing issue.
The real problem is that middle class income / wages have stagnated, or declined, over the past 30 years... while housing prices have skyrocketed. So the cost to buy a home has increased dramatically, while the income people receive has remained the same.
This continuous trend puts us in a situation where new home buyers are now priced out of the market, reducing demand. While the current home owners continue to demand a return on their home "investment", and do not want prices to drop.
So we have two options: (1) Reduce the income disparity and bring middle class income up... which Republicans call "redistribution of wealth" and they adamantly oppose this idea. Or (2) we let the housing prices continue to drop until they meet the new home buyer demand... but current homeowners are against this idea because this will cause most people to go underwater.
The reality is that one of those two options will need to take place, or nothing will change. Don't be so foolish as to think a GOP President will fix anything... their working voters will not allow "wealth redistribution", and their home-owning voters do not want the prices to fall.
I have a coworker that is currently trying to buy a house. She didn't qualify for a loan for a long time. She and her fiance decided to go in together and try to get a loan. Suddenly, she qualifies for a loan but can't put her fiance on the loan because he makes too much money for her to qualify again although it would make her a less risky investment/investor. She would (on paper) be more likely to make payments with the addition of his income but for some reason she is unapproved when his income is added to the paperwork.
What does this tell you? Anyone anyone? You. In the back row!
blearyeyed- good question. I am not arguing mortgage principal (wouldn't know, paid off my place 15 years ago). I think the property tax mess is contingent state by state and also counties. I'm in a property tax limitation state, but I never feel a break despite depreciation. If I could "get away" with lowering my taxes (set by the county) I'd sure as hell look into it!
I agree that it is insane if your property values go down, then you shouldn't be able to easily renegotiate your mortgage (principal owed based on value).
I think the banks and lenders are making out like bandits. They keep making money both ways, and the homeowners are screwed. Lower home value should equal lower adjusted principal.
I am an Obama supporter. He has done so much with so much opposition. But I do wish he would have appointed more people and much sooner to clean up the mortgage mess.
Spoken like a true assmunching teabagger. Most of us who are upside down on our mortgage also did it right...just started a little later than you. Since we're still in our homes we are obviously making our payments. We did nothing to precipitate the housing collapse. We pay our bills. So you can take your BS attitude and take an aeronautical intercourse thru a motivated pastry.
Ol_Doc - YES! And what these BSers keep out of their equation is that seniors who have paid off their homes have lost so much equity....thanks to the greedy jerks. Love your travel suggestion!
FR: Not getting the benefit of the doubt: While the Romney campaign finds itself mired in yet another feeding frenzy over a top aide’s “Etch A Sketch” comment, it is important to take a step back here.
Sorry, I can't do that. my REMOTE CONTROL is broken this morning. I'll hae to keep Romney in cyber form until it's fixed I assume you mean Romney should
Well, Akeem, no jo is nothing if she is not foolish. To use the phrase "being underwater" on a car, and not relating it to not putting enough down, and owing too much so that the car is not worth as much as the loan is what being underwater means.
It has ALWAYS been if you buy a new car, that it depreciates immediately. No jo is simply uneducated, and prefers to dissemble rather than be truthful.
In any event, Akeem, I enjoy reading what you right. And dirt is simply a troll.
Oh, really? You have no other way to respond so you call somebody a name. And, who would you think I'm trolling for? if you think i give a damn what you think of me you flatter yourself to much.
You say it's always known that a car devalues and seem to imply that property never devalues. You are wrong on that. And, again, borrowing for something that can devalue is always a risk. With your view, then everybody who loses money in the stock market should get it back.
I've dealt with hundreds and hundreds of people who are having trouble with t heir mortgage because of a catastrophic injury or disease or they lost their job when they were too sick to work any longer. THOSE are the people who need help not people who lost on an investment or knowingly took on a mortgage they couldn't afford. (Exempt out those who were victims of predatory lending but in the big picture that's a small number).
Can somebody please show me mortgage papers that say "We guarantee the borrower that this property will never depreciate. We guarantee the borrow it will appreciate in value." You can't because they don't exist.
Poor dirt: troll is not a name, it is a description of behavior. You and Damage both engage in the behavior, therefore you are trolls.
Don't like it, change your behavior.
I do see I made a typo in my original post. "right" should be "write." But, that was clear.
Off to enjoy this beautiful day.
Man he already looks like he has been through the ringer... Being POTUS will wrinkle him like an old suit. He promises to try to fail to help you fix the greatest country in the world? Coming or going... Flip Flopney @ your service. Lets stay on point kids.
Yep, Conform or be rejected. (meaning killed in Marx's opinion)
Right out of Das Capital......
In this case, conform or be belittled and called a troll...
Thankfully, unlike in Das Capital, we do not take them out and kill them in the most publicly horrific manner imaginable.
Troll= A beast that guards the bridge to keep followers from crossing over to the opposition. You can't come on a liberal newsvine and call people communists and socialists and Marxist and claim innocence to the Troll accusation. I doubt you have ever read anything about the things you hate because it was instilled into you that they were evil so you just write it off to enemy movements but if you did I would bet you the bank that you would find at least one thing about it you agreed with. I also bet that if you sat down and had a beer with people you disagree with once in a while you might figure out that you really like that guy you think you hate so much.
NDD I just saw this down here thanks I appreciate it. I just try and disrupt NBNJ logic with facts when I can.
As far as dirt, I do not think his/her comments add no value, in many cases he/she is saying correct information. The only thing that I wuold consider trollish about it is I think our actual opinions on the situation probably do not differ substantially however every chance dirt gets he/she spins the facts we both agree on into something that would have us believe we are polar opposites.
Does anyone really believe Romney deserves any benefit of doubt when it comes to his integrity?
He was tagged as the say-anything candidate long before one of his prominent staffers made the etch-a-sketch comment.
In response to the Etch-A-Sketch kerfuffle, Romney did say that in the general election, he would run on the "same issues."
Only his positions on those issues will change.
Obama/Biden 2012
Yep Flip Flopney is hard not to laugh at. Big thanks to Capt. Etch A Sketch's aide for giving us a talking point for a change. That pissed off some red meat eaters...
Mr. Etch-a-Sketch. What is it about the Romney campaignthat every time within 24 hours of a win, they step in a big pile of do-do of their own making? The trouble with this senior campaign staffer's giant gaffe is that his words were probably the most truthful spoken by the Romney staff or Romney himself.
Etch-a-Sketch describes what Mitt Romney has been all his political life. Romney is a serial liar, a serial shape changer and as Jon Huntsman described, he's like a well-oiled weather vane. It is irrelevant what Romney has done when in public service because he was willing to do and say whatever it took to get there; the same is true of his private sector life. It is doubtful that even Jeb Bush knows what Romney's views really are but Bush knows that Santorum or Gingrich would be a terrible nomination so he goes with Mr. Etch-a-Sketch in the hopes of avoiding another version of Barry Goldwater's disastrous run for the White House. Jeb Bush just wants this primary mud-slinging fest done to protect what is left of the already badly tarnished GOP image.
It is stunningly ignorant for the Romney campaign to think that it can "hit the reset button" for the fall election and all the "fully support" the Ryan Plan which kills medicare, the Ryan Plan 2.0 which kills medicare, the de-fund Planned Parenthood, the embracing of the Personhood bills and amendments which make contraception illegal are all all tape.
Romney is stuck between a rock and a hardplace. If he veers back to center right in the fall, he risks alienating the very far-right base he kissed up to in the first place and he could face a third party conservative challenge. If he stays to the far right, he definitely will lose a good chunk of moderate republican and independent voters. No matter what he does, it's all on tape. He will either be skewered as a nominee with extremist views or he will be skewered as a nominee who cannot be trusted and has no true beliefs.
Mr. Etch-a-Sketch's real problem is that unlike the toy, it is too late to hit the "reset" button, shake it up and start over. The dye is cast.
Great post, Jody. Maybe the old conventional wisdom that a candidate plays to the base in the primary and then moves back to the center in the general election just doesn't apply when there is a 24/7 news cycle and the base is so far removed from the center.
Oh, right, Huntsman. I forgot about him. That's three primary opponents (as in guys from his own party) who said Romney has no integrity.
Does anyone remember anything like that happening before?
I think it still applies, Steeler Fan.
Candidate integrity isn't a yes/no kind of thing. If it was, I'm not sure any of them would come out of that analysis looking so good. It's more a matter of degree. Most nominees at least in modern elections, as you know, try to move to the center for the general election.
The Republican problem, now, is that their likely nominee won't be able to. If he tries, he'll have etch a sketch quickly and massively thrown back in his face. And if he doesn't try, he won't do well with moderate independents. And this isn't unfair, because as the article implies, Romney has lost all benefit of doubt by his own doing.
You can't play into your own negatives. For Romney, the integrity question is one of the on-going narratives, and probably the dominant narrative.
Flip Romney will not be elected President. He is too much of a Nervous Nelly. That Nervous Nelly laugh comes out especially when someone gets in his face. So, can you image what will happen when the President gets into his face during the debates?
Just look video of when he is asked tough questions. He falls apart, such as, “oh, oh, if, I did, I didn’t, go vote for someone else, leave me alone, I didn’t say that, help, corporations are people to, I know business, I fire people, help. “
Oh well, he is just an empty suit with a Nervous Nelly laugh.
Jody -- Since yesterday's
gaffegift, the refrain "shake it up baby" keeps looping in my brain. Today it's followed with "twist and shout". ; )http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVlr4g5-r18
Beatles Twist and Shout
Steeler Fan, thanks. I don't think any candidate, left or right, can pivot back even close to center when that party has been defined by its extreme elements. Mike Huckabee's success in 2008 and Rick Santorum's in 2012 is proof that the GOP is no longer close to center and any candidate who appears to be moderate like Huntsman is doomed to failure. I agree, it especially cannot be done in today's media and social networking age.
Paul M., I do not recall anything like this happening before but it is a symptom of a party which has lost its soul whether it is their extremist social views or sticking with failed policies because the GOP has not been "fiscally responsible" in 30 years. It is a party run by the big and powerful corporate interests, a party ruled by Grover Norquist and religious groups who have worked years for religious "purity" in the GOP. A moderate conservative is nearing extinction by its own hand. Ronald Reagan pointed the GOP toward the far right but even he could not be nominated by today's repubicans.
Don't Carry, now I'll have that tune looping through my head while running errands today!
Paul -- Your analysis is spot on concerning Romney. Romney is stuck with the Etch-a-Sketch image. If he "shakes it up' he will lose supporters.
I've been dancing around the house to that tune!
Hey, DCIA!
Thanks for putting up "Shake it Up Baby". I'm starting the morning with a smile on my face now! Got to run on out of here, but, like Jody, it'll be looping through my head.
Jody,
Ironically, the senior campaign staffer who made the comment about Romney and Etch-A-Sketch cannot go back, cannot re-set his own comment.
Perhaps they will try and erase it from our minds with a Vulcan mind meld?
Will they try & spirit it away with a couple of million-dollar Ads?
Have a great day Jack! Keep smiling!
Hey- I got that email too!
Here is the problem with trying to make hay out of it-
First, every campaign "resets". Look at Obama- he went from giving Hillary the finger- in public, during a campaign event- to making her Secretary of State. If that ain't a reset, I don't know what is.
Second, mature, intelligent, people recognize when deeply held convictions leading to action, fail. Only ideologues insist on doubling down on failure because the categorically refuse to admit failure. Thus, we have six trillion in new debt because Obama never admits he is wrong. Facts and reality never intrude on his thinking- only he is right, evidence to the contrary be damned.
So, go ahead and try trumpeting this. In the face of public opinion on Obama's programs, I'm pretty sure folks will prefer the guy who can admit something does not work, and change it.
Now, that's change I can believe in.
If you get tired of Shake It Up Baby running through your head, there's always a little Elvis I'm All Shook Up which is probably how Willard feels this morning.
Of course, everybody takes the comment out of context. It speaks to having to be flexible when the facts change which is a good thing. When you get somebody who is so stuck in ideology, you get no compromise, change.
Jody -- That he is! ; )
dirt-303814
Actually, the context of the Etch-A-Sketch remark shows he meant exactly what it is being taken as, which is unusual in politics. The aide was asked: how are you going to move back to the center after the primaries have pushed Romney so far to the right? Answer: no problem, a campaign is like an etch-a-sketch, we'll just erase the approach we took to win the primary and create a new picture. The only stretch I see, is commentators who make it sound like the aide was talking about Romney himself, when he was talking about the picture created in the campaign. I thought the remark was very honest, in this is how campaigns are waged by Republicans anyway, create an image and sell it (see Bush JR).
Sigh ... waiting for NoJo to hit the reset button ... now that's change I can't believe in.
Again with the short memories. Remember this doosie?
Jeb Bush's endorsement came off dull - kinda fits Romney's personality.
The aura surrounding the statement came off as though the event was inevitable -again like Romney's nomination - "you folks have no other choice but to vote for me, so suck it up and get with the program".
But what really bothers me more than the flip flopping is Romney's instinctive dislike of dealing with problematic events and having to face the American public and the press.
At first he stated he was not doing a press conference, then he realized he would have to do a press conference.
He seemed so annoyed with anyone questioning his actions or those of his campaign.
Just shut up and do as you're told - or I'll fire you! Oh,wait - he can't... yet
Alan, NJ
That (unsourced) statement of yours tells me that you really ought to TRY facts out for a refreshing CHANGE! Go ahead and add some HOPE to go along with it, eh?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/the-facts-about-nafta-gate/
NAFTAGate was a NON Starter and the Canadian Embassy APOLOGIZED and walked it back. Carry on, soldier.
Really. Did you actually read your own source because here are the quotes from it.
So what part is untrue?
1. Obama agreed that he would pull out of NAFTA unless there were new terms
2. Goolsbee met with Canadian officials in Chicago and states "is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.".
3. NAFTA was quickly forgotten once Obama was elected.
Numerous people in the room heard Goolsbee but only he tried to walk back the statement. In fact the Canadians did not not alter the memo.
They simply were being diplomatic during the American election.
So who should we believe? Has Obama attempted in any small way to re-negotiate NAFTA? Or is it more likely he was "politically posturing"?
So why don't you try facts. instead of attempting to portray Obama as a politician why doesn't lie. There are other major statements he made on the campaign that totally contradict what he has done in office, the ACA mandate being the biggest IMO. He specifically attacked Clinton on the issue of wage garnishing with the statement that Health Insurance would be so reasonable under his plan that wage garnishing would be unnecessary. He then implements a mandate.
Give me a break.
... and continuing Alan's quote ... I am impressed that Alan can define what Canada's Diplomatic statements actually mean ... perhaps it was just a touch of hubris.
"The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.
Monday, March 3 *The affair causes a row in the Canadian Parliament. Jack Layton, the head of Canada's New Democratic Party, accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party government of "interfering in the U.S. Democratic primaries with false accusations trying to silence Barack Obama who simply wants to amend the NAFTA." The Obama camp posts a video of the speech, originally broadcast by MSNBC, on its YouTube page."
So I'll ask again, what specifically has the Obama administration done to renegotiate any of the terms of NAFTA?
And thanks Jody, here is more from your favorite website:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/axelrods-hazy-memory-of-2008/
I particularly love this reference
A TV ad called “Afford” attacked Clinton for proposing a health care plan that “forces everyone to buy insurance”: ROFLMAO
Willful ignorance is simply not to be tolerated, Alan
Your item 2 is patently false! Canadian Officials said they were NOT involved in that 'memo' that looked bad for American candidates. That internal memo could not be corroborated by the supposed "many" witnesses, Goolsbee denied the characterization of the comments and Canada apologized.
Reading is FUNdamental, Alan! Desperate much?
PS. Did you catch that they LATER claimed it was someone in Hilary's camp?
dirt- Amy is right in her assessment about the Romney staffer's comments. I watched the entire segment and there's no out of context moment in it- he said what he meant, and it was probably the least astute thing said on this whole primary trail!
And if there has been one thing learned about ideology, and the lack of compromise therein, it definitely has come from the GOP side. There hasn't been one example of compromise in the last 4 years from that group. They've even voted against legislation they proposed! Unbelievable! It will cost them in the end because poll after poll puts congressional members from the Party of NO at the 10% or lower approval ratings, and it's been that way for a long time. They earned it!
So is critical thinking.
Facts:
1) Obama claims he will pull out of NAFTA unless new terms are agreed to
2) Goolsbee meets with Canadians in Chicago. After the meeting a memo is circulated stating that Goolsbee said Obama is posturing on NAFTA. Goolsbee denies this characterization.
3) Canadian diplomats apologize for the appearance of taking sides in the American election.
Do dispute anything above yet Clara?
Obama Administration makes no effort to re-negotiate NAFTA since being elected.
So tell me Clara did Obama simply "tell the people of Ohio what they wanted to hear", and was politically posturing, or did he shake the Etch-A-Sketch and move on to the General Election.
...and normally I wouldn't use this site as source but
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x701851
..and I'm still waiting on your comment on the Afford commercial. The one where he accuses Clinton of
requiringforcing all people to purchase health Insurance.The real problem for any Republican candidate is that the GOP has been hijacked by conservative extremists. While very vocal, the conservatives only make up, at a maximum, 50% of the Republican party. Since the GOP is 40% of the electorate, that means that conservatives make up only 20% (being very generous) of the electorate.
The Democrats have the same issue when they decide to have extremists running from the left.
Neither party will win the 20% which make up the independents and moderates if they maintain extremists positions. The extremists from both sides hurt themselves and their party by mandating that any nominee espouse the most extreme of their positions.
Ronald Reagan won as a moderate conservative. George W. Bush won against a very liberal Michael Dukakis. George W. Bush lost to a moderate liberal in Bill Clinton. John McCain lost being a strong conservative to a slightly moderate liberal.
Extremists never win, the country truly is more in the middle.
Forcing Mitt Romney to become an extreme conservative is bad for the party.
Dirp,
I agree with everything you state except one.
Implying that the first bush was a hard conservative, this is incorrect, I was there, I was involved, Bush lost because his handlers gave him bad advice on how to handle the NNT (No New Taxes) issue that the Clinton machine was trying to break as a major issue.
He was advised to leave it alone when he could have got ahead of the issue, he left it alone and the democrats turned a nothing issue into a national embarrassment for him, this caused him to lose the election.
How do I know this, I was one of the members of the panel that advised him to get ahead of it before it was turned into a red herring. Our arguments fell on deaf ears.
You can thank Ed Meese for Bush's '88 loss...
Until Clinton unleased that media campaign issue, Bush was leading him by 20%. Even after starting it, it still took 4 weeks to really have an effect, that is the power of the media. (and one idiots shortsightedness)
Correction, that was 1992 LOSS.....
I cant believe I put 1988 in the first post, must have been a senior moment being it was so many years ago..
Alan, although you are ACTING dumb, I simply do not believe that YOU believe the tripe you are peddling here today,...You are continuing to manufacture a KNOWN LIE to support some moronic position that NO ONE believes the President supports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html
I have no idea what you are referring to on the Afford commercial.
President Obama was against mandates; but PRAGMATICALLY realized that since Republicans had supported them in the PAST (no hypocrisy here-it was Bob Dole's OWN plan for pete's sake) - that MIGHT be the way to find Bi-Partisan support for Healthcare,...of course all of this pragmatism was predicated on a THEORY of collaborative effort. You know, believing Republicans would broker in good faith rather than "Making Obama A One-Term President Is My Single Most Important Political Goal!" - Mitch McConnell
Honest brokering is simply not something you deal in, Alan, so I'll be moving on now; but thanks for your partisan hackery, just the same!
PS. this article is evidence that Republicans would bitch if hung with new ropes,...Dems have given up PLENTY; but Repubs make NO concessions EVER! Which is no doubt why they are the lowest rated Congress in the history of our country. I don't agree with everything Obama does; but when I glance over at the clown car of potential GOP candidates, I sleep comfortably in my efforts to re-elect the BEST candidate on the field, President Barack Obama!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/obama-signs-3-trade-deals-biggest-since-nafta/
(using this source was JUST as distasteful as yours, I am sure!)
OK Clara...from the HP article you quote:
So what do we agree on?
1. Obama stated publicly (Ohio debate moderated by Tim Russert) that he would re-negotiate some of the terms of NAFTA, or pull out of the treaty.
2. The Canadians were reassured by Goolsbee that Obama did not want to completely scrap NAFTA
3. Obama has not made one effort to re-negotiate any aspect of NAFTA since coming to power, but has allowed Mexican trucks into the US, in effect expanding NAFTA and has extended NAFTA like agreement to 3 other countries.
What conclusion do you reach from these FACTS?
Is this just another politician who has broken an election promise?
Here is the link to the Afford commercial
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/misleading-pennsylvania-voters/
"Obama responded with an ad saying the Clinton plan "forces everyone to buy insurance even if you can't afford it. And you pay a penalty if you don't."
So you seem to think that when Obama "compromises" from his election rhetoric its a good thing but when Romney does it he's a bare faced liar.
Interesting.
FR---nice try to say the "Etch-a-Sketch" comment wasn't made by Romney but by one of his aides. Isn't Romney trying to tell us he should be President because he knows how to run successful businesses? What does this aide tell us about Romney's hiring skills? Especially when we also know that Romney's top advisors include many people from the Bush administration---you know, the people who got us into the mess we were in in 2008?
Do you all think an "Etch-a-Sketch" was what Axelrod gave Joe "The Dumbass" Biden to play with and keep him busy the past couple years while they've been hiding him? Or was it "Rock Em', Sock Em' Robots"?
Please see #8 below...best response I can give you.
"It’s almost like an Etch-a-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again." - Eric Fehrnstrom, 3/21/2012
Poor Mitt...every time he gets a big victory that should build his campaign's momentum...BLAMMO!!! One step forward...one step back. For a man who's narrative on his campaign M.O. is "Say Whatever To Win" he does not need his own surrogates to reinforce that point.
Now, I hear the nay-sayers trying to deflect back to the President. "What about Gitmo?" "What about The Patriot Act?" "What about the debt ceiling?"
Yeah, but...yeah, but...yeah, but...BOLLOCKS!!!
Perhaps the GOP needs to be a little less concerned with the President and a little more concerned that this ideological pretzel of a human being is the front-runner and (dare I say) presumptive nominee of the party at this moment.
To the Gingrich and Santorum Campaigns...there he is...Willard Mitt Romney, "The Well-Oiled Weathervane"..."The Etch-a-Sketch"! If you do not take this opportunity in light of this faux pas (a french term meaning "Holy Crap, What A Dumbass") to hit Romney like a cheap piñata, THEN THERE SIMPLY IS NO HOPE FOR YOU AT ALL!!!
Noid,
I ♥ the new avatar!
Nice touch!
Fast work there, Da Noid!
DaNoid, ditto on the avatar; nice post, too!
LOL DaNoid! Love the new look!
I've been saying it ever since I reported here on Romney's rally in Portland for the caucus: Romney is not a gifted politician; but that's really an issue for Republicans to grapple with during their nominating process, that's not our concern
What's important for the rest of us to realize is what's so wrong about Romney is the Republican agenda itself and the corrupt, unprincipled people it would bring back into power.
The oil tycoons and enablers, the neo-con hawks, the religious whackos and intolerant gay-haters, the Tea Party "me-first"ers who want to drown our democratically elected government in a bathtub while public education goes down the toilet. These are the forces that are conspiring to get back in the White House - and we can't let them!
Great political satire DaNoid.
Romney says let GE go out of business and those middle class, blue collar workers can go suck an egg....
but he's okay with saving the banks because that includes his white collar, top end business associates.
Mitt says "Yeah TARP!"
Wait a minute,Mitt - what's the rest of your base have to say.
You know - he pisses off everyone,for all the wrong reasons.
Katheryn Brandy
That's a very insightful observation. Mitt says "Yeah TARP!" Because it saved the bacon of people he relates to, the banking establishment, but he was against the stimulus and auto bailout, which kept teachers, autoworkers, cops and firefighters employed. Republicans have an odd relationship to the free market principle. They advocate letting nature take its course, even if it means people lose their jobs, except if it impacts their bottom line, then, all of a sudden, it's government to the rescue.
Mitt Romney's problem is that while out on the campaign trail, he talks.
Da Noid,
I don't agree with too many posters on this particular thread, But Da Noid, you get a vote up from me on this one, I love the smell of fried politician in the morning.
Kath,
Excellent point! But I wonder if that was before or after he was for it or against it....
You know who Willard reminds me of,,,, The title character in the "B" class science fiction movie "The Invisible Man" the one from the '50's
Remember the guy was invisible but if he wore something you could see it, so what you had was these clothes moving around with nothing inside.
Every time I think Willard Mitt Romney, that vision pops into my head.
A suit walking around with no body....
Or even better yet, the Governor from the movie "Best Little Whorehouse In Texas"
It's remarkable that Romney would give thumbs up to TARP and a thumbs down to the auto industry bailout.
There's a difference, and a significant one for the weather vane. Which party was making the wind blow at the time. That's one difference. Another that should be mentioned is that the auto bailout didn't help Romney personally nearly as much as the financial bailout did.
Besides, he said he opposed the auto bailout a few flips of the etch a sketch ago. He gets unlimited do-overs, you know.
There are other differences:
The banking crisis was caused by greed and deregulation, while the automotive crisis was caused by a combnation of poor management decisions and a weak economy.
I also would contend that based on the quick repayment the banks really didn't need the bailout to survive, they just needed it in order to continue to pay massive wages and bonuses.
regarding the Bi-Partision Dinner: that was an interesting description of an insider event in D.C., thanks guys.
I would just tell Dole and Baker: help is coming. Maine is likely to send Angus King, Independent, to the Senate this year (no one has declared their candidacy who could beat him IMO.) I like King very much, although I don't always agree with his positions. He has a way of talking about issues that lowers your blood pressure. He is very analytical. Sen. Mark Warner is another politician like that.
Shhh. Amy . You better hide your love for Angus King...he is running as an , quote, "Independent" and claims he may even caucus with Republicans...Yeah sure.
Not good to start a campaign with BS spin, hiding your real agenda..why doesnt King just be honest and run as a Democrat?
Bob - good point.
If he is honest, he will have to run as a Democrat. The Republican party doesn't allow honesty.
Bob, you might even say she's "got to hide her love away."
Sorry, Amy, Bob - no insult intended. Just got stuck on the Beatles theme from above.
It's OK Paul, Snowe said goodbye, but King says hello and I'm glad, because it means here comes the sun, in terms of a real Independent spirit arising in America. When I don't agree with King, he's a real nowhere man to me, but, at least he's not siding with the Republicans like Olympia always did, something in the way she ended up choosing the Republican Party over true Independece, just made me want to start a revolution.
Brilliant, Ames!
Amy---I love reading your posts eight days a week!
awwww!
Amy,
Hope you see this--I have to agree with Clara, it was BRILLIANT!
"We’ll make one final point about yesterday’s “Etch A Sketch” story: The first to capitalize on it was the liberal site Think Progress."
Look in the mirror! Is First Read oblivious to the fact this is MSNBC, the Far Left liberal network? MSNBC was ahead of ThinkProgress; the MSNBC liberal partisans capitalized on the Romney gaffe immediately.
"are we really at the portion of the campaign that the political community is simply in search of the next gaffe to generate the next feeding frenzy?"
If that was so, then Vice President Biden would be part of a feeding frenzy, almost daily.
Catch his idiotic "Lubricants" gaffe comment? No...because it was never mentioned on MSNBC...
Bob,
They spent plenty of time going over Biden and his gaffes....hell, as soon as Obama asked him to be VP that was the very first thing they reported on...."would Biden be able to keep his mouth shut".
I know you are trying to push the narrative that there is a double standard....but I don't think it applies here.
Plus it is one thing to commit an embarrasing verbal gaffe that makes you sound less than intelligent (Bush) or Obama's gaffe about the 57 states.
It is another thing entirely when you continue to make gaffes that reinforce the negative perceptions people have of you (elitist, out-of-touch, flip-flopper).
They are two different things.
If the whole "Etch-A-Sketch" kerfluffle is a liberal construct, why did both Newt and Rick gleefully trot out their toys for their press conferences?
The sad truth is that the GOP is in disarray. The way the current crop of candidates regularly attempt to eviscerate each other, you'd think they'd never heard of Reagan's "11th commandment". Considering they purport to worship all things Gipper-related, it is curious indeed.
Tired, you act as if this primary is somehow different than others. I've seenlots of them over the years . And, some of the very nastiest were by Dems. You all want to dream this year this is having some negative impact on the party. I won't say it won't at all but wait until November. They will be united and I predict people who have never voted are going to be out in droves to dismiss obama.
Yes, Bob...I'm sure the problem with the "Etch-a-Sketch" comment is everyone reporting on it and not the fact that the statement was made in the first place.
Remember, the fall's gonna kill ya, Sundance!!!
Bob - msn and First Read both have said that Romney is not given any slack in the comments he makes.
They said that the etch a sketch comment was a true analogy of a Presidential primary and national campaign.
They also said that it underscores a perception that is underlying Romney's whole persona - and that is that he will say anything to get elected and he is not as conservative as some in his party want.
All of those are accurate reporting.
You are at the wrong news source and site if you want everything to be slanted solely to the right.
That might be why you're always so unhappy with this forum.
@dirt:
Nowhere do I even imply that this primary is somehow magically different than those in years past.
While I cannot control what you infer from my postings, I will attempt to clarify. I was pointing out, that despite Bob's protestations to the contrary, Romney's Republican political opponents were some of the first to jump on this gaffe and then attempt to make hay from it.
The "Etch-A-Sketch" issue was not and is not an example of the left's alleged control of the media, rather it is a shining example of Republicans attempting to make this year's primary as vicious, hateful, and divisive as your average Democratic primary cycle.
I, for one, welcome the change.
Romney wants to be President! He needs to keep telling himself that and his STAFF. Between his flubs and his staffs' flubs, he doesn't stand a chance. This guy, like the others in the Republican primaries are nothing more than a bunch of clueless clowns. Romney is the closest to actually understanding that in order to win you cannot be extreme on any side of the equation. The general public will not elect an extreme right or left. The way the Republicans are going, their loss in the general election will make Goldwater's loss look like a close race!
Romney has been shaking the Etch-a-Sketch every morning for 6 years. Every day there's a new Romney.
A most interesting read and quoting from the end-
"His caution (Obama's) is a striking contrast to candidate Obama, who seemed to embody radical change. As president, he’s steered an imperfect course that has nonetheless brought the U.S. to a position of economic stability and modest growth. That’s far from ideal. But measured against other countries, whose leaders made different choices, the results don’t look half bad. “Europe is a compelling validation of our financial strategy,” Geithner says.
The choices Obama made helped bring about this result, even though he had help from the Fed, and even though they don’t quite explain the recent strength of the recovery. But the business cycle operates by a logic all its own. It cursed Herbert Hoover and blessed Ronald Reagan. Obama’s good fortune is that this sudden upturn is occurring just when he needs it most."
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/14688-lucky-or-good-the-truth-about-the-obama-recovery
ideo,
Excellent link, enjoyed that article. Thanks.
The business cycle certainly does have a logic, indeed a life of its own.
If you are interested in Geithner's wit and wisdom, watch this
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/21/geithner_asked_what_would_be_very_last_debt_ceiling_request_says_a_lot_would_make_you_feel_uncomfortable.html
You'd think it would lead the news. It would- were this a republican administration.
ideology - add to that, Michael O'Hanlon's comments that while Obama was an idealist on foreign policy while campaigning, once he was faced with immediate threats and challenges, he rose to the occasion and became a "reluctant realist".
He still has the values of an idealist, which is one reason the world is willing to go along with his tough sanctions and stick with them, but he is pragmatic in his approach to international crisis and how to respond.
Kathryn - the shear weight of the office shifts most who have held it to a pragmatic center. No President within my lifetime has brought America even close to the brink of destruction.
NoJo ... Geitner had the wit to answer a hypothetical with a hypothetical.
Great insight, Ideo!
Ideology,
Great point, and so true.
We must understand one thing, nobody get to such high office in the land by being stupid or lacking in intelligence.
This discussion of how the election to high offices changes a person outlook reminds of a passage in Toland's book on the Japanese empire during WWII.
General Tojo, was originally a war hawk, drove and pushed for war every chance he got, when Konoye was premier. Once Tojo became premier, he viewed things differently and actually held up the drive for war to the point of the war hawks in the army were actually planning to assassinate him.
His position was that once you take the high office, it changes your outlook because you have many more things to consider that are all just as valid that you didn't have the ability to see before from your limited position....
Very prescient of a politician to be able to see his own limitations and accept them...
Time for Romney to perform his "I like to fire people" act - seems his aid needs to be shaken up like his Etch-A-Sketch platform is.
Since Romney got the blessing from the top 1% (Wall Street, Big Banks, the Oil Companies, Insurance Companies and Pharmaceutical Companies)
If Romney wins the election in Nov. do we need to kiss his ring will he become the President or the Godfather?
I am about to embark on an attempt to re-program someone who was confidently spouting rightwing talking points at me yesterday . . . you know "socialism" . . . "Obamacare" . . . "illegals" . . . "43% don't pay taxes" . . . the full metal jacket of short sighted boiler plate nonsense.
You know, the thing that scares me most is not the misinformation, it is the way that folks who spout this stuff really believe that they "know" what they are talking about and that they "thought" of what they are saying themselves . . . I think that all of us should be asking ourselves . . . HOW do we know what we know? Have we REALLY made an effer to VERIFY the things we have been told?
If more folks would stop taking things at face value and spend some time investigating the things that are really important, this would definintely be a better world.
Peace.
[I am about to embark on an attempt to re-program someone who was confidently spouting rightwing talking points at me yesterday . . . you know "socialism" . . . "Obamacare" . . . "illegals" . . . "43% don't pay taxes" . . . the full metal jacket of short sighted boiler plate nonsense.]
Well, good luck...you're going to need it seeing how Conservatism is a mental illness.
Yes, Nashville, but it goes both ways. I'm seen some out and out bald-faced lies on here by BOTH sides. And, I'm not sure the copy-paste crew on this site ever reads what they post as their remarks don't relate to the article and are usually just nasty, snide comments as don't really know what they're talking about. I don't know how far you will get in "re-programming". When people like Mickey post "Conservatism is a mental illness", it makes people just dig in deeper. Remember, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, which I certainly wish some of the people on this site would think about before they spit their venom .
Nashville said
HOW do we know what we know? Have we REALLY made an effer to VERIFY the things we have been told?
Last Fall we had a 15 candidate mayoral race in Portland, and just reading about the candidates made me lean towards what the paper called "the new guard." I thought: oh new is always better, right? THEN I saw these people at public forums and I realized, the best candidates came from what the paper called "the old guard." The "new guard" were opportunists and political dilettantes. It was a wake up call to me, to not necessarily trust the opinion of the media. It scared me to realize how much I'd let my opinion be formed by a couple of writers. I learned, you really need to see raw footage of candidates, or see them in person, to make an informed decision.
Also, I know several people who cast ballots based on short ads the candidates ran. They were persuaded to support a candidate without seeing these people in person. They let the marketing dept sway their vote, really, a very dangerous thing to do.
Oh I agree Amy - if you've always voted a straight ticket in every election - national or local - I have to wonder if the person has done any research on the issues - because those cross political lines. (at least they do for me)
Katheryn, I used to vote for Republicans on occasion, but I feel it's just not safe any more. If you vote for a moderate Republican, it seems, you are more likely to see a far right agenda put in place. Moderate Democrats, on the other hand, seem to dominate in that Party.
Amy - My husband is hoping the Republican Party will reset itself after this election. He won't vote Democrat, but he won't stay with the Republicans anymore. He's thinking of going Independent.
Like you, it's been a while for me to vote Republican,but I still look at the issues before I look at what the candidate's stance is.
[When people like Mickey post "Conservatism is a mental illness", it makes people just dig in deeper.]
dirt, I was simply referring to the 2003 study by the NIH that reached this conclusion.
Besides, what would YOU call it? Just read some of these posts, and take a long hard look at the current crop of GOP candidates, current and former.
I can't wait for November. By then the republicants will have butchered their party and candidates to the point the Goldwater clown stomping will be a distant second when history looks back on all time presidential election butt kickings.
Let me see if Iv'e got this straight. Romney is against womens rights, the middle class, minorities, businesses his vulture capital firm can't carve up and ship oversees, health care for anyone who is not wealthy, and anyone who doesn't own a professional sports team. If I'm not mistaken these demographics total about 99% of the US population. And worse yet, he may be the lousiest singer I have ever heard.
Here hoping he spends most of his fortune in a futile attempt to buy the presidency. But don't feel to bad for ole Willard. He should have enough cash left so his lovely wife Ann will only have to sell one of her Cadillacs.
bald-faced lies and nasty remarks are all you can offer, johnny?
In 2008 Barack Obama ran on a platform of hope and CHANGE . . . CHANGE from the warmongering presidency of Cheney/Bush and the tax cuts for those who don't need them - the 1%.
Now Mitt Romney is running on a platform of CHANGE. . . only this time it's his agenda that CHANGES from minute to minute, day to day depending on which group he is pandering to. The only CHANGE he will provide to the 99% will be a few pennies, nickles and dimes, while his rich friends receive multi-millions.
First Read: "By the way, are we really at the portion of the campaign that the political community is simply in search of the next gaffe to generate the next feeding frenzy?"
Well.....no. Actually, we've been there for quite some time already. We're not a nation of deep thinkers, we have the attention span of a bunch of six-week-old puppies, we'd rather have a bunch of pundits and political commentators tell us what to think than to try and focus on the issues and think them through ourselves, we defend our own side's errors with "Oh, yeah? Well what about when YOUR guy" did/said whatever, and we take every opportunity we can to pounce on a mistake by the other side as if the whole process was nothing but a gigantic scorecard in a game of "Gotcha!"
And yes, when I say "we", I include myself. And I'm not real happy about it anymore.
So for the third - and I promise, the final! - time in the last week, I give you these words from the one person who actually seemed to "get it" even four years ago:
"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism......But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time."
I just wish I really had the faith in myself that my President seems to have. Hey - anybody seen my Etch-A-Sketch?
JoAnne -
Good post. I took the day off from work to watch Obama's inauguration, and I had such high hopes that our country would become at least a little bit less divided and find some common ground. Instead it has become the most polarized and toxic political environment I have ever seen.
I can't say that the Democrats have been blameless, but I think most of the problems were caused by the "no compromise" agenda of the Tea Party / Republican party. Even before the inauguration they were publically stating that they hoped the President would fail, and followed up by saying that their number one priority was making Obama a one-term president. Then there was the "You Lie" incident and countless other examples of not just pundits and talk show hosts but party leaders being outright disrespecful.
I know there have been unkind and even untrue words coming from both sides, but the "spoiled brat" and "sore losers" mentality of the TP/Republicans still amazes me.
Yes, Jo Anne, I agree with you that what some people say and how they act is worthless and harmful. Regarding your quote from Obama, pretty words. however, I'm sorry I don't think he has done as much as he could to stop the divisiveness. I wish some day he would stand in the Rose Garden and say it has to stop but he would have to be VERY clear that includes his own staff and supporters. You made a point about the tit-for-game that goes on. Look at Axelrod the other day. He was asked about Maher's filthy mouth and his response was mostly about Rush Limbaugh. When the people at the top act like that, we should not be surprised their followers would do the same.
I think the problem, JoAnne, is trying to discern the truth behind the images politicians present. Unguarded moments and off-the-cuff remarks are sometimes our only glimpse behind the packaging to what the real person is.
The thing about the Etch-a-Sketch remark is that is confirms suspicisons we've already held about a lack of a core of integrity in Romney. So to me it isn't the gaffe of the day but instead a view of the way people hired to get him elected see both Romney and the process.
ah dirt - and you had to mention one of my favorite people -Axelrod.... /s/
someone once said - you don't have to like someone just because they are on your side - I could name a couple that fit this description for me.
And I still admire Obama.
dirt -
Sigh.....whether you meant it to or not, your post just perfectly illustrated my point. How many thousands and thousands of posts have been put up here just in the last few weeks - including some of mine and perhaps yours, too - arguing back and forth about the relative offensiveness of Limbaugh vs. Maher vs. Axelrod vs. Letterman vs. anyone else with a mouth and an audience? And in the end, what did we accomplish, other than each side coming away more firmly convinced than ever that they "won"?
About the President, you wish that "some day he would stand in the Rose Garden and say it has to stop but he would have to be VERY clear that includes his own staff and supporters".
Then I say that he said exactly that - four years ago - in the brilliant speech I quoted a mere fragment of above.
Then you say those are just "pretty words" and "I don't think he has done as much as he could to stop the divisiveness".
Then I say.......oh, forget it, what the hell difference does it make what I say anymore? We're too busy combing the Internet and the airwaves for that next great distraction.
Like the President said - "Nothing will change"......
Well put, JoAnne. And it's been fascinating to watch Republicans attacking Republicans during this primary, saying things about each other the rest of us have already concluded are true.
Romney points out Santorum's hypocrisy on his votes for spending when he was in Congress, and Santorum points out Obamacare was based on the Massachusetts's plan Romney helped create. How can anyone criticize Obama for attacking Romney, when his fellow Republicans are doing the same?
FR:
Oh, poor widdle Mittens. Everybody's picking on him. Come on, can't First Read find someone a bit more deserving of pity? Mitt is a liar on a scale unprecedented in modern US presidential politics. Back when he was running for office back in Massachusetts, he called himself "a moderate with progressive views." Now, in his desperate attempts to win the teabag vote, he says he was a "severely conservative governor" of that state. Mitt shook the Etch-A-Sketch and the moderate progressive disappeared and was replaced by the "severe conservative."
Why is it that journalists, who are supposed to value facts, are more quick to forgive these outrageous lies than ordinary people?
@ Houston....
Last evening Rachel Maddow did a scathing comparison of Romneys' positions on many issues.....She was spot on, and called Romney a LIAR, which is exactly what he is.
Santorum told CNN. “You won’t have any room for earmarks. But what we need to do is the reform of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and food stamps and housing programs and SSI. And yet,
Santorum helped secure $1 billion in earmarks. This does not include all the other pork barrel bills he supported such as the Bridge to Nowhere, which was for $358 million.
Santorum voted against Medicare reform.
Santorum voted against Food Stamp reform.
Santorum voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
Santorum voted against the family and medical leave act - The bill that allows eligible employees to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during a 12 month period due to the birth or adoption of a child, a serious health condition of a family member or his or her own serious health condition
Santorum had the audacity to vote against appropriating a billion more dollars for procurement of proper body armor and other equipment for Guardsmen and Reservists risking their lives in Iraq, just when body armor issues were coming to the forefront. Santorum voted to deny the Veterans Health Administration millions of additional dollars to help care for the nation’s military veterans.
Santorum said, I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be, he continued. Doesn’t matter to me.