Is there anyone that lies more than Michelle Bachman?
Every time Bachman opens her mouth, I am amazed at the veracity of lies that spew from the bowels of GOPSatan.
Take a look at her stats from politifact.
Egads, at least fifty percent of all of her statements are either mostly false, or entirely false.
Keep in mind; this is with a generous splattering of mostly true’s from a site with an obvious rightwing bent. Many believe politifact has to distort facts in order to grade republicans with some “mostly true” statements.
When it comes to the left however, they really go out of their way to find a minor technicality when they check a democratic quote they grade as a “mostly false” talking point.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Newt could potentially destroy Obama at the debates.
Newt is an obnoxious bully and he would dismantle Obama.
Out of all the potential matchups, I think Newt is the only one that is going to throw Obama off his game in the debates.
If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself this: Is Obama Milquetoast, or does he bring the heat?
Now image him arguing with a cantankerous, lying, bullying, blowhard.
Newt would eat Obama’s lunch, and what’s Obama gonna do about it?
No one else running for pres would present a challenge to Obama in the debates, but Newt is dangerous.
Before you dismiss this outright- consider this.
Many consider Newt to be a carbon copy of Cheney or McCain, this isn't true, they both had uncontrollable rage, but they were unable to express that rage in a cogent way.
Newt is a much bigger and polished bully than most.
McCain would just snarl, and grumble. Newt is much more lucid with his lies, he will be able bash Obama with his snake oil bottle in the fox news tradition.
Don't get me wrong, i despise Newt, but if you watch him at the debates, you will see that he will be able to go after Obama's weak points.
No one else on that stage would get the better of Obama, but Newt gives me pause.
They all lie, but they don't have the oratory skills that Newt has. Neither Cheney nor McCain posses the ability to convince millions of Americans that the BS they spew is intellectually driven- Newt has this ability .
Newt is Full of BS, but he can sell it by pretending his is an intellectual.
Newt is a lying thug and a bully with oratory skill, Obama has no defense against someone with this skill set.
Does newt bully the moderators? Do they back off when he does?
Does Obama stand up to bullies or does he capitulate?
Did Obama earn his Compromiser-in-Chief moniker?
Ask yourself this: if you had face-down a bully, would you take Newt or Obama?
Make no mistake, Newt is slime, but Obama can't debate with a snakelike bully.
Say what you will, if it makes you feel any better, shoot the messenger (me) if you will. None of this will change the facts.
Has Obama taken on the Tea Party bully on his own? Has he put the Tea Party in its place?
If it wasn’t for auxiliary support from Elizabeth Warren and the Occupy movement, Obama would be flailing even worse than he was during the debt ceiling fiasco.
This man doesn’t know how to deal with bullies. Newt, unlike Bush / Cheney / McCain / Perry can intimidate, while he gets his Fox news talking point across. Obama can’t counter a petite Fox news talking point with a 4 paragraph refutation, which cites stats, figures and facts in its defense.
One last note.
Just because Obama did well in the democratic debates, that doesn't mean he will be able to hold his own against Newt.
Just remember, Hilary Clinton and Edwards were saintly truth tellers compared to the current crop of GOP candidates.
Hilary and Edwards kept it civilized and the democratic debates were intellectual at their core.
Obama's weakness is Fox News / tea party talking points. and no one at the GOP debates is better at conveying those lies than Newt.
Mittens is a wimp, Bachman is possessed, Cain / Perry, sigh... can they even remember those three line talking points?
Newt is the only one that can effectively bash Obama with lies.
Out of all the potential matchups, I think Newt is the only one that is going to throw Obama off his game in the debates.
If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself this: Is Obama Milquetoast, or does he bring the heat?
Now image him arguing with a cantankerous, lying, bullying, blowhard.
Newt would eat Obama’s lunch, and what’s Obama gonna do about it?
No one else running for pres would present a challenge to Obama in the debates, but Newt is dangerous.
Before you dismiss this outright- consider this.
Many consider Newt to be a carbon copy of Cheney or McCain, this isn't true, they both had uncontrollable rage, but they were unable to express that rage in a cogent way.
Newt is a much bigger and polished bully than most.
McCain would just snarl, and grumble. Newt is much more lucid with his lies, he will be able bash Obama with his snake oil bottle in the fox news tradition.
Don't get me wrong, i despise Newt, but if you watch him at the debates, you will see that he will be able to go after Obama's weak points.
No one else on that stage would get the better of Obama, but Newt gives me pause.
They all lie, but they don't have the oratory skills that Newt has. Neither Cheney nor McCain posses the ability to convince millions of Americans that the BS they spew is intellectually driven- Newt has this ability .
Newt is Full of BS, but he can sell it by pretending his is an intellectual.
Newt is a lying thug and a bully with oratory skill, Obama has no defense against someone with this skill set.
Does newt bully the moderators? Do they back off when he does?
Does Obama stand up to bullies or does he capitulate?
Did Obama earn his Compromiser-in-Chief moniker?
Ask yourself this: if you had face-down a bully, would you take Newt or Obama?
Make no mistake, Newt is slime, but Obama can't debate with a snakelike bully.
Say what you will, if it makes you feel any better, shoot the messenger (me) if you will. None of this will change the facts.
Has Obama taken on the Tea Party bully on his own? Has he put the Tea Party in its place?
If it wasn’t for auxiliary support from Elizabeth Warren and the Occupy movement, Obama would be flailing even worse than he was during the debt ceiling fiasco.
This man doesn’t know how to deal with bullies. Newt, unlike Bush / Cheney / McCain / Perry can intimidate, while he gets his Fox news talking point across. Obama can’t counter a petite Fox news talking point with a 4 paragraph refutation, which cites stats, figures and facts in its defense.
One last note.
Just because Obama did well in the democratic debates, that doesn't mean he will be able to hold his own against Newt.
Just remember, Hilary Clinton and Edwards were saintly truth tellers compared to the current crop of GOP candidates.
Hilary and Edwards kept it civilized and the democratic debates were intellectual at their core.
Obama's weakness is Fox News / tea party talking points. and no one at the GOP debates is better at conveying those lies than Newt.
Mittens is a wimp, Bachman is possessed, Cain / Perry, sigh... can they even remember those three line talking points?
Newt is the only one that can effectively bash Obama with lies.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Fed chair Alan Greenspan Recommends, cutting taxes on the rich- to grow the debt.
Greenspan Suggested Cutting Taxes on the Wealthy to Increase Debt so the Fed Wouldn’t “Lose Control of Monetary Policy”
Back in January 2001, just as George W. Bush was entering office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was worrying; If the U.S. totally paid off its debt, it would no longer need to sell off Treasury bonds to borrow money. To avoid that scenario, Greenspan ended up endorsing tax cuts as a way of reducing surpluses. The Bush administration happily obliged
read the entire story on NPR.
life after debt, secret fed document on the debt.
Don't let anyone tell you taxes on the rich won't help to pay down the debt. Greenspan favored Tax Cuts To Reduce the Surplus and increase the debt. If we tax the rich, we can restore fiscal sanity.
Opponents of tax cuts are dismayed that Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan supports reductions in the federal tax burden. His reasoning implies that paying off the national debt is not a good idea.
read more here.
Back in January 2001, just as George W. Bush was entering office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was worrying; If the U.S. totally paid off its debt, it would no longer need to sell off Treasury bonds to borrow money. To avoid that scenario, Greenspan ended up endorsing tax cuts as a way of reducing surpluses. The Bush administration happily obliged
read the entire story on NPR.
life after debt, secret fed document on the debt.
Don't let anyone tell you taxes on the rich won't help to pay down the debt. Greenspan favored Tax Cuts To Reduce the Surplus and increase the debt. If we tax the rich, we can restore fiscal sanity.
Opponents of tax cuts are dismayed that Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan supports reductions in the federal tax burden. His reasoning implies that paying off the national debt is not a good idea.
read more here.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
max baucus is not a democrat- stop calling him one.
The mainstream media loves to denigrate the democratic party- they castigate the dems as ineffectual and weak, they cite high disapproval numbers for dems as proof that this is a conservative country.
That’s only one side of the story.
The popular narrative is that Obama had democratic majorities in the house and the senate, but with max baucus, joe Lieberman, and ben nelson on your side, who needs enemies.
There were 54 blue dogs in the house, after the 2010 elections the blue dogs got shellacked and only 26 were left standing.
The voters mistakenly thought the blue dogs and the party they were pretending to represent were the problem, so they replaced them with tea party zealots.
Ironically, they hated the republican ideology that the blue dogs practiced, yet they replaced them with people that were even more to the right!
On this site people have become despondent to the Democratic Party. And one of the main reasons is the blue dog congress members and the DINO senators that have sabotaged the party and this country.
The media is all too happy to pretend that Baucus and Nelson represent the Democratic Party; nothing could be further from the truth.
Putting Baucus on the super committee was an affront to all liberals- but when he compromises or when he pretends to bow to republican demands because he had no choice, the media will spin the tale of democratic weakness that ultimately lead to entitlement cuts.
If DINO’s go for cuts to entitlements, and no taxes on the rich, voters will ask:
“What’s the point of the democratic party?- they are just as bad, maybe worse than the republicans.”
The blue dogs / DINO’s have sabotaged and diminished the party; it’s time we called them out for it.
We can make a difference, since Erin Burnet made a mockery of Occupy, her ratings have plummeted.
David Gergory, is a shill, the sooner we get the mainstream to understand that, the better.
DINO’s aren’t democrats- next time they screw the dems over- it has to be understood that they are right wing extremists in disguise.
That’s only one side of the story.
The popular narrative is that Obama had democratic majorities in the house and the senate, but with max baucus, joe Lieberman, and ben nelson on your side, who needs enemies.
There were 54 blue dogs in the house, after the 2010 elections the blue dogs got shellacked and only 26 were left standing.
The voters mistakenly thought the blue dogs and the party they were pretending to represent were the problem, so they replaced them with tea party zealots.
Ironically, they hated the republican ideology that the blue dogs practiced, yet they replaced them with people that were even more to the right!
On this site people have become despondent to the Democratic Party. And one of the main reasons is the blue dog congress members and the DINO senators that have sabotaged the party and this country.
The media is all too happy to pretend that Baucus and Nelson represent the Democratic Party; nothing could be further from the truth.
Putting Baucus on the super committee was an affront to all liberals- but when he compromises or when he pretends to bow to republican demands because he had no choice, the media will spin the tale of democratic weakness that ultimately lead to entitlement cuts.
If DINO’s go for cuts to entitlements, and no taxes on the rich, voters will ask:
“What’s the point of the democratic party?- they are just as bad, maybe worse than the republicans.”
The blue dogs / DINO’s have sabotaged and diminished the party; it’s time we called them out for it.
We can make a difference, since Erin Burnet made a mockery of Occupy, her ratings have plummeted.
David Gergory, is a shill, the sooner we get the mainstream to understand that, the better.
DINO’s aren’t democrats- next time they screw the dems over- it has to be understood that they are right wing extremists in disguise.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Illinois workers pay taxes to their employers, not to the state. read on.
If that headline had you confused- here it is again.
Some companies in Illinois have convinced the government to let them pocket their workers taxes.
In other words, if you work for one of these companies, the taxes that are deduced from every paycheck don’t go into the governments coffers- they go to the company you work for.
Tax dollars that would normally flow into the state treasury to pay for education and other necessary state services never make it there- instead these taxes go towards CEO bonuses. The corporations that get these sweet deals get to keep the money from their employees that would normally go to the state free and clear.
Why would the government agree to this?
The Illinois government was desperate to keep companies in state, so they went looking for a solution that could reward the job creators.
Usually states offer tax incentives, to entice companies to stay, trouble is- these companies either pay zero state taxes, or the minimal amount they pay on taxes weren't enough of an incentive to stick around.
The Illinois government knew that if it had to write a large check to these companies to stay in state, it would look ugly. Some might call it a kickback, others might say it was extortion.
Either way, the solution was to let the businesses retain worker paid for taxes as they were generated.
Sounds like the people that work for these companies, aren't getting necessary services for their tax dollars. You know, little things, like police, fire departments, roads, schools. Oh well, who needs the police anyway. Better that those tax dollars contribute to the corporations profits. Call me cynical, but it sounds like the workers are actually paying their employers for the privilege of having a job.
funny that, i thought the job creators were supposed to pay employees.
call this what you will, but this isn't capitalism, it isn't a free market.
If this continues- you need to know that it isn't a zero sum game.
As the federal government cuts back financial aid and subsidies to states, it will starve the states of revenue.
Every single republican running for president wants to eliminate capitals gains taxes, and corporate taxes.
If they do that, the states will have to raise tax rates on corporations. Businesses will threaten to move from one state with high taxes, to a state with lower taxes. Finally, when the tax rate is zero in every single state, the job creators will still demand larger and larger kickbacks.
When that isn't enough if an incentive- what then?
read more here.
you can view the story here.
Paying the corporate overseers for the privilege of having a job, sounds like feudalism doesn't it?
Admittedly, I was slow to catch on; but if you look at those on the far right, namely the Koch brothers, Cain, Perry, Bachman, and Paul Ryan, they all pay lip service the Constitution, to freedom, but- what they really want- is to make us all serfs!
If we are the serfs, who would the feudal lords be?
Call what the far right believe in- feudalism, corporatism, fascism- it doesn't matter, what does matter is that they do not believe in democracy.
Some companies in Illinois have convinced the government to let them pocket their workers taxes.
In other words, if you work for one of these companies, the taxes that are deduced from every paycheck don’t go into the governments coffers- they go to the company you work for.
Tax dollars that would normally flow into the state treasury to pay for education and other necessary state services never make it there- instead these taxes go towards CEO bonuses. The corporations that get these sweet deals get to keep the money from their employees that would normally go to the state free and clear.
Why would the government agree to this?
The Illinois government was desperate to keep companies in state, so they went looking for a solution that could reward the job creators.
Usually states offer tax incentives, to entice companies to stay, trouble is- these companies either pay zero state taxes, or the minimal amount they pay on taxes weren't enough of an incentive to stick around.
The Illinois government knew that if it had to write a large check to these companies to stay in state, it would look ugly. Some might call it a kickback, others might say it was extortion.
Either way, the solution was to let the businesses retain worker paid for taxes as they were generated.
Sounds like the people that work for these companies, aren't getting necessary services for their tax dollars. You know, little things, like police, fire departments, roads, schools. Oh well, who needs the police anyway. Better that those tax dollars contribute to the corporations profits. Call me cynical, but it sounds like the workers are actually paying their employers for the privilege of having a job.
funny that, i thought the job creators were supposed to pay employees.
call this what you will, but this isn't capitalism, it isn't a free market.
If this continues- you need to know that it isn't a zero sum game.
As the federal government cuts back financial aid and subsidies to states, it will starve the states of revenue.
Every single republican running for president wants to eliminate capitals gains taxes, and corporate taxes.
If they do that, the states will have to raise tax rates on corporations. Businesses will threaten to move from one state with high taxes, to a state with lower taxes. Finally, when the tax rate is zero in every single state, the job creators will still demand larger and larger kickbacks.
When that isn't enough if an incentive- what then?
read more here.
you can view the story here.
Paying the corporate overseers for the privilege of having a job, sounds like feudalism doesn't it?
Admittedly, I was slow to catch on; but if you look at those on the far right, namely the Koch brothers, Cain, Perry, Bachman, and Paul Ryan, they all pay lip service the Constitution, to freedom, but- what they really want- is to make us all serfs!
If we are the serfs, who would the feudal lords be?
Call what the far right believe in- feudalism, corporatism, fascism- it doesn't matter, what does matter is that they do not believe in democracy.
Friday, November 4, 2011
CNBC: Is this Michelle Caruso Cabrera?
Daily Free Kindle Books
Many people seem to think this is her- I'm not so sure.
I report- you decide.
Her book and other pics.
Need a balance transfer?
This is the card for you.
21 Months at zero percent interest is the best deal available, anywhere.
If you don't need a balance transfer, take the cash and invest on some I-bonds which are yielding over 3% at the moment.
21 Months at zero percent interest is the best deal available, anywhere.
If you don't need a balance transfer, take the cash and invest on some I-bonds which are yielding over 3% at the moment.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
‘Zombie’ Properties coming back to life.
Is it finally time to buy that vacant property so that it can be rented back out?
Open question to all:
I’m frozen when it comes to RE, do i want to purchase a cheap property to rent, or should i put that same amount of money into a few REIT ETF’s?
Instead of a mortgage, one can purchase a REIT ETF on margin. In lieu of monthly mortgage payments, pay down the margin monthly.
In your opinion- you think a REIT ETF investment purchased today, can outperform purchasing a rental unit over the next 30 years?
What kind of REIT ETF do you favor (equity, mortgage etc)- and do you favor a REIT ETF over an actual property?
What say you?
*I prefer a REIT ETF's over any individual REIT- less risk, more diversification.
Open question to all:
I’m frozen when it comes to RE, do i want to purchase a cheap property to rent, or should i put that same amount of money into a few REIT ETF’s?
Instead of a mortgage, one can purchase a REIT ETF on margin. In lieu of monthly mortgage payments, pay down the margin monthly.
In your opinion- you think a REIT ETF investment purchased today, can outperform purchasing a rental unit over the next 30 years?
What kind of REIT ETF do you favor (equity, mortgage etc)- and do you favor a REIT ETF over an actual property?
What say you?
*I prefer a REIT ETF's over any individual REIT- less risk, more diversification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)