Hypocrites in Washington

[PaulS]

I usually don't start threads here but......


More Hypocrites in Washington:


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Thursday denied for a second time that he ever lobbied the government for stimulus money, even though he sent letters —with his signature — to the Energy Department and Labor Department asking for millions of the program's dollars on behalf of two companies in Wisconsin.

Ryan's new denial in an interview with Cincinnati's WCPO-TV contradicts letters that Ryan wrote in 2009 to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies. One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., later received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records.

The congressman's denial comes as new audio surfaced of Ryan telling Boston's WBZ Radio two years ago that he "did not ask for stimulus money," in response to a caller's question about the recovery program. "I'm not one who votes for something and then writes to the government to ask them to send us money," Ryan said. The exchange was first reported Thursday by The Boston Globe.

But a year earlier, Ryan asked Chu to set aside funds for the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. Ryan said the stimulus cash would help his state create thousands of new jobs, save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The apparent contradiction underscores Ryan's conflicts with his larger federal budget proposal as the House Budget Committee chairman. That plan would slash Energy Department programs aimed at creating green jobs and calls for "getting Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy — and that includes our energy sector."

Ryan's actions in Congress have been drawing fresh scrutiny since he was named last weekend as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's running mate.

Ryan's campaign spokesman, Brendan Buck, told The Associated Press earlier this week that the congressman's lobbying for the stimulus funds was part of a "a legitimate constituent service." But he did not immediately respond to questions seeking comment on either Ryan's denial Thursday or on the newly surfaced audio.

The vice presidential contender is not alone among Republicans who criticized the stimulus plan only to seek money later. Georgia's Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, for example, blasted the bill as a bloated government giveaway yet asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to steer $50 million in stimulus money to a constituent's bio-energy project.

Ryan's views are also consistent with his running mate's long-held position that the stimulus was a flawed idea that did not create private sector jobs.

"That stimulus didn't work," Romney said at an Ohio speech in June. "That stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work."

Yet in Ryan's letter to the Labor Department in October 2009, he backed the Energy Center of Wisconsin's grant application for stimulus money "to develop an industry-driven training and placement agenda that intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs." The company did not win the Labor Department grant, federal records show.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I usually don't start threads here but......


More Hypocrites in Washington:


.

NEWSFLASH!!!!!!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

NEWSFLASH!!!!!!

They're all the same.

[FishermanTim]

If it was reported in The Globe then it must be the gospel truth, since the Globe has NEVER skewed their stories for political gain!

Yeah, and Clinton never unhakled!

Maybe if the story specified which stimilus money Ryan was talking about, it might shed a little light on the subject?

Was he talking about the Bank Loan (stimulus) bailout? The Auto Co (stimulus) bailout?
Maybe it was the unemploymeny stimulus package?

Like I said, since it was reported in the Globe, I believe that rag as much as I would if I read The Inquirer!

If it wasn't so volitile and enraging, I would really be looking forward to this upcoming election, but as it stands, we will have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and the current one hasn't shown any signs of improvement.

[spence]

Ryan's hypocrisy has been well documented, no need to rub it in.

-spence

[scottw]

don't know if this was done knowingly and that he knowingly lied about it or if he was unaware but I'm curious....if you are a senator or congress person and you voice and even vote against federal money for one thing or another and then an individual or business in your district requests assistance or access to those available federal funds through your office....do you tell them to screw?

the story doesn't seem to have much traction for some reason

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

....if you are a senator or congress person and you voice and even vote against federal money for one thing or another and then an individual or business in your district requests assistance or access to those available federal funds through your office....do you tell them to screw?

Congresspeople vote for and against things they don't agree with all the time. It's part of the negotiation process, you suck up the funding for the program you don't agree with to get a cut you do or perhaps money into your district to benefit your constituents.

The difference now is that up until the 1990's this was accepted as the norm...you went in and got the best deal you could.

Today, the rhetoric is at the fringes leaving no room for our legislators to legislate in a manner to benefit the most people. Read the bills being passed and Congress is still getting a lot of work done, but it's detached from the public debate.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Congresspeople vote for and against things they don't agree with all the time. It's part of the negotiation process, you suck up the funding for the program you don't agree with to get a cut you do or perhaps money into your district to benefit your constituents.

The difference now is that up until the 1990's this was accepted as the norm...you went in and got the best deal you could.

Today, the rhetoric is at the fringes leaving no room for our legislators to legislate in a manner to benefit the most people. Read the bills being passed and Congress is still getting a lot of work done, but it's detached from the public debate.

-spence

so you are saying by congressional standards..he's not hypocrit

[Mr. Sandman]

I am still waiting for the green job revolution promised 4 years ago that was going to save the american worker.

Hows that hope and change working for you?

Lets not talk about VP's because Biden is laughable quite frankly. Can you imagine if he ever became president if something happened to Obama?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

I am still waiting for the green job revolution promised 4 years ago that was going to save the american worker.

Hows that hope and change working for you?

?

Actually, many Iowa republican farmers have come out against Romney because he wants to end the tax credit (raise taxes?) established to help put wind farms on ag lands. 18 perc of their energy is now wind generated. 7000 wind jobs in Iowa. It is the whole issue of only having government support for industry one likes, like coal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Actually, many Iowa republican farmers have come out against Romney because he wants to end the tax credit (raise taxes?) established to help put wind farms on ag lands. 18 perc of their energy is now wind generated. 7000 wind jobs in Iowa. It is the whole issue of only having government support for industry one likes, like coal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama and Romney pandering to energy interests
August 16
The Washington Post Editorial Board
The Post’s View

LIGHTLY SETTLED by people but thickly planted with corn, Iowa wields outsize influence in national politics. Presidential contenders from both parties woo voters in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses by promising everything from crop subsidies to ethanol mandates. The state’s more recent status as a swing state — President George W. Bush won in 2004, President Obama in 2008 — has added to its clout, even if the last census reduced its electoral votes from seven to six.

So there’s no surprise in Mr. Obama’s three-day bus tour of the state this week: He munched pork, downed beer and decried Congress’s failure to pass a new, five-year farm bill. According to Mr. Obama, the record drought ravaging corn farms in Iowa and elsewhere strengthens the case for the legislation. “Now, the best way to help these states is for Congress to act,” he said. “They need to pass a farm bill that not only helps farmers and ranchers respond to natural disasters but also makes necessary reforms and gives them some long-term certainty.”


.Actually, almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought-stricken farms one way or the other. About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps, an essential part of the safety net. The rest is largely a grab bag of subsidies for producers, with the biggest benefits for the largest farms, i.e., those least vulnerable to drought and other risks. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

Mr. Obama is also promising Iowans an extended tax credit for wind-energy production, which expires at the end of this year but to date has helped Iowa generate 20 percent of its electricity from that source. Not incidentally, Iowa farmers get $11 million a year renting their land to windmill operators. Mr. Obama argues that this is job-creating clean energy, and he is hardly alone in that. Supposedly fiscally conservative, free-market Republicans such as Rep. Steve King of Iowa tout the tax credit, which costs the Treasury well over#^& $1 billion a year. Of course, that money might have created even more jobs elsewhere, or saved more carbon emissions, if the government did not steer it into Iowa wind farms.

"Republican challenger Mitt Romney deserves credit for opposing an extension to the wind subsidy, a position that could hurt him in Iowa and in Colorado, another windy swing state."

[zimmy]

A Washington post editorial says Romney deserves credit for opposing it. Great. It also states that the bill would do almost nothing for draught stricken farmers, but gives no details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

A Washington post editorial says Romney deserves credit for opposing it. Great. It also states that the bill would do almost nothing for draught stricken farmers, but gives no details.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well.....you got the part about it being from the Washington Post right....the rest...not so much...WaPo editorial board by the way
" The Post’s View"

Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage.

IN OTHER WORDS, NOT SIMPLY SOME SLANTED OP-ED FROM A LEFT LEANING RAG...BUT RATHER A VIEW FROM THE BRAINTRUST ELITES OF A LEFT LEANING RAG

"draught stricken farmers"....does this mean they're drunk or something?

Actually, almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought-stricken farms one way or the other. About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps, an essential part of the safety net. The rest is largely a grab bag of subsidies for producers, with the biggest benefits for the largest farms, i.e., those least vulnerable to drought and other risks. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

[zimmy]

I get my information on ag. from Lancasterfarming.com, which is the website for electronic edition of The Farming News. For months, it has had articles about the dozens of programs that will end September if the new bill doesn't pass, including crop insurances. There seems to be substantial concern about very specific aspects of the bill, like the fact that without immediate enactment of a new bill the USDA is "unable to activate all of its disaster programs (from August 12 edition, p.A14). Based on all the information I have read over the past months, it is pretty clear that the statement that almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought stricken farmers is patently false.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I get my information on ag. from Lancasterfarming.com, which is the website for electronic edition of The Farming News. For months, it has had articles about the dozens of programs that will end September if the new bill doesn't pass, including crop insurances. Existing law already provides subsidized crop insurance for more than 80 percent of the nation’s farmland; many dairy farms, too, enjoy subsidized insurance against rising feed costs.

There seems to be substantial concern about very specific aspects of the bill, like the fact that without immediate enactment of a new bill the USDA is "unable to activate all of its disaster programs (from August 12 edition, p.A14).
Ryan voted for, and the House passed, a narrow $383 million emergency relief measure and sent it to the Senate. But instead of quickly passing and signing it, President Obama and his Democratic allies are holding the Midwest hostage in the name of passing a $1 trillion big-government goodie bag laden with useless subsidies and unprecedented welfare spending.

Based on all the information I have read over the past months, it is pretty clear that the statement that almost nothing in the farm bill would affect drought stricken farmers is patently false.

I guess if the farmers are going to end up on food stamps like so much of Obama Nation...you may have a point
I thought we were SUPPOSED to be going through these things and eliminating waste and pork and unnecessary government subsidies ?

just another attempt to fund overbloated programs and create new ones wrapped around an emergency and demonization of anyone who gets in the way....just sad

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

I guess if the farmers are going to end up on food stamps like so much Obama Nation...you may have a point
I thought we were SUPPOSED to be going through these things and eliminating waste and pork and unnecessary government subsidies ?

You might know that the changes in the eligibility requirements in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, combined with the recession, led to the growth in food stamp use. The bill Obama backs cuts something like $4 billion from food stamps. I know, everything was perfect until mid 2009 when some of Obamas policies started to take effect and wrecked the country.

By the way, you call it "unprecedented welfare spending." Your words? What are you basing it on?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You might know that the changes in the eligibility requirements in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, combined with the recession, led to the growth in food stamp use. The bill Obama backs cuts something like $4 billion from food stamps. the Senate’s version of the farm bill contains just $4.5 billion in cuts to the program, and the House Agriculture Committee’s is not much better at $16.5 billion.
I know, everything was perfect until mid 2009 when some of Obamas policies started to take effect and wrecked the country.

By the way, you call it "unprecedented welfare spending." Your words? What are you basing it on?

"Food stamps are currently the nation’s second-largest welfare program, behind Medicaid, and account for fully two-thirds of the Department of Agriculture’s budget. The standard liberal line that the program’s rolls have expanded because of the recession doesn’t scan: They have expanded in good times and bad, from one in 50 Americans in the 1970s to one in seven today, including a surge from 30 million enrollees to 46 million under this administration unprecedented. A better explanation is so-called “categorical eligibility” standards, which state that individuals who receive other federal welfare benefits are presumptively eligible for food stamps, and which are so loosely interpreted that some states consider receiving a welfare brochure close enough for government dole. (Under the program as currently structured, a state that makes more people eligible can transfer federal dollars to its citizens at almost no cost to itself.) As if that wasn’t bad enough, President Obama’s stimulus further eroded the eligibility standards by suspending the work requirements for the able-bodied."

In fiscal 2011, the federal government spent more than $75 billion on food stamps, up from $34.6 billion at the end of fiscal 2008, according to the USDA.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.

The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing.

President Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013.

About 80 percent of the bill’s nearly $1 trillion price tag (over 10 years) reflects the cost of food stamps...this doesn't soud like any kind of serious reduction from 75 billion in 2011

[zimmy]

Ok, so can you at least agree that disaster aid to farmers will be impacted if the bill isn't passed? That is a contradiction to the first article you quoted. I will agree that there is a ton of money in food stamps. You prefer the Romney plan to lower taxes for millionaires and reduce food stamps. I believe the validity of economics that says food stamps are good stimulus in a recesion. "When Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less." Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist For comparison, the cost of food stamps over the next ten years is about the same amount of money as the Bush tax cuts.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Ok, so can you at least agree that disaster aid to farmers will be impacted if the bill isn't passed? I haven't seen anything that indicates that, the Senate should have passed and the President should have signed the Emergency Relief passed in the House if they really cared about the victims That is a contradiction to the first article you quoted. It didn't say there is none...80% Food Stamps and bunch of pork leaves " almost nothing in the farm bill " I will agree that there is a ton of money in food stamps. brilliant! You prefer the Romney plan to lower taxes for millionaires and reduce food stamps. I believe the validity of economics that says food stamps are good stimulus in a recesion.the best! "When Moody's Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less."right, always cheaper to redistribute money through a massive bureaucracy than to let people keep it in the first place Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist For comparison, the cost of food stamps over the next ten years is about the same amount of money as the Bush tax cuts.

I guess if we put every american on unemploment and food stamps the ecomomy would boom!

I know which VECTOR you choose

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

I guess if we put every american on unemploment and food stamps the ecomomy would boom!

I know which VECTOR you choose

Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.

good one

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Yeah, I'm sure you much prefer Mitch McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses or the billions in subsidies that go to Monsanto and Cargill.

That would be the same VECTOR as unemployment benefits and food stamps. That would not be governance in the direction of individual freedom which requires individual responsibility. That would not be government OF, BY, and FOR the people. That would be government FROM government. That would be government picking winners. That would be dependence on government not self governance. That would be anti the founding VECTOR toward individual freedom garanteed by the Constitution, toward the VECTOR of collective groups dominating individuals by trashing that Constitution and giving the Federal government powers and responsibilities not granted in the Constitution which reserves those powers to the people. And by taking those powers and responsibilities from individuals, it makes them dependent on government, even Monsanto, Cargill, and race horse owners. Which is the VECTOR of progressive government.

[scottw]

I was curious as to what exactly this is....McConnel's $150 million tax break for race horses...

when I Googled it the first thing that popped up was Zimmy's comments here..the second was a THINKPROGRESS article where it is mentioned in passing..other than that some vague references I guess..."bluegrass boodoggle" or something...had to do a lot of digging to finally figure out what this massive and unfair tax break being enjoyed by race horses not only in Kentucky is...

"McConnell in 2008 took credit for authoring the tax break, which allows accelerated, three-year depreciation for racehorses. At the time, he called it an issue of fairness given the limited racing life of many horses."

also read this today and it seemed so accurate....



David Gelernter, a Yale professor writes in his new book America-Lite:

"Everyone agrees that President Obama is not only a man but a symbol. He is a symbol of America's decisive victory over bigotry. But he is also a symbol, a living embodiment, of the failure of American education and its ongoing replacement by political indoctrination. He is a symbol of the new American elite, the new establishment, where left-liberal politics is no longer a conviction, no longer a way of thinking: it is built-in mind-furniture you take for granted without needing to think."


I don't know whether the accelerated depriciation of a race horse is "fair' or not but if you can't see the difference between massive and yes Zimmy..."unprecedented" handouts funnelled through the bureauracies of the federal government occupying greater and greater portions of our overall spending and depreciation of an asset, property or equipment through what I would enthusiasticaly agree is far too complicated a tax code... please show me someone who disdains all of these "special breaks" and tax treatment,corporate welfare who is willing and supportive of major tax code overhaul and simplification...they never seem to live in the same mind....

[zimmy]

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

Your beginning postulates "I am not sure," and "supposed to" are key to the rest of your argument in which you display confidence in various projections. Projections are not facts. They are often innacurate. And different agencies give different projections on plans. Obviously, Ryan and his supporters project outcomes differently. And deficit reductions are important but long term debt reduction by both Obama and Ryan "plans" may raise deficits in the short run to control rising debt in the long run. A problem with all the debt reduction plans is that they are all long term. Few, if any current politicians will be in office when the plans are scheduled to pay off. The "farse" is that those plans will not be changed, ammended, neutered, or discarded over the next twenty years by new administrations. As long as we maintain our expanding course of government of, by, and for government, instead of reversing, gradually, toward government of, by, and for the people, there are not only no garantees that any government "plan" will constantly reduce debt, it is more likely that debt will increase, and only fiscal disaster will force a change.

Yes, the Ryan plan is tweaking around the edges of progressive big government, and it is as likely to suffer degradations of future administrations, but it has a built in "trajectory" or "vector" or a "heading in the right direction" of returning a portion of responsibility and choice to the people. And though it may be unlikely that that direction can be maintained against the allure of the nanny state, if it could, and gradually infiltrate the rest of our big government structure, then true constitutional government, rather than bureaucratic administrative government, could be restored.

That it seems unlikely, does not make it a farse. That you and so manhy others consider it a farse, and even so many more have become dependent on government, makes it unlikely.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The "gutting" of 716 billion is favored by both sides and I am not sure it is accurate that it is to help pay for Obamacare. Adjustments in payments to insurers and providers is supposed to cover those costs. I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates. Romney likes the Ryan plan, which would astronomically lower taxes for the extremely wealthy and the middle class would pay more in taxes and more for health care/medicare. The Obama health law pays for itself and reduces the deficit and, as the CBO has pointed out, if Republicans overturn it it will add $100+ billion to the deficit. That is why I find the argument that Romney and Ryan will lower everyones taxes, get people off of food stamps, and "restore" the by the people, for the people to be a farse.

amazing that you can roll out so much hyperbole and then refer to anything as a "farce"

you would have been great fun during the Revolution, I suppose you would have deemed that whole "by the people, for the people"...thingy..."to be a farse" then as well...

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-to...rticle/2503013



"The first impact of ObamaCare on the economy is its ever rising price tag. The revised cost estimates for the first full 10 years of ObamaCare is now $2.6 trillion***, almost three times the $900B President Obama had promised it would cost. This soaring cost, however, is only what government will be spending, not the additional costs of compliance borne by the private sector.

The second economic impact of ObamaCare is all the taxes that will need to be raised to pay for this rising cost. There's a list of these new taxes at The Daily Ticker, along with an informative 4 ½-minute video interview of Henry Blodget explaining them (which actually has a bit of humor in it). But it's not only businesses and the investor class that will pay ObamaCare's new taxes; the middle class will also get hit.

The third impact on the economy from ObamaCare is regulation. Bureaucrats have already written 13,000 pages of new regulations, and they're just getting started. This has business in a state of paralysis: what are these unelected, unaccountable regulators going to dump on me next? There's also the issue of whether the regulators know what they're doing.

At Reason, Peter Suderman writes:

As part of a multipart study of the law's regulations, Christopher Conover, a health policy researcher at Duke University's Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, and Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, looked at eight of ObamaCare's major regulations and found that "that the regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) for these regulations were seriously incomplete, often omitting significant benefits, costs, or regulatory alternatives." ... The authors also conclude that the analyses were also "more likely to understate the magnitude of costs than to overstate them. All eight regulations appear to have understated the costs. In some cases, costs are understated by billions of dollars. The net effect of this pattern is to further contribute to the bias favoring regulation." Regulators who've decided to pursue certain rules have probably already decided that those rules are a good idea, and end up using the required analyses mostly to justify what they're already planning to do."


****I don't know if this is more or less accurate than any of the other numbers out there but based on the "vector"...it will be accurate at some point at least briefly

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

you would have been great fun during the Revolution, I suppose you would have deemed that whole "by the people, for the people"...thingy..."to be a farse" then as well...

Reading comp. an issue Scott? I didn't say it is "for the people" that is a farce, it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

And for buchie: you don't postulate on anything, because everything you say out is put out as fact, even when it is bs. I guess that is better

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Reading comp. an issue Scott? I didn't say it is "for the people" that is a farce, it is the idea that Ryan and Romney raising taxes on the middle class and and cutting nearly all taxes for the super rich is somehow what was envisioned by the founders. Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.

The founders did not envision a federal income tax--neither on the middle class nor the super rich. They did not envision a divided nation, made even more so by divisive taxes. Their vision of "We the People" was one People made up of free individuals pursuing their personal happiness, not a class structure which had to be regulated by a central government. That is my OPINION. I don't claim it to be a fact. And it is my opinion, based on evidence and facts which I have presented before in this forum, that progressivism is responsible for those taxes, their massive slice of the nations wealth which allowed the massive growth of the central government.

And for buchie: you don't postulate on anything, because everything you say out is put out as fact, even when it is bs. I guess that is better

Where have I said that I don't? Where have I said that YOU shouldn't? Pointing out your postulation in relation to the rest of your post is not a scolding that you postulate. All of my posts, except when I quote or link to other opinions or facts, ARE OPINIONS. I assume that is obvious, and it doesn't require me to say "in my opinion" before every sentence I write.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Guess that is why the "sheeple" would fall for the Ryan scam.:

So I guess the sheeple are now the ones that don't fall lock step in with almost every major news network?

The ones who when asked why they are voting for "hope and change" have no good answer. Not saying you are one of them. You may have very valid reasons for voting D. If you want to call every American who votes Romney Ryan sheeple it may be time to look at why people vote Obama Biden as well?

I will vote Romney Ryan and it is simple for me. I work harder than I ever have for far less money than ever before. I am going to be looking at a tax increase in January due to legislation I didn't want. I fear if this administration is given a term without needing to campaign to keep their jobs we will be seeing far more legislation we don't want

I and my business will not survive another four years of the current regime. I kill myself daily to provide for my family I have gone months with out pay to make sure employees get taken care of before me. I pay my bills I have paid my dues. And I get to see people live and die through entitlement our current leadership included. I am middle class and my quality of living is rapidly decreasing. I don't live lavishly. I haven't taken a vacation for three years my customers are happy with me there just is not enough work for everyone. It is what it is. I just know if this regime gets another 4 years it will get worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I agree, as I have said repeatedly on here over the years, that it is going to take tax increases and cuts in spending to deal with the deficit. What sacrifices are made is the question. Obama would moderately raise taxes on the top 1% to where they were prior to Bush 2. He would maintain middleclass rates.

The kind of sacrifices we need to mend this country have to come from everyone.

You need a strong leader that can lay out the true facts of where we are,what the consquences are, what we need to do, and then unite all our people to be willing to do their share of sacrificing.

It can't be on the backs of one group, it has to be shared by everyone.
This class warfare stuff will never work, except to divide the country and
bring in votes for the party that promotes it.
It's estimated that the increase in taxing the 1% will bring in 80-90 billion,
which would do very little to pay down the trillions we have in debt.

It will take a concerted effort on every citizen's part and a dynamic leader
that can unite the people for the sake of America. While Obama promoted himself
in his campaighn to be such a leader, he has failed.