Tag Archives: politics

Dilemma of a 47%er Romney/Ryan supporter…


Alright…….198 miles left in my gas tank-

$11 in my checking account

12 days left til my “welfare” check-

What is one to do??

Oh…and the “welfare” check-That be my social security……

and that I guess-be the one the politicians………………………

earned for me….



Comments Off on Dilemma of a 47%er Romney/Ryan supporter…

Posted by on 09/20/2012 in Just Wondering


Tags: ,

To save Obama, Clinton ignores his own deregulation move


Published September 05, 2012

MacKenzie: “Did you know it was Bill Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall?” Will: “Everybody knows that.” Conversation on HBO’s “The Newsroom,” originally broadcast July 22, 2012

With little success on the economic front, President Obama in 2012 is embracing much of his message on the economy from 2008. And from that playbook, he has two basic strategies.
One is to blame the supposed deregulation policies of the George W. Bush administration that Obama and his surrogates endlessly say “got us into this mess.” And the second is to hug former rivals Bill and Hillary Clinton as hard as he can and harken back to the prosperity and economic growth of the 1990s.

But there is just one problem with this theme. The Obama campaign’s twin messages of bashing deregulation and embracing the Clinton years are inherently contradictory. He is telling Americans to, in essence, look at the ‘90s, but don’t look too closely. Or they might see that the ‘90s, perhaps even more than even the ‘80s, was a decade of deregulation.

In a much-hyped new pro-Obama ad, Clinton warns that a Mitt Romney presidency would “go back to deregulation,” and we can expect Clinton to make similar claims in his prime speaking slot in the Democratic convention. The fact remains, however, that on financial regulation, Bill Clinton as president was actually more of a deregulator than Bush.

The fact remains that on financial regulation, Bill Clinton as president was actually more of a deregulator than Bush.

The characters quoted above from “West Wing”-creator Aaron Sorkin’s preachy new HBO drama “The Newsroom” are not the only liberals who have noted that Clinton pushed for and signed the very deregulatory measures they blame (wrongly) for causing the financial crisis of 2008. Once the 2008 election returns were in, and Clinton’s support of Obama was no longer needed (and was thought to be never be needed again), those on the left let loose on Clinton in warnings to Obama to not follow the Clinton’s deregulatory ways.

In late November 2008, American Prospect co-editor Robert Kuttner expressed concern in the Huffington Post that Obama was filling his economic team with “Clinton retreads–the very people who brought us the deregulation that produced the financial collapse.” If he must have them onboard, Kuttner advised that Obama ignore their advice and simply utilize their presence “so that he can govern as a progressive in pragmatist’s clothing.”

Obama largely followed Kuttner’s advice on financial regulation, most notably by ramming through the 2,500 page Dodd-Frank “reform” in 2010, which has attracted bipartisan criticism for its overkill as well as its provisions on issues that had nothing to do with the crisis, such as the use of “conflict minerals.”

But window dressing from the ‘90s could not produce the economic success of those years without the policies of liberalization. And his statement in the Obama commercial, Clinton knows this. He and his administration officials have credited deregulation for contributing to the ‘90s economic boom — the very “shared prosperity” that Obama says he wants to go back to.

Late in Clinton’s tenure, the White House put forth a document celebrating “Historic Economic Growth” during the administration and pointing to the policy accomplishments it deemed responsible for this growth. Among the achievements on Clinton’s list were “Modernizing for the New Economy through Technology and Consensus Deregulation.”

“In 1993,” the document explained, “the laws that governed America’s financial service sector were antiquated and anti-competitive. The Clinton-Gore administration fought to modernize those laws to increase competition in traditional banking, insurance, and securities industries to give consumers and small businesses more choices and lower costs.”

Everything in those passages is true. All that’s missing is credit to the GOP-controlled Congress elected in 1994 for passing most of the policies that led to the prosperity. These bipartisan financial policies, however, were the very same policies that Obama, Joe Biden, and other Democrats attacked during the campaign of 2008 and throughout the next four years, as part of their strategy of blaming the previous administration.

But on financial policy, ironically, Clinton was a far more deregulatory president than George W. Bush. As James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation points out, while there may have been flawed oversight, there really was no financial deregulation under Bush. Indeed, Bush’s signature achievement in the financial area was the signing and implementing of the costly and counterproductive Sarbanes-Oxley accounting mandates.

By contrast, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 1999 law Clinton signed repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, benefited the economy by creating more choice and competition. The Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 90-8, with many Democrats voting for the final bill, including now-Vice President Biden. There is now a chorus of voices, including some on the populist Right, who blame the demise of Glass-Steagall, which had strictly separated traditional commercial banking from investment banking, for contributing to the credit blowup.

But Clinton was correct to sign Glass-Steagall’s repeal, which benefitted banks of all sizes by allowing them to offer their customers insurance and brokerage services under one financial services roof. And there is little evidence of Glass-Steagall’s repeal playing a role in the mortgage crisis.

As the American Enterprise Institute’s Peter Wallison noted in The Wall Street Journal, “None of the investment banks that have gotten into trouble—Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Goldman or Morgan Stanley — were affiliated with commercial banks.” He also pointed out that “the banks that have succumbed to financial problems — Wachovia, Washington Mutual and IndyMac, among others got into trouble by investing in bad mortgages or mortgage-backed securities, not because of the securities activities of an affiliated securities firm.”

As for Citigroup, which had former CEO Sandy Weill recently cause a stir upon announcing he now favors restoring Glass-Steagall, the fact remains that its bad mortgage bets were not at all enabled by Glass-Steagall. Weill had pushed for Glass-Steagall repeal solely so that Citi could merge with the insurance subsidiaries of Travelers Group, yet he spun off Travelers into a separate firm three years after Glass-Steagall’s repeal. Had Citi used its newfound freedom from Glass-Steagall to hold on to its acquisition, it probably would be in much better shape today, given Travelers’ relative financial strength in recent years.

Clinton also championed the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, which passed in 1994, before Republicans even took over Congress. As the previously mentioned Clinton White House “Historic Economic Growth” document put it, “in 1994, the Clinton-Gore Administration broke another decades-old logjam by allowing banks to branch across state lines.”

Riegle-Neal finally allowed the US to have nationwide banking chains, as virtually every other developed country does. Anyone who remembers the inconvenience of not being able to access your own bank’s ATM when driving into another state can attest to the benefits this law brought. Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner has credited the law for a myriad of economic benefits including “higher economic and employment growth, spurred by more-efficient and more-diverse banks” and “more entrepreneurial activity, as the more bank-dependent sectors of the economy, such as small businesses and entrepreneurs, achieve greater access to credit.”

Yet when Republican rival John McCain in 2008 advocated letting individuals purchase insurance across state lines and wrote in a journal article that “opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products,” the Obama campaign hit the roof and attacked McCain for daring to praise this Clinton initiative. “McCain just published an article praising Wall Street deregulation,” an Obama’s attack ad exclaimed. “Said he’d reduce oversight of the health insurance industry, too.”

At the time, lambasted this ad for quoting McCain “out of context on health care.” But as I wrote for Reason magazine just after the 2008 election, “the greater worry is that the attacks on the bipartisan deregulation that led to prosperity appeared to be quite in context for Obama, at least during the campaign. If President-elect Obama wants to pull the U.S. economy out of its rut, he must face up to the fact that ’90s deregulation was an essential ingredient in Clinton’s recipe for an economic boom. He also must recognize that substantially undoing the liberalizations that Clinton and the GOP Congress achieved would crimp recovery as well as create new problems.”

Alas, with the possible exception this year of his signing of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which provides modest relief to smaller firms from Bush’s Sarbanes-Oxley and Obama’s own mammoth Dodd-Frank mandates, Obama has yet recognize the role deregulation played in fostering the Clinton-era growth he still says he wants to achieve.

The Clinton era should not be romanticized by free marketeers. Clinton did pursue some statist policies that grew government and favored public sector unions, as author Mallory Factor reminds us in his blockbuster new book, Shadowbosses. The government-sponsored housing enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that weakened market discipline grew substantially, as well as housing regulations that encouraged perverse incentives, such as Clinton’s expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act. These are areas where the Clinton administration was not deregulatory and can be blamed for encouraging bad loans to be made (as can the George W. Bush administration).

Nevertheless, the Clinton-GOP governance, despite the constant bickering and backbiting, ironically left a shining legacy of prosperity, which bipartisan deregulation was so much a part of. In terms of economic growth, there are few better examples of bipartisan success than this tenure. We can only hope this aspect of Clinton’s presidency will be emulated once again.

John Berlau is senior fellow for finance and access to capital at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Read more:

Comments Off on To save Obama, Clinton ignores his own deregulation move

Posted by on 09/05/2012 in Uncategorized


Tags: , » Democrats Unleashed Some ‘Dubious Or Misleading Claims,’ Fact Checkers Say

       We will take whatever we can get from NPR…lol

AFP/Getty Images

The scene Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Published: September 05, 2012
by Mark Memmott
Just as they did during the Republican National Convention, independent fact checkers spent the first day of the Democratic National Convention listening for claims that don’t add up — and found them.

— says it heard “a number of dubious or misleading claims” from the Democrats who spoke on stage Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C. Among the problems it found:

— “The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the ‘middle class.’ He has promised he won’t. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion.”

Even struggles here…. base their claim on a study that doesn’t necessarily
— “The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, also said there have been 4.5 million ‘new jobs’ under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office.”

Actually have less employed now, then when Bush left office…but this sounds sooooo much better….
— “A Democratic governor said Romney ‘left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.’ Actually, Massachusetts went from 50th in job creation during Romney’s first year to 28th in his final year.”

Big difference! But hey, it’s a democrat, why expect honesty from one of them.
— “Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That’s a figure that applied to Ryan’s 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous.”

 and allows Seniors to stay in the medicare program if they want to!

— “Rep. James Clyburn engaged in partisan myth-making when he said ‘Democrats created Social Security’ while Republicans ‘cursed the darkness.’ History records strong bipartisan support in both House and Senate for the measure President Roosevelt signed in 1935.

myth-making? good one!


— The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker cites some of the same problems as FactCheck highlighted. And it points to this statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada: “We learned that he [Mitt Romney] pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families.”
The Fact Checker writes that:

“For all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes. Romney had an effective rate of 13.9 percent in 2010 and 15.4 percent in 2011. That gives him a higher rate than 80 percent of taxpayers if only taxes on a tax return are counted and puts him just about in the middle of all taxpayers if payroll taxes paid by employers are included.”

 Most Americans pay a relatively SMALL percentage of…..hard to believe this is reported..but we will take it…lol

— PolitiFact appears to have just begun its analysis. In its initial take on the night’s talk, it gives Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick a “half true” rating for his statement about the state being “47th in the nation in job creation” when Romney left office there.
As for first lady Michelle Obama’s address to the convention, the fact checkers don’t seem to have any faults to find.

You can find all our posts about fact checks of the Republican and Democratic conventions here. [Copyright 2012 National Public Radio]Email a Friend≻=tw&cc=share

Comments Off on » Democrats Unleashed Some ‘Dubious Or Misleading Claims,’ Fact Checkers Say

Posted by on 09/05/2012 in Uncategorized



5 reasons America isn’t better off than it was 4 years ago when it comes to foreign policy

5 reasons America isn’t better off than it was 4 years ago when it comes to foreign policy

Danielle Pletka
September 4, 2012, 11:36 am

1.) Terrorism: Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead, though the president didn’t actually kill the terrorist leader himself. But the Obama counterterrorism tactic of blowing people up coupled with what promises to be a pell mell retreat from Afghanistan will mean that both Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan could again fall under the sway of al-Qaeda. And that doesn’t begin to contemplate the spread of al Qaeda through Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere (think Sinai). Killing terrorists one by one does not a strategy make.

2.) A weak military: The primary role of a strong military isn’t to fight war, it’s to discourage others from considering the prospect. The U.S. military is weaker than it has been at almost any other period in the modern era. To crib from my colleague Mackenzie Eaglen’s recent WSJ piece:
“President Obama’s 2013 budget request would purchase the fewest aircraft since 1916. Many of the Air Force’s aerial refueling tankers predate human space flight. Training aircraft are twice as old as the students flying them. The F-15 fighter first flew 40 years ago. A-10 ground-attack planes were developed in the Carter years. The Navy is the smallest it has been since 1916. And all of our B-52 bombers predate the Cuban missile crisis.”
3.) China: The threat from China has been well documented – double digit growth in investment in its military, new blue water ambitions, anti-satellite and cyber weaponry – and Beijing is steadily working to drive the U.S. and everyone else out of the South China Sea. But there’s another threat from China as well: Economic collapse. The Chinese economy is in dire shape (needless to say, not America’s fault); the implications of a communist authoritarian regime that can’t manage internal unrest, cracks down, lashes out, and worse are serious for both U.S. economic and security interests, not to speak of our allies in Asia. Obama’s so-called “pivot” to Asia is virtually empty rhetoric, as in short order the military will not be able to sustain a substantial Pacific role and at the same time manage threats in the Middle East. Which brings us to…
4.) The Middle East: Egypt has been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda is infiltrating the Sinai. 25,000 are dead in Syria. The Saud dynasty is likely within a few short years to undergo its greatest generational shift in history. Hezbollah dominates Lebanon. NATO ally Turkey is among the most anti-American countries in the world. And Iran is still developing nuclear weapons. The Obama administration has had no strategy to successfully manage any of these challenges. In five years, the Middle East could be unrecognizable, and even more hostile to U.S. interests and U.S. allies than ever before.
5.) Europe: The splintering of the European Union and the Euro and the rise of Russia have drawn little interest from the Obama administration except insofar as they threaten his reelection. But the future of Europe is far from certain and the economic collapse of some among Washington’s NATO partners is not likely to make the world a safer place. Since World War II, for better or worse, we have worked closely with Europe to ensure the stability of the liberal international order. But much of the EU will be doing little beyond swimming in red ink for the coming years, and paired with our own diminished power projection, the vacuum will provide opportunities to those seeking to challenge the order we have come to take for granted. Russia, while not the USSR, is spending significant effort to stymie international efforts to manage a variety of challenges (viz Syria, Iran). Moscow cannot succeed in the long term against a united Europe and a determined America. In the absence of both, there will be opportunities to make smaller problems large.
What have I left out? The collapse of the U.S.-India partnership. North Korea. South America’s leftward drift. Extremism in Africa. Failure to advance an international trade agenda. A lot.
But each of 1-5 alone is enough to cause the American people major headaches.  Together, they make clear the case that our nation is less safe than it was four years ago.

Comments Off on 5 reasons America isn’t better off than it was 4 years ago when it comes to foreign policy

Posted by on 09/04/2012 in Obama


Tags: , ,

Ok Day One

 Rain again today….so tired of the rain everyday! Our toilet was fixed today…and it didn’t cost anything! Thank God….I was so worried….but a little snake and wallah….it flushes again….Spent my $10. for gas today…got enough to get home! this is getting scarey…2.6 gallons does not go very far….and the current occupant in the white house would tell me to get a smaller car! Sure and just who is going to give me the money to pay for it?? Him??? He is too busy campaigning and playing to be bothered with how  real people in this country live…He does not have a clue! He may pretend that he does…but we are not as STUPID as he believes we are….We are not going to fall for his game again…bye bye in 2012! Off to Harvard with you….

1 Comment

Posted by on 04/23/2011 in Uncategorized



%d bloggers like this: