Banner ad

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Cruising the Web

ABC Fact-checkers call the administration "misleading" in how they're characterizing the GOP plan to pay for the payroll tax cut.

Speaking of fact-checking, here's a welcome choice for "Lie of the Year." PolitiFact.com, not a right-wing organization, chose the Democratic smear that "Republicans voted to end Medicare" as their choice for Lie of the Year.

The WSJ has this great quote from economist Lawrence Lindsey:
Politicians who assert their role in directing funds to the "industries of the future" want to play entrepreneur with someone else's money. They are ill suited to the role. The politician who takes over the direction of capital is quickly revealed as this year's amateur following last year's experts.
Ah, what a lesson for President Obama and the Democrats to master. Alas, they still think they have the golden, enlightened touch when it comes to picking the winners of the future.

Perhaps that is why Ed Morrissey refers to Obama having the "Minus Touch."
Perhaps someone might want to check if Barack Obama has the Minus touch lately, because companies that come into contact with his Porkulus package keep heading towards insolvency. First we had Solyndra, followed by Beacon Power and Open Range, EnerDel, with a campaign-financing detour to MF Global. Next up — LightSquared?


Newt Gingrich might claim that he was just a consultant, never a lobbyist, but it is a distinction without a difference. Salon has the audio of phone calls that Gingrich made on behalf of his Center for Health Transformation to advise clients on how to take advantage of the good parts of Obamacare and how to use Gingrich to influence Republicans on which parts of the Affordable Care Act to repeal and which to keep. When asked about how his efforts don't constitute lobbying, he has this totally disingenuous answer.
In 2010, I asked the former speaker about his refusal to register as a lobbyist. Although he met with lawmakers and helped craft industry-friendly legislation with Capitol Hill staff, he told me that his influence peddling did not technically constitute lobbying because it “benefit[ed] the country at large.”
Yeah, and what lobbyist would admit that anything he or she pushed for didn't "benefit the country at large?"

John Hawkins excavates 12 Ron Paul
quotes to explain why Ron Paul can never be president. Perhaps now with his position in the polls climbing, people can examine the racist and wacky Truther statements he's made in his history. Ramesh Ponnuru has more on why conservatives should not be voting for Ron Paul. James Kirchuk at The Weekly Standard has been doing yeoman's work at examining Ron Paul's newsletters and associates. The New York Times reprises those accusations today. Ed Morrissey explodes the ludicrous defense that Paul has made of those newsletters.
How likely would it be that a publisher made a million dollars in revenues from his enterprise, managed to employ his family at the business, and yet never bothered to look at its product? Zero, even if one buys the argument that Paul allowed other people to ghost-write the newsletter under his own name and in the first person without ever reviewing their output to make sure that it didn’t contradict his own political stands. And even if people are prepared to swallow all of that, the fact remains that Paul made millions as a publisher peddling vile, racist tracts and insane conspiracy theories, which any Democratic opponent would produce in toto during a general election, even disregarding Team Obama’s predilection for oppo research.


Here is what Romney should be saying when the Democrats come after him about his history at Bain Capital.
The 2012 election will come down to a choice between two visions of how the federal government should manage the economy: Obama and the Democrats believe the federal government should be an active market participant, investing in new companies like Solyndra and bailing out old companies like Chrysler. Romney and the Republicans believe the federal government should set broad rules that make America a relatively competitive place to invest, but should avoid directly picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
Jay Cost examines the general election and explains why Obama is a very beatable incumbent... if the Republicans don't blow it.

Thomas Sowell presents his argument for Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney.

Conn Carroll researches the woman
who served as the model for the artwork on Time Magazines cover for its stupid choice of The Protester. And she is the perfect symbol of the fatuity of the selection.
"I still have debt and I'm not paying it back because I feel like at this point, I have an obligation to try and disrupt and upset the financial industry," Mason told 360.

And how did Mason rack up all this debt she now feels she has a moral obligation not to pay?

"I got a credit card because I had no money and I needed a credit card to buy things that were essential to my life during this time. I had already spent all this money on clothes, make-up, accessories, and I got the credit card because I needed to pay my electric bill," she said.

And why did Mason buy all those clothes, make-up, accessories?

"Most of it was feeling inadequate and insecure and feeling pressure to look a certain way. What I also think is it was that you're just surrounded by these messages telling you to buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume," she said.

So Mason admits she got into debt spending money she didn't have on items she didn't need. She believes she has not only the right, but the obligation, not to repay her creditors because society forced her to "consume, consume, consume."

Mason is the perfect poster child for the Occupy movement.
What are the most annoying Facebook updates?

Robert Samuelson heralds the eclipse of Keynesian economics. As Keynes himself would have said, "When the facts change, I change my mind." Meanwhile, Steven Hayward finds that Hayek is vindicated once again.

4 comments:

mark said...

I don't think repubs realize what a problem Bain will be for Romney. Dems will just need to quote Newt's smackdown of Romney killing jobs. Have folks forgotten about the $10 mil bailout Bain received?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/14/romney_faces_criticism_over_bain_bailout_ad/

I suppose if you're willing to overlook Mitt's support of mandates, you'll be able to overlook his support for bailouts.

lorraine_lanning said...

So Mason admits she got into debt spending money she didn't have on items she didn't need. She believes she has not only the right, but the obligation, not to repay her creditors because society forced her to "consume, consume, consume."

Maybe we should bring back the concept of debtor's prison.

tfhr said...

mark,

Good grief! You get my hopes up when you include a link and then we find out it doesn't work. Again!

You're 0-2 in your latest attempts. Why is it so difficult for you to back up your claims? In addition to the specious nature of this latest claim, I suspect that you didn't do the actual research but rather you lifted a URL from someone else's efforts but were too lazy to read it or even check that it functioned before you slapped an out of date link into one of your typically impotent posts.

All is not lost though since you make a frequent practice of parroting liberal talking points, therefore I can say that I've heard the claim before elsewhere. I believe a Kennedy campaign ad is at the heart of this claim and that it was never aired.

Here is a question for you: Did Bain Capital seek a "bailout" in 1993 when the FDIC stepped in to take over its creditor, the failed Bank of New England? Also, I’m assuming that you know the FDIC is funded by premiums paid by the banks it covers, right? Do you believe there were federal tax dollars involved?

There was a claim by various leftist drones that Romney and others made millions on the deal when in fact the money in question was interest never collected by a failed bank. When the FDIC stepped in following Bank of New England's bankruptcy in 1991, it was the largest bank holding company failure in US history. The money behind the "bailout", was not federal tax dollars, according to the NYT. In true fashion, the NYT initially got that detail wrong too but issued a correction here:

Correction: January 8, 1991, Tuesday A front-page article yesterday about the Government's seizure of the Bank of New England misstated the source of the $2.3 billion that is the expected cost of bailing out the institution and two affiliated banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's bank insurance fund, which is financed by banks themselves, will be responsible for the cost; it will not be covered by taxpayer funds.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/07/business/us-is-taking-over-a-group-of-banks-to-head-off-a-run.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Again, if you want to compare FDIC insurance paid out to one of Bain's creditors against Obama's failed investments of over $500 million dollars of tax-payer money in the Solyndra green scam (and the way in which some "special" investors like George Kaiser, an Obama oil billionaire campaign bundler, were covered on losses at the public's expense), be my guest.

You can read more about it in this fine Rushbo-Dittohead approved Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/energy-dept-offered-to-pu_b_1097969.html

tfhr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.