Harry Reid, the Political Charlie Sheen
Once again Harry Reid has tried to shut down the government or at least use that threat as a bargaining tool in dealing with the Republicans. He reminds me of Charlie Sheen who for a long time while he was completely out of control thought that he was “Winnnnniiiing!” Charlie when asked when what made him change his mind responded to Jay Leno, “It was when I realized I was Loooosssing.
Reid and the Democratically controlled Senate have not passed a budget since April 29, 2009 but have taken the country to the brink of a government shutdown twice and tried to do it again as October 1 approached. Reid and Sheen, two people you wouldn’t want your kids to take a role models.
Pass the Bill? They can’t even get someone to introduce it in the House
Republican Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma told The Daily Caller on Friday that NO HOUSE DEMOCRAT WANTS TO PUT HIS OR HER NAME BEHIND PRESIDENT OBAMA’S $447 BILLION JOBS PLAN, a necessary step before the legislation can be introduced for consideration.
He also claimed the bill would not lower the current 9.1 percent unemployment rate.
“The focus right now from him [Obama] is ‘pass my whole bill, pass my whole bill,’ [and] some of the struggle with that is no Democrat in the House has even taken his bill and filed it yet. SO WE CAN’T EVEN PASS THE BILL BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO PUT THEIR NAME ON IT AND SAY, ‘THIS IS MY BILL’ AND FILE IT IN THE HOUSE,” said Lankford in a September 23 interview at the U.S. Capitol.
The White House predicted that Obama’s $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), signed into law in February 2009, would prevent the unemployment rate from rising above 8 percent. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that AARA will ultimately cost taxpayers $821 billion….
Obama wants to run against a do nothing congress, but it appears it may be his own party that is the do nothing group.
A Preview of Obamacare?
PATIENTS WITH TERMINAL CANCER SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN LIFE-EXTENDING DRUGS, DOCTORS SAID YESTERDAY.
The treatments give false hope and are too costly for the public purse, they warned.
The group of 37 cancer experts, including British specialist Karol Sikora, CLAIMED A 'CULTURE OF EXCESS' HAD LED DOCTORS TO 'OVERTREAT, OVERDIAGNOSE AND OVERPROMISE'….
This is happening in Great Britain, but may be a forerunner of life in the USA after Obamacare. At some point it probably is futile to extend life, but this just seems cruel.
Blaming a Do Nothing Congress
…THE HOUSE PASSED A BUDGET ON APRIL 15TH OF THIS YEAR while HARRY REID AND THE DEMS HAVEN'T PRESENTED A BUDGET SINCE APRIL 29, 2009. THE SENATE DEMOCRATS STILL HAVEN'T PRESENTED A CONTINUING RESOLUTION TO PAY THE BILLS COME OCTOBER 1ST but they were quick to vote down in unison the hard-working Legislature's proposal.
One of the few actual votes in the Senate was the 0-97 vote on Obama's budget plan this year. Looks like they could find time to get behind one piece of legislation.
SO WHERE IS OBAMA'S LATEST STIMULUS DEFICIT SPENDING PLAN, THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT? SITTING ON DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID'S DESK BECAUSE HE CAN'T EVEN GET HIS OWN DEMOCRATS TO ACCEPT IT. While Obama still continues to chime, "Pass this Bill," Reid says, "We've got to get rid of some issues first," he's not sure "exactly what I'm going to do yet with the president's jobs bill."
The Senate Democrats won't stand behind their president's plan, they're too busy doing nothing to propose a plan of their own, and they won't take the time to consider the Republican House jobs bills.
Obama can't blame Bush anymore. WHAT HE SHOULD BE BLAMING IS THE DO-NOTHING DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE….
If the do nothing MSM would actually write about what the real facts are, I think the Senate would fall in line and actually propose something. One can only dream.
Obama has angered America's silent majority
"YOU WOKE THE BEARS! WHY DID YOU DO THAT?"
That's from one of my favorite scenes in "Anchorman." In the Oscar-robbed film, Ron Burgundy (played by Will Ferrell) loudly leaps into a bear pit to rescue his girlfriend and then falsely blames her for waking them up.
Watching President Obama these days reminds me of that scene.
IN MARCH 2010, LIBERAL COLUMNIST PETER BEINART ARGUED THAT, FOR DECADES, DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS TREATED AMERICA'S INNATE CONSERVATISM LIKE A SLUMBERING BEAR: If you make no sudden moves and talk quietly, you can get a lot done. But if you wake the bear, as Democrats did in the late 1960s and early '70s, the ursine silent majority will punish you.
But OBAMA PROMISED TO CHANGE THAT. He was tired of the timid, almost apologetic talk. He was going to be an FDR, or at least a Reagan for liberalism. He was going to "fundamentally transform" the country. And to those who counseled that Democrats can't govern that way, Obama and his followers responded with shouts of "Yes, we can!"
You might think it was those shouts that woke the bear, but that's not what happened. After all, Obama enjoyed stunning popularity when he entered the Oval Office.
NO, IT WASN'T WORDS BUT DEEDS THAT ROUSED THE BEAST. THE POORLY CRAFTED, DEEPLY PARTISAN STIMULUS WAS LIKE A SHARP STICK TO THE BEAR'S BELLY. BUT IT WAS "OBAMACARE" THAT ENDED THE HIBERNATION….
That's from one of my favorite scenes in "Anchorman." In the Oscar-robbed film, Ron Burgundy (played by Will Ferrell) loudly leaps into a bear pit to rescue his girlfriend and then falsely blames her for waking them up.
Watching President Obama these days reminds me of that scene.
IN MARCH 2010, LIBERAL COLUMNIST PETER BEINART ARGUED THAT, FOR DECADES, DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS TREATED AMERICA'S INNATE CONSERVATISM LIKE A SLUMBERING BEAR: If you make no sudden moves and talk quietly, you can get a lot done. But if you wake the bear, as Democrats did in the late 1960s and early '70s, the ursine silent majority will punish you.
But OBAMA PROMISED TO CHANGE THAT. He was tired of the timid, almost apologetic talk. He was going to be an FDR, or at least a Reagan for liberalism. He was going to "fundamentally transform" the country. And to those who counseled that Democrats can't govern that way, Obama and his followers responded with shouts of "Yes, we can!"
You might think it was those shouts that woke the bear, but that's not what happened. After all, Obama enjoyed stunning popularity when he entered the Oval Office.
NO, IT WASN'T WORDS BUT DEEDS THAT ROUSED THE BEAST. THE POORLY CRAFTED, DEEPLY PARTISAN STIMULUS WAS LIKE A SHARP STICK TO THE BEAR'S BELLY. BUT IT WAS "OBAMACARE" THAT ENDED THE HIBERNATION….
Jonah Goldberg is a fun writer to read. In this column he nails what happened with Obama.
Attackwatch.com Is a Joke
This video has been around for a while and people keep changing the translation. This is a hilarious look at Hitler views on Obama’s Attackwatch.com website.
Wind Power's Political Payoff
Scandal: Our ever-campaigning president heads off to a fundraiser held by a politically connected businessman whose company took a $100 million stimulus tax credit. SOLYNDRA DIDN'T STOP PAY-FOR-PLAY THE "CHICAGO WAY."
Tone-deaf somehow does not seem adequate to describe President Obama's silent indifference to the Solyndra scandal of his making as he rushes off to another fundraiser, a $25,000 per person affair in Missouri on Oct. 4 organized by another beneficiary of our stimulus tax dollars.
TOM CARNAHAN, of the Missouri Carnahans, arguably that state's most prominent political family, is listed on President Obama's campaign website AS A HOST OF THE ST. LOUIS FUNDRAISING EXTRAVAGANZA AMID WIDESPREAD UNEMPLOYMENT AND TANKING MARKETS.
COINCIDENTALLY, OF COURSE, CARNAHAN'S ENERGY DEVELOPMENT FIRM, WIND CAPITAL GROUP, IS THE RECIPIENT OF A $107 MILLION FEDERAL TAX CREDIT TO DEVELOP A WIND POWER FACILITY IN HIS STATE.
We know that people support candidates who tend to share their interests and beliefs, and that an appearance of impropriety may be only that — an appearance of one. But there's a disturbing pattern here of an administration picking winners and losers, with an emphasis on losers who happen also to be donors.
There is something unseemly about politicians putting the tax payers’ money where their vested interest lies. I guess there’s no “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” in the Democratic quote book.
Obama Scandal Update: Solyndra
…My company was a vendor for Solyndra from 2008 to 2010. We built machine components both directly for Solyndra and indirectly for their third party assembly machine builders. In total we did about $500,000 worth of business with them during this time. It's not a lot given the scale of their business, but WE GAINED A LOT OF INSIGHT ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS MODEL FROM THE SHOP FLOOR LEVEL DURING OUR VISITS TO INSTALL AND SERVICE EQUIPMENT.
What we saw on THE PRODUCTION FLOOR WAS TOTAL CHAOS! Nobody knew what was going on. Their assembly lines were way too ambitious and complex, difficult to setup and maintain. I PERSONALLY SPENT A DAY ON THEIR PRODUCTION FLOOR AND I DON'T THINK THEY GOT MORE THAN AN HOUR'S WORTH OF PARTS OUT OF AN 8 HOUR SHIFT. We built about $100,000 worth of components for them that never went into production because they kept changing the plan.
At least we got paid in full. And when they lost faith in the abilities of their US based machine builders they contracted with a European builder for an even more ambitious and complex machine. The last thing I heard was that the machine never worked and they were in litigation to get their down payment money back.
I distinctly remember a conversation that I had with a Solyndra engineer in 2009. He was complaining about how messed up (not his words) things were in his department. SOMEHOW THEY HAD MISPLACED $50,000 WORTH OF SENSORS, EITHER THROUGH THEFT OR INCOMPETENCE, AND THAT HE NEEDED TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE ORDER. I got the feeling that things like this were happening accross the board. That's how you spend so much money in such a short period of time. It's too bad for the employees. We worked with some very bright and dedicated people, but they got no support from the top. The investigations need to continue, both for their sake and for the sake of the taxpayers…
What we saw on THE PRODUCTION FLOOR WAS TOTAL CHAOS! Nobody knew what was going on. Their assembly lines were way too ambitious and complex, difficult to setup and maintain. I PERSONALLY SPENT A DAY ON THEIR PRODUCTION FLOOR AND I DON'T THINK THEY GOT MORE THAN AN HOUR'S WORTH OF PARTS OUT OF AN 8 HOUR SHIFT. We built about $100,000 worth of components for them that never went into production because they kept changing the plan.
At least we got paid in full. And when they lost faith in the abilities of their US based machine builders they contracted with a European builder for an even more ambitious and complex machine. The last thing I heard was that the machine never worked and they were in litigation to get their down payment money back.
I distinctly remember a conversation that I had with a Solyndra engineer in 2009. He was complaining about how messed up (not his words) things were in his department. SOMEHOW THEY HAD MISPLACED $50,000 WORTH OF SENSORS, EITHER THROUGH THEFT OR INCOMPETENCE, AND THAT HE NEEDED TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE ORDER. I got the feeling that things like this were happening accross the board. That's how you spend so much money in such a short period of time. It's too bad for the employees. We worked with some very bright and dedicated people, but they got no support from the top. The investigations need to continue, both for their sake and for the sake of the taxpayers…
I have a background in manufacturing and have seen government inspectors at work (FDA). They never come to the manufacturing floor, but rely on reading paperwork. We literally could have had rats running around the clean room and unless someone noted it on some report, they never would have found out.
Obama Was Warned About Solyndra
In a detailed story overnight, The Times' Tom Hamburg, Kim Geiger and Matea Gold outline the danger signals set off in October 2010 when SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TIM GEITHNER AND CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISOR LAWRENCE SUMMERS WARNED THE PRESIDENT THAT ENERGY'S VETTING PROCESS WAS NOT STRINGENT ENOUGH TO WEED OUT TROUBLED APPLICANTS IN ADVANCE.
Energy Secy. STEVEN CHU, who like Obama holds a Nobel Prize, WAS EAGER TO PUSH THROUGH APPLICATIONS BY 30 COMPANIES FOR THE PROGRAM'S $17 BILLION. HE WANTED EVEN LESS OVERSIGHT FROM TREASURY.
The story has developed legs for two reasons:
One, it hints at possible HIGH-LEVEL POLITICAL FAVORITISM using taxpayer dollars in risky ventures with well-connected business people, what some have labeled "crony capitalism."
And, two, it's a classic example of the fundamental ongoing D.C. DEBATE OVER GOVERNMENT'S PROPER ROLE IN THE ECONOMY and the financial dangers to taxpayer funds inherent when officials and bureaucrats, not free market forces, pick corporate winners and losers.
This scandal has legs. The more we learn, the worse the Obama Administration seems.
Divorce Blue State or Red State Style
In August of this year, the US CENSUS BUREAU RELEASED A REPORT ON DIVORCE RATES IN THE DIFFERENT STATES OF AMERICA. IT WAS WIDELY REPORTED IN THE MEDIA THAT PEOPLE WERE MORE LIKELY TO DIVORCE IN THE BIBLE BELT STATES THAN IN THE LIBERAL NORTHEAST.
At the time I accepted the statistics. I believed that people in the northeast were less likely to marry as teenagers and more likely to have higher incomes and higher education and that this explained the difference…
At the time I accepted the statistics. I believed that people in the northeast were less likely to marry as teenagers and more likely to have higher incomes and higher education and that this explained the difference…
… But THEN I CAME ACROSS ANOTHER STATISTIC, NAMELY THAT 28% OF THOSE DIVORCED IDENTIFIED AS CONSERVATIVE, 33% AS MODERATE AND 37% AS LIBERAL. It didn't make sense. If those in the liberal states have the lowest rate of divorce, then why do those who identify as liberal have a much higher rate of divorce?
So I went back to the original source. And to my surprise I found that the divorce statistics had been misrepresented in most of the mainstream media. IT TURNS OUT THAT WHAT WAS BEING COMPARED WAS THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES PER 1000 PEOPLE IN EACH STATE RATHER THAN THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES PER 1000 MARRIED COUPLES…
So I went back to the original source. And to my surprise I found that the divorce statistics had been misrepresented in most of the mainstream media. IT TURNS OUT THAT WHAT WAS BEING COMPARED WAS THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES PER 1000 PEOPLE IN EACH STATE RATHER THAN THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES PER 1000 MARRIED COUPLES…
The article goes on to compare marriage RATES in blue states and red states and finds that red states have more marriages. So we can honestly say that blue states singles divorce less frequently than red states married couples.
No comments:
Post a Comment