Just Mau Mau the Flack-Catchers!
Just Mau Mau the Flack-Catchers!
Obama may just have to play straight man for those around him... think Abbott, Hardy, VanDyke, Seinfeld.
The Way We Should See McCain and Palin From Now On:
Maverick Personality Disorder: A New Diagnosis
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/maverick-personality-disorder.html
A bunch of boring comments on an article about humor! I think Obama just doesn't provide a clear angle to pick on, apart from his ears, which really aren't that funny. Just big. When he becomes president, satirists will find something.
The Kennedy tax cut.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm
About half way through the article.
"President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue--adjusted for inflation--increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year . In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.
The Kennedy tax cut set the example that President Ronald Reagan would follow some 17 years later. By increasing incentives to work, produce, and invest, real GDP growth increased in the years following the tax cuts: More people worked, and the tax base expanded. Additionally, the expenditure side of the budget benefited as well because the unemployment rate was significantly reduced.
Using the Congressional Budget Office's revenue forecasts (made with the full knowledge of the future tax cuts), revenues came in much higher than had been anticipated, even after the "cost""of the tax cut had been taken into account. Additionally, in 1965--one year following the tax cut--personal income tax revenue data exceeded expectations by the greatest amounts in the highest income classes.
Testifying before Congress in 1977, Walter Heller, President Kenned''s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, summarized:
What happened to the tax cut in 1965 is difficult to pin down, but insofar as we are able to isolate it, it did seem to have a tremendously stimulative effect, a multiplied effect on the economy. It was the major factor that led to our running a $3 billion surplus by the middle of 1965 before escalation in Vietnam struck us. It was a $12 billion tax cut, which would be about $33 or $34 billion in today's terms, and within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut.
Did the tax cut pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did."
Why wouldn't they, the media have. It is pathetic how the media portrayed hillary, mccain, and palin and would not touch obama. Nothing about his campaign has been fair. I'm sure, this is no laughing matter to obama. http://www.americasright.com/2008/09/obama-dnc-file-motion-to-dismiss-in.html. http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/berg-v-obama-update-monday-october-6.html Could obama be trying to conceal his ineligibility to run for presidency. What do you think?
OMG anyone who believes that Sean Hannity actually has a news worth show, now that is funny. I would guess that Rush would be your hero to huh? Bloated, pill popping, fat head racist. Like Bill O' Reilly, saying that his shows rating have been fixed by Obama, yes the he had sooo much to with it. Maybe people just got sick of listening to BS & whining from all the republicans trying to cast blame.Don't know & Don't care.
Hey everyone...I hear all sorts of things about Obama...like his "Associations" with folks like of Ayres, and then there's Khalidi and then a guy named Michael Klonsky and Rezko and then the religious dudes Flager and Reve Wright... and someone told me that while living in Hawaii his mentor was a guy name Fank Marshall Davis Gonna watch Sun(oct26) 9ET on Foxnews Sean Hannity's show on Obama to understand more and see if I agree with the polls.
going to watch hannity to find out fare balanced info. It is obvious you have already made up your mind. As far as the poles, those are from a cross section of society, most of whom actually do research proving most of your concerns false and the rest irrelevant.
Nobody had a problem when SNL had Eddy Murphy do an impression known as "Buttwheat", big deal. I don't think anyone would object to any satire of Obama. Pailn & McCain have offered up to much laughable material. Everyone including on this blog is worried about being PC. Hell I could do a whole 5 min bit on just his ears alone. But, right now everyone is worried about the future. BTW loriw, if you already voted, you need to simmmer.
This was an issue with Bill Clinton as well. Remember in the early Phil Hartman days of the Clinton Administration they portrayed Clinton as a glutton (the skit where he goes to meet the electorate, but ends up eating everyone's leftovers). Cast members admit that they didn't really have anything to pin on Clinton. Obviously that changed with Lewinski, and thus the funny was born with Clinton. I am sure Obama will give us the funny in due time (if he gets elected.)
After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.
Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 TRILLION of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.
Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.
Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.
Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.
And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.
In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w
After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.
Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 TRILLION of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.
Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.
Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.
Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.
And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.
In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w
After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.
Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 TRILLION of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.
Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.
Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.
Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.
And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.
In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w
People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.
In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.
But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.
Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.
The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.
If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.
Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.
What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.
People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.
In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.
But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.
Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.
The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.
If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.
Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.
What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.
Obama in this video is campaigning at a convention of Acorn and I believe two other Community Activist's organizations. Ask if he will be their ally if he becomes President and pledge to meet with leaders of Acorn and the others present at the convention in his first year, Obama says, quote:
"Yes, but let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we are going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda."
See and hear it for yourself. Obama has promised that Acorn and other groups like it will a part of his transition and setting his agenda if elected:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
NowfortheHALFtruth, that Newsweek article you link states that the Fannie/Freddie regulation was killed by a group of REPUBLICANS who were "in the tank" with the lobbying company. It also states that McCain was NOT one of them, that McCain tried to get this legislation brought to a vote, but that the other Republicans tabled it without voting. This article does NOT say that the Democrats were part of the group that was in cahoots with the lobbyists. You made that up.
And the Wall Street Journal article that you reference has NOTHING to do with your blog. Just trying to manipulate people, aren't you? Most readers don't know that your links almost never lead to pertinent articles. In fact, your links often REFUTE what you are saying.
That WSJ article you quote says that there hasn't been a liberal Democrat majority in Washington since 1965, and before that, 1933. This is historically true. Other assumptions made in the article (especially vis a vis Medicare) are just that, assumptions made by a conservative Republican paper concerned about losing power.
For those readers who can think for themselves, think back to 1965. Kennedy and the Civil Rights movement. A pivotal time in our history, one we can all be proud of. And 1933, when FDR gave us the New Deal and turned around the Great Depression. If you think about the past century, the only two times that we have had a liberal Democrat majority, America got STRONGER and BETTER.
Obama '08
What do you really know about Obama's economic philosophy? Since he has never run a town, state or business, he has no record to look at. Oh, he has made lots of promises, but given that he broke his promise to be limited to public campaign funds, you cant put much faith in that, and there will be no means to keep those promises anyway.
But you do know that Obama, along with his democratic buddies in Congress, personally and professionally advocated for a residential housing policy favoring forced sub-prime lending, which subsequently resulted in massive defaults and foreclosures, leading to your loss of significant equity value in your home, to the point that it destabilized your banks, which panicked the stock market, which wiped out your savings.
Look and listen to Obama for yourself. Obama in this video, addressing his community activist work and his work representing ACORN in litigation against the banks and relating to the Community Reinvestment Act, and addressing the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as those actions relate to the destruction of our economy by causing the current real estate and subsequent financial crisis, states that, and I quote:
"Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."
Acknowledging the catastrophe, but as apologist for the Democrats, Obama then offers this justification.
"The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."
Yah, great idea. Economically unsound, but embraced by Obama. Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
NowfortheHALFtruth, that Newsweek article you link states that the Fannie/Freddie regulation was killed by a group of REPUBLICANS who were "in the tank" with the lobbying company. It also states that McCain was NOT one of them, that McCain tried to get this legislation brought to a vote, but that the other Republicans tabled it without voting. This article does NOT say that the Democrats were part of the group that was in cahoots with the lobbyists. You made that up.
And the Wall Street Journal article that you reference has NOTHING to do with your blog. Just trying to manipulate people, aren't you? Most readers don't know that your links almost never lead to pertinent articles. In fact, your links often REFUTE what you are saying.
That WSJ article you quote says that there hasn't been a liberal Democrat majority in Washington since 1965, and before that, 1933. This is historically true. Other assumptions made in the article (especially vis a vis Medicare) are just that, assumptions made by a conservative Republican paper concerned about losing power.
For those readers who can think for themselves, think back to 1965. Kennedy and the Civil Rights movement. A pivotal time in our history, one we can all be proud of. And 1933, when FDR gave us the New Deal and turned around the Great Depression. If you think about the past century, the only two times that we have had a liberal Democrat majority, America got STRONGER and BETTER.
Obama '08
NowfortheHALFtruth, that Newsweek article you link states that the Fannie/Freddie regulation was killed by a group of REPUBLICANS who were "in the tank" with the lobbying company. It also states that McCain was NOT one of them, that McCain tried to get this legislation brought to a vote, but that the other Republicans tabled it without voting. This article does NOT say that the Democrats were part of the group that was in cahoots with the lobbyists. You made that up.
And the Wall Street Journal article that you reference has NOTHING to do with your blog. Just trying to manipulate people, aren't you? Most readers don't know that your links almost never lead to pertinent articles. In fact, your links often REFUTE what you are saying.
That WSJ article you quote says that there hasn't been a liberal Democrat majority in Washington since 1965, and before that, 1933. This is historically true. Other assumptions made in the article (especially vis a vis Medicare) are just that, assumptions made by a conservative Republican paper concerned about losing power.
For those readers who can think for themselves, think back to 1965. Kennedy and the Civil Rights movement. A pivotal time in our history, one we can all be proud of. And 1933, when FDR gave us the New Deal and turned around the Great Depression. If you think about the past century, the only two times that we have had a liberal Democrat majority, America got STRONGER and BETTER.
Obama '08
And what about McCain's Nazi and Latin death swad ties. Do a search, its well documented (its on foxnews.com also).
the U.S. Council for World Freedom
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/07/mccain_and_the_us_council_for.html
McCain has these ties. However, Obama has not exploited them because supposedly McCain has changed. That is integrity from Obama. McCain has no integrity.
Yes We Can
See Barney Franks comments on the news, including face the nation last week, stating that Democrats in Congress intend to greatly raise taxes and go on a spending spree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGnSAlqjoU
See http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html
And again what was Frank saying at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. in 2005 to fix Fannie and Freddie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
So which party is really is the liar that soaked the American people?
See also: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/politics/main2335631.shtml
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss