Oct 2, 2012 4:55 PM
- RELATED ARTICLES
- > U.S. Representative Tim Bishop Victorious In Re-Election Bid Nov 8, 2012 9:03 AM
- > UPDATE: Altschuler Concedes Race To Bishop Nov 7, 2012 12:30 AM
- > Campaign Diary: Bishop and Altschuler Debate in Westhampton Beach; Bishop Earns Endorsements Nov 2, 2012 12:42 PM
- > Altschuler Takes A Second Shot At Congress Nov 2, 2012 12:42 PM
- > Bishop Seeks Sixth Term In Congress Nov 2, 2012 12:42 PM
more
Ethics and outsourcing—two issues that have driven negative campaign ads from Democrat U.S. Representative Tim Bishop and Republican challenger Randy Altschuler this election—caused sparks to fly between the two at a debate in Riverhead last Thursday night.
The two participated in a 90-minute debate cosponsored by Times/Review News Group of Riverhead and the The Press News Group of Southampton, held at the Vail-Leavitt Music Hall. The first half of the debate centered on President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known politically as “Obamacare.” The second half was driven by questions from the audience, which focused on Mr. Bishop’s ethics and Mr. Altschuler’s past business practices. Also discussed were bipartisanship, President Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as well as foreign policy.
Outsourcing... more
The two participated in a 90-minute debate cosponsored by Times/Review News Group of Riverhead and the The Press News Group of Southampton, held at the Vail-Leavitt Music Hall. The first half of the debate centered on President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known politically as “Obamacare.” The second half was driven by questions from the audience, which focused on Mr. Bishop’s ethics and Mr. Altschuler’s past business practices. Also discussed were bipartisanship, President Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as well as foreign policy.
Outsourcing... more
We didn't blow up the economy.
We didn't blow up the banking system.
We didn't use calculus to detonate a fiscal fusion bomb.
But "We, the people", and the rest of the world are paying for those mistakes.
Go Bishop!!
Let's protect our women, our seniors, our environment, our veterans, and our students by reelecting our distinguished Congressman, Tim Bishop.
"In India, you get a much higher standard of person."
And this is the person for whom you encourage Americans to vote?
Pick your poison . . . but cheer-leading for outsourcing is far worse than using products which contain outsourced components.
America was founded upon the mom and pop businesses that rose up after the exportation/stolen ideas from across the pond when they landed on the rock. Rockerfeller? J.P. Morgan? The list goes on and on. These world renowned businesses started it all from humble roots and transatlantic escape from the crown.
Remember North Fork bank? he was bought out by Capital One (very recently) and now we no longer have a local bank ...more with local roots and a local feel to put our money. Now, it's fees upon fees to no end in sight.
If you feel comfortable with that fact, g'head. No one will stop you. But I drive a Saab, write this reply from a an HP, have my own garden and resourse it's yield into my family. I keep my life local... I keep my life to the American regard that I grew up with after my family was liberated out of Auchwicz (polish sp). Hell, if it were legal, I'd butcher my own livestock in my backyard like my grandmother did to make my own kielbasa.
If Affordable Care circa 2014 were law NOW, she could buy a policy that cost less than $600/yr. (and that $$3K hospital bill would be reduced to under $$1K by the "contractual agreements" that all hospitals have will all insurance companies. [It's only the uninsured that pay the stratospheric "list price".])
There are lots of things wrong with Affordable Care to make it overpriced and inefficient, but it is a needed lifeline to the young and the poor.
Establishment centimillionaires like Romney and self-made centimillionaires like Altschuler just don't see that need.
So it might appear to the ignorant, callous and solipsistic. Others recognize that young adulthood is a perilous time and try to ease the burdens of those they love (and all their young countrymen) as they navigate their beginnings.
Affordable Care will do so nationwide.
Any argument to compassion will fail with reactionaries. One might as well attempt to engage the color-blind in a discussion of the spectrum. The upcoming Republican electoral debacle is due largely to the electorate's realization that Republican extremists have no political ideology beyond MEANNESS, as you have repeatedly illustrated.
Your ignorance never forestalls you from inanity. You seize on any pretext as sanction for your meanness. Fortunately, that inherent characteristic of the extreme right has been noted by people of normal conscience and will be reflected in the November vote.
It's acceptable to viciously mock Sarah Palin's children. It's acceptable to mock Mitt Romney's religion.
When someone gives you the slightest taste of the hateful left's bile in return, you'll immediately cry for "civility".
Rules for Radicals, the tactical bible of the left, has attacking individuals as one of it's prime directives. Although it acknowledges that some people of concience might find it distasteful, it can be justified ...more because it's easier to inflictr pain on individuals instead of organizations. Extreme, overt examples of this behavior are obvious to everyone who pays attention.
And the country has fared SO well since our progressive tax system was decimated....
Let's be clear here HHS - if you are so worried about your "young" relative perhaps you should just pay the bill FOR HER HHS -- on your credit card? maybe a HELOC? cash from your own retirement fund? maybe YOU should work a second job instead ...more of her? and work out a "reasonable" payment plan amongst yoursellves because, after all, she CAN work, right?, other wise she may be eligible for "relief" from the hospital or could seek help from the NUMEROUS charities which offer help to locals and those who truly are in need to help pay medical costs. Not to mention the hospital's "non-insured" forgiveness plan (that she may/may not be eligible for).
Which, by the way, how everyone else "pays" for their health insurance/medical bills here. But, apparently, you don't have a second thought about asking me, as another resident without helathcare insurance, and a small businessman, to pay her bill without first looking in your wallet first. Man up HHS and stop whining ... Yeah, Meow.
Ignorantly, you have created a fantasy out of whole cloth to which you then address your argument.
The truth is that extremist reactionaries have only one thing to say, which they say over and over: "I don't want to spend any of my money on anyone but myself." For certain reactionaries, this selfishness needs no validation, since they see it as a virtue. Others, possibly due to the lingering effects of being raised in a tradition of compassion, see the need ...more to cloak their avarice in the mantle of, "the public good". Thus, they don't want to spend their money on health care for the young because it is, "bad for youthful character", or, "their families should pay for it, or, "the sky is falling." (Oddly. while they are irate at the violation of their presumptive constitutional right to keep all their money, they have no problem ignoring several actual rights and siccing the uterus police on their countrywomen [whether THEY like it or not.])
The profound meanness of the right-wing is most obvious in psychopaths like Altschuler who actually sold out his countrymen, and Romney who bankrupted a steel company, threw 750 steelworkers out of work and took a $100M profit. However, it is manifest as well in the posts of extremist Republicans on this forum, in thought if not (one hopes) in deed.
To understand their motivation, one need only append the above phrase, "[Moreover,] I don't want to spend any of my money on anyone but myself", to any argument that they make about the commonweal. (Apologies to Cato.) Fortunately, the electorate is becoming more and more repelled by their candidates' callous covetousness.
to Reality First:
Do you mean to suggest by your ambiguous post that I made fun of Sara Palin's children or mocked the Latter-Day Saints?. If so, that assertion is absolutely untrue. An unwarranted attack of this sort is much more likely to come from such Republicans as were the subject of the Brock University, Ontario study.
Nicely stated and annotated.
I too think President Obama's Affordable Care Act has some positive aspects: kids having the option of staying on their parent's policy until they are 26 and insurance companies being mandated to insure people with preexsting conditions.
As you said, the affordable care act has some problems, but many good minds went into creating a compassionate and decent piece of legislation.
Perhaps when the election is over, the ...more president can work with some middle of the road Senators to reduce cost and increase efficiency.
They go to the only real option they have who can't dismiss their responsiblity with creative lawyering and a massive amount of coin.
Joe Q. Public.
Philathome supports partial birth abortions. Lets be clear, that's an induced birth of a live baby, who then has a needle inserted into their brain to kill them. As long as a one toe remains in the birth canal, it's "just a bunch of cells" to phil and his ilk...crying and all. Remember that.
By the way, for those of you who oppose such atroocities, you are are guilty of "restricting a woman's rights".
Reality First is a liar.
He is once again making projections about somebody elses' beleifs.
He is unstable and needs help.
Bishop Baby. Yes WE Will!
There are probably 20-30 new members here per day..
I said that.Go back and read it again.It is two (2) posts above.
It speaks to the utter moral bankruptcy of the left wing base of the Democratic party.
""CREW’s Most Corrupt"
CREW has published seven annual reports since 2005 of the politicians that CREW identifies as the most corrupt members of Congress. The 2005 report included 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats;[12] the 2006 report included 17 Republicans and 3 Democrats;[13] the 2007 report included 18 Republicans and 4 Democrats;[14] the 2008 report included 17 Republicans and 7 Democrats;[15] the 2009 report ...more included 7 Republicans and 8 Democrats;[16] the 2010 report included 16 Republicans and 10 Democrats;[17] the 2011 report included 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.[18] The 2012 report included 13 Republicans and 7 Democrats.[19]"
looks like the republicans are winning,99-41
Tim Bisops name on the list is based on the fireworks dispute,which has yet to be resolved.
Looks like some have him convicted based on hearsay evidence before the congress investigates.
It's a good thing that jurors are examined;we wouldn't want anyone unstable enough to make unfounded accusations like some here do to have anyones life or livliehood in their hands.
PHIL As usual you think whatever a Democrat does is ok. If there are crooked Republicans they need too be ...more removed. But our Congressman Bishop is a crook giving his daughter 170k a year to collect money is an outrage. Soliciting 10k for a favor is pure criminal. \
Then my favorite issue is you think its ok to stick a needle in a babies brain of an unwanted baby. Maybe you should witness the small removed body that comes out of the womb. Maybe you should have your eye balls 2 inches from the body and tell us if its a baby. Liberals are fools who are ruining morals and ethics in this country.
The emotional argument you make is to graphically describe a procedure that only takes place a fraction of a percentage of the time.
We get it-you don't like abortion.So,if the need ever arises,don't have one.
But don't deny other women the right to make that choice just because you wouldn't.
It'll take another term to begin to fix it,then two more democratic presidential terms after that.
Altschuler outsourced American jobs. He is part of the problem.
Biodiesel is the future, and I can't wait to start making it from toilet waste.
He can start with yours.
With the damnable citation to authority removed, what I said was that the accusation that Obama has outsourced jobs is false. "Outsourced" jobs are jobs that were formerly filled by Americans or could prospectively be filled by them. No such jobs were transferred overseas ...more by the Stimulus.
In addition, Republican propaganda has repeatedly misled the public as to the magnitude of the overseas spending of Stimulus moneys. Fact-check.org pointed this out long ago. Proportionally, it is quite small.
~ Stephen Hawking
Why do we give billions to people who obama said under his presidency will respect us, (FAIL!) Because he said he understands there ways better than us who have lived here all our life. (ROTFLMAO) The same people who continue to plot to murder us. Arab spring my azz.
Birtherism?
Come on,Joe.You sound like a lunatic.
He who has the gold, makes the rules...
"Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break you're a smart businessman,
but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a moocher?"
And no, I am not speaking of people with cancer or other diseases they cannot control. I am speaking of those who are overweight, who smoke, who drink to excess, who do not exercise and take no personal responsibility for their well being. Typical medical ...more issues, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, chronic kidney and liver problems. These conditions require medication, surgery, frequent tests and physician visits, all of which are expensive but could be avoided or reduced with slight changes in lifestyle.
Such people may have insurance, but the costs associated with treating them are overwhelming, so everyone's premiums are raised and hospitals/physicians lose tons of money treating them because of severly reduced reimbursement rates from Medicare/Medicaid.
Please save your responses about liberty and personal freedom, blah, blah, blah. Yes, you have right to drink 23 large sugary sodas every day and smoke three packs a day, but if you don't want the government involved in your life, then when you need surgery because of your lifestyle choices, dont come crying to government programs to pay for your medical care, you cannot have it both ways.
Every politican knows this, but they will never tell voters to behave responsibly because then they get voted out of office.
And no, I am not speaking of people with cancer or other diseases they cannot control. I am speaking of those who are overweight, who smoke, who drink to excess, who do not exercise and take no personal responsibility for their well being. Typical medical ...more issues, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, chronic kidney and liver problems. These conditions require medication, surgery, frequent tests and physician visits, all of which are expensive but could be avoided or reduced with slight changes in lifestyle.
Such people may have insurance, but the costs associated with treating them are overwhelming, so everyone's premiums are raised and hospitals/physicians lose tons of money treating them because of severly reduced reimbursement rates from Medicare/Medicaid.
Please save your responses about liberty and personal freedom, blah, blah, blah. Yes, you have right to drink 23 large sugary sodas every day and smoke three packs a day, but if you don't want the government involved in your life, then when you need surgery because of your lifestyle choices, dont come crying to government programs to pay for your medical care, you cannot have it both ways.
Every politican knows this, but they will never tell voters to behave responsibly because then they get voted out of office.
Persevering in your ignorance, you have created a fictitious case and arrive at erroneous conclusions formed by false assumptions and misconceptions. You then cite your errors as universal truths in your apology, to wit, that young people are irresponsible; that families don't take care of their own; and that the young have all the health care they need. Ergo, you conclude, it is inappropriate to require you to spend your money on anyone other than yourself. Stripped ...more of your inane attempt at self-justification, you are revealed as simply another mean Republican extremist whose hard-hearted parsimony is epitomized in her candidates.
Fortunately for the young, they need not depend on your conception of "charity". Just how destitute and degraded would their lives otherwise have to become before someone capable of such puerile, self-serving rationalizations would consider them sufficiently "needful" to crack open her purse?
The one from 2007 when he pointed out that Bush was still ignoring the aftermath of Katrina? The one that the right is screeching about because Obama sounds "black"?
That was released as a continuation of the racist narrative the right uses to attack Obama by Drudge.Hannity grabbed it,trying to make it sound like it was some kind of 'revelation'.
Epic fail
And,naturally,you ate it right up. The right is panicking because Romney turned out to be a ...more very bad candidate,Ryan has actually hurt the ticket (especially now that it was revealed that he made comments similar to Romney's 47% comments) .
Jack Welch:
'Romney Is the Most Qualified Leader I've Ever Seen Run for President'
Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch on Monday said, "In my lifetime, Mitt Romney is the most qualified leader I've ever seen run for the Presidency of the United States."
Appearing on CNBC's Squawk Box, Welch included John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama in this analysis after discussing ...more Romney's Harvard degrees, Welch addressed the Republican presidential candidate's building of Bain Capital, how he saved the Olympics after 9/11, won the governorship of Massachusetts, and solved that state's budget problems.
"We haven't had anybody do all these things," said Welch. "You think Richard Nixon did that? Do you think Bill Clinton had those credentials?"
Welch continued, "Certainly Barack Obama didn't have those credentials. Two years in the Senate. I mean, come on."
That was the jist of the speech-a speech,by the way,that has been available for viewing for over 5 years,and one that McCain refused to make an issue of in the 2008 elections because it was below him.(But Fox "news" and Drudge were sure quick to latch onto it).
We know why you disliked it so much.
He was addressing the truth.
More like the curse of incompetency. Obama is nothing but a community organizer and will always be just that. Mitt Romney is a responsible grown-up. I don't know why anyone would believe that teleprompter obama can speak about anything with any knowledge - except maybe about golf.
Romney called 47% of the people in this country parasites.
That includes military families,the eldrly and the disabled,as well as the poor.
He has no concience.
You know about that,don't you?
I never used the word "ban", nor do we need the government monitoring or enforcing what we eat, drink and do. That should be left to the individual. Why is it that the only solution is to have government regulate? That never works, and creates more questions than answers. But, along with individual freedom comes individual responsibility, can't have one without the other, no way, no how.
The simple solution, regulate your own behavior, why? Because, it only benefits ...more you! Cut back (notice, I did not say ban or outlaw) on the smokes, drinks, bad food and get some exercise and you may notice you need less trips to the doctor, less medication. Why, we as a society ignore preventative health care is a mystery.
Getting off my soapbox now..................
He left them there to die.
It's what republicans do to minorities.
You should know that-your a epublican.
The Democratic Gov (K. Blanco ) did would NOT ask for help and had a we don't need help from D.C. attitude, later blameing GWB for their own faults ... GWB had to FORCE the help onto them... as always Dems and MSM rewrite history they don't like. The fact is within four days of Katrina’s ...more landfall on Monday, Aug. 29, 2005, then-President George W. Bush signed a $10.4 billion aid package and ordered 7,200 National Guard troops to the region. A few days later, he requested — and Congress approved — an additional $51.8 billion in aid.
Blanco DID ask for help,but since she didn't specifically ask for assistance in evacuations none was forthcoming.FEMA didn't offer,either.Blacks in NO weren't a priority like residents of Florida were the year before.
Bush FORCED (!) the help on them After he flew over so he could look down on New Orleans-figuratively and actually.
He wasn't too concerned about what was happening for days after it happened.
Bush and his version of FEMA let it happen.
The provisions sent to the Superdome were insufficient and there was no plan in place to help those that were there once the hurricane had passed.
Bush should have had FEMA in place long before the hurricane made landfall.He didn't.Almost two thousand died.
Heck of a job he did.
from Snopes-
Bianco declared a state of emergency for Louisianna on August 26th
The rumors that Bianco didn't request federal aid appear to have originated with a Bush administration official.
But the right never misses a chance to distort the facts.
The moral to the story is if the captain makes a claim,research it for yourself.
He's probably lying.
They went home to dial 211...
"Investigation of State of Emergency declaration
In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA's response. During that hearing, Representative Stephen Buyer (R-IN) inquired as to why President Bush's declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines.[20] (In fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's ...more coastal parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations for Mississippi[21] and Alabama.[22]) Brown testified that this was because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her initial request for aid, a decision that he found "shocking." After the hearing, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which showed she had requested assistance for "all the southeastern parishes including the City of New Orleans" as well specifically naming 14 parishes including Jefferson, Orleans and Plaquemines."
After Chertoff and Brown dropped the ball,Brown was recalled and three days later resigned.
The acts of smebody who was doing "a heck of a job"?
He was responsible.
But,as usual,because he wasn't Obama you give him a pass.
The buck goes to the 1%.
Like most authoritarian followers,you need to push your views on others and can't stand when someone offers a different view that is valid.
2-If you work for a living here, you are not below the poverty level.
3 All I want from the government is a strong military to protectthis great nation, other than that, the government is the problem, not the solution.
2-You're saying that every employer here is paying a wage that is sufficient to support a family just because we live on Long Island?
Then why are there people living in basements,motels and in crowded houses? Why are the young still living with their parents? Why can't families starting out afford health insurance or other necessities,as ...more well as a home of their own?
3- So if the government is the problem,and the military is part of the government,your saying that the military is part of the problem. It's the right that always says that the government can't do anything right;
The problem is people like you.
Paranoia is a terrible thing.
You should at least remove your tin-foil hat before you set your hair on fire.
GET IT!?!?!?!!!
Late for work, gotta keep the 1% of the 1% happy!
God bless the billionaires that choose to live in our beautiful area!
I thank them and my employees thank them.
The rebellion that created this coountry was fueled by a class divide, and an Aristcracy which has now been surpassed in it's level. Keep sucklin' that teat of yours. I guess you think your mother's milk is better than Kool-Aid.
Either way, either drink, you're a slave to something. Now what was it...
That's right, an Aristocracy from all those tax dollars. In addition, the Seven Year's War helped make a few fortunes as well. War profiteering is an old way to benefit from human suffering It was a ruling elite that manipulated ...more Parliament, legislation, and politics with their "fortunes". My, how things have changed.
Maybe you need to dig a little deeper than the pathetic fluff you learned in shcool that was considered your education in History. 'Cause it looks from here you don't know jack about the Revolution. Our Founding Fathers should be spinning in their graves these days from unlimited coroporate charter alone. Daily life is the key to understanding history, not big dates, and basic facts.
"Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor and the rich get rich
That’s how it goes, everybody knows."
~ Don Henley
What did you expect? "Welcome sonny," "Make yourself at home," "Marry my daughter." You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons.
~ Gene Wilder, "Blazing Saddles"
Taxes are just one slice of the pie. You can add corporate explotiation, government exploitation, and military exploitation to the list.
The rebellion was about OPRESSION, in multiple forms including the opression levied by the English elite, or aristocracy, or whatever you want to call the power brokers of the day. Why in the name of all that's holy do you think the original charter system ...more was laid down so that coporations only had the power to conduct business, and NOTHING but commerce? Zero political influence, zero influence on public or civic society. PERIOD. Why do you think they created a Congress, and Representatives, and individual State Assemblies? This country was designed, and it's foundations laid down upon the belief that the power of a nation should lie in it's people. ALL OF THEM. Not just a privileged few.
****** that up, haven't they?
By Tim Dickinson
October 4, 2012 9:32 AM ETMitt Romney turned in a polished performance in last night's presidential debate – and revealed himself to be an accomplished and unapologetic liar. In an evening where he sought to slice and dice the president with statistics, Romney baldly misrepresented his own policy prescriptions, made up numbers to fit his attacks and buried clear contrasts with ...more the president under a heaping pile of horseshit.
Here are mendacious Mitt's five most outrageous statements:
1. "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut." Romney flatly lied about the cost of his proposal to cut income-tax rates across the board by another 20 percent (undercutting even the low rates of the Bush tax cuts). Independent economists at the Tax Policy Center have shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade.
2. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans." Romney has claimed that he will pay for his tax cuts by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions. The factual problem? Romney hasn't named a single loophole he's willing to close; worse, there's no way to offset $5 trillion in tax cuts even if you get rid of the entire universe of deductions for the wealthy that Romney has not put off the table (like the carried interest loophole or the 15 percent capital gains rate.) The Tax Policy Center report concludes that Romney's proposal would create a "net tax cut for high-income tax payers and a net tax increase for lower- and or middle-income taxpayers." Moreover, some of Romney's tax cuts are micro-targeted at American dynasties, particularly his proposal to eliminate the estate tax, which would reduce his own sons' tax burden by tens of millions of dollars.
3. "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work."
4. Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have." Romney is reviving Sarah Palin's old death panels lie here. Obamacare does establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board to help constrain the growth of Medicare spending. The body has no authority to dictate the practices of the private insurance marketplace. And the law also makes explicit that this body is banned from rationing care or limiting medical benefits to seniors.
5. "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." In the biggest whopper of the night, Romney suggested that his health care proposal would guarantee coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions. This is just not true. Under Romney, if you have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you would be shit out of luck. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and deny you coverage, as even Romney's top adviser conceded after the debate was over.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004#ixzz28epc72R3
But everyone should take your word for it.
from your friends at factcheck.org-
The growth in employer-sponsored family premiums has fluctuated in recent years. It went up just 4 percent from 2011 to 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, but it increased 9 percent the year before, a big jump from the mere 3 percent increase between 2009 and 2010. Clearly the growth rate over the last two years isn’t a 50-year ...more low — it was sitting around 5 percent from 2007 to 2009. However, the growth of health care costs is at a 50-year low for the past two years.
President Bill Clinton used this statistic, correctly, in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, also implying that the federal health care law deserved credit. But as we said then, most of the law hasn’t even been implemented yet. And experts say it’s the sluggish economy that’s mainly responsible for the slower rate of spending. As the Washington Post reported, experts with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that many lost employer-sponsored insurance when they lost their jobs, and other individuals chose to “forgo health-care services they could not afford.”
The New York Times quoted experts saying that consumers’ and medical professionals’ behavior could be changing in anticipation of the law, but it was still the economy that was the leading factor.
As for that increase in health care premiums, experts told us the federal health care law has had a limited impact on those, too, but the impact was to increase costs. They said the law was responsible for a 1 percent to 3 percent increase last year because of more generous coverage requirements.
ERIN BURNETT: Stephanie, let me ask you about that. Here at CNN, we fact checked that, that $5 trillion in tax cuts and we’ve come to–that’s not true. Mitt Romney has not promised that, because he’s also going to be closing loopholes ...more and deductions. His tax cut wouldn’t be anywhere near that size.
CUTTER: So you’re disputing the size of the tax cut? Or are you disputing also how he’s going to pay for it?
BURNETT: We’re disputing the size.
CUTTER: Erin, he has campaigned on lowering tax cuts by 20 percent for everybody, including those in the top 1 percent. That was one of the main selling points in the Republican primary.
BURNETT: So you’re saying if you lower them by 20 percent you get a $5 trillion tab, right?
CUTTER: It’s a $5 trillion tab.
BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.
CUTTER: Well, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close. It is going to cost someone and it’s going to cost the middle class. Independent economists have taken a look at this. There aren’t enough deductions for those at the top to account for the number of tax cuts that they get because of Mitt Romney’s policies. You have to raise taxes on the middle class—as Bill Clinton says, it’s simple math.
BURNETT: They’ll say, though, that you can do that. There are other studies. I know the one to which you’re referring.
CUTTER: Prove it, Erin. Prove it.
BURNETT: You can’t prove either side is all I’m saying. One thing that’s not true is the $5 trillion tax cut.
CUTTER: I disagree with you. You can prove it. They’re counting entirely on economic growth to pay for a tax cut, which is an interesting theory. That’s what George Bush did. Let’s look how that turned out.
Lame.
Tax cuts put us where we are;given the history of the trickle down theory that Romney is advocating I wouldn't trust his judgement.
He's a proven liar and flip-flopper.
Florida: Two polls — from Rasmussen and We Ask America — found Romney in the lead here on Friday by 2 and 3 points, respectively.
Virginia: The same two firms — found Romney with 1- and 3-point leads, respectively.
Colorado: After Obama slipped up in the debate at the University of Denver, he saw a big, 7-point swing in this state in a Gravis Marketing survey. Romney now leads 49-46, after trailing ...more 50-46 pre-debate.
Wisconsin: This is the big one that should worry Obama. The Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling found that Obama's lead had tightened from 7 points in its last survey to just 2 points post-debate. The reason for that is almost exclusively debate-related — 61 percent of Wisconsin voters thought Romney won the debate, compared with just 25 percent who saw Obama winning.
Rasmussen is known for innaccuracy
Never heard of the other one-what was its name-we lie for the right? might as well be.
RELIABLE polls still have Obama ahead.
So Obama will win by a smaller landslide.
Gotta love how the right questions the polls when Obama is ahead
The democrats are manipulating the polls!
Then the unemployment numbers come down
The ...more democrats manipulated the numbers!!!
ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!
Put on your tin-foil hat.
"Poll schmoll. "
Captn America (1334), Southampton on Sep 19, 12 8:41 AM
Was it a blank hanky?
Or was it a case of some hanky panky?
I'll say this: The video over at Current does not look good for Romney, and who is the guy he hands that folded paper from the rostrum to? Hankygate 2012...
The democrats are manipulating polls and fixing the unemployment numbers.
The right wants America to fail. You can read it in their posts.
Obama will do everything and anything to buy and ...more steal this election.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.Thomas Jefferson
It's a conspiracy!
Time to buy a new Tin-Foil Hat!!
The right is in PANIC MODE!!!
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled ...more Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
~ George Washington, in a letter to Edward Newenham, 1792
Your presumptions, and assinine assumptions never cease to amaze me.
As I stated, and I QUOTE: "The video over at Current does not look good for Romney"
They by far had the most comprehensive copy of the video before, and AFTER the debate was over. It really was interesting to watch Romney nervously clear the rostrum of document(s) after all the President exited the stage area. See it for yourself, otherwise pi$$ off.
Not to worry, Obama strategists said. If we hold Florida, Ohio and Virginia, we've got 332 electoral votes, way over 270. We can afford to lose the 35 electoral votes in those other five states.
But what if the firewall doesn't hold? If the big three go for Romney, Obama is down to 272. Mr. Z, If he loses one more state, he can join Al Gore on ...more CURRENT TV.
The Obama strategy didn't count on a debate performance like the one 70 million Americans watched Wednesday night.
As his dazed spin team pointed out, other incumbent presidents have stumbled in their first debates. But none ever had an instant poll report, as CNN's did, that the challenger won by a margin of 67 to 25 percent.
However, the "Young Turks" had the best show of video not only of Romney walking to the rostrum, but of Romney CLEARING the rostrum of what was apparently an 8 x 12 sheet of paper folded letter style, which he handed off to someone else after the debate.
Christ some of you really are stupid.
Come off it already Z
Rolling Stone Mike Taibbi
Robert Reich,
Current TV, Al Gore
Paul Krugman,
Young Turks,
Classic Progressive bordering on socialism Trash sources
What else is on your speed dial
Media Matters,Huffington post,and Joseph Stiglitz
We know where you stand, and it ain't upon the legs of "we're all in this together".
I'd rather be progressive, than an avaristic, selfish, self annointed, supporter of the new aristocracy with delusions of how much harder I work than everyone else on the planet.
I feel sorry for you. I really do.
An excerpt from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, to Colonel Charles Yancey. j. MSS.
Monticello, January 6, 1816
"Like a dropsical man calling ...more out for water, water, our deluded citizens are clamoring for more banks, more banks. The American mind is now in that state of fever which the world has so often seen in the history of other nations. We are under the bank bubble, as England was under the South Sea bubble, France under the Mississippi bubble, and as every nation is liable to be, under whatever bubble, design, or delusion may puff up in moments when off their guard. We are now taught to believe that legerdemain tricks upon paper can produce as solid wealth as hard labor in the earth. It is vain for common sense to urge that nothing can produce nothing ; that it is an idle dream to believe in a philosopher's stone which is to turn everything into gold, and to redeem man from the original sentence of his Maker, " in the sweat of his brow shall he eat his bread." Not Quixot enough, however, to attempt to reason Bedlam to rights, my anxieties are turned to the most practicable means of with drawing us from the ruin into which we have run. Two hundred millions of paper in the hands of the people, (and less cannot befrom the employment of a banking capital known to exceed one hundred millions,) is a fearful tax to fall at haphazard on their heads. The debt which purchased our independence was but of eighty millions, of which twenty years of taxation had in 1809 paid but the one half. And what have we purchased with this tax of two hundred millions which we are to pay by wholesale but usury, swindling, and new forms of demoralization. Revolutionary history has warned us of the probable moment when this base less trash is to receive its fiat. Whenever so much of the precious metals shall have returned into the circulation as that everyone can get some in exchange for his produce, paper, as in the revolutionary war, it will experience at once an universal rejection.
When public opinion changes, it is with the rapidity of thought. Confidence is already on the totter, and every one now handles this paper as if playing at Robin 's alive. That in the present state of the circulation the bank should resume payments in specie, would require their vaults to be like the widow's cruse. The thing to be aimed at is, that the excesses of their emissions should be withdrawn as gradually, but as speedily, too, as is practicable, without so much alarm as to bring on the crisis dreaded. Some banks are said to be calling in their paper. But ought we to let this depend on their discretion ? Is it not the duty of the legislature to avert from their constituents such a catastrophe as the extinguishment of two hundred millions of paper in their hands? The difficulty is indeed great, and the greater, because the patient revolts against all medicine. I am far from presuming to say that any plan can be relied on with certainty, because the bubble may burst from one moment to another ; but if it fails, we shall be but where we should have been without any effort to save ourselves. Different persons, doubtless, will devise different schemes of relief. One would be to suppress instantly the currency of all paper not issued under the authority of our State or of the General Government; to interdict after a few months the circulation of all bills of five dollars and under : after a few months more, all of ten dollars and under ; after other terms, those of twenty, fifty, and so on to one hundred dollars, which last, if any must be left in circulation, should be the lowest denomination. These might be a convenience in mercantile transactions and transmissions, and would be excluded by their size from ordinary circulation. But the disease may be too pressing to await such a remedy. With the legislature I cheerfully leave it to apply this medicine, or no medicine at all. I am sure their intentions are faithful ; and embarked in the same bottom, I am willing to swim or sink with my fellow citizens. If the latter is their choice, I will go down with them without a murmur. But my exhortation would rather be " not to give up the ship."
I am a great friend to the improvements of roads, canals, and schools. But I wish I could see some provision for the former as solid as that of the latter, something better than fog. The literary fund is a solid provision, unless lost in the impending bankruptcy. If the legislature would add to that a perpetual tax of a cent a head on the population of the State, it would set agoing at once, and forever maintain, a system of primary or ward schools, and an university where might be taught, in its highest degree, every branch of science useful in our time and country ; and it would rescue us from the tax of toryism, fanaticism, and indifferentism to their own State, which we now send our youth to bring from those of New England. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves ; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe. The frankness of this communication will, I am sure, suggest to you a discreet use of it. I wish to avoid all collisions of opinion with all mankind. Show it to Mr. Maury, with expressions of my great esteem. It pretends to convey no more than the opinions of one of your thousand constituents, and to claim no more attention than every other of that thousand."
Did it ever occur to you that some of my workday is performed in front of a computer?
Nah, you're to dim to figure that out. Otherwise you wouldn't make such a ridiculous, character revealing comment. I think I'll flip back to my other tabs now...
I share what I know, and learn, and I understand that may be a concept which is foreign to you. The only nonsense I see, is your perception that I whine and the apparent fact you can't absorb a post, without being distracted by a quote. In actuality, you remind of someone afflicted by ADD. If you can't tell the difference between knowledge, and drivel that's not my fault. If you ...more can't make a leap of critcal thought and reasoning, or expand your mind from some philosophy, that's not my fault either. Please don't try to make it my problem. Believe it or not, people have publicly told me they enjoy reading my posts, and I do get "Likes" now and again from many users who don't even post, they mostly read. This seems like a personal problem on your part. Please do get over it.
We know who raz is voting for.....
"When public opinion changes, ...more it is with the rapidity of thought."
~ Thomas Jefferson
The unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%
Obama's policies are working.More people finding work,even with the congressional republicans abandoning governance to obstruct.I guess they lack personal responsibility toward their constituents.
Meanwhile,Romney managed to flip-flop again today when he contradicted what he told his contributors about the Palistinians; he has now decided that its better politically to say he 'feels' for the 47%,and still hasn't explained where he's ...more going to come up with a way to pay for $5 trillion in tax cuts.
He has yet to offer details about any of his policies,especially the ones he lied about during the debate.
The only poll that matters is coming up in 29 days.
But the tin-foil hatters will say that the democrats stole that,too-even though Ohio is still strongly for Obama-as is Wisconsin,Pennsylvania,Virginia
It's a conspiracy!!!
"poll Schmoll"
Captn America (1334), Southampton on Sep 19, 12 8:41 AM
It included tax cuts,created jobs and helped lift the economy.
The Auto bailout saved the auto industry,which Romney would have let go bankrupt.
We've had how many months of private sector job growth,even with the republicans not proposing a jobs bill?
Unemployment is now at a 4-year low,too.
The stock market has doubled since Obama took office.
All bad news to cappie,because he wants the president to fail.
"Jon Hubbard, a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, has written a new book in which he says slavery was "a blessing" for African-Americans, among other questionable statements. "
"Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."
"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and ...more the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
Another rightwing nut job proposed the death penalty for rebellious children. Charlie Fuqua, a Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives, wrote that there should be a process which would permit using the death penalty on rebellious children. Although he claims he knows of no instance in the Bible, where he got his idea, of this happening he does think that by having this available it would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.
Where do they find these people?
Here,on this blog?
You still don't get it. We're still screwed no matter who wins. We're just more likely to be screwed far worse if Romney wins. It's a shame we can't re-elect Clinton, and I'm still wriiting in Ron Paul on principle. A real statement will be how Obama fares in ...more Massachussets. At last count, Romney wasn't doing so well.
Frankly, I think it should be a good fight from here on out. In case you missed it, I don't believe many people out there embody the "Spirit of '76", least of all a corporate shill, fiat debt creating, pathological liar like Mit Romney.
Don't forget about what a fickle lot the people are, if you know what's good for you...
Obama's poor performance in the debate has certainly hurt his standing but you exaggerate it by citing the ONLY poll that currently shows a lead for Romney. Obama is still ahead in the average of all polls and five points ahead in the Gallup poll that has the smallest margin of error (+/-2%)
What they don't realise is that Obama's chance of winning fell from 80% to about 75%.
It won't take long for Romney to screw up again.
New Report Exposes How the Forbes 400 Misleads About Wealth & Opportunity in the U.S.
Why:
Forbes claims that their list of the 400 richest Americans is “the definitive scorecard of wealth in America,” but the Forbes 400 does not tell the whole story.
Forbes understates the impacts of birthright and family privilege.
■Roughly 40% of the 2011 list received a significant advantage by inheriting a sizeable asset from a spouse or ...more family member.
■More than 20% received sufficient wealth to make the list from their inheritance alone.
Forbes ignores the other side of the coin — that the opportunity to build wealth is not equally shared.
■The net worth of the Forbes 400 grew fifteen-fold between the launch of the list in 1982 and 2011, while wealth stagnated for the average U.S. household.
■The racial wealth divide is starkly apparent from the overwhelming whiteness of the list. The 2011 Forbes 400 had only one African American member.
■Women accounted for just 10% of the 2011 list, and of the women on the list nearly 90% inherited their fortunes.
Tax policy is tilted in favor of the wealthy members of the Forbes 400 list.
■Tax rates on capital gains have been slashed, which especially benefits members of the Forbes list. The richest 0.1% receive half of all net increases in capital gains.
■Drastic cuts to the federal estate tax passed in the Bush tax cuts and the 2010 Obama tax deal allow the Forbes 400 to pass on more of their massive fortunes to their heirs, contributing to the growth of inequality and entrenching a class of super-wealthy heirs.
You know nothing about me.
But keep your presumptions, if they make you happy. Ignorance of history, and economics is your failure, not mine. You must have the highest quality of bliss in existence...
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
The full Swing State tracking update: A combined view of the results from 11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012. The states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 49% support to Obama’s ...more 47%. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.
Wishing you had the money e gave to charity would just be taking from those who need it more.
For the record, I would have re-donated it to an animal charity, to be used for those that truely depend on others and can't fend for themselves.
”
LOL
Don't like what he said?Give him a day,he'll change his positions.
Looks like he has the dimwit vote locked up.
Why do you desperatly want Obama to fail?
They cut over $400 million in the last 2 years.
"For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and ...more $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.)
Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security."
The republicans are doing some political grandstanding;they were the ones who cut funding that forced lax embassy security.
Jason Chaffitz admitted it on CNN.
The republicans in congress have blood on their hands.
The republicans cut the embassy security budget and Americans died because of it.
That's okay with you.
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
But,they had to set their priorities.And embassy security wasn't one of them.
Quicklink submitted by Amanda Lang
(Add your own quicklinks easily with the
OpEdNews Quick Link Browser bookmark)
SAVE AS FAVORITEVIEW FAVORITES
View Ratings | Rate It
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated ...more to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010. On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had 'voted to cut the funding for embassy security.' 'Absolutely,' Chaffetz said. For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million
And
GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security (GOP CUT EMBASSY SPENDING)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2012-10-10, 11:31PM EDT
Reply to this post Reply to: bck3k-3330740388@comm.craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security amid political attacks from Republicans that the Obama administration did not do enough to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that was attacked last month.
Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack -- which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya -- suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn't properly
secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.
But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget.
When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, "Absolutely":
O'BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?
CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country.
We have -- think about this -- 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.
And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces?
When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration.
House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.)
Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense
discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
"It's also important to note," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, "that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security."
They cut spending on embassy security.
I can post a lot more stories that tell the same tale.
CHAFFETZ: Well, you’re also talking about a vote that never came to fruition because we actually continued at the exact same funding levels moving forward. This is a vote that happened over in the House but remember the Senate never got to this point. So we did a continuing resolution. So it’s a red herring. The reality is you have prioritize things and when you’re talking about such a small, small number of security personnel, ...more they’re in country. That’s a problem.
The other thing that we’re going talk about in this hearing is the fact that the physical facilities themselves did not meet the minimum standards. And when you’re in Libya after a revolution, I’ve got to argue, that that’s got to be a higher priority than protecting some other, you know, compound in Mauritius or wherever you might be. I don’t mean to pick on them, but you’ve got to prioritize things and what clearly didn’t happen is Libya was not a priority.
I believe, what I’ve heard, is that it’s because they wanted the appearance of normalization. That’s what they wanted. That fit the Obama narrative moving forward.
"But House Republicans did not meet the president’s request for the department’s worldwide security protection program, which funds local guards ...more and security enhancements such as bollards to restrict vehicle traffic, according to an aide familiar with the debate. Embassy security, construction and maintenance funding covers structural renovations, such as increasing a building’s distance from a public road and reducing vulnerability to car bombs."
Pretty clear that the republicans in the house shortchanged embassy security,no matter how you try to spin it.
You can try to blame the administration,but I can keep posting the articles stating that the republicans cut security spending on the embassies.
The captain is holding the republican line.
He's lying.
The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate. "
Nice job.
Spinning into orbit, liberals have concocted every known excuse for the trouncing: Obama was out of practice; he expected a different Romney to show up; he experienced incumbents' "opening debate syndrome" (that's a new one); he tried to look too presidential and above the fray; he inexplicably ...more failed to exploit Romney's fallibilities (e.g. his reference to the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay federal income tax). And so on.
Most amusing was Al Gore's explanation that Obama choked because the debate was in Denver, the Mile High City. Being an expert on global warming, Gore probably knows what he is talking about when it comes to being lightheaded in thin air.
We still don't have any details about what r/r have in mind.If they have a plan,they aren't sharing it,which gives us reason to distrust them.
he had no clue about foreign policy,affirmed that
r.
/r kwould outlaw abortion
I'm shocked.
Shocked,I tell you!
Jonathan Bloom: What You Don’t Know About American Food Waste
Americans make up five percent of the world’s population, but they generate 30 percent of the globe’s trash. If that’s not shocking enough, consider this: The individual American throws away some 197 pounds of food a year—that means over 100 billion pounds of food is wasted each year, roughly enough to feed about 1.7 billion people. In his book American Wasteland: How America Throws ...more Away Nearly Half of Its Food (and What We Can Do About It), American journalist and blogger Jonathan Bloom turns his gaze on the food-waste epidemic. He speaks with TakePart's Alison Singh Gee about who and what’s to blame and how we can reduce our own waste.
Q: What is the most astounding aspect of America’s food waste? How much do we actually waste, and in which ways do we waste?
A: As a nation, we waste a full 40 percent of the food we produce. That means, from farm to fork, almost half of our food isn’t consumed. To give a sense of what that looks like, we’re wasting enough food every day to fill the Rose Bowl, that 90,000-plus-seat stadium in California.
They're the worst offenders.
REAL CLEAR POLITICS
OBAMA LOCK UNDER 10 STATES
WAY TO GO JOE!
"RealClearPolitics is a political news and polling data aggregator[2] based in Chicago, Illinois. The site's founders say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity".[3] They have described themselves as frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-Christian media bias
"Joe Biden’s Rude Debate Laughter: The Joke’s on Him
by Michael Medved Oct 12, 2012 9:31 AM EDT
"What’s so funny, Biden? Why the veep’s rude chortles during last night’s faceoff constituted a new low in debate etiquette—and will only hurt his boss"
by Matt Taibbi
I've never thought much of Joe Biden. But man, did he get it right in last night's debate, and not just because he walloped sniveling little Paul Ryan on the facts. What he got absolutely right, despite what you might read this morning (many outlets are criticizing Biden's dramatic excesses), was his tone. Biden did absolutely roll his eyes, snort, laugh derisively and throw his hands up in the air whenever Ryan trotted out his little beady-eyed ...more BS-isms.
But he should have! He was absolutely right to be doing it. We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called "objective" news reporters as well. We should all be rolling our eyes, and scoffing and saying, "Come back when you're serious."
The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda – cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill.
The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:
MS. RADDATZ: Well, let's talk about this 20 percent.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well – (chuckles) –
MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet again to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters?
Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:
REP. RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the –
"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress." Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.
I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:
MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you're doing?
So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:
REP. RYAN: Look – look at what Mitt – look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we're saying is here's our framework: Lower tax rates 20 percent – we raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] in loopholes and deductions. And so what we're saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation –
Three things about this answer:
1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.
2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework – "Lower taxes by 20 percent" – and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.
3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.
So then, after that, there's this exchange.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?
REP. RYAN: – so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here's why I'm saying this. What we're saying is here's a framework –
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I hope I'm going to get time to respond to this.
REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress –
MS. RADDATZ: I – you'll get time.
REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful – look –
MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.
Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her – and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."
Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president – for president! – promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake.
If you're going to offer an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without explaining how it's getting paid for, hell, why stop there? Why not just offer everyone over 18 a 1965 Mustang? Why not promise every child a Zagnut and an Xbox, or compatible mates for every lonely single person?
Sometimes in journalism I think we take the objectivity thing too far. We think being fair means giving equal weight to both sides of every argument. But sometimes in the zeal to be objective, reporters get confused. You can't report the Obama tax plan and the Romney tax plan in the same way, because only one of them is really a plan, while the other is actually not a plan at all, but an electoral gambit.
The Romney/Ryan ticket decided, with incredible cynicism, that that they were going to promise this massive tax break, not explain how to pay for it, and then just hang on until election day, knowing that most of the political press would let it skate, or at least not take a dump all over it when explaining it to the public. Unchallenged, and treated in print and on the air as though it were the same thing as a real plan, a 20 percent tax cut sounds pretty good to most Americans. Hell, it sounds good to me.
The proper way to report such a tactic is to bring to your coverage exactly the feeling that Biden brought to the debate last night: contempt and amazement. We in the press should be offended by what Romney and Ryan are doing – we should take professional offense that any politician would try to whisk such a gigantic lie past us to our audiences, and we should take patriotic offense that anyone is trying to seize the White House using such transparently childish and dishonest tactics.
I've never been a Joe Biden fan. After four years, I'm not the biggest Barack Obama fan, either (and I'll get into why on that score later). But they're at least credible as big-league politicians. So much of the Romney/Ryan plan is so absurdly junior league, it's so far off-Broadway, it's practically in New Jersey.
Paul Ryan, a leader in the most aggressively and mindlessly partisan Congress in history, preaching bipartisanship? A private-equity parasite, Mitt Romney, who wants to enact a massive tax cut and pay for it without touching his own personal fortune-guaranteeing deduction, the carried-interest tax break – which keeps his own taxes below 15 percent despite incomes above $20 million?
The Romney/Ryan platform makes sense, and is not laughable, in only one context: if you're a multi-millionaire and you recognize that this is the only way to sell your agenda to mass audiences. But if you're not one of those rooting gazillionaires, you should laugh, you should roll your eyes, and it doesn't matter if you're the Vice President or an ABC reporter or a toll operator. You should laugh, because this stuff is a joke, and we shouldn't take it seriously.
Mitt Romney paid over 3 million in taxes last year and has given million in charites so ...more when you say he doesn't pay his fair share the comment is laughable! By the way Ryan is paying for the tax breaks by letting businesses pay lower taxes so they can feel secure to hire people and collect payroll taxes. Which will actually increase tax revenues. Stop saying they don't have answers because they were given you are nothing more than a repeater of the left wing losers.
By Tim Dickinson
October 12, 2012 9:00 AM ET
How does a private-equity kingpin worth at least $250 million pay a lower tax rate – just 14 percent – than many teachers and firemen? By exploiting tax loopholes that favor the rich and hiding his money in the world's most notorious havens for tax cheats. That's ...more what Mitt Romney has done, according to his 2010 and 2011 tax returns, a trove of secret Bain Capital documents unearthed by Gawker, and exposés by Bloomberg and Vanity Fair. "The bottom line," says Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel at Citizens for Tax Justice, "is that these are ways to reduce your taxes that are only available to rich people."
Are Romney's tax dodges legal? It's impossible to say for sure, given how little he has disclosed. But tax experts note that there are plenty of red flags, including an investigation by New York prosecutors into tax abuses at Bain Capital that began on Romney's watch. "He aggressively exploits every loophole he can find," says Victor Fleischer, a professor of tax law at the University of Colorado. "He's pushing the limits of tax law beyond what many think is reasonable." Indeed, a look at Romney's finances reveals just how skilled he is at hiding his wealth – and paying a fraction of his fair share in taxes.
SWISS SECRECY
On his 2010 tax return, Romney disclosed that his wife Ann's trust held $3 million in a Swiss bank account at UBS, which had just been busted by the IRS for abetting criminal tax evasion by U.S. citizens. As part of a $780 million settlement, UBS was forced to turn over the names of thousands of its long-secret clients, who were then offered a partial amnesty: disclose their hidden assets, pay penalties and avoid prosecution. Romney – who had omitted the Swiss account on previous financial disclosures – suddenly came clean. Did he reveal his secret account to avoid prosecution for tax evasion? "He's not quite denied that," says Daniel Shaviro, a professor of tax law at NYU. The record of paying an IRS penalty on the Swiss account could explain why Romney has been so determined to keep his 2009 tax return under wraps.
BERMUDA SHELL GAME
Romney has buried an unknown, and perhaps significant, chunk of his wealth in what SEC filings describe as "a Bermuda corporation wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney" – driving speculation that the candidate is worth far more than he has disclosed publicly. Wealthy Americans frequently launder investments through such offshore shell companies, passing themselves off as foreign investors – a scam that makes them exempt from paying U.S. taxes, even on profits from American deals. Romney created his shell company, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors, in 1997 and reportedly involved it in many of Bain's biggest deals, including the takeover of Domino's Pizza. Yet he failed to report its existence on any financial disclosures prior to his 2010 tax return, even though it is under his control. "What is this corporation? What does it do? Why was it set up in a tax haven?" asks Wilkins. "There's a reason why it's in Bermuda."
LUXEMBOURG SHELTER
In 2000, when Romney was CEO of Bain, the firm hit the jackpot: A $40 million investment in the Italian yellow pages during the tech boom returned an astonishing $1 billion. Romney himself reportedly ended up with $50 million – a cut larger than Bain's initial investment. To evade taxes on the gains, Romney steered the profits through Bain subsidiaries in Luxembourg, Europe's most notorious tax shelter, where the money would be exempt from foreign taxes. In 2009, as a board member for Marriott, Romney also helped the hotel chain use the same tax tricks to shelter more than $200 million in Luxembourg. Marriott wound up paying less than half the corporate tax rate – just 16.9 percent.
CAYMAN CASH
Romney has nearly $30 million stashed in at least a dozen Bain funds in the Cayman Islands, where, as one filing boasts, investments are free from "income, estate, transfer, sales, or other Cayman Islands taxes." But because some of those funds are directly invested in U.S. companies, they likely disclose their investors to the IRS, making them unattractive to tax cheats. So Bain also raises capital for its deals by selling shares in "feeder funds" – intermediary entities that invest in Bain's official funds, but don't have to make disclosures to the IRS. "If you want to cheat, they've rolled out the red carpet for you," says Wilkins.
Has Romney paid all his taxes on the shady funds? Only he and the IRS know for sure. But even if Romney never cheated personally, the feeder funds he appears to have invested in cater to tax criminals, making it easier for him and his Bain partners to raise capital and rake in big management fees.
Romney is profiting from one form of tax evasion in the Caymans: equity swaps. Under this racket run by top Wall Street banks, American firms pay out their profits – tax-free – to investment funds based in the Caymans. According to a Senate investigation, the purpose of these complex instruments is "to dodge payment of U.S. taxes on U.S. stock dividends." Romney has more than $1.25 million invested in four funds that profit from equity swaps – including two managed by Goldman Sachs.
RETIREMENT TRICKS
Romney has stockpiled as much as $87 million in his IRA – even though contributions to such retirement accounts are limited to just $30,000 a year. "Congress never intended IRAs to be used to accumulate that kind of wealth," says Wilkins. To get around the limits, Romney appears to have directed his IRA to invest in a special class of Bain stock. By assigning an artificially low value to the shares, Bain ensured that any returns would be wildly inflated – as much as 30 times the initial investment. By buying rigged stock with his limited IRA dollars, Romney got to reap the bonanza tax-free.
Romney also padded his IRA by investing in "blocker funds" that Bain has set up in the Caymans. Such funds attract tax-exempt investors – like college endowments or Romney's IRA – that want to avoid paying the Unrelated Business Income Tax, a 35 percent penalty designed to prevent tax-exempt investors from having an unfair advantage over for-profit businesses in private-equity deals. But by buying shares in offshore blocker funds that then invest in Bain and other takeover artists, investors like Romney bilk the Treasury out of $100 million a year. "It's an absurdly easy escape," says Shaviro.
Like your candidate,you show contempt for anyone who isn't as asinine and ignorant as yourself.
Biden schooled Ryan last night,interupting him to correct his lies and expose his empty plan that he can't explain.
A BIG LOOPHOLE
For political purposes, Romney claims his investments are held in a blind trust that he doesn't actively manage. (In fact, the trust sees just fine: It's managed by a close friend and is invested heavily in his son Tagg's hedge fund.) But if Romney told the IRS he were merely a passive investor, he wouldn't qualify for his most notorious tax break: the loophole for carried interest.
Here's how it works: Bain partners earn a cut of the profits from ...more the investments they manage – usually 30 percent. This "carried-interest" is not a return on any personal investment they made – it's just another form of compensation, like an ordinary paycheck. Yet under the carried-interest loophole, the earnings are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent, rather than the income-tax rate of 35 percent. (They're also completely exempt from payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.) "When Romney says, 'I have a low tax rate because most of my income comes from investments,' that's not really true," says Fleischer. "He's receiving carried interest in exchange for past services."
Indeed, more than a decade after he left Bain, Romney is still booking carried interest as though he were actively leading the firm. Ann Romney's blind trust also claims carried interest, for allegedly "performing services" for a Bain fund in the Caymans. In the past two years alone, the loophole has allowed the Romneys to dodge $2.6 million in taxes.
FEE FAKERY
Not content with the carried-interest boondoggle, Bain also uses a scheme known as fee conversion to transform smaller management fees – which are supposed to be taxed as regular earnings – into investment income taxed at only 15 percent. A Bain manager simply "waives" his right to his fee and is instead staked an investment of equal value in the private equity fund. Because the manager can then cherry-pick from the fund's investments, he is virtually guaranteed a rich return – flouting the spirit of the lower tax rate on capital gains, which is designed to reward investors who take risks with their money. "Because they didn't receive the cash, they claim that it's not a taxable event," says Fleischer. "It's not legal." New York's attorney general has launched a criminal investigation into the practice.
Romney denies he took part in such waivers, which may have robbed the Treasury of up to $220 million. But according to Fleischer, Romney's financial records suggest he "benefited personally from fee conversion." He also served as the sole shareholder in the firm that set up the deals, making him legally responsible for determining how Bain structured them.
TAX-FREE TRUST
Romney has shifted enormous wealth – as much as $100 million – into a family trust, a fortune he doesn't include in the $250 million estimate of his net worth. His campaign admits he paid no gift taxes in transferring assets to the trust, even though individual gifts above $13,000 are subject to taxation. A direct gift of $100 million would have incurred a tax hit of at least $29 million, according to Michael Graetz, a former Treasury official under George H.W. Bush.
How did Romney skirt the limits on gifts? Tax experts believe that he made his contributions to the trust in the form of the carried interest he received from his Bain funds. For income-tax purposes, the assets were technically valued at zero, because the gains would not be taxed until the fund's investments were cashed out years later. In reality, though, Romney could have sold his carried interest to a third party for millions – making it absurd for him to pretend that his gift had no market value. Yet even if the move was illegal, Romney has nothing to fear: Tax returns on gifts are almost never audited, and they can't be challenged at all after three years.
Romney also used a scheme called an "intentionally defective grantor trust" to dodge the gift tax. Instead of having the trust pay taxes on its profits, Romney pays the tax bill himself. That keeps more money in the trust – amounting to another massive transfer of wealth that evades the gift tax. Even worse, the trust is exempt from the estate tax – meaning Romney's heirs will eventually pocket some $31 million they would have owed in taxes had he not siphoned off his fortune into the trust, tax-free.
Made me laugh good Chief
Mr Z I mean Phil does tend to bloviate horse shat... Matt Taibbi lol
I guess that makes you an authority on crap.
After all,we all know where your coming from.
Joe, you look more and more like a troll with each passing post.
That's what they were saying about CNN until a few posts above.
No wonder he knows his fertiliser.
".......was so positively terrifying that it calls into question Romney's judgment for putting this unqualified greenhorn on the ticket at all. Joe Biden laughed at him? Of course, he did. The only other option was to hand him a participation ribbon and take him to Burger King for lunch."
He even had the nerve to accuse the democrats ofnot wanting to work together with the republicans.
Imagine that-after the republicans used a record number of filibusters in the last two years and have made a concious effort to excuse thamselves from trying to help the country.
He said that he and Romney support the timeline that President Obama has for pulling the troops out,but we shouldn't broadcast when we're pulling our troops out.
WTF?
Which is it?
Biden was firm about reducing our troop numbers and made sure it was clear that we were stepping down as the Agani troops stepped up to fill in our place and that we would leave Afghanistan in 2014.
...more Ryan appeared to have no idea what the policy of a Romney administration would be.
All because of Bush's lies.
Then he allowed torture-which is okay with those who don't have any adherence to principles or law.
Can you say hippocrate?
Twice over?
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” he said in a statement. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take ...more responsibility for that.
“Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the President is asking to do it all over again.”
He's a hippocrate and a liar.
And now HE WAS ENTITLED?
LOL!
KENNEDY: When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must ...more also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.
Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
Where are the jobs?
The economy began declining during Bush's 2nd term.
No jobs were created from those tax cuts.
Bush's policies took the economy over the edge,and now,what does Romney want to do?
Cut taxes.
What the republicans call "trickle down" is really just a golden shower.
It doesn't work,but if we elect Romney,he'll be sure to return to the policies that put us here.
We've had close to 3 yers of privare ...more sector job growth.
The stock market has at least doubled since 2008
Unemployment is at it's lowest level since Obama took office.
And all without republican help-all they did was obstruct.They want the economy to fail.
This isn't 1960,even if the republicans want to "take the country back" to there.
Forward,not backward.
The entire democratic party embraces the principles of JFK
It's the republican party and its present candidates who need to find principles to embrace.
"HAHHAHAHAHAHAH.... I just fell out of my chair. Good one.
Ryan made it clear he is willing to go to war again for no good reason.
He wants to cut everything except defense-on the backs of the people who are suffering the most.
The moderator cornered him and he didn't answer.
It's become the party of radialism,racism and corporate sell-outs.There is little regard for the middle class,just support for an aristochracy that would take away the rights of minorities,women,the poor and working people-all in the name of profit.The radicals advocate corporate fuedalism-the desire ...more for cheap labor with no rights.
Its interesting that your embracing democratic principles since your party is so principle-challenged.
philathome (3391), Southampton on Oct 12, 12 11:52 PM
Your judgement is questionable.
But,hey-enjoy.
Why don't you respect the present president?
Is it okay that someone shoots out the windows one of his campaign spots?
Why don't you respect the present president?
Is it okay that someone shoots out the windows one of his campaign spots?
In 1963 someone making the equivalent of today's $40,000 paid 26%, it went down to 23.5% in 1964, today it is 25%.
Today's $60,000 in 1963 was 34%, down to 30.5% in 1964 , today it is 25%.
The top rate for today's $1.47 million in 1963 was 91%, in 1964 it ...more went to 77% and today is 35%. The true impact for the majority of Americans can be seen by realizing that the top rate was reached at $200,000 in 1963 dollars! The top rate today is reached at less than $190,000.
They're out to get you,Joe.
Put on your tin-foil hat and huddle in the basement with the other mad hatters.
Maybe you can get rush,hannity or levin to cook for you.
Clandestine arrangements for the attainment and concentration of power? Those are for the educated to ferret out and be privy to.
Try looking into "water mining" sometime.
You can't debate issues without resorting to the usual grade school stuff.
The mad hatters-they don't have a hat of their own.
"Do black people support Obama because he's black?"
Are you frigging kidding, This is the kind of garbage question they ask as if we are all dumb?
Yes, 95 percent of Blacks support O Because he is Black.
Is this the kind of ridiculous article you want to "debate" Phil?
Because we will not engage in such a obvious discussion.
No one at the rally objected to it.
Among republicans,it's acceptable.
I didn't hear any righties condemning that.
again,it's acceptable behavior
By you're statement we can assume that you support Romney just because he's white.
Where we're you that night?
So Now you Jack Kennedy.
Look to dusty Iowa cornfields, rain-soaked Virginia parks, the muddy fields of the Shelby County Fairgrounds, where a crowd of 9,500 — almost half of this western Ohio town — gathered among the barns and stables on a frigid October evening this week to glimpse the Republican presidential contender.
Really ? The beautiful and not white Stacy Dash said Thursday
"Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future,"
When hater Chris Rock used a raciest remark to criticize her statement Stacy replied " to Martin Luther King, Jr. when defending her choice to vote for Romney over Obama in the 2012 election. "I chose him not by the color of his skin, but the content ...more of his character," good for you!
... and Jenna Jameson, honest woman that she is, endorses Romney as well, explaining, "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."
some people prefer to be kept in the dark about a politicians intentions-Romney and Ryan won't tell us what their plans are and that doesn't scare them.
ignorance is bliss.
After Randy loses do you think he will take the Lincoln Tunnel or the George Washington Bridge when he returns home?
Air India.
So you admit that Barry Soetoro has purchased the black vote by "helping" (wink wink) them?
Blacks voting for our Marxist in Chief is OK with you, but whites voting for a white candidate based on race is somehow wrong? Please elaborate.
Obama gets the black vote like Romney attracts the low information voters.H does to have your vote locked up.