This and That...

[Warph]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Bad Liar


  Liar, Liar... pants on fire!

Remember when the left began claiming that it was part of the Reality-Based Community?  A place where people didn't just make crazy things up and keep repeating them... unless it was about Bush?

Watch these two videos and mourn for a progressive left that has tragically lost the ability to lie properly:

Hey... there was once a time when the left was good at lying.  It told lies at the drop of a hat.  Like the time Clinton shook his finger at the country and said he did not have sex with that woman.  Now pinch hitting for Slick Willy is a frazzled woman from Florida who has forgotten that tape recorders and the internet exist.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/a-root-canal-for-debbie-wasserman-schultz.php

I'm sure that Debbie Wasserman Schultz excels at shaking donors down for money, except with donations down, it doesn't look like she's any good at that either.  She projects the confident bearing and calm authority of a molerat on anxiety medication.  And she holds the weight of the party's future in her shaking boney hands.

If I were a Democrat, I would be running for the exits.  It's one thing when your Chair is a liar.  That's expected.  It's another thing when they're a bad liar.

...Warph [/font][/size]

[jarhead]

Warph,
I hope DWS doesn't go away. She is a Joe Biden with boobs---always good for a hearty laugh

[Warph]

The Five 'Reasons' to Re-elect Obama

By Larry Elder
9/6/2012

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2012/09/06/the_five_reasons_to_reelect_obama/page/2

The case for re-electing President Barack Obama rests on five arguments, the most important of which is that Romney/Ryan represent sexism, racism, homophobia and fascism.

1) Obama "inherited" the worst set of economic conditions since World War II.

False. Based on unemployment, inflation and interest rates, the recession of 1981-82 was worse. Unemployment during the early '80s reached 10.8 percent, inflation 13.5 percent, and prime interest rates reached 21.5 percent. During this so-called "Great Recession," the numbers peaked at 10.2 unemployment, 5.6 percent inflation and 7.25 percent for the prime interest rate.


2) Obama's economic policies "rescued the economy from falling off a cliff."

False. Nearly 350 economists, including several Nobel laureates, publicly urged Obama to following the path President Reagan pursued -- cutting taxes, slowing the growth of domestic spending and continuing deregulation.

Most business economists think Obama's "stimulus" plan accomplished little, if anything, with some academic economists, like Stanford's John Taylor, believing that stimulus actually made things worse: "I just don't think there's any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good."

TARP, begun under President George W. Bush, supposedly prevented financial institutions from collapsing. But Neil Barofsky, in his new book called "Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street," argues that TARP completely failed in its mission: to increase liquidity to jumpstart lending.

The reason for intervention in the first place is that banks had become "too big too fail." Not only did the banks park the money and make risk-free profits off the spread, but banks became bigger than ever after TARP.

ObamaCare promises to provide health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans currently uninsured. Obama said it would bend the health care cost curve down, that it would decrease the deficit and that if you like your doctor or your current health insurance plan, you can keep it.

But Jonathan Gruber, the economist who designed both RomneyCare and ObamaCare, now admits some are going to pay more -- and some a lot more -- for their health insurance: "It is true that even after tax credits some individuals are 'losers,' in that they pay more than before (Obama's) reform." Rick Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, testified that it is "false, more so than true" that ObamaCare bends down the cost curve. He also said it is "not true in all cases" that if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

What about the "investments" in the green jobs of the future? At $529 million dollars of lost taxpayer money, Solyndra is one of many money-hemorrhaging "clean energy" flops. Other belly-flops backed by federal loans include Beacon Power and Abound Solar. A Washington Post investigation traced $3.9 billion in grants and financing to 21 companies that were backed by firms connected to five Obama administration staffers and advisors. Cronyism?


3) Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and "unpaid-for wars" of Afghanistan and Iraq caused the deficit.

False. Obama frequently bemoans the "cost" of $700 billion in tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires." CNN's Fareed Zakaria blames the "Bush tax cuts" for the deficit. But the $700 billion Obama speaks of is spread over 10 years. This comes to a mere 5 percent of the deficit.

As to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a study by Brown University estimates the costs at between $3.2 trillion and $4 trillion. This, too, is over about 10 years (the approximate duration of the wars), or an average of $360 billion per year. This comes out to about 25 percent of the estimated $1.5 trillion deficit.


4) We are better off now than four years ago.

A new poll for the Washington paper The Hill found 52 percent of likely voters believe the country is now in "worse condition" than four years ago, while 31 percent believe it's in "better condition." After accounting for inflation, median household income dropped 2.6 percent during the 18-month recession. It fell another 4.8 percent from the start of the "recovery" through June 2012. Unemployment stood at 7.8 percent when Obama entered the White House. It is 8.3 percent right now. We've added over $6 trillion in new debt in the last four years -- and the deficit tripled since Bush's last full year in office.


5) The other guys -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan -- are worse: sexist, racist, homophobic and fascist.

The chairman of the California Democratic Party, John Burton, following the Republican convention, gave us this preview of coming attractions: "(Republicans) lie, and they don't care if people think they lie. As long as you lie, (Nazi propaganda minister) Joseph Goebbels -- the big lie -- you keep repeating it."


Welcome to the 2012 Democratic National Convention: Republican attendees are advised to keep their sheets and hoods at home.

[Diane Amberg]

Warph, I'm sure you didn't really expect me to answer the question about the Hawaii home did ya? I read somewhere recently that The Pres. is now worth about 10 mil. His books are still selling, so he gets a royalty from them, plus when he leaves office he gets a good pension, so a down payment and a mortgage at today's low rates wouldn't be so far fetched. Plus, if the other home was/is paid for they would have the sale from it and his name is his collateral.
   I'm sure, as all Presidents do, he'll get the big bucks as a speaker all over the world. I suspect he too will start a foundation or something similar or put everything in trusts.  Also, all Presidents make very wealthy friends who might even buy that place for him! I can see him going on to be a college president some day (and sitting on many paid boards)  they make ridiculously big money. The world will always be his oyster now, just as other Presidents before him.  IMHO Now aren't ya sorry ya asked?

[Warph]

Looks like the world is already his oyster, money wise... 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00009638&year=2004

...and that's not counting the five suitcases full of $100 bills that he has in the
Oval Office shoved back into the "Monica Lewinsky" closet as a christmas gift
from the Chicago Outfit & his buddy, "No Nose Johnny Bananas."

[Warph]

Even as Democrats cheered the politics of big government in Charlotte this week, the books that Americans are actually reading tell a different story about the America they want.  "Obama's America" builds on D'Souza's new movie, "2016: Obama's America," the box office surprise of the summer.

"The Amateur" by Ed Klein, a stinging portrayal of President Obama's leadership, continues its remarkable 16-week run by placing No. 6 on same list, after spending its first seven weeks at No. 1. It has been lauded and recommended by readers as varied as News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch and former Vice President Dick Cheney.

The third 2012 Regnery book to rise on the list, to No. 2, was David Limbaugh's "The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic," in which Limbaugh presents Obama's full-scale assault on America's institutions, from economy and culture to national security and future. 

It is the first time in the company's history that two books have taken the No. 1 bestseller spot in the same year. Regnery is part of Washington, D.C.-based Eagle Publishing, which also owns Human Events Group.

[Warph]

Is It Too Late to Fix Social Security's Finances?
September 6, 2012

Excerpt: Charles Blahous, a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center, says one of his duties as a public Social Security trustee is to explain the program's financial condition. Social Security's future, at least in the form it has existed dating back to FDR, is now greatly imperiled.

Charles Blahous, a research fellow with the Hoover Institution and a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center, says one of his duties as a public Social Security trustee is to explain the program's financial condition. Social Security's future, at least in the form it has existed dating back to FDR, is now greatly imperiled.

A solution is rapidly becoming more difficult:

The baby boomers are starting to retire. Lawmakers have historically been very reluctant to cut benefits for beneficiaries once they start receiving them. This means that any sacrifices will likely be concentrated on younger generations who already face net income losses through Social Security as it is. With every further year of delay lawmakers must therefore consider sharper benefit growth reductions and/or tax increases.

A solution requires substantial compromise by one or both sides. Thus if Social Security finances are to be repaired, someone must dramatically compromise: either progressives must accept substantial benefit growth reductions, conservatives substantial tax increases, or both. Unfortunately, we are already long past the point where there is precedent for a compromise of this magnitude.

There is a huge disparity between the problem's urgency and the rhetoric applied to it by substantial factions of the body politic.
If a financing solution cannot be reached, then Social Security's self-financing construct would need to be abandoned. Assuming the program continues to pay benefits, it would have to permanently rely on subsidies from the general fund as Medicare now does. This would be a valid policy choice, but it carries unavoidable consequences. It would mean an end to one of the program's foundational principles: the requirement that Social Security pay its own way through a separate trust fund. It would also mean an end to FDR's conception of an "earned benefit" program in which workers were seen to have paid for their own benefits.

Upon merging into the general fund, Social Security benefits would be far less secure going forward. Benefit payments would have to compete with other annual spending priorities, and would be limited to those deemed affordable given pressures elsewhere in the budget.

Those who care about the Social Security program need to clearly understand the consequence of this ongoing neglect; that time for a realistic financing solution has nearly run out.

Source: Charles Blahous, "Is It Becoming Too Late to Fix Social Security's Finances?" Economic Policies for the 21st Century, August 31, 2012.

[Warph]

Bill Clinton's DNC 2012 Speech: Good and Dishonest. By Allen Ginzburg

http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/09/bill-clintons-dnc-2012-speech-good-and-dishonest/

Excerpt: Bill Clinton gave what was, by all accounts, a very good speech last night. It was persuasive, articulate and inspiring, but there was just one problem: almost the whole speech was based completely on distortions or one-sided portrayals. What follows are excerpted claims from the speech (Black) and some factual corrections, context and explanations that were missing (in Red)


Also...

Fact Checking Slick Willies Speech

Excerpt: The repeated claim that Obama's budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-bill-clintons-speech-and-other-democrats-at-the-convention-in-charlotte/2012/09/06/55b9df68-f7e1-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

[Warph]

Look, I feel an obligation to keep you informed about ALL the news that's fit to metaphorically print so you can make the best decisions about what kind of survivalist gear you and your family will need to invest in.

With that in mind, every year there's a contest to decide THE BEST BATHROOM IN AMERICA.  And why shouldn't there be? What is the point of being the most powerful and debt-ridden nation on earth if you cannot indulge in these crass displays of opulence?  At least before the masses of unemployed rise up and strangle us all with their government-issue inner-tubes?

This year's contestant from New York City for "America's Best Bathroom" is the loo in Da Marino Ristorante Italiano:
http://gothamist.com/2012/09/07/is_this_new_york_citys_best_bathroo.php

...and the famous people that have used it:
http://www.damarinotimesquare.com/dm/gallery 

                     Classy, right? Who wouldn't mind a little irritable bowel if these were your surroundings... Toto and all.

                                      Unfortunately, Diane.... Wilmington, Delaware's entry, is...well...

[Warph]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504123,00.html

http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/playgod032904.cfm


"Sit down over here.  It won't take but 20 minutes for us to custom-design your fetus."

"You want to custom-design our child, doctor?"

"In the summer of 2012, University of Washington researchers made a massive biotechnology breakthrough!  Few people talked about it at the time."

"What breakthrough, doctor?"

"It involved using a blood sample from a pregnant woman and a saliva specimen from the father to map the DNA of their fetus.  It took some time for the procedure to become practical and affordable, but the ability to know a child's complete DNA blueprint eventually gave parents a lot of choices."

"Choices, doctor?"

"The Christian Science Monitor reported that the procedure could allow parents to 'someday prenatally change genes seen as causing diseases or, more startling, pick a child's attributes such as eye color or even intelligence.'"

"We can now pick our child's intelligence?"

"Why not?  We help parents determine the height, weight, eye color and IQ of their children, and that's just for starters."

"Why would parents want to decide all of these things?"

"No offense, but you and your wife are a bit chubby.  For a price, I can take the fat gene out of your kid's genetic mix and he or she will grow up to be as skinny as a rail."

"But being chubby isn't the end of the world.  Winston Churchill was chubby.  Orson Welles was.  Our parents were.  These people did well in life."

"If you say so.  But we'll have to do something about your noses.  You and your wife have some big honkers.  We have a range of celebrity noses you can choose from in our catalog.  It will save you a fortune!"

"How will custom-designing our child's nose save money?"

"We charge a lot less to fix the nose at the gene stage than a plastic surgeon will charge after the baby is grown.  Of course, we can avoid you and your wife's obvious imperfections by shopping for a better embryo."

"Use someone else's genes to make our baby?"

"It's all the rage!  We have a catalog of good-looking Ivy League students who donate their eggs and other genetic specimens for money.  We mix and match these parts to create embryos, which we then implant into any mother who can afford our fee."

"Don't you feel that you are trifling with nature, doctor?"

"We're simply picking up where nature left off.  We're simply refining the baby-making process."

"Perhaps there may be value in correcting medical issues in our child before he or she is born, but this is all so new.  We really want to think it through."

"Look, when people try to have kids the old way, all kinds of things can go wrong.  Some couples might have a child that has Down syndrome.  We prevent such errors from occurring in the lab."

"But, doctor, any parent of a Down syndrome child will tell you that such children are cheerful, loving and blessings from God."

"Whatever.  We also eliminate all other imperfections, such as blindness and deafness."

"But Helen Keller was blind and deaf and she did remarkable things.  Look, doctor, advances in science are a good thing, but my wife and I really want to think this through.  Do we really want the power to manipulate the genetic makeup of our children?"

"Hey, most parents want intelligent children who are as attractive as a supermodel.  What is wrong with that?"

"But if everyone is as beautiful as a supermodel, won't beauty lose some of its meaning, doctor?  If parents can custom-create the life of their child, won't life itself lose some of its meaning?"

"Meaning?  What's all this silly talk about meaning?"