A Dim Bulb in the Oval Office?
Herbert E. Meyer
During his eight years in the White House, President George W. Bush was often described by liberals as being about halfway between an idiot and an imbecile. They told us he was so inarticulate -- so unable to express himself clearly -- that his very presence in the Oval Office was an embarrassment for the United States. Members of the White House press corps, spoofing a popular movie, called him the English Patient.

Yet no one, anywhere in the world, ever had trouble understanding what President Bush was saying.

President Obama, on the other hand, is invariably described by these same people as brilliant -- indeed, the most articulate carbon-based life form ever to have walked the Earth.

So how come every time President Obama opens his mouth to state his position on some issue -- as he did this weekend, speaking about his support for that mosque near Ground Zero -- the White House scrambles to issue a "clarification" -- followed less than a day later by an "elaboration" of the clarification?

Come to think of it, President Bush speaks twice as many languages as President Obama. (To be precise, two.) Oh, and in eight years President Bush never said anything even remotely as stupid as President Obama's comment that people in Austria speak Austrian.

Perhaps we should put less effort into forcing the release of President Obama's original long-form birth certificate, and more effort into forcing release of his IQ. Anyone want to take my bet that it'll be lower than George W. Bush's?

[Artful Dodger, United States, Brain Rook (forever), Male] Artful Dodger (hide)
show this user posts | show thread | link
Subject: Re:On top of tht they passed some new taxes, including now I cant take a tax break for the interest on my two mortgages or the insurance for them, my two biggest tax breaks I have!
Czuch: I know. I can't believe how much money the government rips off on us. It's extortion. We have no choice but to pay for their stupid spending habits. They are reckless with our money. Most people just are uninformed and don't give a rip.

My son loves Obama. But he can't tell me why other than to say Bush was an idiot. That's what we're dealing with. I don't dislike Obama. But he's a bad president. His policies are bad. And if things keep progressing as they have, he will trample on the constitution. Big government is well on its way.

Bush messed up big time with big government.
Reply (box)

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."


~~~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005

Tuesday: Not true. but being Obama, the WHAT that he does goes against the beliefs of MOST if not ALL conservative thinkers in the US. More people dislike him than like him.

Tuesday: Really? Then you should have NO PROBLEM posting 6 fine examples. Or are you simply lying?

Tuesday: Trouble is for bloggers nowadays is that some are getting lazy and not double checking what they are saying. If they do.. they get pounced on and declared to be crazy.

... crazy does not mean stoopid!!

Tuesday: Pretty standard in politics, especially in a two party system. The Labour party was making out both the Tory's and Liberal Democrats were a dangerous element to elect and were point blankly using fear and half truths as a means to stir up votes for them.

Guess for those like me (as many others did feel) fear used as a means to gain votes is not a good sign, it shows how weak they feel their case is and how lost their cause is.

Artful Dodger: Quite frankly.. alot of the posts you have been posting from various 'blogs' ... "are dishonest and self-serving."... they hark at the tea party/right wing conservative cause without presenting a true statement of the facts.

Tuesday: Just as I thought. Just words.

I harp on the Democrats because they are destroying this country and Obama is the worst of them. They are dishonest and self-serving. And as I've shown in my posts below, these things are true of them. I gave current examples of corruption and dishonesty You are being lied to and you don't see it. That's because you refuse to consider the possibility.

What I have shown is a CONSISTENT PATTERN of wrong doing by Democrats. These are not isolated cherry picked incidents but business as usual for the Democratic party.

Tuesday: Prove it.

Bernice: IMO, if we are going to be a country that honors diversity, we need to rethink our attitudes toward the Muslims among us. There are two things to consider (maybe more). One: there is a huge element of Islam that wants to control the world through their religion and they will kill everyone to that end. Two: There are others in Islam that want to practice their religion peacefully and honorably just like other mainstream religions. We live in a difficult world. We have to consider both but when it comes to the former, we do so with caution.

Tuesday: And how do you know that?

Most Americans (59.3%) receive their health insurance coverage through an employer (which includes both private as well as civilian public-sector employees) under group coverage, although this percentage is declining. Costs for employer-paid health insurance are rising rapidly: since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78%, while wages have risen 19% and inflation has risen 17%, according to a 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The health care system in the U.S. has a vast number of players. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies in the U.S.[74][146] This system has considerable administrative overhead, far greater than in nationalized, single-payer systems, such as Canada's. An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31% of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.

Health care costs rising far faster than inflation have been a major driver for health care reform in the United States.

As a condition of accepting the job, Paulson demanded to be President George W. Bush's chief economic spokesman. But Paulson, a halting public speaker, wasn't particularly good at constructing narratives about what was happening in the economy—leaving the public and his boss continually shocked at the succession of failures. In late April 2007, he said subprime mortgage problems were "largely contained." In March 2008, as Bear Stearns was about to implode, Bush asked: "We're not going to do a bailout, are we?" The response: "I told him I wasn't predicting one and it was the last thing in the world I wanted."

When the bailouts began, Paulson took charge, acting as investment banker in chief. He personally replaced the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and put the government's credit behind the faltering mortgage agencies. "We had, I thought, just saved the country—and the world from financial catastrophe," he writes.

But just as one crazy caper ended, a new one was about to begin. The reason: The Wall Street banks were royal screw-ups. Without passing judgment on them—these were members of his former fraternity—Paulson treats us to a parade of big shots asking the government to save their banks from their own incompetence. Here's Chuck Prince, Citigroup's hapless chief executive, at a dinner in June 2007: "Isn't there something you can do to order us not to take all of these risks?" Lehman Brothers chief executive Richard Fuld calls from India to ask if Paulson can get him flyover rights from Russia to get home more quickly. Then on the day before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Fuld pleads: "Hank, you have to figure something out." John Mack of Morgan Stanley begs: "Hank, the SEC needs to act before the short sellers destroy Morgan Stanley." "On the Brink" will do little to dispel the notion, which Paulson acknowledges, that some Republicans believe him to be a closet Democrat. His wife, Wendy, held a fundraiser for her fellow Wellesley classmate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in 2000, and the Paulsons are big-time tree huggers. His mother, a once-staunch Republican, had so soured on Bush that she urged her son not to take a job in his administration. Paulson love-bombs Barney Frank as "scary-smart, ready with a quip, and usually a pleasure to work with," praises Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and notes that then-Sen. Barack Obama was "always well informed, well briefed, and self-confident."

But while Bush ("admirably stalwart") comes in for similar praise, Paulson has little positive to say about other Republicans. Sarah Palin annoyed him from the get-go. When he spoke to House Republicans about efforts to help Fannie and Freddie, he was chagrined that many responded with speeches about ACORN, the low-income housing activist group. House Minority Leader John Boehner was ineffectual. John McCain comes off worst of all: impulsive, ill-informed and counterproductive. "This was crazy," Paulson writes of McCain's decision to suspend his campaign in late September 2008 and demand a White House meeting on the bailout. At the climactic meeting in the Cabinet room, Obama spoke for the Democrats, delivering a "thoughtful, well-prepared presentation." But McCain? "When it came right down to it, he had little to say in the forum he himself had called."

Thanks largely to Republican recalcitrance, the $700 billion legislation authorizing the bank bailout was one deal Paulson couldn't close. To get the job done, the former lineman was ultimately forced to hand the ball to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

As the narrative lurches from crisis to crisis—TARP, AIG, GM—the reader, and Bush, are continually presented with bailout moves as unavoidable faits accomplit. Bush was "visibly shocked" when Paulson told him in November 2008 that Citigroup was in big trouble. "I thought the programs we put in place had stabilized the banks," the president said.

Alistair Darling: RBS 'two hours' from collapse in 2008..

Alistair Darling, chancellor of the exchequer at the time of the financial crisis, has described a "frenzied" phone call with a senior RBS executive as the bank teetered on the brink of collapse.

"It was quite clear the bank was going to fail in a couple of hours and he said 'what are you going to do?'," he told Today presenter James Naughtie.

"Happily we did have a plan, and we stopped the bank from closing," he said. "If RBS had gone down the rest would have gone with it"

Artful Dodger: It is called racism.

ok. fun is fun but I'm going to have to put a stop to this before the defecate hits the rotating oscillator

Jim Dandy: Of course some do.  But with democrats, it seems to be a way of political life. 

Germany seems to be ahead in methane/biogas fuelled cars.. with over 400,000 in use. The cars are dual fuel as in being able to run on methane and petrol giving a range of about 450 miles on one 'tank'.

.. the waste from 70 households in enough to provide enough fuel for 10,000 miles.

From a UK article..

To use biogas as vehicle fuel without affecting vehicle performance or reliability the gas needs to be treated to remove the carbon dioxide content. GENeco, part of Wessex Water, imported specialist "cleaning" equipment to treat the raw methane generated at the sewage treatment works in Avonmouth.

The spokesman added: Our site has been producing biogas for many years which we use to generate electricity to power the site and export to the National Grid. "With the surplus gas we had available we wanted to put it to good use in a sustainable and efficient way.

"We decided to power a vehicle on the gas offering a sustainable alternative to using fossil fuels which we so heavily rely on in the UK."

Jim Dandy: Let's just say I think they want to operate in high density population areas.

(V): Are they hiring?

And the neo-conservative right wing are looking for what then if they are opposite ends??

Total anarchy and chaos?? Hardly good for a prosperous America... only good for fear and profit from such.

btw folks.. the UK has started using plants that convert solid human waste into methane that can power cars fitted with a lpg converter.

So.. in the UK if you hear of such a plant in your area.. support them

August 14, 2010
Socialist Party of America reveals 70 Democrats as belonging to their caucus

The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:
American Socialist Voter-
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
That's 70 out of 255 Democrats in the House who are avowed socialists. You also wonder how many are still in the closet.
Again, we see the cowardice of these people. If they really had courage, they would run as both Democrats and socialists and be proud of it.

From the Preamble of the SPA:
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.
We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources,meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.


Can anyone honestly say this is the vision you want for the United States? Look around. Show countries where these ideas are producing that "utopia" socialists so naively seek.

Tuesday:  It's not a mosque, it's a Muslim community center that contain a mosque.  It's not at Ground Zero, it's blocks away.  If it were just a mosque, I'd say no to it.   And a BIG NO if it were proposed on the actual Ground Zero site.  But a community center?  I'm having a hard time objecting to that.  I just don't get why they (new media and politicians) focus only on the mosque contained in the center.   

But what about illegal workers?

After hearing of Juan’s success, Juan's brother Raul decides to come over as well. Raul wants the same minimum wage his brother Juan is making but realizes that obtaining citizenship is difficult and he cannot do so at this time, so he opts to go illegal and work under the table. Raul makes $17,000 a year, cold hard cash, baby! Raul does not pay a dime in taxes, and we hate him for this. But should we really hate Raul? From my point of view, being an economist, I hate Juan. Well, I don't hate hate him, but I hate his status as a taxpayer and I’ll tell you why.

You see, someone has to pay Raul $17,000 a year in cash. Is John Smith going to pay him, with his meager salary of $50,000, almost a quarter of which has gone to taxes of his own, and now he is left with a mere $24,076 to live on all year? No way. John just bought a pretty sweet ride. He probably pays over half that alone in car payments and insurance. John, rightfully so, needs his bling.

Luckily, he doesn't need to hire an illegal immigrant, at least not full-time at $17,000 a year. But who does? Typically, in more than two-thirds of the cases, the answer is someone making a $150,000 and up income, oftentimes with their own business. Sure, you can deduct for small business taxes, etc., and do all these fancy loophole things, but if we assume that on a tax bracket scale when all is said and done these guys are generally paying anywhere from 24% - 33% in taxes each year. Let’s assume that Mr. Fatcat has a business and pays 25% a year in taxes on his total income of $175,000, and he hires Raul for $17,000 a year.

Well, well, well. Where does this $17,000 come from? It's not tax deductible because Mr. Fatcat really doesn't get any of the special privileges for payroll to an employee because he can't report Raul. That $17,000 cash given to Raul has been taxed already, at the fantastic rate of 25%. Raul doesn't notice, but his salary has already been taxed for $5,666.67 because it is derived from the post-tax income of Mr. Fatcat's. The reason it's so high is because you can't just calculate 25% of $17,000 and end up with $4,250 in tax revenue, but in order to get $17,000 you must start out with an original amount of $22,666.67 of pre-taxed income. After taxes this now equals the $17,000 Mr. Fatcat has left over in cash for Raul. (Taxing Raul's money again would be taxing that money twice, a big no-no to the IRS, surprisingly.)

So here we have two brothers. Juan is legal, and pays the government $2,159 every year in taxes. Raul, on the other hand is illegal. And yet we all hate Raul because he doesn't pay us $2,159 in taxes. Yet it seems as if people are often too quick to judge. When we examine the numbers we realize that Raul has, in essence, paid us almost two and a half times his brother's taxes - $3,507 more, to be exact. We never stop to think that the under-the-table employees in our country are already being taxed, at incredibly higher rates than if they were working legally.

So by now I hope we can see a different situation. An amazing group of laborers paying well over what they would pay in taxes as full citizens is still far too frequently the target of our hatred. At times their inability to learn English results in more anger, yet we don't even give them the credit they deserve for knowing more English than we know of their language. They work long, hard hours in conditions other people wouldn't tolerate. They deal with problems that all of our forefathers faced coming to this country, and they're paying heavily for that privilege. Since they don’t file for returns, or are paid cash in hand, there are very little bureaucratic costs. Yet all many people can do is blame them for our problems.

Immigrants of all status are the bedrock of this country. It’s easy to criticize them, or view them as scapegoats as to why our economy’s going down the tubes, but it is entirely unfair to do so. It is a human right to be able to seek a better life for oneself and your loved ones. The system as is may not be perfect, but one’s status as an illegal immigrant does not automatically mean that they get a free ride without buying into the system like the rest of us.

There was a time when immigrants sought out a better life for themselves. Many of them were illegal, and they faced intense prejudice and insufferable conditions. These ranged from New England paper mills, Midwest steel factories, and building railroads. Imagine what our country would be like today if the Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, etc. unwanted illegal immigrants had all been deported. Would you be here today?

The net benefits of illegal immigration.

A recent study (PDF) has the xenophobes in a dither. The Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, at the University of Arizona, looked at the full balance sheet to see what immigrants put into the economy and what they take out. In particular they studied the impact of immigrants, mostly illegal, on the economic conditions in Arizona.

On a whole they found immigrants contributed more to the economy then they cost. No surprise there. Where the racists concentrate on only cost, this study also considered benefits. For instance, “non-citizen households” in Arizona had consumer spending, in 2004, of $4.41 billion. That created an estimated 28,000 full-time jobs. In addition that spending “generated tax revenues of approximately $318.6 million.

But then these illegals “steal jobs” as well. Supposedly “skilled” jobs according to the email I got. The Udall Center found that 14 percent of the Arizona workforce is made up of immigrants but they held a disproportionate number of “low-skilled” positions in agriculture, construction, manufacturing and some areas of the service industry. Almost 60 percent of agricultural workers were immigrants. About 22 percent of food preparers and servers were immigrants. About 35 to 41 percent of construction workers were immigrants. The same for 46 percent of textile workers, 51 percent of landscaping workers and 38 percent of maintenance workers.

There were some high skilled immigrants in particular professions but these were legal immigrants who are targeted by the US government for preferential treatment. So 19 percent of physicians in Arizona were immigrants, along with 36 astronomers and physicists and 16 computer hardware engineers. But, the typical “illegal immigrant” takes jobs that don’t pay as well and which, for the most part, are shunned by the native born.

I think one of the great absurdities in US immigration policy is that they ignore the need for people to mow lawns and sweep hallways. Working contributes to the economy of the state and the Udall Center found:

Non-citizens, for their part, contributed $28.9 billion, or eight percent of Arizona’s economic output, resulting in 278,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Their output included $10 billion in labor income, and $3.3 billion in other property income. The state tax revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $1.08 billion.

They also looked at what would happen if the illegal workers were removed from the workforce.

Agriculture: A fifteen percent workforce reduction in the agriculture sector would result in direct losses of 3,300 full-time-equivalent jobs, and losses of $600.9 million in output including lost labor income of $198.6 million, and lost other income of $116.1 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $24.8 million. Construction: A fifteen percent workforce reduction in the construction sector would result in direct losses of 55,700 full-time-equivalent jobs, and $6.56 billion in output including lost labor income of $2.59 billion and $450.5 million in other lost income. The direct lost state tax revenue would be approximately $269.2 million. Manufacturing: A ten percent reduction in the manufacturing workforce would result in direct losses of 12,300 full-time-equivalent jobs, and $3.77 billion in output including lost labor income of $740.8 million, and lost other income of $286.1 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $104.4 million. Service industries: In the service sectors analyzed, a sixteen percent reduction in the labor force would translate to direct losses of 54,000 full-time equivalent-jobs, and lost output of $2.48 billion including reduced labor income of $901.3 million, and reductions in other income of $273.0 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $156.9 million.

I hope Governor Napolitano is realizing what a mistake she made pandering to the bigots.

The study concluded that the state of Arizona took in tax revenue of $1.64 billion from immigrant workers while the amount the state spent on immigrants was approximately $1.41 billion leaving a net benefit of $222.6 million to the state coffers. But that is only what they contribute to Arizona’s revenue. They also pay national income taxes and social security taxes. As Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at the Reason Foundation noted: “A stunning two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes.” And while they pay in, under US law they are forbidden to receive the benefits for which they pay. “The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education.” She writes:

What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Tuesday: I know a good doctor

Tuesday: You had better keep a close watch on those blessings, Obama and the Dumocrats are going to take them away

Tuesday: Thank goodness we have Fox News to lend a level headed fair and balanced perspective, they don't have a horse in the race, it helps them maintain credability beyond reproach.

Tuesday: When I first head the issue framed as a mosque being built at ground zero, I was a little taken aback, maybe a lil too delicate an undertaking, then I heard the facts

Tuesday: I think many who are against it, actually think it will be plunked right in the spot "ground zero" It's actually a property that has been owned and run by Muslims for years, it's just being renovated and expanded.I think it's at least 2 or three blocks from the actual 9/11 site

Fox mentioned it! No one else covers fairly like Fox.

Of 351 Reports on Outrageous Bell, Calif. Salaries, Only One Mentions Employees Are Democrat