U.S. 2012 Election
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The Democrat party reaches new lows. Once this meme gets out in the blogosphere, you wil see a very angry reaction from taxpayers and the non political who didn't realize where their tax money was going:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/06/who-pays-these-hecklers-sorry-i-asked/
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/06/who-pays-these-hecklers-sorry-i-asked/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Interesting piece from the Guardian's opinion pages about the aptly named Mendacious Mitt:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief
Shared with the usual fair use provisions, source article is loaded with links that support the statements.
Mendacious Mitt: Romney's bid to become liar-in-chief
Spin is normal in politics, but Romney is pioneering a cynical strategy of reducing fact and truth to pure partisanship
Share 1247
Email
Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2012 18.31 BST
Comments (…)
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
When challenged about an untruthful statement, Romney's tactic is to deny he said it – lie trumping lie, writes Michael Cohen. Photograph: YouTube/BarackObamadotcom
Four years ago, when I was writing about the 2008 presidential campaign, I wrote with dismay and surprise at the spate of falsehoods coming out of John McCain's campaign for president. McCain had falsely accused his opponent Barack Obama of supporting "comprehensive sex education" for children, and of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, while his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, took credit for opposing the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", which she had actually supported.
At the time, such false and misleading claims from a presidential candidate seemed shocking: they crossed an unstated line in American politics – going from the usual garden-variety campaign exaggeration to wilful lying.
Ah, those were the days … after watching Mitt Romney run for president the past few months, he makes John McCain look like George Washington (of "I Can't Tell A Lie" fame).
Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.
Now, in general, those of us in the pundit class are really not supposed to accuse politicians of lying – they mislead, they embellish, they mischaracterize, etc. Indeed, there is natural tendency for nominally objective reporters, in particular, to stay away from loaded terms such as lying. Which is precisely why Romney's repeated lies are so effective. In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. But that's a criticism you're only likely to hear from partisans.
My personal favorite in Romney's cavalcade of untruths is his repeated assertion that President Obama has apologized for America. In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following:
"Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable."
Nothing about this sentence is true.
President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a "pants on fire" lie, Romney keeps making it. Indeed, the "Obama apology tour", along with the president bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, are practically the lodestars of the GOP's criticism of Obama's foreign policy performance (the Saudi thing isn't true either).
But foreign policy is a relatively light area of mistruth for the GOP standard-bearer. The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).
Romney also likes to argue that the stimulus didn't help private-sector job growth, but rather helped preserve government jobs. In fact, the Obama years have been witness to massive cuts in government employment. While the private sector is not necessarily "doing fine", as Obama said in a recent White House press conference, it's doing a heck of a lot better than the public sector.
And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. He's accused the president of doubling the deficit. In fact, it's actually gone down on Obama's watch.
Romney took credit for the success of the auto bailout – even though he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". He's said repeatedly that businesses in America see Obama as the "enemy", and that under his presidency "free enterprise" and economic freedom" are at risk of disappearing. In reality, since taking office, corporate profits, industrial production and the stock market are up, while corporate bankruptcies have actually decreased.
Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now".
Also of Obamacare, Romney has said that it will lead to the government taking over 50% of the economy (not true) – its true cost can't be computed (that's why we have a Congressional Budget Office in the United States); that it will create to "a massive European-style entitlement" (many liberals wish this were true, but alas, it is not); and that it will lead to a government-run healthcare system (a lie so pervasive that it's practically become shorthand for Republicans – yet it too, like the infamous made-up death panels of the health care debate, is simply not accurate).
The lying from the Romney campaign is so out-of-control that Steve Benen, a blogger and producer for the Rachel Maddow show compiles a weekly list of "Mitt's Mendacity" that is chockfull of new untruths. Benen appears unlikely to run out of material any time soon, particularly since Romney persists in repeating the same lies over and over, even after they've been debunked.
This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.
What is the proper response when, even after it's pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It's a lie on top of a lie.
Now, it's certainly true that on the campaign trail, facts can be stretched in many different directions – and both parties, including President Obama, frequently make arguments that are misleading, lacking in context or simply false. But it is virtually unheard of for a politician to lie with such reckless abandon and appear completely unconcerned about getting caught.
Back in the old days (that is, pre-2008) it would have been considered unimaginable that a politician would lie as brazenly as Romney does – for fear of embarrassment or greater scrutiny. When Joe Biden was accused of plagiarizing British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speeches in 1988, it derailed his presidential aspirations. When Al Gore was accused of exaggerating his role in "inventing the internet" (which, actually, was sort of true), it became a frequent attack line that hamstrung his credibility. Romney has done far worse than either of these candidates – yet it's hard to discern the negative impact on his candidacy.
Romney has figured out a loophole – one can lie over and over, and those lies quickly become part of the political narrative, practically immune to "fact-checking". Ironically, the more Romney lies, the harder it then becomes to correct the record. Even if an enterprising reporter can knock down two or three falsehoods, there are still so many more that slip past.
It's reminiscent of the old line that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. In Romney's case, his lies are regularly corrected by media sources, but usually, in some antiseptic fact-checking article, or by Democratic/liberal voices who can be dismissed for their "partisan bent". Meanwhile, splashed across the front page of newspapers is Romney saying "Obamacare will lead to a government take-over of healthcare"; "Obama went on an apology tour"; or "the stimulus didn't create any jobs". Because, after all, it's what the candidate said and reporters dutifully must transcribe it.
Pointing out that Romney is consistently not telling the truth thus risks simply falling into the category of the usual "he-said, she-said" of American politics. For cynical reporters, the behavior is inevitably seen to be the way the political game is now played. Rather than being viewed and ultimately exposed as examples of a pervasive pattern of falsehoods, Romney's statements embed themselves in the normalized political narrative – along with aggrieved Democrats complaining that Romney isn't telling the truth. Meanwhile, the lie sticks in the minds of voters.
As MSNBC's Steve Benen told me:
"Romney gets away with it because he and his team realize contemporary political journalism isn't equipped to deal with a candidate who lies this much, about so many topics, so often."
Romney is charting new and untraveled waters in American politics. In the process, he is cynically eroding the fragile sense of trust that exists between voters and politicians. It's almost enough to make one pine for the days when Sarah Palin lied about "the Bridge to Nowhere".
========================================================================================================
A USMC officer I work with who's a Republican said to me over lunch the other day "I can't believe that this clown is the best guy we can find to run..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief
Shared with the usual fair use provisions, source article is loaded with links that support the statements.
Mendacious Mitt: Romney's bid to become liar-in-chief
Spin is normal in politics, but Romney is pioneering a cynical strategy of reducing fact and truth to pure partisanship
Share 1247
Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2012 18.31 BST
Comments (…)
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
When challenged about an untruthful statement, Romney's tactic is to deny he said it – lie trumping lie, writes Michael Cohen. Photograph: YouTube/BarackObamadotcom
Four years ago, when I was writing about the 2008 presidential campaign, I wrote with dismay and surprise at the spate of falsehoods coming out of John McCain's campaign for president. McCain had falsely accused his opponent Barack Obama of supporting "comprehensive sex education" for children, and of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, while his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, took credit for opposing the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", which she had actually supported.
At the time, such false and misleading claims from a presidential candidate seemed shocking: they crossed an unstated line in American politics – going from the usual garden-variety campaign exaggeration to wilful lying.
Ah, those were the days … after watching Mitt Romney run for president the past few months, he makes John McCain look like George Washington (of "I Can't Tell A Lie" fame).
Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.
Now, in general, those of us in the pundit class are really not supposed to accuse politicians of lying – they mislead, they embellish, they mischaracterize, etc. Indeed, there is natural tendency for nominally objective reporters, in particular, to stay away from loaded terms such as lying. Which is precisely why Romney's repeated lies are so effective. In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. But that's a criticism you're only likely to hear from partisans.
My personal favorite in Romney's cavalcade of untruths is his repeated assertion that President Obama has apologized for America. In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following:
"Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable."
Nothing about this sentence is true.
President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a "pants on fire" lie, Romney keeps making it. Indeed, the "Obama apology tour", along with the president bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, are practically the lodestars of the GOP's criticism of Obama's foreign policy performance (the Saudi thing isn't true either).
But foreign policy is a relatively light area of mistruth for the GOP standard-bearer. The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).
Romney also likes to argue that the stimulus didn't help private-sector job growth, but rather helped preserve government jobs. In fact, the Obama years have been witness to massive cuts in government employment. While the private sector is not necessarily "doing fine", as Obama said in a recent White House press conference, it's doing a heck of a lot better than the public sector.
And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. He's accused the president of doubling the deficit. In fact, it's actually gone down on Obama's watch.
Romney took credit for the success of the auto bailout – even though he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". He's said repeatedly that businesses in America see Obama as the "enemy", and that under his presidency "free enterprise" and economic freedom" are at risk of disappearing. In reality, since taking office, corporate profits, industrial production and the stock market are up, while corporate bankruptcies have actually decreased.
Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now".
Also of Obamacare, Romney has said that it will lead to the government taking over 50% of the economy (not true) – its true cost can't be computed (that's why we have a Congressional Budget Office in the United States); that it will create to "a massive European-style entitlement" (many liberals wish this were true, but alas, it is not); and that it will lead to a government-run healthcare system (a lie so pervasive that it's practically become shorthand for Republicans – yet it too, like the infamous made-up death panels of the health care debate, is simply not accurate).
The lying from the Romney campaign is so out-of-control that Steve Benen, a blogger and producer for the Rachel Maddow show compiles a weekly list of "Mitt's Mendacity" that is chockfull of new untruths. Benen appears unlikely to run out of material any time soon, particularly since Romney persists in repeating the same lies over and over, even after they've been debunked.
This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.
What is the proper response when, even after it's pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It's a lie on top of a lie.
Now, it's certainly true that on the campaign trail, facts can be stretched in many different directions – and both parties, including President Obama, frequently make arguments that are misleading, lacking in context or simply false. But it is virtually unheard of for a politician to lie with such reckless abandon and appear completely unconcerned about getting caught.
Back in the old days (that is, pre-2008) it would have been considered unimaginable that a politician would lie as brazenly as Romney does – for fear of embarrassment or greater scrutiny. When Joe Biden was accused of plagiarizing British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speeches in 1988, it derailed his presidential aspirations. When Al Gore was accused of exaggerating his role in "inventing the internet" (which, actually, was sort of true), it became a frequent attack line that hamstrung his credibility. Romney has done far worse than either of these candidates – yet it's hard to discern the negative impact on his candidacy.
Romney has figured out a loophole – one can lie over and over, and those lies quickly become part of the political narrative, practically immune to "fact-checking". Ironically, the more Romney lies, the harder it then becomes to correct the record. Even if an enterprising reporter can knock down two or three falsehoods, there are still so many more that slip past.
It's reminiscent of the old line that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. In Romney's case, his lies are regularly corrected by media sources, but usually, in some antiseptic fact-checking article, or by Democratic/liberal voices who can be dismissed for their "partisan bent". Meanwhile, splashed across the front page of newspapers is Romney saying "Obamacare will lead to a government take-over of healthcare"; "Obama went on an apology tour"; or "the stimulus didn't create any jobs". Because, after all, it's what the candidate said and reporters dutifully must transcribe it.
Pointing out that Romney is consistently not telling the truth thus risks simply falling into the category of the usual "he-said, she-said" of American politics. For cynical reporters, the behavior is inevitably seen to be the way the political game is now played. Rather than being viewed and ultimately exposed as examples of a pervasive pattern of falsehoods, Romney's statements embed themselves in the normalized political narrative – along with aggrieved Democrats complaining that Romney isn't telling the truth. Meanwhile, the lie sticks in the minds of voters.
As MSNBC's Steve Benen told me:
"Romney gets away with it because he and his team realize contemporary political journalism isn't equipped to deal with a candidate who lies this much, about so many topics, so often."
Romney is charting new and untraveled waters in American politics. In the process, he is cynically eroding the fragile sense of trust that exists between voters and politicians. It's almost enough to make one pine for the days when Sarah Palin lied about "the Bridge to Nowhere".
========================================================================================================
A USMC officer I work with who's a Republican said to me over lunch the other day "I can't believe that this clown is the best guy we can find to run..."
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,040
Some of those may be examples of lies. Many are just disagreements over perception, or spin.
1. Obama's apologia are a matter of perception - some people see it that way, some don't.
2. The CBO's estimate of jobs saved is, I'm guessing, the same one that always gets trotted out. But the one I'm thinking of is the one that begins by assuming that each $X saves one job; $Y was spent; therefore $Y/$X jobs were saved.
3. It is entirely true that much of the stimulus money devolved to lower levels of government was used to pad out payroll shortfalls to prevent layoffs, and that because the stimulus was a one-time shot and the revenue shortfalls persist, public sector layoffs have resulted. The stimulus did preserve government jobs; it just didn't preserve them indefinitely.
4. Industrial markers were pretty much at bottom "when Obama took office". It should be unsurprising that they have improved. But the recovery has not been impressive.
5. If the Democrats didn't know PPACA was likely to retard economic recovery, they are collectively idiots. That seems unlikely in the extreme; common sense indicates, yes, they "knew".
6. The Democrats and their supporters were also perfectly frank that PPACA was a stepping stone to single payer, which is undoubtedly a massive entitlement, and even without progressing that far PPACA is subject to a great deal of government regulation vested in the executive branch.
7. I think Benen is a tendentious little sh!t and I can not take anything he writes at face value, but that's just me.
8. I really can't conceive of anything in that list, even if all of the claims were true, that tops "I invented the internet". Are progressives really that devoid of perspective?
Undoubtedly Romney spins and emits some outright lies. I am not confident he is worse in this regard than Obama.
[Oh, and here is a chart of US federal deficits. It is true that the deficit in 2011 is lower than in 2009, but not by a very impressive amount - and it sure seems to be a lot higher than 2008.]
1. Obama's apologia are a matter of perception - some people see it that way, some don't.
2. The CBO's estimate of jobs saved is, I'm guessing, the same one that always gets trotted out. But the one I'm thinking of is the one that begins by assuming that each $X saves one job; $Y was spent; therefore $Y/$X jobs were saved.
3. It is entirely true that much of the stimulus money devolved to lower levels of government was used to pad out payroll shortfalls to prevent layoffs, and that because the stimulus was a one-time shot and the revenue shortfalls persist, public sector layoffs have resulted. The stimulus did preserve government jobs; it just didn't preserve them indefinitely.
4. Industrial markers were pretty much at bottom "when Obama took office". It should be unsurprising that they have improved. But the recovery has not been impressive.
5. If the Democrats didn't know PPACA was likely to retard economic recovery, they are collectively idiots. That seems unlikely in the extreme; common sense indicates, yes, they "knew".
6. The Democrats and their supporters were also perfectly frank that PPACA was a stepping stone to single payer, which is undoubtedly a massive entitlement, and even without progressing that far PPACA is subject to a great deal of government regulation vested in the executive branch.
7. I think Benen is a tendentious little sh!t and I can not take anything he writes at face value, but that's just me.
8. I really can't conceive of anything in that list, even if all of the claims were true, that tops "I invented the internet". Are progressives really that devoid of perspective?
Undoubtedly Romney spins and emits some outright lies. I am not confident he is worse in this regard than Obama.
[Oh, and here is a chart of US federal deficits. It is true that the deficit in 2011 is lower than in 2009, but not by a very impressive amount - and it sure seems to be a lot higher than 2008.]
Another Crushing Blow to Unions
Posted by Web Producer | June 21, 2012
Article Link
Although the Supreme Court did not issue rulings today on the ObamaCare and Arizona immigration law cases, they did make a decision on a case that will have a profound effect on Big Labor. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled against the SEIU.
At issue in this case was whether SEIU could mandate that its employees pay a special union fee that would be spent on political activities without providing them with information about the fee and opportunity to object to it. The Court decided that this practice violated its members First Amendment rights and reversed the liberal Ninth Circuit decision that ruled in favor of the SEIU.
This decision marks yet another huge loss for unions in this country, showing that they are no longer the invincible political powerhouses that they used to be. Not only did this ruling limit their ability to unilaterally use union dues to fund political campaigns, but it also reflected that Big Labor in this country can no longer rely on Democrats to always support them; two of the most liberal justices on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, who is an Obama appointee, sided with the majority against the SEIU.
With this decision coming off the heels of the massive union loss in the Wisconsin recall election, it poses this question: Is the era of Big Labor coming to an end?
end
Posted by Web Producer | June 21, 2012
Article Link
Although the Supreme Court did not issue rulings today on the ObamaCare and Arizona immigration law cases, they did make a decision on a case that will have a profound effect on Big Labor. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled against the SEIU.
At issue in this case was whether SEIU could mandate that its employees pay a special union fee that would be spent on political activities without providing them with information about the fee and opportunity to object to it. The Court decided that this practice violated its members First Amendment rights and reversed the liberal Ninth Circuit decision that ruled in favor of the SEIU.
This decision marks yet another huge loss for unions in this country, showing that they are no longer the invincible political powerhouses that they used to be. Not only did this ruling limit their ability to unilaterally use union dues to fund political campaigns, but it also reflected that Big Labor in this country can no longer rely on Democrats to always support them; two of the most liberal justices on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, who is an Obama appointee, sided with the majority against the SEIU.
With this decision coming off the heels of the massive union loss in the Wisconsin recall election, it poses this question: Is the era of Big Labor coming to an end?
end
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Brad Sallows said:
No they aren't. They are a statement. Obama traveled around the world making apologies for America. To check the veracity of the statement is simple. Did President Obama travel around the world making apologies for America? No. Therefore, this statement is a lie. Perception doesn't matter. Politifact has a much more in depth explanation: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/
Brad Sallows said:
This point's rather debatable, I agree. However, it's pretty easy for President Obama to point to the hundreds of thousands of auto sector jobs that Romney would have basically let disappear (because I don't think anyone believes for a second that anything would have come out of the auto sector going bankrupt). I like most people I think wasn't a fan of plowing tons of public money into an industry, but in the long run I think it'd be cheaper than the costs of dealing with a bunch of industry towns collapsing. That said, economists tend to agree that it was the stimulus effort good program, and the most common disagreement is that it wasn't enough or well enough targeted to invest in things that lay groundwork for future economic growth (like infrastructure, which America desperately needs to invest in).
Brad Sallows said:
You can't really argue with statistics, public sector employment spiked briefly, but then dropped under Obama.
Brad Sallows said:
No one is making a qualitative assessment of the recovery here. What the author is saying is that Romney's claims on perception of Obama's attitudes is not reflected in stock market performance, nor corporate profits. Again, that's an easily observable fact.
Brad Sallows said:
Why would they expect it to? PPACA's aim is to stabilize health insurance costs and improve access to healthcare for Americans. The surging cost of health benefits has been a thorn in the side of American employers for a long time. Part of the reason the auto sector boomed in Ontario in the late 1990s and early 2000s was the exchange rate, but another large part was stable cost of benefits meant it was cheaper to employ people here. PPACA is designed to achieve a similar purpose. Romney's argument hinges on a complex series of assertions which don't hold up - but it's part of instilling a narrative in the head of the average American voter (who isn't going to go any deeper than talking points), and even then it's just an assertion.
Brad Sallows said:
They were? When? While I don't doubt that many of them are hopeful that that will be the eventual outcome, I can't recall any of them saying so, in fact, they've always distanced themselves from the idea.
Brad Sallows said:
Unless you can actually prove anything he's said to be false, we'll just leave this alone.
Brad Sallows said:
This one made me laugh, you know, because Gore never said he did. He did make a rather awkwardly worked comment about his role in promoting the development of it as we know it today (detailed here http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp) but never did he claim to invent it.
Brad Sallows said:
Interestingly enough, I don't think any of the well-established fact checking organizations out there would agree with you. I'm cynical enough to accept that all politicians lie, but the degree to which Romney does is ahead of the curve. And the more desperate and pathetic the GOP's attacks on President Obama become, the more I start to think they realize it too.
[/quote]Brad Sallows said:
So, to recap, Romney's statement that Obama has doubled the deficit is not true. Which makes it what, again? And the 2009 federal budget, that got underway on President Bush's watch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Lockheed Martin eyes layoffs this fall
link here http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77779.html
Reproduced under the fair use provision of the copyright act
Lockheed Martin is contemplating a pre-election move that could shake up the political landscape.
Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the “vast majority” of its 123,000 workers that they’re at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company’s vice president of legislative affairs.
Continue Reading
Text Size
-
+
reset
Latest on POLITICO
Bob Dole: 'I'm not a Gingrich fan'
Pa. pol: Voter ID helps GOP win state
The return of the drachma
Cato, Kochs settle ownership fight
Limbaugh: Scalia is 'right on money'
AMC: Save the (other) White House
Allen on Lockheed layoffs
Walters’s comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that’s trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013.
Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, “we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base,” Walters told POLITICO.
The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months’ notice to workers facing layoffs. “We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect,” he said.
Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor and a bellwether of the industry, won’t be alone. Other defense contractors have also signaled they’re considering sending out notices right before Election Day.
The layoffs, of course, won’t all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors’ bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts — along with the requirement of 60-day notice — provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November.
Only a fraction of Lockheed’s workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out.
“We’ve wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like,” Walters said. “But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB.”
Under sequestration, nearly every account in the Pentagon budget would be trimmed, resulting in a 10 percent reduction in the Defense Department, which has seen its funding roughly double since 2001, due largely to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that because the cuts would be leveled across the board, Pentagon planners would not be able to prioritize what should be eliminated first.
“I am very concerned,” he told POLITICO. “I feel an urgency because I think it’s happening right now. People are already being laid off, and jobs are already being frozen or they’re not hiring, and I’m frustrated.”
McKeon is pushing a bill that would pay for the first year of sequestration through a 10-year, 10 percent reduction in the federal workforce, achieved through attrition.
Asked about McKeon’s plan, Walters said Lockheed does not want to be seen as endorsing any particular proposal. “We would prefer — without endorsing one alternative or another — we certainly would like the uncertainty removed going forward,” he said.
And even if sequestration were delayed by a year, Walters added, “It would still be an environment where we wouldn’t be confident making investment and hiring decisions.”
What a class act. I hope their blackmail attempt blows up in their faces on election day, with a landslide for Obama. The CEO at Lockheed would probably make a pretty good Mafia Capo. Its a sad comment on the state of teh US economy that they can even consider this
link here http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77779.html
Reproduced under the fair use provision of the copyright act
Lockheed Martin is contemplating a pre-election move that could shake up the political landscape.
Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the “vast majority” of its 123,000 workers that they’re at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company’s vice president of legislative affairs.
Continue Reading
Text Size
-
+
reset
Latest on POLITICO
Bob Dole: 'I'm not a Gingrich fan'
Pa. pol: Voter ID helps GOP win state
The return of the drachma
Cato, Kochs settle ownership fight
Limbaugh: Scalia is 'right on money'
AMC: Save the (other) White House
Allen on Lockheed layoffs
Walters’s comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that’s trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013.
Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, “we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base,” Walters told POLITICO.
The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months’ notice to workers facing layoffs. “We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect,” he said.
Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor and a bellwether of the industry, won’t be alone. Other defense contractors have also signaled they’re considering sending out notices right before Election Day.
The layoffs, of course, won’t all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors’ bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts — along with the requirement of 60-day notice — provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November.
Only a fraction of Lockheed’s workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out.
“We’ve wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like,” Walters said. “But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB.”
Under sequestration, nearly every account in the Pentagon budget would be trimmed, resulting in a 10 percent reduction in the Defense Department, which has seen its funding roughly double since 2001, due largely to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that because the cuts would be leveled across the board, Pentagon planners would not be able to prioritize what should be eliminated first.
“I am very concerned,” he told POLITICO. “I feel an urgency because I think it’s happening right now. People are already being laid off, and jobs are already being frozen or they’re not hiring, and I’m frustrated.”
McKeon is pushing a bill that would pay for the first year of sequestration through a 10-year, 10 percent reduction in the federal workforce, achieved through attrition.
Asked about McKeon’s plan, Walters said Lockheed does not want to be seen as endorsing any particular proposal. “We would prefer — without endorsing one alternative or another — we certainly would like the uncertainty removed going forward,” he said.
And even if sequestration were delayed by a year, Walters added, “It would still be an environment where we wouldn’t be confident making investment and hiring decisions.”
What a class act. I hope their blackmail attempt blows up in their faces on election day, with a landslide for Obama. The CEO at Lockheed would probably make a pretty good Mafia Capo. Its a sad comment on the state of teh US economy that they can even consider this
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,040
1. I reiterate - a matter of perception. Some people recollect other presidents - Reagan was a common favourite for comparison - who were not in the habit of bowing to foreign leaders, especially hereditary and unelected ones. That you don't see that as apologetic behaviour does not mean others see it the same way.
2. There is no estimate of auto sector jobs which would have been lost. Bankruptcy proceedings <> disbandment. Restructure <> disappearance. An equally valid hypothesis is that a normal bankruptcy proceeding would have allowed the industry to shake out its deadweight and become more productive.
3. "You can't really argue with statistics, public sector employment spiked briefly, but then dropped under Obama." If you want to stick to statistics - exact numbers, no spin - then here are the statements of fact. The stimulus, while the stimulus was in effect, preserved government jobs. The fact government jobs were lost after the stimulus program ceased is not relevant to the claim/criticism that the stimulus preserved government jobs.
4. The easily observable facts of economic indicators do not provide any context as to whether they are because of administration policy, or in spite of administration policy. I suppose you have no curiosity in that context.
5. If one of PPACA's aims was to improve access to healthcare, then by definition it must be an expansion of spending (for those who have no means), which - in a time of recession - is generally held to be a drag on economic recovery [in the long term, after the CBO gaming fantasy ends].
6. Try searching for articles on variations of "PPACA stepping stone single payer". I recall plenty of discussion. Your recollection of none means, I assume, you did not encounter any.
7. My opinion of Benen is only germane to objective and rational people who like to take the spin masters (eg. Limbaugh) with a grain of salt.
8. So when Obama claims Republicans have no "plans" (plan to a politician really being just concept of operations outline) to address the fiscal situation, entitlement reform, or health care reform in particular, he is a paragon of truth despite actual legislation that has been proposed or even passed in the House?
To recap, if we're going to be sloppy and blame budgets on presidents, here is the way FY 2009 went down:
- Bush submitted his budget proposal during the expected time window in early 2009
- Bush indicated he would veto the bill if it increased the deficit beyond his own request
- Congress (both houses Democrat-controlled) declined to pass any appropriations except those for Defence, HS, and VA until after the election
- Congress passed the remaining appropriations after Obama took office
- Obama signed the appropriations bill
So who's "watch" is that again, and which party controlled the actual legislation (ie. everything after the request)?
2. There is no estimate of auto sector jobs which would have been lost. Bankruptcy proceedings <> disbandment. Restructure <> disappearance. An equally valid hypothesis is that a normal bankruptcy proceeding would have allowed the industry to shake out its deadweight and become more productive.
3. "You can't really argue with statistics, public sector employment spiked briefly, but then dropped under Obama." If you want to stick to statistics - exact numbers, no spin - then here are the statements of fact. The stimulus, while the stimulus was in effect, preserved government jobs. The fact government jobs were lost after the stimulus program ceased is not relevant to the claim/criticism that the stimulus preserved government jobs.
4. The easily observable facts of economic indicators do not provide any context as to whether they are because of administration policy, or in spite of administration policy. I suppose you have no curiosity in that context.
5. If one of PPACA's aims was to improve access to healthcare, then by definition it must be an expansion of spending (for those who have no means), which - in a time of recession - is generally held to be a drag on economic recovery [in the long term, after the CBO gaming fantasy ends].
6. Try searching for articles on variations of "PPACA stepping stone single payer". I recall plenty of discussion. Your recollection of none means, I assume, you did not encounter any.
7. My opinion of Benen is only germane to objective and rational people who like to take the spin masters (eg. Limbaugh) with a grain of salt.
8. So when Obama claims Republicans have no "plans" (plan to a politician really being just concept of operations outline) to address the fiscal situation, entitlement reform, or health care reform in particular, he is a paragon of truth despite actual legislation that has been proposed or even passed in the House?
To recap, if we're going to be sloppy and blame budgets on presidents, here is the way FY 2009 went down:
- Bush submitted his budget proposal during the expected time window in early 2009
- Bush indicated he would veto the bill if it increased the deficit beyond his own request
- Congress (both houses Democrat-controlled) declined to pass any appropriations except those for Defence, HS, and VA until after the election
- Congress passed the remaining appropriations after Obama took office
- Obama signed the appropriations bill
So who's "watch" is that again, and which party controlled the actual legislation (ie. everything after the request)?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Brad Sallows said:
I don't really care that much about how President Obama decided to greet foreign leaders, and I don't think too many people do either, but that's just my perception. I've noted that the far right's tried really hard to make some political hay out of this, but I've seen nothing to suggest that it's been successful.
As far as the auto sector, I agree it's a huge issue. But I don't see any what that bankruptcy procedures would have come up with a much better outcome, given the nature and structure of the industry. I've not seen any good works that model how a bankruptcy could have worked, but admittedly, I've not really looked that hard for any, since it doesn't really matter, it's done now.
So the stimulus briefly preserved public sector jobs, before they shrank dramatically, so ultimately, the long term effect was not to preserve public sector jobs. I suppose that can be chalked up to perception too.
Point 4, well, market/economic statistics are measures of actual performance (things like corporate profits) and perception for future prospects. It's a little ridiculous the way people will claim business is booming "in spite of" an administration, without any real evidence.
Point 5 - that's easily countered. Canada has better access to health care (in terms of proportion of population covered) as do all other industrialized nations as they all have a form of universal healthcare. Yet all of them manage to spend less public money on their systems than the United States does. So no, there need not be an expansion of spending, just changes to how the money is spent.
Point 6 - Done. Lots of comments from pundits, lots of discussion on the prospects for it. I don't see anything from the federal Democrats in terms of policy statements, talking points, etc, that suggests that that is the aim. There was indeed plenty of discussion, but I also remember President Obama and others stating that they weren't interested in going that route.
Point 7 - Fair enough, I haven't read enough of his stuff to really criticize him, what I skimmed didn't look problematic.
As far as point 8 goes, their statements are based on looking at the proposals by the GOP. Most of the commentary is over analysis that GOP plans will actually increase the deficit and provide massive breaks to the wealthiest Americans, while gutting programs like Medicare. That, obviously, isn't acceptable to Democrats. The deadlock gripping American politics is over a fundamental difference in viewing the way out of the mess they're in - and I have to empathize with those who feel that money now has too much say in that.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,040
"because" vs "in spite of" is simply correlation <> causation.
Better access does not necessarily equal better outcomes. The US spends a lot more on healthcare, and those who are able to do so get a lot more. Whether that's "fair" or "just" is beside the point. It is easy to spend less, and easy as a consequence to get less and have to settle for less. I dispute that we have better access, because I can not get a regular family doctor. There simply seem to be none taking new clients.
Presumably the Democrats also agree with gutting Medicare, since the budget scoring for PPACA - which the Democrats passed, and support, and like to claim will result in deficit reduction - assumes the Medicare "doc fix" will be discontinued. I don't think it will improve access to Medicare when it is implemented.
Better access does not necessarily equal better outcomes. The US spends a lot more on healthcare, and those who are able to do so get a lot more. Whether that's "fair" or "just" is beside the point. It is easy to spend less, and easy as a consequence to get less and have to settle for less. I dispute that we have better access, because I can not get a regular family doctor. There simply seem to be none taking new clients.
Presumably the Democrats also agree with gutting Medicare, since the budget scoring for PPACA - which the Democrats passed, and support, and like to claim will result in deficit reduction - assumes the Medicare "doc fix" will be discontinued. I don't think it will improve access to Medicare when it is implemented.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Brad Sallows said:
That's the debate, whether the system there is "fair" or "just" - that's the whole crux of the debate and what's driven the Democrats' push to reform the system, with a fair bit of support. I look at the number of lies that have been spread about PPACA as a measure of just how afraid the GOP are that it will gain traction in the minds of voters.
Brad Sallows said:
I'm not an expert on this - going to have to read more about it - but I do know a bit about some of the challenge with the way medicare is structured, no one claimed fixing the system was going to be easy.
- Reaction score
- 5,010
- Points
- 1,260
Technoviking said:
It is the latest ideological battle. We (the Euro-American "we") finally settled religious 'freedom' in the 18th and 19th centuries; we settled legislative democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries; and in the 20th century we settled, or at least settled the framework for individual civil rights. Now we need to revisit a fundamental socio-economic issue: who gets to pick your (taxpaying) pocket and, more importantly, why? It's not quite the red headed step-child of the Whig-Tory battles of the 18th and 19th centuries, but it's a kissing cousin.
- Reaction score
- 5,010
- Points
- 1,260
Technoviking said:
Au contraire, TV, it matters to us, too, because this issue is being debated throughout the Euro-American world - from Greece through California to Ontario and back to Britain. We should know, from experience, that American attitudes spread over the border: if Obama wins we will become a wee tiny bit more liberal, if Romney wins we will shift an equally wee tiny bit in the other direction.
- Reaction score
- 1,577
- Points
- 1,090
The face of things to come? What effect will these bankrupt cities have on the Obama campaign? Is this the tip of the iceberg, the future for other cities in California and beyond?
Californian city of Stockton faces bankruptcy
BBC News
The Californian city of Stockton is set to become the largest US city to declare bankruptcy.
Mayor Ann Johnston told the city council which endorsed the move it was "the most difficult and heart-wrenching decision" they had ever faced.
But she said it had to be done to begin the recovery process.
The river port city of 290,000 - which lies 90 miles (144km) east of San Francisco - suffered badly during the US housing market crash.
Filing for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection would allow the city to hold some of its creditors at bay while still paying for basic services like its police and fire department.
More at link.
Californian city of Stockton faces bankruptcy
BBC News
The Californian city of Stockton is set to become the largest US city to declare bankruptcy.
Mayor Ann Johnston told the city council which endorsed the move it was "the most difficult and heart-wrenching decision" they had ever faced.
But she said it had to be done to begin the recovery process.
The river port city of 290,000 - which lies 90 miles (144km) east of San Francisco - suffered badly during the US housing market crash.
Filing for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection would allow the city to hold some of its creditors at bay while still paying for basic services like its police and fire department.
More at link.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
ModlrMike said:
Don't know how it'd really effect a Presidential campaign at all, to be honest. There's a myriad of problems that led to this. I worked fairly closely with a US Army officer who lives in Stockton who was telling us about what's been going on there, what a mess it's been between the housing crisis and other mismanagement in the city (and several others in California have the same problem), and California's fiscal challenges which are in large part attributable to the Republicans' Prop 13 which has had a significant impact on the ability to municipal governments to raise funds for services through property taxes as happens in most places. Sadly for California, Prop 13 is political kryptonite and there's no easy way to undo it.
It's funny to me that conservatives harp on California being broke - but California and most other "blue states" continue to subsidize "red states" - California being, as I recall, the largest contributor to such transfers.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,945
- Points
- 1,040
>Why the frig are you two battling so intently over an election in which neither of you will cast a ballot?
I have played my life by the "rules" - avoided living on credit, saved for a rainy day - and it will all go up in a cloud of inflation if the US can't get its sh!t together and match spending to revenues. (It may happen anyways because the European fascist/technocrat class is so hell-bent on protecting the currency union gambit they created to create a new supergovernment and governing supercaste).
People who spent all their hard-earned money will also, in effect, spend some of mine. Needless to say, that grates.
I have played my life by the "rules" - avoided living on credit, saved for a rainy day - and it will all go up in a cloud of inflation if the US can't get its sh!t together and match spending to revenues. (It may happen anyways because the European fascist/technocrat class is so hell-bent on protecting the currency union gambit they created to create a new supergovernment and governing supercaste).
People who spent all their hard-earned money will also, in effect, spend some of mine. Needless to say, that grates.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
In other news - Majority favour Obama over Romney in dealing with Alien Invasion (the green kind from outer space, not the illegal kind)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-obama-alien-invasion-20120627,0,6297016.story
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-obama-alien-invasion-20120627,0,6297016.story
Similar threads
