Top Opinion
-
ron 2012/10/03 19:51:55
+5Look we're just gonna have to trust him. He wouldn't lie. He's a man of God and morals and principles.What a joke. He really is starting to make me sick. I mean I can usually just laugh it off but this guy is really making me sick. Are you telling me that there's anybody who would really believes he paid the same taxes on that money.
I'd rather have a scammer in the White House scamming for the good of our country than the failure in the White House we have now.
Obama is a great likeable guy and has the rhetoric and charisma to go along with it; but If you look at Obama's overall record and the statistics, he is vying for first place over Buchanan, Grant, and Carter for the worst president in our history.
He has got to go.
I do not like tit for tat; but Obama's past is just as bad, if not worse.
It is no longer a question of anyone's past, whether or not true. It is a question of who can do the best for this country NOW. Obama presidency has already proved to be a failure. We cannot be sure that Romney can do better; but we can be sure that Obama, with all his personality, charisma, and rhetoric, cannot.
First of all it wasn't all Bush's mess. That's Democratic propaganda.The Democrats controlled Congress for the last two years of the Bush administration and the first two years of Obama's administration. They had plenty of time to work on the economy and pass anything they wanted to pass to improve the economy. Instead, time was wasted by bills that slowed the economy (Dodd-Frank), the ACA, and trying to spend our way out using policies that have never worked and haven't worked now. Other than that, they did nothing
The current drop in the unemployment rate is no indication that things are getting better. Companies have trimmed their permanent employees and now are replacing them with temp where possible to reduce the unknown costs of Obama Care. The overall unemployment rate is still exactly what it's been, which is 14.7%
All the Democrats had to do to start us on the way to recovery was to follow the same policies that Clinton, Reagan, and JFK used to get them out of their inherited recessions. (Romney proposes the same.) Instead, they have done just the opposite.
Take 3 or 4 minutes and watch the following: (and remember, JFK was a Democrat.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
WANT MORE?
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 12:16 PM EDT, Thu October 4, 2012
Debate season kicks off in Denver
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Mitt Romney decries "$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world"
He says "about half" of green firms aided by the 2009 stimulus are "out of business"
Despite flame-outs like Solyndra, most businesses appear to be still operational
(CNN) -- Republican nominee Mitt Romney has frequently railed against efforts championed by President Barack Obama steering money to promote "green energy."
He continued that line of attack Wednesday night, decrying what he described as...
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 12:16 PM EDT, Thu October 4, 2012
Debate season kicks off in Denver
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Mitt Romney decries "$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world"
He says "about half" of green firms aided by the 2009 stimulus are "out of business"
Despite flame-outs like Solyndra, most businesses appear to be still operational
(CNN) -- Republican nominee Mitt Romney has frequently railed against efforts championed by President Barack Obama steering money to promote "green energy."
He continued that line of attack Wednesday night, decrying what he described as "$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world."
"These businesses, many of them have gone out of business -- I think about half of them -- of the ones that have been invested in have gone out of business," the former Massachusetts governor said.
So are Romney's assertions correct, both about the size of the "green energy" program and what happened to those companies that got money from it?
The facts:
The Department of Energy proudly touts that the 2009 stimulus authorized $90 billion "in government investments and tax incentives to lay the foundation for the clean energy economy of our future."
But not all that money has been spent, and not all of it -- in fact, not even half of it -- is being directed to upstart green businesses.
Part of 2009's much larger $787 billion stimulus package, this money went toward things like the weatherization of more than 770,000 homes and cleaning 688 square miles of land formerly used for Cold War-era nuclear testing.
Many individual companies did benefit directly. The government website that tracks stimulus spending lists 27,226 individual awards under the "Energy/Environment" section, totaling just shy of $34 billion.
The Department of Energy this June specified "33 clean energy projects" of a larger scale as part of its "loans program." Of those, financing had been "closed" on 20 of them. The intent was to promote new technologies and approaches, not necessarily old ones.
There are also other things such as high speed rail and smart meters -- which are listed elsewhere, under "Infrastructure," as part of the same overarching stimulus legislation. Accounting for things like that, a report from the Brookings Institution non-partisan think tank this April tabbed the total green stimulus spending at $51 billion.
Then, there's the matter of whether half of those companies that have gotten money "have gone out of business."
A few recipients of the government funds have hit hard times. The most well-known of them is solar panel maker Solyndra, which received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. Two years later, it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Fact Check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama
Still, it is unclear where Romney got his figure that "half" those businesses are no longer operating.
The Energy Department cites several success stories like one of the world's largest wind farms in eastern Oregon, massive solar power plants in Arizona and grants to Ford to produce fuel-efficient cars.
In fact, of the 28 funded projects -- involving 23 companies -- listed in a 2012 congressional report, only four involve businesses that were either sold or are not in operation.
Conclusion:
It is fair to say that the 2009 stimulus authorized $90 billion for green energy, as Romney asserted. Whether or not one terms these as "breaks" is subjective, and one shouldn't assume that all the funds went to specific businesses like Solyndra.
Most of the large projects that benefited from the Department of Energy loan program remain in operation -- contrary to Romney's assertion that "almost half" of them had closed.
His software is set to go into zinger mode if things start to go badly for him. The Romentron will start incoherently spitting out one liners in a last ditch effort to save face and look human. "You increased the debt by $5 trillion dollars; where's your birth certificate; you smoked pot; look at my nice hair; My Indian name is dances with horses." It's going to be bad.
Of course the Republicans will blame the nonexistent teleprompters for shorting out their Romentron completely ignoring the fact Wall Street Willard is not human. They will claim that the Romentron was assembled in this country (even though its parts made in China) so it's eligible to run for office.
Both parties are to blame....and you and I and the rest of the American voters are most to blame for not doing our job of playing watchdog over our government and its propaganda.
I do not care whether you are liberal or conservative; vote out those who are detrimental to our county in the long run...not the short run. Think about that the next time you vote for anybody.
If there was a viable third party candidate I would consider them. I voted for Perot back in 1992.
and the Resulting Credit Crisis: A Non-Technical Paper"
By JEFF HOLT ... seems to sum it up pretty well.
http://www.uvu.edu/woodbury/j...
I will look up the Phil Gramm amendment.
I voted for Ross Perot as well....taught me a lesson not to vote for third party candidates.
This paper falsely clams that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for the housing bubble.
http://www.businessweek.com/i...
"University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
The housing crises was not caused by poor people buying houses they couldn't afford. It was caused by greedy bankers and relaxed regulations.