---------------
In answer to Mr. Keeler and his political success ideas for the Republican Party, you dug deep to find these Romney slips. There are so few you must search for them. He doesn’t drink, smoke, use drugs ... not popular attributes today, are they.
Today those favoring Obama are more in favor of drug use, abortion, and in the name of woman bashing, insurance to pay for birth control by the Catholic Church. The government has no business meddling in church affairs ... none. Where did you get the “making it hard for poor and infirm to vote” idea?
A few of Obama’s “qualifications” are:
A. His early mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member.
B. George Soros ... a billionaire who “owns” Obama.
C. His associates include Rescoe, Ayers, Soros, Mahr and numerous other shadowy people.
D. Remember Rev. Wright ... who Obama never hard derogatory words from in the 20 years of attending his church. Yeah right!
E. Community organizer ... a “job?”
F. Collecting votes from illegals.
We’re lucky our children have escaped your liberalism.
With all the lies coming out of Washington this week, this one stands out: The “forgetfulness” of Obama about General Electric’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt and his outsourcing electronics technology to China. Besides this, GE has more than 200 plants in more than 40 other foreign countries. I’d say this is major outsourcing. Mr. Immelt happens to be one of Obama’s major contributors.
Is this not outsourcing, by a very wealthy Democrat? Hmmm, could this be why General Electric paid no U.S. taxes last year?
I cannot imagine why Mitt Romney hasn’t gotten angry enough about this, plus all the other lies and nonsense the Democrats are tossing out, to stand up, fight back, and get this election back on track.
---------------
In answer to Mr. Keeler and his political success ideas for the Republican Party, you dug deep to find these Romney slips. There are so few you must search for them. He doesn’t drink, smoke, use drugs ... not popular attributes today, are they.
Today those favoring Obama are more in favor of drug use, abortion, and in the name of woman bashing, insurance to pay for birth control by the Catholic Church. The government has no business meddling in church affairs ... none. Where did you get the “making it hard for poor and infirm to vote” idea?
A few of Obama’s “qualifications” are:
A. His early mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member.
B. George Soros ... a billionaire who “owns” Obama.
C. His associates include Rescoe, Ayers, Soros, Mahr and numerous other shadowy people.
D. Remember Rev. Wright ... who Obama never hard derogatory words from in the 20 years of attending his church. Yeah right!
E. Community organizer ... a “job?”
F. Collecting votes from illegals.
We’re lucky our children have escaped your liberalism.
With all the lies coming out of Washington this week, this one stands out: The “forgetfulness” of Obama about General Electric’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt and his outsourcing electronics technology to China. Besides this, GE has more than 200 plants in more than 40 other foreign countries. I’d say this is major outsourcing. Mr. Immelt happens to be one of Obama’s major contributors.
Is this not outsourcing, by a very wealthy Democrat? Hmmm, could this be why General Electric paid no U.S. taxes last year?
I cannot imagine why Mitt Romney hasn’t gotten angry enough about this, plus all the other lies and nonsense the Democrats are tossing out, to stand up, fight back, and get this election back on track.
---------------
Ms. Kerber has spent so much time listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox’s scurrilous lies about President Obama that some facts may have escaped her (Scurrilous: Given to the use of vulgar, coarse, or abusive language; foul-mouthed. 2.
Expressed in vulgar, coarse, and abusive language. This is the typical hyperbolic rhetoric from the Left. And Fox News is the omnipresent bogeyman tossed out there as if the mere mention of it is sufficient. This technique is the logical fallacy known as Poisoning the Well.)
The U.S. economy (growth, job creation, stock market performance) has done better historically under Democratic presidents. (The real measure of this would be to compare the make-up of various congresses, since it is congress that holds the purse strings. Two examples that point to this as a more relevant measure: 1) Bill Clinton's economy didn't begin to turn around until the Republican takeover of congress in 1995. 2) the touted low growth of spending under Obama can be attributed, at least in part, to the Democrats losing the House of Representatives to the Republicans in 2010 [after they allocate the huge spending increase in 2008-2009 to Bush, of course]).
Taxes have been higher on the wealthy and income disparity lower. (Except they haven't. The top 10% of wage earners have never paid a higher percentage of income tax than they do now. And there is a difference between marginal tax rates and actual tax paid, which means that actual tax paid can be higher with lower marginal rates as loopholes are closed and as tax evasion becomes less of an issue when rates are lower.
And the assertion about the middle class is also false, for various reasons including the definition of "middle class" is fluid, and because of the migration of people from the middle class to the upper class increases the percentage of upper class. Indeed, this means more people became rich.
Finally, "income disparity" is desirable. I want the man who is going to cut open my gut to operate on me to be paid substantially more than a guy who sweeps floors. But maybe that's just me.
The middle class prospered. Except that according to most measures, middle class income has been flat since Carter. Hmm, I seem to remember both republican and democratic presidents between then and now.
CNBC tells us that the rich have not gotten richer: "Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period... the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent. In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession."
The U.S. economy (growth, job creation, stock market performance) has done better historically under Democratic presidents. (The real measure of this would be to compare the make-up of various congresses, since it is congress that holds the purse strings. Two examples that point to this as a more relevant measure: 1) Bill Clinton's economy didn't begin to turn around until the Republican takeover of congress in 1995. 2) the touted low growth of spending under Obama can be attributed, at least in part, to the Democrats losing the House of Representatives to the Republicans in 2010 [after they allocate the huge spending increase in 2008-2009 to Bush, of course]).
Taxes have been higher on the wealthy and income disparity lower. (Except they haven't. The top 10% of wage earners have never paid a higher percentage of income tax than they do now. And there is a difference between marginal tax rates and actual tax paid, which means that actual tax paid can be higher with lower marginal rates as loopholes are closed and as tax evasion becomes less of an issue when rates are lower.
And the assertion about the middle class is also false, for various reasons including the definition of "middle class" is fluid, and because of the migration of people from the middle class to the upper class increases the percentage of upper class. Indeed, this means more people became rich.
Finally, "income disparity" is desirable. I want the man who is going to cut open my gut to operate on me to be paid substantially more than a guy who sweeps floors. But maybe that's just me.
The middle class prospered. Except that according to most measures, middle class income has been flat since Carter. Hmm, I seem to remember both republican and democratic presidents between then and now.
CNBC tells us that the rich have not gotten richer: "Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period... the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent. In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession."
Obama brought us back from the brink of the Bush catastrophe. (Ok, we have the first actual mention of Obama since the initial accusation about Ms. Kerber being a liar. But it is nothing but a bare, generic statement. It corrects no facts, offers no evidence, and refutes nothing. Then Ms. Richardson immediately returns the topic right back to Bush:)
Bush had the worst eight-year economy in recent American history; only 1 million jobs were created under his tenure. (These things are easy to check, so one might wonder how a person accusing another of lying might also fail to convey the truth herself. This chart from the government's own website chronicles job growth:
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 109214 | 109055 | 108990 | 108894 | 108814 | 108826 | 108731 | 108675 | 108663 | 108771 | 108757 | 108587 | |
| 2003 | 108644 | 108487 | 108288 | 108254 | 108273 | 108234 | 108232 | 108264 | 108425 | 108568 | 108605 | 108713 | |
| 2004 | 108883 | 108915 | 109214 | 109437 | 109747 | 109841 | 109882 | 109984 | 110136 | 110463 | 110490 | 110623 | |
| 2005 | 110718 | 110949 | 111094 | 111440 | 111583 | 111844 | 112124 | 112311 | 112395 | 112491 | 112795 | 112935 | |
| 2006 | 113250 | 113535 | 113793 | 113958 | 113965 | 114045 | 114203 | 114348 | 114434 | 114439 | 114628 | 114794 | |
| 2007 | 115023 | 115080 | 115252 | 115298 | 115419 | 115480 | 115476 | 115403 | 115423 | 115484 | 115559 | 115606 | |
| 2008 | 115647 | 115511 | 115399 | 115184 | 114968 | 114737 | 114478 | 114184 | 113759 | 113279 | 112482 | 111824 | |
| 2009 | 110985 | 110260 | 109473 | 108671 | 108359 | 107933 | 107637 | 107418 | 107234 | 107002 | 106960 | 106840 | |
| 2010 | 106800 | 106773 | 106914 | 107107 | 107191 | 107283 | 107375 | 107503 | 107618 | 107814 | 107948 | 108088 | |
| 2011 | 108207 | 108464 | 108725 | 108989 | 109097 | 109199 | 109374 | 109426 | 109642 | 109781 | 109959 | 110193 | |
| 2012 | 110470 | 110724 | 110871 | 110956 | 111072 | 111135 | 111297(P) | 111400(P) | |||||
| P : preliminary | |||||||||||||
In January 2002, 109,214,000 were employed. The highest number before the recession was 115,647,000 in January 2008. By my calculation, that is an increase of 6,433,000 jobs. (And let's not forget that the Democrats took over Congress right about then, and things started going down. Certainly not only because of the Democrats, but because of free spending Republicans as well.)
His massive tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and caused massive deficits. (Nope. Actually, government revenues increased a total of 44% during Bush's presidency. Spending, however, far outstripped the pace of revenue increases. Spending is always the problem.)
Under Obama 4 million jobs have been created, even though the GOP filibustered his American Jobs Act. (According to the chart, April of 2010 is where employment started increasing again. Is it coincidental that when the democrats brag about creating jobs, they measure the last "26 months?" I think not. Ok, so granting them that calculation point for the moment, in April of 2010 there were 107,107,000 people employed. The estimated number of people employed as of last month is 111,400,000, which is an increase of 4,293,000, which is the number they prefer to use.
But from the peak employment number we are 4,247,000 jobs short, plus, had the trend continued from the peak, we are even worse off. If we use the point at which Democrats took over congress to when Republicans gained control of the house, 7 million jobs were lost. The kind of jobs created are important as well.
A recent CBS report tells us that “the recovery continues to be skewed toward low-wage jobs, reinforcing the rise in inequality and America’s deficit of good jobs. While there’s understandably a lot of focus on getting employment back to pre-recession levels, the quality of jobs is rapidly emerging as a second front in the struggling recovery.”)
Bush led us into two unpaid-for wars that mushroomed the deficit; Obama has ended the Iraq war and is on target to get us out of Afghanistan. (Votes to authorize spending for the wars always had a bunch of Democrats voting "yes." And the Democrats controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for two years. And Democrats have nearly unanimously voted for every budget and every expenditure [along with a number of complicit Republicans]. What happened to the National Debt during that period? It increased by $3,100,762,233,450!)
Our economy has been growing since mid-2009 with private payrolls growing for 26 months. However, the GOP-demonized public sector has lost jobs like teachers, policemen and firemen. (Ooo, there's that "special" 26 month period, which of course is a standard period of measurement.... not. But can we ask, how many teachers, policemen, and firemen are federal employees? The answer would be zero.
And when, exactly, has the GOP demonized teachers, policemen, and firemen? I did some searches and couldn't find an example. In fact, the GOP in particular tends to support essential services and law-and-order-type stuff. Demonize? Where?)
President Obama is still digging out; he’s not done. (Ugh. If he's digging us out, we are in real trouble. Besides, it is private citizens and businesses that "dig us out." Giving pretty speeches doesn't cut it. Big, deficit-causing programs don't either. I wish he would leave us alone, and we the people will solve the problem. Then he can go back to the golf course and do what he does best).
He deserves another term to complete what he has begun. Romney-Ryan economic policies would be Bush on steroids. Forward not back!
(You know, when someone accuses others of being liars, one had better make sure that one tells the truth. For people like Ms. Richardson, that is a high bar indeed.)
No comments:
Post a Comment