Why do you hide the source? Afraid we would all laugh at your bogus blogs where you get your crap?
Ron Paul wants to end deficits and pay off the debt. Obama sets a record deficit every year. Why would you be for Obama, it will keep your grandchildren in debt for their whole lives.
THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!
I don't know, joey. It sounds like he has you whooped. You're in a holding pattern asking the same irrelevant rhetorical question over and over, like there's an answer to it. There will be racism. You want there to be no penalty for it, Bill wants there to be a penalty.
The language used in the fact-checking-Ron-Paul stuff, along with the content, is completely feasible, I'd bet it's from a non-partisan fact-check site, as most of those are non-partisan.
I know you have a man-crush on Ron Paul, so it stings a little.
The Darrell Issa thing is quoted from Fox News, Fair and Balanced. He's got you on the ropes, you're gonna have to try harder than mere socialist-this and Nazi-that.
The language used in the fact-checking-Ron-Paul stuff, along with the content, is completely feasible, I'd bet it's from a non-partisan fact-check site, as most of those are non-partisan.
I know you have a man-crush on Ron Paul, so it stings a little.
The Darrell Issa thing is quoted from Fox News, Fair and Balanced. He's got you on the ropes, you're gonna have to try harder than mere socialist-this and Nazi-that.I'm not afraid like you are Joe.
Did not mean to hide any sources. Can you dispute any of it ?
OR do you abide by the secret right wing mantra, "Never mind the facts, I already have an opinion".
Fact Check:
http://factcheck.org/
About Us
Our Mission
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
Our Funding
Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation. We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from corporations, unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups.
In 2010, we began accepting donations from individual members of the public for the first time, responding to many unsolicited offers of support from our subscribers. We launched our first public appeal for donations in April 2010.
At that time we also decided to disclose our finances in greater detail, so that our readers may judge for themselves whether or not any of those individual donations could influence us.
Our policy is to disclose the identity of any individual donor giving $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations under $1,000.
Did not mean to hide any sources. Can you dispute any of it ?
OR do you abide by the secret right wing mantra, "Never mind the facts, I already have an opinion".
Fact Check:
http://factcheck.org/
About Us
Our Mission
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
Our Funding
Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation. We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from corporations, unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups.
In 2010, we began accepting donations from individual members of the public for the first time, responding to many unsolicited offers of support from our subscribers. We launched our first public appeal for donations in April 2010.
At that time we also decided to disclose our finances in greater detail, so that our readers may judge for themselves whether or not any of those individual donations could influence us.
Our policy is to disclose the identity of any individual donor giving $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations under $1,000.
Same source...
Obama’s Solyndra Problem
Posted on October 7, 2011
President Obama exaggerated when defending his administration’s approval of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar company.
Obama referred to Solyndra’s loan at an Oct. 6 press conference as “a loan guarantee program that predates me.” That’s not accurate. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies developing “innovative technologies.” But Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing “commercially available technologies.”
The president also overstated past Republican support for the program, saying “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.” Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and some of them even voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
Lastly, the president deemed the loan guarantee program “successful” overall. But it is too soon to say.
Solyndra and the Stimulus
The Republican-controlled House has been investigating whether the administration ignored red flags about Solyndra’s financial condition when it offered a $535 million loan guarantee to the start-up company. The California company announced in August it would file for bankruptcy protection — about two and a half years after receiving the loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.
Asked whether the Solyndra controversy gave him “pause about any of the decision-making going on in your administration,” Obama first talked about the loan guarantee program.
Obama, Oct. 6: Solyndra — this is a loan guarantee program that predates me that historically has had support from Democrats and Republicans as well. And the idea is pretty straightforward: If we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge technologies, we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge manufacturing.
The loan guarantee program that provided financing for Solyndra, however, does not predate Obama.
There are two loan guarantee programs for renewable energy companies. The first was created under section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It was designed to help support U.S. companies developing “a new or significantly improved technology that is NOT a commercial technology,” according to the Energy Department’s description of the program. It was a self-pay credit subsidy program, meaning the companies receiving the loan would have to pay the government a fee “equal to the present value of estimated payments the government would make in the event of a default.”
The second program was created with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, more commonly known as the stimulus law. The recovery act amended the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to create section 1705 for “commercially available technologies,” as the Energy Department explains on page 12 of a 2009 report on stimulus funding. The stimulus provided more funding for the loan guarantee programs. The loans under the new program also came with no credit subsidy fees, making them more attractive and less expensive than those under the program signed into law by President Bush. It was under this program that Solyndra was able to get financing, although the company initially applied under the section 1703 program.
In a March 2009 press release announcing a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, the Energy Department said: “This loan guarantee will be supported through the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provides tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantee authority to build a new green energy economy.” Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, confirmed that Solyndra’s funding came solely from section 1705.
Solyndra was the first company to receive a loan guarantee under either program. Since then, the program has helped nearly 40 projects at a cost of about $36 billion — mostly under section 1705. Jonathan Silver — the former director of the Energy Department’s loan office who recently resigned — testified that the section 1703 program did not generate much interest perhaps because start-up companies found “the potential self-pay credit subsidy cost to be prohibitive.”
The president also overstated the level of Republican support for the program when he said “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.”
Obama, Oct. 6: And by the way, let me make one last point about this. I heard there was a Republican member of Congress who’s engaging in oversight on this, and despite the fact that all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know what? We can’t compete against China when it comes to solar energy.
The stimulus bill that funded Solyndra received no Republican votes in the House and only three in the Senate — including Sen. Arlen Specter, who later switched parties.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 that created the section 1703 loan guarantee program had the support of a majority of Republicans — who controlled both houses of Congress at the time — but not “all” of them. The House passed the conference bill 275-156, and 31 Republicans opposed it. The Senate passed it 74-26, with six Republicans voting no. Sens. Joe Biden, now Obama’s vice president, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s Secretary of State, voted against it, as did many other Democrats. Clinton criticized the bill as too generous to the oil industry and attacked Obama for voting for it, as we wrote during the 2008 Democratic primary.
An Overall Success?
Obama also defended the funding for Solyndra by saying that the loan program’s “overall portfolio has been successful.” But it may be too soon to say for sure.
So far, the Energy Department has finalized loan guarantees for 33 projects and has conditional commitments for five others. In total, the Energy Department says that it has put almost $36 billion into the program, according to information published on its website.
It says that “these projects plan to employ more than 60,000 Americans, create additional tens of thousands of indirect jobs, provide enough clean electricity to power three million homes, and save more than 300 million gallons of gasoline a year.” That’s all well and good if everything goes according to plan. But as the Solyndra episode demonstrates, it doesn’t always work out that way.
For one thing, the figures for jobs created are supplied by the companies themselves, but not independently verified by the Department of Energy. Furthermore, it is too early to say whether the government will get all of its loaned money back when all is said and done.
In the case of Solyndra, according to news reports, the company had drawn down all but about $8 million of its total loan allotment at the time that it announced it would file for bankruptcy. It’s not clear that taxpayers will get any of that money back. And while the Solyndra project was responsible for creating 3,000 construction jobs, according to the company, nearly 1,100 people lost their jobs when it announced it was shutting down operations at its solar plant.
A time may come when the program can be called a “success,” but doing so now may be premature.
– D’Angelo Gore and Eugene Kiely
Obama’s Solyndra Problem
Posted on October 7, 2011
President Obama exaggerated when defending his administration’s approval of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar company.
Obama referred to Solyndra’s loan at an Oct. 6 press conference as “a loan guarantee program that predates me.” That’s not accurate. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies developing “innovative technologies.” But Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing “commercially available technologies.”
The president also overstated past Republican support for the program, saying “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.” Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and some of them even voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
Lastly, the president deemed the loan guarantee program “successful” overall. But it is too soon to say.
Solyndra and the Stimulus
The Republican-controlled House has been investigating whether the administration ignored red flags about Solyndra’s financial condition when it offered a $535 million loan guarantee to the start-up company. The California company announced in August it would file for bankruptcy protection — about two and a half years after receiving the loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.
Asked whether the Solyndra controversy gave him “pause about any of the decision-making going on in your administration,” Obama first talked about the loan guarantee program.
Obama, Oct. 6: Solyndra — this is a loan guarantee program that predates me that historically has had support from Democrats and Republicans as well. And the idea is pretty straightforward: If we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge technologies, we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge manufacturing.
The loan guarantee program that provided financing for Solyndra, however, does not predate Obama.
There are two loan guarantee programs for renewable energy companies. The first was created under section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It was designed to help support U.S. companies developing “a new or significantly improved technology that is NOT a commercial technology,” according to the Energy Department’s description of the program. It was a self-pay credit subsidy program, meaning the companies receiving the loan would have to pay the government a fee “equal to the present value of estimated payments the government would make in the event of a default.”
The second program was created with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, more commonly known as the stimulus law. The recovery act amended the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to create section 1705 for “commercially available technologies,” as the Energy Department explains on page 12 of a 2009 report on stimulus funding. The stimulus provided more funding for the loan guarantee programs. The loans under the new program also came with no credit subsidy fees, making them more attractive and less expensive than those under the program signed into law by President Bush. It was under this program that Solyndra was able to get financing, although the company initially applied under the section 1703 program.
In a March 2009 press release announcing a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, the Energy Department said: “This loan guarantee will be supported through the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provides tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantee authority to build a new green energy economy.” Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, confirmed that Solyndra’s funding came solely from section 1705.
Solyndra was the first company to receive a loan guarantee under either program. Since then, the program has helped nearly 40 projects at a cost of about $36 billion — mostly under section 1705. Jonathan Silver — the former director of the Energy Department’s loan office who recently resigned — testified that the section 1703 program did not generate much interest perhaps because start-up companies found “the potential self-pay credit subsidy cost to be prohibitive.”
The president also overstated the level of Republican support for the program when he said “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.”
Obama, Oct. 6: And by the way, let me make one last point about this. I heard there was a Republican member of Congress who’s engaging in oversight on this, and despite the fact that all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know what? We can’t compete against China when it comes to solar energy.
The stimulus bill that funded Solyndra received no Republican votes in the House and only three in the Senate — including Sen. Arlen Specter, who later switched parties.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 that created the section 1703 loan guarantee program had the support of a majority of Republicans — who controlled both houses of Congress at the time — but not “all” of them. The House passed the conference bill 275-156, and 31 Republicans opposed it. The Senate passed it 74-26, with six Republicans voting no. Sens. Joe Biden, now Obama’s vice president, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s Secretary of State, voted against it, as did many other Democrats. Clinton criticized the bill as too generous to the oil industry and attacked Obama for voting for it, as we wrote during the 2008 Democratic primary.
An Overall Success?
Obama also defended the funding for Solyndra by saying that the loan program’s “overall portfolio has been successful.” But it may be too soon to say for sure.
So far, the Energy Department has finalized loan guarantees for 33 projects and has conditional commitments for five others. In total, the Energy Department says that it has put almost $36 billion into the program, according to information published on its website.
It says that “these projects plan to employ more than 60,000 Americans, create additional tens of thousands of indirect jobs, provide enough clean electricity to power three million homes, and save more than 300 million gallons of gasoline a year.” That’s all well and good if everything goes according to plan. But as the Solyndra episode demonstrates, it doesn’t always work out that way.
For one thing, the figures for jobs created are supplied by the companies themselves, but not independently verified by the Department of Energy. Furthermore, it is too early to say whether the government will get all of its loaned money back when all is said and done.
In the case of Solyndra, according to news reports, the company had drawn down all but about $8 million of its total loan allotment at the time that it announced it would file for bankruptcy. It’s not clear that taxpayers will get any of that money back. And while the Solyndra project was responsible for creating 3,000 construction jobs, according to the company, nearly 1,100 people lost their jobs when it announced it was shutting down operations at its solar plant.
A time may come when the program can be called a “success,” but doing so now may be premature.
– D’Angelo Gore and Eugene Kiely
This is fro Frank who is now down the middle. And for anyone who wants the truth about the Republican candidates.
Home • The FactCheck Wire • Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate
Posted on October 11, 2011 , Updated on Oct. 14, 2011
At the latest debate, the Republican presidential candidates repeated several claims they’ve made before. The candidates participated in a roundtable-style discussion at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where they reiterated false and misleading lines about the federal health care law, the debt ceiling debate, job creation and more:
■Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney repeated his talking point that the health care law in his state only affected 8 percent of the population — or just the uninsured — while the federal law “takes over health care for everyone.” But that’s wrong on several levels. Both laws affect everyone by requiring that all residents have insurance or pay a penalty; both also focus on helping the uninsured gain coverage. And, just like the federal plan, the Massachusetts law set up an exchange where individuals buying their own insurance can select from various private health plans. That affects more than just those who were uninsured when the law was passed.
■Romney also made the misleading assertion that “raising taxes is one of the big problems, something we didn’t do in Massachusetts.” The state actually raised the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, but the tax was implemented by the current governor, Deval Patrick. Also, the original law instituted fines for residents who don’t have insurance and businesses that don’t provide coverage. Is such a “fine” a “tax”? Romney’s camp thought so of similar provisions in the federal law, when they sent us a list of “taxes” in that legislation.
■Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his job-creation boasting too far again, claiming that “while this country was losing two-and-a-half million jobs, Texas was creating 1 million jobs.” That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Texas has created a little more than 1 million jobs during Perry’s time in office, but the nation lost 1.4 million in that same time frame — not 2.5 million. To make the national picture look even worse, Perry goes back to January 2009. The nation has lost 2.4 million jobs since then, but Texas created only 95,600 jobs in that time period.
■Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann once again claimed that the resolution to the debt ceiling debate gave President Obama a “$2.4 trillion blank check.” But Obama can’t spend this any way he wants. The money is used to pay obligations Congress already has authorized or will authorize. And besides, a check for a set amount is not a “blank check.”
■Bachmann falsely claimed that a Medicare advisory panel created by the federal health care law “will make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans.” Hers is a new twist on a false Republican talking point that the Independent Payment Advisory Board will ration health care for seniors. The board is specifically barred from rationing care on page 490 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It’s true that the board will consist of 15 “political appointees,” as Bachmann said, and they will recommend ways to slow the growth of Medicare. But board members must be medical providers and other professionals with experience in health care finance, actuarial science, health care management and other related fields. And the board’s recommendations can be rejected by Congress, as we have explained before.
■Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman dredged up an old partisan exaggeration in claiming that the IRS was planning on hiring “19,500 new employees to administer that mandate” in the health care law. We knocked down this inflated claim in March 2010, when it was about 16,500 IRS employees. The truth is that the claim comes from a report by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee who made several false assumptions to come up with that number. Plus, the IRS’ primary role isn’t to “administer that mandate,” as Huntsman claims. It will mainly administer subsidies and tax credits. And so far, the IRS has requested 1,269 full-time equivalent employees, according to its fiscal year 2012 budget request, to help implement the law.
■Huntsman also repeated his claim that when he was governor, Utah was No. 1 in job creation, while Massachusetts ranked 47th under Romney. Huntsman’s statistic is true according to data based on household surveys by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But according to the most commonly used yardstick for job growth, payroll data, Utah was actually No. 4. How common is the payroll data method? Huntsman cites a report that used the payroll data numbers to arrive at Massachusetts’ No. 47 ranking under Romney.
■Bachmann reiterated a common Republican exaggeration, claiming that the deficit is larger than it really is. She said: “We are spending 40 percent more than what we take in.” That’s not true. The actual figure is 37 percent, according to the most recent monthly statement of the U.S. Treasury, covering the first 11 months of the fiscal year that just ended. (Final figures won’t be available for a few more days.) For the first 11 months, outlays were $3,296,399,000,000 and the deficit was $1,234,052,000,000 (rounded to the nearest million). So we spent 37.4 percent more than receipts. Furthermore, the deficit for the previous fiscal year was also 37.4 percent more than we took in.■Bachmann also said the deficit for the year was $1.5 trillion, which is untrue. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates (based on daily Treasury statements) that the deficit for fiscal 2011 was $1.294 trillion, just $3 billion less than the year before. The final, official Treasury figures may change those figures by a few billion, but not nearly enough to justify Bachmann’s inflated claims. (Update, Oct. 14: Final figures for fiscal 2011 (issued Oct. 14) later showed that the actual deficit for the full 12 months was $1.299 trillion, and the deficit amounted to 36.1 cents of every dollar.)
We will be vetting new claims from the candidates as well. Please check our site tomorrow for more on the debate.
– Lori Robertson, Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley
Home • The FactCheck Wire • Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate
Posted on October 11, 2011 , Updated on Oct. 14, 2011
At the latest debate, the Republican presidential candidates repeated several claims they’ve made before. The candidates participated in a roundtable-style discussion at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where they reiterated false and misleading lines about the federal health care law, the debt ceiling debate, job creation and more:
■Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney repeated his talking point that the health care law in his state only affected 8 percent of the population — or just the uninsured — while the federal law “takes over health care for everyone.” But that’s wrong on several levels. Both laws affect everyone by requiring that all residents have insurance or pay a penalty; both also focus on helping the uninsured gain coverage. And, just like the federal plan, the Massachusetts law set up an exchange where individuals buying their own insurance can select from various private health plans. That affects more than just those who were uninsured when the law was passed.
■Romney also made the misleading assertion that “raising taxes is one of the big problems, something we didn’t do in Massachusetts.” The state actually raised the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, but the tax was implemented by the current governor, Deval Patrick. Also, the original law instituted fines for residents who don’t have insurance and businesses that don’t provide coverage. Is such a “fine” a “tax”? Romney’s camp thought so of similar provisions in the federal law, when they sent us a list of “taxes” in that legislation.
■Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his job-creation boasting too far again, claiming that “while this country was losing two-and-a-half million jobs, Texas was creating 1 million jobs.” That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Texas has created a little more than 1 million jobs during Perry’s time in office, but the nation lost 1.4 million in that same time frame — not 2.5 million. To make the national picture look even worse, Perry goes back to January 2009. The nation has lost 2.4 million jobs since then, but Texas created only 95,600 jobs in that time period.
■Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann once again claimed that the resolution to the debt ceiling debate gave President Obama a “$2.4 trillion blank check.” But Obama can’t spend this any way he wants. The money is used to pay obligations Congress already has authorized or will authorize. And besides, a check for a set amount is not a “blank check.”
■Bachmann falsely claimed that a Medicare advisory panel created by the federal health care law “will make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans.” Hers is a new twist on a false Republican talking point that the Independent Payment Advisory Board will ration health care for seniors. The board is specifically barred from rationing care on page 490 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It’s true that the board will consist of 15 “political appointees,” as Bachmann said, and they will recommend ways to slow the growth of Medicare. But board members must be medical providers and other professionals with experience in health care finance, actuarial science, health care management and other related fields. And the board’s recommendations can be rejected by Congress, as we have explained before.
■Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman dredged up an old partisan exaggeration in claiming that the IRS was planning on hiring “19,500 new employees to administer that mandate” in the health care law. We knocked down this inflated claim in March 2010, when it was about 16,500 IRS employees. The truth is that the claim comes from a report by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee who made several false assumptions to come up with that number. Plus, the IRS’ primary role isn’t to “administer that mandate,” as Huntsman claims. It will mainly administer subsidies and tax credits. And so far, the IRS has requested 1,269 full-time equivalent employees, according to its fiscal year 2012 budget request, to help implement the law.
■Huntsman also repeated his claim that when he was governor, Utah was No. 1 in job creation, while Massachusetts ranked 47th under Romney. Huntsman’s statistic is true according to data based on household surveys by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But according to the most commonly used yardstick for job growth, payroll data, Utah was actually No. 4. How common is the payroll data method? Huntsman cites a report that used the payroll data numbers to arrive at Massachusetts’ No. 47 ranking under Romney.
■Bachmann reiterated a common Republican exaggeration, claiming that the deficit is larger than it really is. She said: “We are spending 40 percent more than what we take in.” That’s not true. The actual figure is 37 percent, according to the most recent monthly statement of the U.S. Treasury, covering the first 11 months of the fiscal year that just ended. (Final figures won’t be available for a few more days.) For the first 11 months, outlays were $3,296,399,000,000 and the deficit was $1,234,052,000,000 (rounded to the nearest million). So we spent 37.4 percent more than receipts. Furthermore, the deficit for the previous fiscal year was also 37.4 percent more than we took in.■Bachmann also said the deficit for the year was $1.5 trillion, which is untrue. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates (based on daily Treasury statements) that the deficit for fiscal 2011 was $1.294 trillion, just $3 billion less than the year before. The final, official Treasury figures may change those figures by a few billion, but not nearly enough to justify Bachmann’s inflated claims. (Update, Oct. 14: Final figures for fiscal 2011 (issued Oct. 14) later showed that the actual deficit for the full 12 months was $1.299 trillion, and the deficit amounted to 36.1 cents of every dollar.)
We will be vetting new claims from the candidates as well. Please check our site tomorrow for more on the debate.
– Lori Robertson, Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley
Why do you care about the next generations debt yet NOT care about poisoning them ? Between the two choices I will chose cap and trade. There is already too much mercury in fish and it is at dangerous levels for children.undercoverjoe wrote:Why do you hide the source? Afraid we would all laugh at your bogus blogs where you get your crap?
Ron Paul wants to end deficits and pay off the debt. Obama sets a record deficit every year. Why would you be for Obama, it will keep your grandchildren in debt for their whole lives.
Given your love for money I see why you care about money. Given my love for people and their health I chose laws to protect people, their kids, their grand kids and their health.
-
RobTheDrummer
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 5227
- Joined: Tuesday Dec 10, 2002
- Location: Tiptonia, Pa
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Do you realize what you just posted? You are for a bill that allows companies to spew mercury, as long as they pay for it. Nice. That ought to keep the children safe, eh?Hawk wrote:Between the two choices I will chose cap and trade. There is already too much mercury in fish and it is at dangerous levels for children.
And you people are bitching about mortgage backed securities?
ROFLMAO....lets trade some pollution futures...do you realize how fucked up that is?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Then billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg, who introduced Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher, was a left-winger. Annenberg owned TV guide, The Phila. Enquirer, Seventeen Magazine, and was the biggest private stockholder in the Pennsylvania Railroad. He famously smeared PA Gov. Milton Schapp (D). Reagan gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He eventually sold TV Guide and several other publishing holdings to noted left-wing bleeding-heart pinko, Rupert Murdoch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck
This is simply a case of facts having a "liberal bias." I've been warning against believing everything right-wing media tells you since Day 1. Especially when it's coming out of the mouths of would-be politicians, and career politicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck
This is simply a case of facts having a "liberal bias." I've been warning against believing everything right-wing media tells you since Day 1. Especially when it's coming out of the mouths of would-be politicians, and career politicians.
Why do you care about a sign you think stops racism when you do NOT care about enslaving our citizens to a future of debt? Why do you NOT care that your president and attorney general gave guns to the Mexican drug cartels that murdered American citizens?Hawk wrote:
Why do you care about the next generations debt yet NOT care about poisoning them ?
So its ok to be a working slave to Bill's government as long as you can eat anywhere you want. What happens when there is no more money to eat at a restaurant?
Keep your sign Bill, give me liberty.
Liberty = race discrimination for Joe !!!!!!!!undercoverjoe wrote:Why do you care about a sign you think stops racism when you do NOT care about enslaving our citizens to a future of debt? Why do you NOT care that your president and attorney general gave guns to the Mexican drug cartels that murdered American citizens?Hawk wrote:
Why do you care about the next generations debt yet NOT care about poisoning them ?
So its ok to be a working slave to Bill's government as long as you can eat anywhere you want. What happens when there is no more money to eat at a restaurant?
Keep your sign Bill, give me liberty.
That's not the kind of Liberty I want Joe.
If you want your race discrimination then speak up without the dance. Just say you want people to be able to keep out the blacks and the Jews, the Latinos and the whites. (Yes Joe would accept a Blacks owned restaurant chain that would not allow whites too, mighty "white" of him don't you think ?)
Bill, just come out and say you want Jews rounded up in a concentration camp. Just say you want them gassed and burned in ovens. This it the kind of authoritarian government you want.Hawk wrote:Liberty = race discrimination for Joe !!!!!!!!undercoverjoe wrote:Why do you care about a sign you think stops racism when you do NOT care about enslaving our citizens to a future of debt? Why do you NOT care that your president and attorney general gave guns to the Mexican drug cartels that murdered American citizens?Hawk wrote:
Why do you care about the next generations debt yet NOT care about poisoning them ?
So its ok to be a working slave to Bill's government as long as you can eat anywhere you want. What happens when there is no more money to eat at a restaurant?
Keep your sign Bill, give me liberty.
That's not the kind of Liberty I want Joe.
If you want your race discrimination then speak up without the dance. Just say you want people to be able to keep out the blacks and the Jews, the Latinos and the whites. (Yes Joe would accept a Blacks owned restaurant chain that would not allow whites too, mighty "white" of him don't you think ?)
Heil Hawk.
Back to absurdity when you just got your butt kicked. While my last post was exactly what would happen with your Libertarianism. A FACT that you cannot deny... Game, Set, Match...undercoverjoe wrote:Bill, just come out and say you want Jews rounded up in a concentration camp. Just say you want them gassed and burned in ovens. This it the kind of authoritarian government you want.Hawk wrote:Liberty = race discrimination for Joe !!!!!!!!undercoverjoe wrote: Why do you care about a sign you think stops racism when you do NOT care about enslaving our citizens to a future of debt? Why do you NOT care that your president and attorney general gave guns to the Mexican drug cartels that murdered American citizens?
So its ok to be a working slave to Bill's government as long as you can eat anywhere you want. What happens when there is no more money to eat at a restaurant?
Keep your sign Bill, give me liberty.
That's not the kind of Liberty I want Joe.
If you want your race discrimination then speak up without the dance. Just say you want people to be able to keep out the blacks and the Jews, the Latinos and the whites. (Yes Joe would accept a Blacks owned restaurant chain that would not allow whites too, mighty "white" of him don't you think ?)
Heil Hawk.
You have actually reached the point of projecting your flawed ideals onto me.
You claim libertarianism leads to racism, poisoning of children and hard drug addiction to all. What an asshole.
I say your authoritarian government is very similar to early socialistic Nazi Germany. We all know what that led to Herr Hawk. You support your government no matter what they do, so you will defending concentration camps and ovens. You are the exact kind of German who enabled Hitler to do the atrocities he led. Hitler did not kill all those Jews himself, it was German citizens who act just like you.
Remember their excuse, "I was just following orders". You will use "I was just doing what the government wants me to do".
You are afraid to think for yourself. You can only follow, in German goose step fashion, whatever this govt tells you is right and proper. You cannot think or are afraid to think for yourself.
Freedom and liberty makes you piss in your SS Trooper pants.
I say your authoritarian government is very similar to early socialistic Nazi Germany. We all know what that led to Herr Hawk. You support your government no matter what they do, so you will defending concentration camps and ovens. You are the exact kind of German who enabled Hitler to do the atrocities he led. Hitler did not kill all those Jews himself, it was German citizens who act just like you.
Remember their excuse, "I was just following orders". You will use "I was just doing what the government wants me to do".
You are afraid to think for yourself. You can only follow, in German goose step fashion, whatever this govt tells you is right and proper. You cannot think or are afraid to think for yourself.
Freedom and liberty makes you piss in your SS Trooper pants.
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Thanks, Bill. That is a good read.Hawk wrote:This is fro Frank who is now down the middle. And for anyone who wants the truth about the Republican candidates.
Home • The FactCheck Wire • Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate
Posted on October 11, 2011 , Updated on Oct. 14, 2011
At the latest debate, the Republican presidential candidates repeated several claims they’ve made before. The candidates participated in a roundtable-style discussion at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where they reiterated false and misleading lines about the federal health care law, the debt ceiling debate, job creation and more:
■Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney repeated his talking point that the health care law in his state only affected 8 percent of the population — or just the uninsured — while the federal law “takes over health care for everyone.” But that’s wrong on several levels. Both laws affect everyone by requiring that all residents have insurance or pay a penalty; both also focus on helping the uninsured gain coverage. And, just like the federal plan, the Massachusetts law set up an exchange where individuals buying their own insurance can select from various private health plans. That affects more than just those who were uninsured when the law was passed.
■Romney also made the misleading assertion that “raising taxes is one of the big problems, something we didn’t do in Massachusetts.” The state actually raised the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, but the tax was implemented by the current governor, Deval Patrick. Also, the original law instituted fines for residents who don’t have insurance and businesses that don’t provide coverage. Is such a “fine” a “tax”? Romney’s camp thought so of similar provisions in the federal law, when they sent us a list of “taxes” in that legislation.
■Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his job-creation boasting too far again, claiming that “while this country was losing two-and-a-half million jobs, Texas was creating 1 million jobs.” That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Texas has created a little more than 1 million jobs during Perry’s time in office, but the nation lost 1.4 million in that same time frame — not 2.5 million. To make the national picture look even worse, Perry goes back to January 2009. The nation has lost 2.4 million jobs since then, but Texas created only 95,600 jobs in that time period.
■Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann once again claimed that the resolution to the debt ceiling debate gave President Obama a “$2.4 trillion blank check.” But Obama can’t spend this any way he wants. The money is used to pay obligations Congress already has authorized or will authorize. And besides, a check for a set amount is not a “blank check.”
■Bachmann falsely claimed that a Medicare advisory panel created by the federal health care law “will make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans.” Hers is a new twist on a false Republican talking point that the Independent Payment Advisory Board will ration health care for seniors. The board is specifically barred from rationing care on page 490 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It’s true that the board will consist of 15 “political appointees,” as Bachmann said, and they will recommend ways to slow the growth of Medicare. But board members must be medical providers and other professionals with experience in health care finance, actuarial science, health care management and other related fields. And the board’s recommendations can be rejected by Congress, as we have explained before.
■Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman dredged up an old partisan exaggeration in claiming that the IRS was planning on hiring “19,500 new employees to administer that mandate” in the health care law. We knocked down this inflated claim in March 2010, when it was about 16,500 IRS employees. The truth is that the claim comes from a report by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee who made several false assumptions to come up with that number. Plus, the IRS’ primary role isn’t to “administer that mandate,” as Huntsman claims. It will mainly administer subsidies and tax credits. And so far, the IRS has requested 1,269 full-time equivalent employees, according to its fiscal year 2012 budget request, to help implement the law.
■Huntsman also repeated his claim that when he was governor, Utah was No. 1 in job creation, while Massachusetts ranked 47th under Romney. Huntsman’s statistic is true according to data based on household surveys by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But according to the most commonly used yardstick for job growth, payroll data, Utah was actually No. 4. How common is the payroll data method? Huntsman cites a report that used the payroll data numbers to arrive at Massachusetts’ No. 47 ranking under Romney.
■Bachmann reiterated a common Republican exaggeration, claiming that the deficit is larger than it really is. She said: “We are spending 40 percent more than what we take in.” That’s not true. The actual figure is 37 percent, according to the most recent monthly statement of the U.S. Treasury, covering the first 11 months of the fiscal year that just ended. (Final figures won’t be available for a few more days.) For the first 11 months, outlays were $3,296,399,000,000 and the deficit was $1,234,052,000,000 (rounded to the nearest million). So we spent 37.4 percent more than receipts. Furthermore, the deficit for the previous fiscal year was also 37.4 percent more than we took in.■Bachmann also said the deficit for the year was $1.5 trillion, which is untrue. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates (based on daily Treasury statements) that the deficit for fiscal 2011 was $1.294 trillion, just $3 billion less than the year before. The final, official Treasury figures may change those figures by a few billion, but not nearly enough to justify Bachmann’s inflated claims. (Update, Oct. 14: Final figures for fiscal 2011 (issued Oct. 14) later showed that the actual deficit for the full 12 months was $1.299 trillion, and the deficit amounted to 36.1 cents of every dollar.)
We will be vetting new claims from the candidates as well. Please check our site tomorrow for more on the debate.
– Lori Robertson, Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley
Music Rocks!
I can straight up say I don't want to repeal any law that enables race discrimionation. Can you say that ? NO YOU CAN'T. So stop projecting your race discrimination support onto me.undercoverjoe wrote:You claim libertarianism leads to racism, poisoning of children and hard drug addiction to all. What an asshole.
I say your authoritarian government is very similar to early socialistic Nazi Germany. We all know what that led to Herr Hawk. You support your government no matter what they do, so you will defending concentration camps and ovens. You are the exact kind of German who enabled Hitler to do the atrocities he led. Hitler did not kill all those Jews himself, it was German citizens who act just like you.
Remember their excuse, "I was just following orders". You will use "I was just doing what the government wants me to do".
You are afraid to think for yourself. You can only follow, in German goose step fashion, whatever this govt tells you is right and proper. You cannot think or are afraid to think for yourself.
Freedom and liberty makes you piss in your SS Trooper pants.
For anyone who questions the constitutionality of my point "needs arise". And my reference to the "bank" that Jefferson said was unconstitutional until HE wanted it.
National bank
For several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a powerful bone of contention between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party, and several other political parties in the United States. The first practical example of this contention came in 1791, when Hamilton used the clause to defend the constitutionality of the creation of the First Bank of the United States, the first federal bank in the new nation's history. Concerned that monied Northern aristocrats would take advantage of the bank to exploit the South, Madison now argued that congress lacked the constitutional authority to charter a bank. Hamilton argued that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds, claiming the clause applied to activities reasonably related to constitutional powers, not just those that were absolutely necessary to carry out said powers. To embarrass Madison, his contrary claims from the Federalist Papers were read aloud in congress:[3] "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." Eventually Southern opposition both to the bank and to Hamilton's plan to have the federal government assume the war debts of the states was mollified by the transfer of the nation's capital from its temporary seat in Philadelphia to a more southerly permanent seat on the Potomac, and the bill, along with the establishment of a national mint, was passed by congress and signed by President Washington.[4]
The power of the clause to justify the creation of a national bank was put to the test in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland,[5] wherein the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on out-of-state banks, of which the Second Bank of the United States was the only one. The court ruled against Maryland, and Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, which stated that while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it had the implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to realize or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. The case reaffirmed Hamilton's view that legislation reasonably related to express powers was constitutional. "We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional," wrote Marshall.
In addition to these powers to charter and operate federal banks, the clause was linked to the General Welfare clause and the constitutional powers of tax collection and the ability to borrow money to give the federal government virtually complete control over currency.[6]
National bank
For several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a powerful bone of contention between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party, and several other political parties in the United States. The first practical example of this contention came in 1791, when Hamilton used the clause to defend the constitutionality of the creation of the First Bank of the United States, the first federal bank in the new nation's history. Concerned that monied Northern aristocrats would take advantage of the bank to exploit the South, Madison now argued that congress lacked the constitutional authority to charter a bank. Hamilton argued that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds, claiming the clause applied to activities reasonably related to constitutional powers, not just those that were absolutely necessary to carry out said powers. To embarrass Madison, his contrary claims from the Federalist Papers were read aloud in congress:[3] "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." Eventually Southern opposition both to the bank and to Hamilton's plan to have the federal government assume the war debts of the states was mollified by the transfer of the nation's capital from its temporary seat in Philadelphia to a more southerly permanent seat on the Potomac, and the bill, along with the establishment of a national mint, was passed by congress and signed by President Washington.[4]
The power of the clause to justify the creation of a national bank was put to the test in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland,[5] wherein the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on out-of-state banks, of which the Second Bank of the United States was the only one. The court ruled against Maryland, and Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, which stated that while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it had the implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to realize or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. The case reaffirmed Hamilton's view that legislation reasonably related to express powers was constitutional. "We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional," wrote Marshall.
In addition to these powers to charter and operate federal banks, the clause was linked to the General Welfare clause and the constitutional powers of tax collection and the ability to borrow money to give the federal government virtually complete control over currency.[6]
I'm impressed that you are researching both sides of issues. I would support you if you lean to the right given that you first looked at every position before making a decision. Kudos to you. THAT is the real American way !f.sciarrillo wrote:Thanks, Bill. That is a good read.Hawk wrote:This is fro Frank who is now down the middle. And for anyone who wants the truth about the Republican candidates.
Home • The FactCheck Wire • Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate Recycled Spin at New Hampshire GOP Debate
Posted on October 11, 2011 , Updated on Oct. 14, 2011
At the latest debate, the Republican presidential candidates repeated several claims they’ve made before. The candidates participated in a roundtable-style discussion at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where they reiterated false and misleading lines about the federal health care law, the debt ceiling debate, job creation and more:
■Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney repeated his talking point that the health care law in his state only affected 8 percent of the population — or just the uninsured — while the federal law “takes over health care for everyone.” But that’s wrong on several levels. Both laws affect everyone by requiring that all residents have insurance or pay a penalty; both also focus on helping the uninsured gain coverage. And, just like the federal plan, the Massachusetts law set up an exchange where individuals buying their own insurance can select from various private health plans. That affects more than just those who were uninsured when the law was passed.
■Romney also made the misleading assertion that “raising taxes is one of the big problems, something we didn’t do in Massachusetts.” The state actually raised the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, but the tax was implemented by the current governor, Deval Patrick. Also, the original law instituted fines for residents who don’t have insurance and businesses that don’t provide coverage. Is such a “fine” a “tax”? Romney’s camp thought so of similar provisions in the federal law, when they sent us a list of “taxes” in that legislation.
■Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his job-creation boasting too far again, claiming that “while this country was losing two-and-a-half million jobs, Texas was creating 1 million jobs.” That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Texas has created a little more than 1 million jobs during Perry’s time in office, but the nation lost 1.4 million in that same time frame — not 2.5 million. To make the national picture look even worse, Perry goes back to January 2009. The nation has lost 2.4 million jobs since then, but Texas created only 95,600 jobs in that time period.
■Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann once again claimed that the resolution to the debt ceiling debate gave President Obama a “$2.4 trillion blank check.” But Obama can’t spend this any way he wants. The money is used to pay obligations Congress already has authorized or will authorize. And besides, a check for a set amount is not a “blank check.”
■Bachmann falsely claimed that a Medicare advisory panel created by the federal health care law “will make all the major health care decisions for over 300 million Americans.” Hers is a new twist on a false Republican talking point that the Independent Payment Advisory Board will ration health care for seniors. The board is specifically barred from rationing care on page 490 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It’s true that the board will consist of 15 “political appointees,” as Bachmann said, and they will recommend ways to slow the growth of Medicare. But board members must be medical providers and other professionals with experience in health care finance, actuarial science, health care management and other related fields. And the board’s recommendations can be rejected by Congress, as we have explained before.
■Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman dredged up an old partisan exaggeration in claiming that the IRS was planning on hiring “19,500 new employees to administer that mandate” in the health care law. We knocked down this inflated claim in March 2010, when it was about 16,500 IRS employees. The truth is that the claim comes from a report by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee who made several false assumptions to come up with that number. Plus, the IRS’ primary role isn’t to “administer that mandate,” as Huntsman claims. It will mainly administer subsidies and tax credits. And so far, the IRS has requested 1,269 full-time equivalent employees, according to its fiscal year 2012 budget request, to help implement the law.
■Huntsman also repeated his claim that when he was governor, Utah was No. 1 in job creation, while Massachusetts ranked 47th under Romney. Huntsman’s statistic is true according to data based on household surveys by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But according to the most commonly used yardstick for job growth, payroll data, Utah was actually No. 4. How common is the payroll data method? Huntsman cites a report that used the payroll data numbers to arrive at Massachusetts’ No. 47 ranking under Romney.
■Bachmann reiterated a common Republican exaggeration, claiming that the deficit is larger than it really is. She said: “We are spending 40 percent more than what we take in.” That’s not true. The actual figure is 37 percent, according to the most recent monthly statement of the U.S. Treasury, covering the first 11 months of the fiscal year that just ended. (Final figures won’t be available for a few more days.) For the first 11 months, outlays were $3,296,399,000,000 and the deficit was $1,234,052,000,000 (rounded to the nearest million). So we spent 37.4 percent more than receipts. Furthermore, the deficit for the previous fiscal year was also 37.4 percent more than we took in.■Bachmann also said the deficit for the year was $1.5 trillion, which is untrue. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates (based on daily Treasury statements) that the deficit for fiscal 2011 was $1.294 trillion, just $3 billion less than the year before. The final, official Treasury figures may change those figures by a few billion, but not nearly enough to justify Bachmann’s inflated claims. (Update, Oct. 14: Final figures for fiscal 2011 (issued Oct. 14) later showed that the actual deficit for the full 12 months was $1.299 trillion, and the deficit amounted to 36.1 cents of every dollar.)
We will be vetting new claims from the candidates as well. Please check our site tomorrow for more on the debate.
– Lori Robertson, Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley
Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.lonewolf wrote:Do you realize what you just posted? You are for a bill that allows companies to spew mercury, as long as they pay for it. Nice. That ought to keep the children safe, eh?Hawk wrote:Between the two choices I will chose cap and trade. There is already too much mercury in fish and it is at dangerous levels for children.
And you people are bitching about mortgage backed securities?
ROFLMAO....lets trade some pollution futures...do you realize how fucked up that is?
-
f.sciarrillo
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Thanks, Bill. I like to hear both sides before deciding which way to go.Hawk wrote:I'm impressed that you are researching both sides of issues. I would support you if you lean to the right given that you first looked at every position before making a decision. Kudos to you. THAT is the real American way !
Music Rocks!
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
"Hamilton argued that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds, claiming the clause applied to activities reasonably related to constitutional powers, not just those that were absolutely necessary to carry out said powers. "Hawk wrote:For anyone who questions the constitutionality of my point "needs arise". And my reference to the "bank" that Jefferson said was unconstitutional until HE wanted it.
National bank
For several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a powerful bone of contention between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party, and several other political parties in the United States. The first practical example of this contention came in 1791, when Hamilton used the clause to defend the constitutionality of the creation of the First Bank of the United States, the first federal bank in the new nation's history. Concerned that monied Northern aristocrats would take advantage of the bank to exploit the South, Madison now argued that congress lacked the constitutional authority to charter a bank. Hamilton argued that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds, claiming the clause applied to activities reasonably related to constitutional powers, not just those that were absolutely necessary to carry out said powers. To embarrass Madison, his contrary claims from the Federalist Papers were read aloud in congress:[3] "No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power for doing it is included." Eventually Southern opposition both to the bank and to Hamilton's plan to have the federal government assume the war debts of the states was mollified by the transfer of the nation's capital from its temporary seat in Philadelphia to a more southerly permanent seat on the Potomac, and the bill, along with the establishment of a national mint, was passed by congress and signed by President Washington.[4]
The power of the clause to justify the creation of a national bank was put to the test in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland,[5] wherein the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on out-of-state banks, of which the Second Bank of the United States was the only one. The court ruled against Maryland, and Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, which stated that while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it had the implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to realize or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. The case reaffirmed Hamilton's view that legislation reasonably related to express powers was constitutional. "We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional," wrote Marshall.
In addition to these powers to charter and operate federal banks, the clause was linked to the General Welfare clause and the constitutional powers of tax collection and the ability to borrow money to give the federal government virtually complete control over currency.[6]
Like I said, it was related to one of the enumerated powers. It was deemed "necessary and proper" to carry out the enumerated power of taxation. Here is the entire opinion for you to read:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 9&as_vis=1
I also see a 21st century opinion from the author "linking it to the General Welfare clause".
That's a load of BS. You will not find a link to the "General Welfare" clause in the Supreme Court's opinion...mainly because at the time it was just considered a descriptive phrase and not a "clause" at all. Hamilton expressly said: "powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds," not "General Welfare." The General Welfare clause had no legal ramification until 1937 with Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis:
http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html
And...Paul...I am as qualified to spew legal history as you are to spew psychobabble.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
So, if we go by the Supreme Court's opinion in your example, for what enumerated constitutional powers are the following federal functions "necessary and proper?"
Education
Agriculture
Energy
Housing
Urban Development
Public Assistance
Labor
Education
Agriculture
Energy
Housing
Urban Development
Public Assistance
Labor
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Good ol' joey, telling everyone what they think. Hey, I was thinking about making a sandwich, can you define turkey for me, and swiss cheese? We all know that nothing exists unless you define it. What's your definition of a fresh rye bread? Could you discuss some ranch dip? It's awesome on turkey & swiss. 
The "debate" tonight was AWESOME!!! I thought they were going to wail on each other with folding chairs! The winner? Jon Huntsman, who was smart enough not to attend.
The "debate" tonight was AWESOME!!! I thought they were going to wail on each other with folding chairs! The winner? Jon Huntsman, who was smart enough not to attend.