Via Newsbusters. Money quotes:
From the New York Times editorial, “Gross National Letdown,” of Thursday October 29, 1992:
President Bush smiled when he learned this week that economic growth during the third quarter reached a surprising 2.7 percent, almost twice the previous rate. But his smile shouldn’t be broad. The new figure almost certainly exaggerates the health of the economy, which continues to creep along at a painfully slow pace. Even the 2.7 figure is half the normal rate of recovery and not enough to bring down unemployment.
New York Times editorial, “Slow but Steady Improvement,” from Saturday October 27, 2012:
The slow pace of the nation’s economic recovery has picked up a bit lately. In the third quarter, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2 percent, beating expectations and the dismal 1.3 percent growth in the second quarter. Over the past year, the growth rate has been 2.3 percent. At that pace, there’s enough momentum to keep unemployment, currently 7.8 percent, from getting much worse.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
The eight states whose residents gave the highest share of their income — Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia — all backed McCain in 2008. Utah leads charitable giving, with 10.6 percent of income given.
And the least generous states — Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — were Obama supporters in the last presidential race. New Hampshire residents gave the least share of their income, the Chronicle stated, with 2.5 percent.
Liberals equate paying taxes with charity. Uh, wrong. Taxes are not voluntary. Charitable giving is. Liberals are far more generous with other people’s money, not so much when it comes to their own.
Obama 2008: adding $4 trillion in debt in two terms unpatriotic. Obama 2012: adding $5+ trillion in one term…look, shiny object!
I question his patriotism. Hey, I’m only using HIS own definition!
Obama chief of staff: ObamaCare not a tax, even though our own attorney argued that it was and SCOTUS ruled that it was.
Chris Wallace leads along the poor schmuck nicely, forcing the guy to basically say “Our own solicitor general argued that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is a tax, and SCOTUS agreed…but hey, lawyers say all kinds of crazy things that aren’t true, so don’t read anything into it!” Um…yeah.
So Team B.O. wants to run on Romney’s supposed broken promises, huh? OK, fair enough. But Jim Geraghty has an observation:
Ah, charges of unfulfilled promises from President Barack “If I don’t have this done in three years, then this is going to be a one-term proposition” Obama, the man who pledged who cut the deficit in half in his first term, the man who criticized Hillary Clinton’s proposal for a mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance, is going to hit his opponent on broken promises.
Four years ago this week, Obama said — with profound humility, he assured us — that future generations would look back and say, “this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick, and jobs for the jobless, this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and the earth began to heal . . .” and now he tells us to beware of politicians bearing grandiose promises.
Obama 2012: Stick with the broken promises you know.
By now, many of you know that the Romneys are catching hell over the way they transported the family Irish setter nearly 30 years ago on family vacations, namely on the roof of the car. Ann Romney says the dog enjoyed it, and considering my dog darned near steps all over my passengers to stick his head out the window, I can see that. Would I put my dog on the roof? No, probably not. But if the dog didn’t die, didn’t suffer, and it happened three decades ago, then I don’t give a wet fart on a dry January Monday how they transported their dog.
But the MSM cares. They do not want any talk about the sky high unemployment, the exploding deficit, our crippling debt, hemorrhaging of jobs, skyrocketed fuel prices, unconstitutional power grabs…but instead, Mitt Romney’s dog from the 1980’s.
OK, you hacks. You wanna go there? You really wanna go on the “who loves dogs?” track. Fine. Let’s go there. I’ll stipulate that Obama loves dogs more…especially with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp! From the Daily Caller:
Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago.
Can you name the author of this quote?
“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”
Yep, that’s Barack Obama, writing about his childhood with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia, from Chapter Two of his bestseller Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.
“So what? It was a long time ago,” you say. “He was a lot younger. Customs are different there. He was just doing what his stepfather told him. And hey, you can’t even prove that the dogs were ever left on top of a car, you racist.”
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself, libs. Say what you want about Romney, but at least he only put a dog on the roof of his car, not the roof of his mouth. And whenever you bring up the one, we’re going to bring up the other.
It’s no fun when we push back, is it? That’s why it’s so much fun.
You must read the updates and the comments, which are friggin’ hilarious! One to whet the appetite:
Q: What does Obama do when his dog gets stuck?
A: Grabs a toothpick.
Game on, beyotch.
President Obama paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, a rate that may come in below that of his secretary.
Obama has spent the past week touting the Buffett Rule, which calls on those who make $1 million – just a little more than Obama made – to pay at federal tax rate of at least 30 percent. The rule was inspired by Buffett’s comment that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.
The most recent information about salary regarding Obama’s secretary is for his former secretary, Katie Johnson, who is listed by the White House as having made $90,000 in 2010.
According to Wikipedia, Johnson is 31 years old and now attends Harvard Law School. I don’t know about her personal life or what her deductions would be, so I can’t assume any children or deductions.
On a $90,000 salary, she would pay $16,578 in federal taxes, $3,780 to Social Security, and $1,305 in Medicare taxes.
That adds up to a total federal tax burden of $21,663 on $90,000 in adjusted gross income, or a tax rate of 24 percent, well above Obama’s rate of 20.5 percent, even though Obama’s 2011 salary was nearly nine times the 2010 salary of his secretary.
That blasted 1%-er! LOL! 😆
So this is the talking point the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) wanna go with? Republicans’ “war on women”? Well, alrighty then. Game on, beyotch:
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.
President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.
“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act. …
We all remember what a classless jackwagon Chairman Douchebag was when he slammed the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision at his SOTU address last year, with sitting justices present. It seems El Douché wasn’t a big fan of certain forms of political speech.
President Barack Obama’s campaign is asking top fundraisers to support a Democratic-leaning outside group that is backing the president’s re-election bid, reversing Obama’s opposition to “super” political action committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.
Obama’s campaign urged wealthy fundraisers in a Monday night conference call to support Priorities USA, a super PAC led by two former Obama aides that has struggled to compete with the tens of millions of dollars collected by Republican-backed outside groups.
Obama has opposed the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that stripped away some limits on campaign contributions. The new super PACs can’t coordinate directly with campaigns, but many have played a major role in the Republican primary contests, raising millions of dollars to use in negative advertising in early contests such as Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in an email to supporters Monday that the president’s campaign “can’t allow for two sets of rules” in which the Republican presidential nominee benefits from “unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.”
“We decided to do this because we can’t afford for the work you’re doing in your communities, and the grassroots donations you give to support it, to be destroyed by hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads,” Messina said.
Republicans criticized the Obama campaign’s embrace of the outside groups, calling it a hypocritical shift by Obama after he chided the influence of secret, special-interest money. Obama has previously referred to the money as a “threat to our democracy.”
“This is a brazenly cynical move by Barack Obama and his political handlers, who just a year ago had the chutzpah to call outside groups a threat to democracy,” said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads.
“A threat to democracy” in ObaMao’s mind means “the possibility I may not be re-elected”!
Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s perfectly legal for him to use SuperPAC’s, especially after the SCOTUS gave the greenlight to them. But it is the epitome of disingenuousness, hypocrisy, and immorality for the man-child to use a form of campaigning that his petulant authoritarian behind was lambasting very recently. Scruples, schmuples, he gots a campaign to run!
Geez, what is it with the Obaminions skipping out on their taxes? Did they all use Turbo Tax? Details:
A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.
Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama’s White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That’s up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.
Nearly one-third of Obama’s aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.
The IRS’ 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required annual agency report on federal employees’ tax compliance. Turns out, an awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own income taxes.
Why, it’s as if the left has a “good enough for thee, but not for me” mentality or something!
That poor woman! She has to pay a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss! Yeah, about that…
Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the President’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.
Bosanek’s prominent role in Obama’s “fairness” campaign piqued my curiosity, and I imagine the curiosity of others. How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information.
Insofar as Buffet (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.
The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.
We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation.
Look, that meme has been tackled a billion times. Buffett paid taxes on income, then used that after-tax income to invest…then had to pay taxes again, this time on money generated from his after-tax investments. When your primary source of revenue is from profits resulting from investments made with after-tax income, your tax rate isn’t going to be the same.
Capital gains tax rates are lower, and when they were cut during the 1990’s (reluctantly by Bubba), the stock market ROARED to life as investors flocked to it. As a result of the new influx of investors and investor activity, revenues to the government increased after the capital gains tax rate cut. Wait…you mean cutting taxes increased revenue to the federal government? Yeah, go figure. Turns out that decreasing certain tax rates promotes economic activity and increasing certain tax rates discourages economic activity. Who knew, right?
So, Warren Buffett pays his secretary between $200-$500k a year in salary. Good work if you can get it, I suppose. So I’m thinking that maybe this “my billionaire boss pays a lower tax rate than I do” schtick is just a tad old…and disingenuous. Besides, Warren Buffett is more than welcome to send more money to D.C., but he hires accountants and tax planners to avoid doing just that…all while complaining that he doesn’t pay enough. My turbocharged Hypocrisy Tolerance fuel tank is on fumes, I’m afraid.
I look forward to the spin from the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) over this.
Democrats have accepted more political donations than Republicans from executives at Bain Capital, complicating the left’s plan to attack Mitt Romney for his record at the private equity firm.
The sums collected by Democrats from managing partners and other senior executives at Bain could hamper the Democratic message that Romney is a corporate raider who does not care about workers, charges based on his record as CEO of Bain.
Democrats could be forced to justify attacking Bain — which specializes in buying companies and boosting profitability, often by laying off workers — while accepting campaign funds from the same executives who made the cost-cutting decisions.
“They’re going to have a difficult time explaining why they’re padding their war chest with contributions from the same executives that they’re accusing of hurting jobs,” said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Right. Because Democrats are loathe to be shameless hypocrites, right?
DNC Chair Debs: On Tuscon anniversary, let us be more civil, and by “us”, I mean the Tea Partiers, who are to blame for shooting
You gotta love ol’ Mayo Hair…or not.
Well, as someone who spent nineteen years as a member of a legislative body, I really agree with you, that we need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords, who is doing really well by the way, and I know everybody –[applause]–making tremendous progress.
The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, to answer your question, very specifically, has really changed.
And I’ll tell you, I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.
Got that? “We need to be civil and tone things down. By the way, Tea Partiers practically pulled the trigger themselves.” While that meme has been so thoroughly discredited that even most MSM fishwraps don’t go there anymore, that doesn’t keep this pointy-toothed demonspawn from politicizing something she swore she wouldn’t politicize.
Sums Verum Serum:
But the real question isn’t whether she explicitly (no) or implicitly (yes) blamed the Tea Party, that’s a dodge and the kind of thing Media Matters specializes in. The real question is this: What is the connection between political civility and the irrational actions of a diagnosed schizophrenic, i.e. Jared Loughner? Answer: There isn’t one. That’s why people like me are bent out of shape by Tucson being bandied about in this context.
Simply put, civility or lack thereof had nothing whatsoever to do with Tucson. That may not have been clear in the early days when hacks like Paul Krugman were stumbling all over themselves to lay blame at the feet of folks on the right, but it’s clear now. Given the facts, we’re not having any more of this nonsense from the left.
You know, it’s almost as if the left is a bunch of lying hacks with no moral compass whatsoever. Almost, that is.
Exit question: Someone tell me again how many vermin-infested vandals, rapists, elderly assaulters, public defecators, etc., have been arrested at Tea Party rallies vs. Occupy gatherings?
Wow…who would have thought that the leftist rag would demand the resignation/firing of the Attorney General of the United States? I guess the offense was just that horrible! Excerpt:
It (the administration) has offered up implausible excuses, hidden the most damaging evidence and feigned memory lapses, while hoping that the public’s attention moves on. But this scandal is too important for the public or Congress to move on. This story should not end until Attorney General [redacted – CL] is gone, and the serious damage that has been done to the Justice Department is repaired.
Kudos to the NYT for demanding that the integrity of the office of the AG and the Department of Justice be preserved! I guess Operation Fast & Furious, a botched federal government operation which resulted in our government arming Mexican drug lords who, in turn, killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry PLUS 300+ Mexicans, was just so egregious that even the liberal apologists at the Old Gray Hag couldn’t defend USAG Eric Holder over it.
Hmm? What’s that? The NYT column isn’t talking about Holder or Fast & Furious?
Oh, wait. That’s right! My bad. The column was demanding the head of Bush’s AG Alberto Gonzales on a silver platter for the far more disgusting crime of…firing U.S. Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the administration.
No, as it turns out, the NYT is allowing Holder and the administration to get their talking points out about Fast & Furious. Naturally and predictably, Holder whips out the race card, and the NYT is more than happy to accommodate Holder.
But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.
Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
From Big Journalism:
Conflating things? How do we “conflate things” when we provide the documents PROVING our points? Plus if we are leaving out things it’s because Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice aren’t providing us with all the details.
How about members of the Congressional Black Caucus Mr. Holder and Mr. Savage? As Mr. Boyle and Michelle Fields report the feeling in the caucus is that the congressional investigation is warranted. So do they feel this way because Mr. Holder is an African American? Are they racists against their own race?
To recap: Republican A.G. fires US Attorneys (within his job duty), and the NYT demands he lose his job. But Democrat A.G. arms a Mexican drug cartel and gets over 300 people killed, including federal border patrol agent Brian Terry (whose name the NYT can’t bother themselves to mention), and the NYT yawns disinterestedly and allows unfounded accusations of racism and sensationalism to go unchecked. Because proof is racist, or something.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
A voter’s guide to Republicans, or “Tell me again, WHICH party is comprised of the greedy, fascist, Nazi, commie racists?”
I’m getting a Chris Matthews leg tingle after watching this most awesome takedown of EVERY leftist talking point about Republicans!
The Obama administration on Tuesday will wade into the increasingly divisive national debate over new voting laws in several states that could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect the president in 2008. …
With the presidential campaign heating up, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will deliver a speech Tuesday expressing concerns about the voter-identification laws, along with a Texas redistricting plan before the Supreme Court that fails to take into account the state’s burgeoning Hispanic population, he said in an interview Monday.
Holder will speak at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Libary and Museum in Austin, Tex., which honors the president who shepherded the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. …
When it comes to voting fraud, some conservatives have long argued that it is a serious problem, although others say the number of such cases is relatively low. Studies of the issue have reached different conclusions on the extent of the problem.
“You constantly hear about voter fraud . . . but you don’t see huge amounts of vote fraud out there,’’ Holder said.
…as opposed to this:
You’re not seeing things.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has given 99% of its campaign money to Democrats (according to ElectionLawCenter.com, citing OpenSecrets.org). Democrats, including Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, who will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow supporting the rejection of voter-ID laws and, according to the Texas GOP, “NAACP plans to involve the United Nations on (sic) US elections,” abhor the idea of making voters bring some form of photo identification to the polls.
Yet the IAM in the instance photographed required a photo ID of all who wished to vote in a contract ratification election. From the looks of the professionally made sign, the photo-ID requirement in the union’s elections would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why?
Doug Ross’s reaction: “Needle on Hypocrisy-Meter Breaks Off.”
At some point during all these years of covering the voter-ID issue, you would think that someone in the press, much of which is unionized (specifically the Associated Press, which has the credit for the photo above), would have noted that unions at least occasionally and likely far more than occasionally require that members present a photo ID to be able to cast their ballots. Nope. How typically irresponsible.
Translation: Requiring picture ID in order to receive Social Security, Medicare, welfare, a library card, a driver’s license. are totally cool, and requiring picture ID to vote in certain (i.e. union) elections is only sensible. But requiring picture ID for the most sacred act of our republic is racist. Or something.
Night and Day, “How the MSM reports unemployment numbers when presidents of different parties are running for re-election” edition
The Right Sphere has the MSM dead to rights on this one. Night…
Take a look at these headlines:
Recent headlines regarding the drop in the unemployment rate from 9% to 8.6% right?
Those are headlines from January 2004, when the jobless rate dropped to 5.7% and when President Bush was just starting a re-election campaign.
Here are headlines from Friday’s job numbers:
The jobless rate in November fell 0.4%…because 300,000 unemployed gave up and dropped out of the job search market! The unemployment rate doesn’t count these people.
Let’s say I ask four girls out on a date, and all four tell me to drop dead. Let’s say I do this every week, and the results are always the same. I’ve got a 100% failure record. But let’s say that one of these girls finally gets tired of me asking her out, so she stops answering her phone and simply ignores me. Oh, joy! I just got a 25% reduction in the “uninterested in Crush” rate, because she’s not turning me down anymore! Sure, she is still uninterested, but I’m just not gonna count her anymore, because she gave up answering me.
That’s what the unemployment numbers are doing. Sure, they still are unemployed, but because they’re not even going to bother looking anymore, we can stop counting them as unemployed. Friggin’ brilliant.
As for the reporting? Nope…no liberal media bias!
The delicious hilarity of this turn of events? The Democrat is trying to tie the Republican to Obama! Details:
Here’s a telling sign of how much President Obama’s fortunes have changed since 2008 — a leading Democratic Congressional recruit is now attacking a Republican congressman for supporting the president.
Former Ohio Democratic congressman Charlie Wilson, who was attacked relentlessly for being too close with President Obama in last year’s losing campaign, kicked off his comeback bid today by accusing his Republican rival of the same sin.
Wilson, who represented a rural, blue-collar district along the Ohio River, is seeking a rematch against freshman Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio. In his successful 2010 campaign, Johnson effectively characterized Wilson as a lackey of national Democrats, blasting him for casting a critical vote for Obama’s health care law and the stimulus. …
How awesome is it that B.O. is so massively unpopular that Democrats are not only running from him faster than Barney Frank from a Hooters restaurant, but now they’re actually running on “Vote for me, because unlike my Republican opponent, I won’t be tied to Obama”? 😆
Wilson, you voted for ObamaCare, in direct opposition to the wishes of your constituents. You obviously thought they were too stupid to know what was good for them, so you voted for ObamaCare against their wishes. Apparently, you still think they’re stupid, if you think this absurd trick will work.
Obama: Congress shouldn’t leave until they pass the payroll tax cut; now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to Hawaii for 17 days!
B.O. thinks some people ought to do their jobs…just not him. From The Hill:
Congress needs to pass an extension to the payroll tax cut and shouldn’t adjourn until they do, President Obama said in his weekly address.
“Both parties came together to cut payroll taxes for the typical middle-class family by about $1,000, but that tax cut is set to expire at the end of this month,” Obama said. “We can’t let that happen.”
“We’re going to keep pushing Congress to make this happen,” Obama said. “They shouldn’t go home for the holidays until they get this done.”
While most Americans are lucky to get a few weeks of holiday every year, it seems the country’s leader gets a little more freedom in the matter.
President Barack Obama has announced his Christmas vacation to Hawaii – for a staggering 17-day trip.
Obama, who visited the island just two weeks ago for an economic summit, will head to Honolulu on Saturday December 17 until Monday January 2.
Presidentin’: Nice work if you can get it.
Confirmed: Corrupt Pelosi bought Visa stock, then stopped credit card reform to give her stock time to skyrocket in value
San Fran Nan, a friend to the common man…right? Details:
Former Speaker of the House–and current Minority Leader–Nancy Pelosi apparently bought $1 million to $5 million of Visa stock in one of the most sought-after and profitable initial public offerings (IPO) in American history, thwarted serious credit card reform for two years, and then watched her investment skyrocket 203%.
The revelation appears in Throw Them All Out, the new book by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, which was the focus of 60 Minutes on CBS this evening, and which is featured in this week’s issue of Newsweek.
In early 2008, Nancy Pelosi and her real estate developer husband, Paul, were given an opportunity to buy into a Visa IPO. It was a nearly impossible feat–one that average citizens almost certainly could never achieve. The vast majority of purchase opportunities went to institutional investors, large mutual funds, or pension funds.
Despite Pelosi’s consistent railing against credit card companies, on March 18, 2008, the Pelosis bought between $1 million and $5 million (politicians do not have to report the exact amounts, only ranges) worth of Visa stock at the IPO price of $44 per share. Two days later, the stock price rocketed to $65 per share, yielding a 50% profit. The Pelosis then bought Visa twice more. By their third purchase on June 4, 2008, Visa was worth $85 per share.
How did Nancy Pelosi snag one of the most coveted initial public offerings in history? The facts are still emerging. Yet according to Schweizer, corporations that wish to build congressional allies will sometimes hand-pick members of Congress to receive IPOs. Pelosi received her Visa IPO almost two weeks after a potentially damaging piece of legislation for Visa, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act, had been introduced in the House. If passed, the bill would have cut into Visa’s profits substantially by lowering so-called “interchange fees,” the 1% to 3% charge retailers pay Visa when customers use Visa cards for purchases. Interchange fees are a critical source of revenue for the four credit card companies–$48 billion in 2008, to be exact.
That bill never made it to the floor. When a weaker version did emerge, the aforementioed interchange fee reduction was not in it, thus protecting Visa’s (and Pelosi’s) financial interest.
Read the whole thing. This two-faced (both sides are Botoxed, I think) wench is so stinkingly corrupt that it’s sickening.
Rapper Jay-Z, who sympathizes with Occupy Wall Street, plans to cash in on OWS movement and keep all the money for himself
Right now there is a slightly heated debate going on in the Abrams Media office as we’ve found a story that somehow intersects the purviews of three of our different sites; Jay-Z’s company, Rocawear, is now selling a t-shirt that says “Occupy Wall Street” with graffiti style lettering modifying the message to read “Occupy All Streets.” A mini scandal has brewed over the shirt as it’s become clear that Rocawear, currently, has no plans to give any of the procedes to the occupiers themselves.
Not big on “spreading the wealth around” like their boy Barry is, huh?
So is Mr. Z really sympathetic to the OWS crowd? I mean, here he is teaching them a lesson in capitalism, and my guess is that the morons will be stupid enough to buy his attire, oblivious to the irony of the situation. They already are clueless, railing against corporations while buying goods and services from corporations.
Either he really is sympathetic to their cause and is just another clueless celebrity who doesn’t recognize his own hypocrisy, or he isn’t sympathetic to the OWS cretins and is simply being a savvy capitalist. If it is the latter, then well played, sir!
Hypocrisy: the other white meat. Details:
Last week, one or more Occupy Oakland protesters smashed the windows of a Wells Fargo branch.
This week, the group’s general assembly agreed — in a near-unanimous vote Monday — to temporarily place $20,000 of the group’s money in an account at the country’s fourth-largest bank holding company, Wells Fargo Bank.
Whether the decision was an abandonment of the movement’s opposition to big banks or an ominous affirmation of the hold that big banks have on Americans, Twitter was ablaze with outrage last night, as news spread about the 162-8 vote, from which 16 people abstained.
This dovetails nicely with the story about how these leeches are angry at the homeless leeching off of “their” food. See, these mental midgets are angry at…well, they don’t know. Not really. See, they rail against corporations, all while using products and services of corporations. They rail against “the gap between rich and poor” and demand seizure and redistribution of wealth and assets, yet they deplore the thieves and leeches in their midst. They rail against banks, yet they deposit the money people have given them into a bank.
In short, it’s exactly as I’ve maintained all along. The Occupiers are nothing more than a bunch of idiotic young people who have no idea how society works, no concept of the marketplace, no appreciation for private property, and no real purpose. They are a gaggle of unemployable, vile, filthy miscreants (many of whom are engaging in criminal activity) who lack the skills and/or drive needed to succeed in America. Their anger is chaotic, misdirected, and baseless. In short, they are worthless wastes of oxygen who will wind up as ticks on the public teat for the foreseeable future.
Because 99% of the country attempts to stow away on a flight from JFK, right?
Breitbart has the video and the details, but how awesome is it that the poster boy for Occupy Wall Street is living off of a trust fund, managed by Wall Street brokers, set up by his grandfather…all while protesting how bad Wall Street is? 😆
The Old Gray Hag in 2005 on filibusters, when Democrats were in the minority:
The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes. . . . A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the ‘nuclear option’ in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton’s early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it’s obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it.
The Old Gray Hag in 2005 on filibusters, when Republicans were in the minority:
Democrats scored a small but significant victory for the cause of progress in the Senate late last week when they voted to prohibit one of the many delaying tactics that keep the chamber tied up in pointless partisan arguments. It was a long way from desperately needed filibuster reform, but it showed that sufficiently frustrated senators can take action to prevent the Senate from being a total dead weight. . . . Fear of ending up in the minority makes majority parties in the Senate avoid sensible rules. But ending the abuse of the chamber’s traditions–ultimately the far more significant abuse of the filibuster–would benefit both parties, and the country as a whole.
Nope…no liberal media
Thanks to George and The Conservative Manifesto for this:
Governor Deval Patrick did walk to a morning event on Beacon Hill — a stone’s throw from the Statehouse — but was quick to sheepishly admit that he probably hadn’t set the best example earlier in the day.
“You got me!” grinned the Governor.
The Governor himself recently declared this “Car-Free Week,” urging people to ditch their autos in favor of public transportation, biking, walking, or at the very least carpooling — espousing the environmental and health benefits of that switch.
Liberals are fine and dandy forcing their absurd ways on everyone else, so long as they themselves don’t have to practice what they preach.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett