Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 24, 2014, 01:27:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 83   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 82733 times)
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2010, 08:20:57 AM »

I was thinking of an interesting theory...although a bit farfetched. We all know how George Soros made billions betting against the British Pound years ago, and almost destroyed the Bank of England. There's been a lot of speculation that Soros played a huge role in getting Obama elected. What if his plan is to have Obama intentionally destroy the U.S. economy while he bets against the U.S. dollar and the Dow and anything else that he can profit from as a result of the downfall of America. Wouldn't Obama's policies be the perfect playbook for that?

Not far fetched at all. 


* 51K8RZ6GnEL._SL500_AA240_.jpg (11.52 KB, 240x240 - viewed 447 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15739


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2010, 08:45:50 AM »



You and that Satan-worshipping metal. It's a wonder you have any brain cells left.

 Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2010, 08:51:00 AM »

You and that Satan-worshipping metal. It's a wonder you have any brain cells left.

 Grin

I'm blasting Rust in Peace in the office as we speak.

 




* 31252_397763502865_527337865_4010109_8123224_s.jpg (6.04 KB, 130x76 - viewed 445 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
GigantorX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5458


GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2010, 09:17:29 AM »

I'm blasting Rust in Peace in the office as we speak.

 




Great Fucking Album.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2010, 09:26:26 AM »

Great Fucking Album.

Yeah, its up there with Reign in Blood, Kill em All, Ride the Lightening, Among the Living   
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15739


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2010, 11:02:01 AM »


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvrEDpEXThk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvrEDpEXThk</a>

Start at 2:52,


This is music for the ones
With the funk in the trunk to blast the bass drum,
Some like the rock and heavy metal
Bang their heads while they worship the devil
They're going out on the crazy tip
I don't see how they can even dance to it
I think they need another taste
Of how good it can get when you drop that BASS!!"


Just for you, 333386!

 Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2010, 11:20:20 AM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvrEDpEXThk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvrEDpEXThk</a>

Start at 2:52,


This is music for the ones
With the funk in the trunk to blast the bass drum,
Some like the rock and heavy metal
Bang their heads while they worship the devil
They're going out on the crazy tip
I don't see how they can even dance to it
I think they need another taste
Of how good it can get when you drop that BASS!!"


Just for you, 333386!

 Grin

I don't worship the devil, I just like the speed, energy, thrash, craziness, agression, of Slayer/Magedeth etc.  

My best lifts always come from this song.  This song gives me mega pounds on any lift.   I get a hard on for this song, especially Angel of Death.  

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myP9VX_WMHY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myP9VX_WMHY</a>

and close to that.  

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb-DTrMG4vs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb-DTrMG4vs</a>

Listen to this before you lift and its like a bomb went off. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpMuCrbxE8A" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpMuCrbxE8A</a>
 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2010, 03:03:07 PM »

WWWTTTTFFFF? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ? ? ?  ? ? ? ? ?

HOW IS THE LEFT GOING TO SPIN THIS TURD? 

________________________ ________________________ _____

Bennet Bombshell: Trillions in Debt, ‘Nothing to Show for It’

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/244695/bennet-bombshell-trillions-debt-nothing-show-it-michael-sandoval

August 25, 2010 5:15 A.M. By Michael Sandoval
Tags: Colo.


________________________ ________________________ ____________


Sen. Michael Bennet’s recent appearance in Greeley, Colorado is sure to set political tongues wagging–Bennet is quoted as saying that though trillions of dollars of Federal debt has been incurred through spending since he was appointed to the Senate in January of 2009, “we have nothing to show for it”:

Michael Bennet, D-Colo,at a town hall meeting in Greeley last Saturday, Aug 21 said we had nothing to show for the debt incurred by the stimulus package and other expenditures calling the recession  the worst since the Great Depression. [...]

Regarding spending during his time in office he said, We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet” and, “in my view we have nothing to show for it.” Speaking of the debt, he said our debt almost equals the economy. Regarding the current job situation, Bennet said the situation has been dire for over a decade saying, “We have created no net new jobs in the United States since 1998” which were the last two years of the Clinton administration. Pointing to a slide showing budget expenditures, he said that currently 65 percent of the budget was for social security, Medicaid and Medicare expenditures and that we could not grow our way out of debt.

Regarding the expiration of the Bush tax cuts Bennet would not commit to a position on whether to extend them simply saying, “I hope we look at it comprehensively.”

When asked about a recent report showing that government employees make more than their private sector counterparts said, “This is a time when we need to restrain wages in the public sector.” He said we need to make sure “our wages are not growing faster than inflation or faster than our growth.” Bennet also received a question about whether he would support card check and declined to give a firm answer saying, “I have not been a sponsor of the employee free choice act and the bill as written will not come to the floor to a vote.” He also said, “I believe strongly in the right of workers to collectively bargain and organize free from intimidation.” [emphasis added]

The Greeley Tribune’s quote is identical, adding a laundry list of things that Bennet feels have not been “invested in” adequately (the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act apparently notwithstanding):

“We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet,” he said. “In my view we have nothing to show for it. We haven’t invested in our roads, our bridges, our waste-water systems, our sewer systems. We haven’t even maintained the assets that our parents and grandparents built for us.”

Bennet’s votes, in support of President Obama’s spending plans–including ARRA, have resulted in billions of dollars spent per day, and trillions of dollars of new debt.

But even $10 billion in the most recent “edujobs” bailout may have no readily discernible impact on Colorado schools, despite the projections made by Bennet.

The Bennet campaign released a snippet of video it recorded from the speech, with Bennet addressing rural education:


A Denver Post fact check of the following ad from Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS concluded that the numbers add up to billions per day (whether or not the spending is a good idea):

Claim: “Since his appointment, Michael Bennet has voted to spend an average of $2.5 billion every day.”

Crossroads GPS television ad

Facts: Michael Bennet has, in fact, voted for legislation that if you add it all up and divide by the days he’s been in office, comes out to nearly $2.5 billion a day. [...]

Add all that up and it comes to $1.36 tillion.[sic] Divide by 568 (the days between Bennet’s Jan. 22, 2009 swearing-in and the Friday before the ad ran), and that’s $2.4 billion.


Vince Carroll of the Denver Post views Bennet’s campaign rhetoric as incompatible with his actual record:

Bennet, you may have noticed, is campaigning as a fiscal hawk. According to a recent report in this newspaper, the Colorado senator touts deficit reduction at town hall meetings as vital to the nation’s health.

To emphasize his seriousness, Bennet has sponsored the Deficit Reduction Act, which would cap the federal deficit at 3 percent of GDP after 2012 (when it would be capped at 4 percent), and supports a commission that will recommend a federal debt-reduction plan. Bennet also voted for “pay-as-you-go” rules that require offsetting revenue for any tax cuts or spending hikes.

If you’re partial to stern warnings about the growing national debt and grand schemes for shrinking it, Bennet is your man. But be sure to avert your eyes from his actual record.

Pay no attention to the contrast between Bennet’s green-eye-shade rhetoric and his drunken-sailor votes. Rest assured that 18 months of supporting one lavish spending and bailout bill after another provide no hint whatsoever of Bennet’s core fiscal philosophy.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2010, 06:16:35 PM »

Biden’s Fatal Conceit
Posted by Tad DeHaven



The White House’s misbegotten “Summer of Recovery” continued today with the release of another administration “analysis” that purportedly demonstrates the stimulus’s success in “transforming” the economy.

Vice President Joe Biden unveiled the report alongside Energy secretary Steven Chu and numerous businesses officials willing to serve as political props in return for Uncle Sam’s free candy. Biden bemoaned the nefarious “special interests” that were coddled by the previous administration. What does the vice president think those subsidized business officials attending his speech are called?

The money the White House has lavished on these privileged businesses isn’t free. The money comes from taxpayers—including businesses that do not enjoy the favor of the White House—who consequently have $100 billion (plus interest) less to spend or invest. Therefore, the fundamental question is: Are Joe Biden — an individual who has spent his entire career in government— and the Washington political class better at directing economic activity than the private sector?

Biden repeatedly stated that the “government plants the seed and the private sector makes it grow.” Because the government possesses no “seeds” that it didn’t first confiscate from the private sector, what the vice president is advocating is the redistribution of capital according to the dictates of the Beltway. This mindset exemplifies the arrogance of the political class, which at its core believes that free individuals are incapable of making the “right” decision without the guiding hand of the state.

Unfortunately for Joe Biden, the state’s hand guided the private sector into the economic downturn that the administration and its apologists would have us believe was a consequence of imaginary laissez faire policies. From the housing market planners at HUD to the money planners at the Federal Reserve, government interventions led to the economic turmoil that the perpetrating political class now claims it can fix.

Enough already.

The following are Cato resources that challenge the vice president’s breezy rhetoric on the ability of the federal government to direct economic growth:

•Energy Subsidies: The government has spent billions of dollars over the decades on dead-end schemes and dubious projects that have often had large cost overruns.
•Energy Regulations: Most federal intrusions into energy markets have been serious mistakes. They have destabilized markets, reduced domestic output, and decreased consumer welfare.
•Energy Interventions: The current arguments for energy intervention and energy subsidies fall short.
•High-Speed Rail: Policymakers are dumping billions of dollars into high-speed rail, even though foreign systems are money losers and carry only a small share of intercity passengers.
•Special-Interest Spending: Many federal programs deliver subsidies to particular groups of individuals and businesses while harming taxpayers and damaging the overall economy.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2010, 06:57:43 PM »

Predictable: Obama’s Cash For Clunkers…Hurting The Poor
 http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=11577
________________________ ________________________




Everyone with a brain knew what would happen. Unfortunately, those controlling Washington, D.C. these days are of questionable intelligence.

What am I talking about? Obama’s ‘brilliant’ Cash-for-Clunkers program.

Now, let us not even debate whether the program was stimulative; I don’t think it was, the White House disagrees, and we both have evidence to prove otherwise. Let us leave that debate alone.

But one thing is for certain: the effect on the used car market today.  According to Edmunds.com, used car prices have skyrocketed over the past year, the most since the value of the market was being monitored.  On average, a used car costs 10.3% (or about $1,800) more today than a year ago.

Why?

Well, couple points from Edmunds.  “So many economic factors affect automobile sales and prices. It’s believed that the program delayed purchases prior to the program and also pulled sales forward while in place,” said Joe Spina, a senior analyst for Edmunds. “The program also eliminated inventory of older vehicles that were traded and then scrapped.”

Well, duh.  The answer is simple:  supply and demand.  The Federal government, through this program, did increase short term sales of new cars.  Whether anyone bought cars that otherwise would not have is questionable, but at least is debatable.  What isn’t debatable is that all of those cars scrapped…are now off the market.  And thus, the market of used cars has obviously shrunk…thus decreasing supply and increasing demand.

So why should we care?  Well, if you are rich or well off, you probably don’t care, in your shiny new car.  But there is a large swath of the population that never buys a new car; it is estimated that almost half of the U.S. adult population only buys used cars.  And stating the obvious, most of these people are in the lower middle to poor classes.

So, even assuming that Obama’s program helped stimulate some car sales, it as certainly made it harder for the poor and lower middle class in this country to afford decent transportation.

Now, if our leaders knew simple economics, they could have easily predicted this damaging result.  Oh well.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2010, 08:35:26 PM »

Financial reform bill calls for diversity
LA Times ^ | 8/25/2010 | Julia Love and Jim Puzzanghera



Each of the 30 federal financial agencies and departments are required to establish an office to boost hiring of and contracting opportunities for minorities and women. Critics say it will be burdensome and unnecessary.

Reporting from Washington —

The recently enacted financial reform legislation tries in numerous ways to change how Wall Street companies and their federal regulators act, but a little-noticed provision aims for something potentially more difficult and controversial — altering how they look.

To promote diversity in the largely white male world, the law requires each of the 30 federal financial agencies and departments, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and all 12 Federal Reserve banks, to establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

Those offices will have vaguely defined powers to boost diversity at their agencies and the companies they regulate and to increase federal contracting opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses. Banks and other financial firms that fail to make "a good-faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce" could lose their government contracts.

"This is a wake-up call for Wall Street: women, black Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, they all pay for your bailouts," said Michael Yaki, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "Firms must take steps to be more reflective of America."

The provision, championed by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), has been hailed as groundbreaking by minority and women's advocates. But banking industry leaders and some Republicans are concerned about potentially burdensome regulations and costly new oversight that they see as unnecessarily duplicating — and perhaps going well beyond — other federal diversity initiatives.

"This will destroy the financial industry," warned Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was the Labor Department's chief economist under President George W. Bush.



(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2010, 07:29:46 AM »

CEOs Speak Up
WWW.INVESTORS.COM
Posted 08/25/2010 06:45 PM ET


________________________ ________________________



Intel CEO Paul Otellini had harsh words for the Obama administration at a tech conference Monday night, but was anyone listening other than those in... View Enlarged Image

The Economy: Everyone keeps asking: When will America's businesses start expanding and hiring again? Funny thing is, no one listens when they tell us.

It may not have gotten a lot of press, but we found the comments of Intel CEO Paul Otellini this week at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum quite enlightening.

At a time when many CEOs are hunkered down and holding back, Otellini let go with both barrels, warning Americans, who have become used to being the center of the innovation universe, to lower their expectations.

Unless government policies change, and fast, he said, "the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here."

That's pretty tough stuff. But Otellini was just getting warmed up.

As CNET news reports, Otellini said that at one time "no country was more attractive for startup capital ... We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That is simply no longer the case."

The Intel chief was harsh on the massive spending by the White House and Congress — and on the failure to extend the Bush tax cuts, the takeover of the health care industry, and the threat of new taxes on businesses to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

"I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs," he said. "And I think they're flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working."

If America's ruling class keeps going down this road, "people will not invest in the United States. They'll invest elsewhere."

Intel, the world's leader in semiconductor technology with $35 billion in sales and nearly 80,000 employees, is a good example.

"I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the U.S.," he said. And 90% of that added cost, he said, is due to taxes and regulations that other countries don't have.

Otellini isn't alone in his frustration.

Earlier in the week, Illinois Tool Works CEO David Speer, whose company employs 60,000 worldwide, laid out his dilemma — and that of hundreds of other CEOs: "I could borrow $2 billion tomorrow for 3 1/2%," Speer said. "But what am I going to do with it?"

Good question. Money is cheaper and more plentiful than it's ever been, especially for big corporations. But they're all looking in their crystal balls and see little but gloom.

The anger's been building. In June, Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon Communications and head of the Business Roundtable, warned of a growing anti-business slant in both Congress and the White House. Tax hikes, regulations and constant policy shifts, he said, "harm our ability ... to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."

Businesses make investment decisions based on the outlook three, four, five, even 10 years down the road. Even with 3% money, they can't make projects pencil out. They're just too risky now.

Not hard to see why.

Over the next decade, businesses expect soaring government spending, $13 trillion added to our national debt, more regulations, higher taxes on individuals, investors and businesses, and, oh yes, new laws that impose strict new rules on entire industries — as has already happened to Wall Street, the auto industry and health care.

And that catalogue of concern doesn't even include Social Security and Medicare, which will cost the U.S. $106 trillion over the long term and will both be technically bankrupt by 2020.

Yet Washington doesn't appear alarmed. As Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday, "We're moving in the right direction."

That, in a nutshell, is what's scaring CEOs today. We have an ideologically driven party in power in Washington that can't seem to understand just how much of a mess they've made of our economy.

Until that changes, don't expect the economy to.


________________________ ________________________ ________

Summer of Recovery.   Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2010, 08:48:18 AM »

I wonder how many jobs this disgusting act will kill. 

Where is 240 now? 

________________________ ________________________ _______

http://gunowners.org/nws9504.htm

________________________ ________________________ _______

4/95 GOA Fights Proposed EPA Lead Ammo Ban 
    "GOA was instrumental in generating Congressional opposition to the EPA's lead bullet ban."
    -- Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO)


AN OLD ADAGE states, "There is more than one way to skin a cat." Gun banning zealots have adopted a variation: "There is more than one way to gun control."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) understands this well. "Gun's don't kill people," he writes, "bullets kill people." The Senator argues that firearms can last many lifetimes but ammunition, on the other hand, is essentially disposable. If the supply can be curtailed, firearms will be reduced to mere decorations.

While Sen. Moynihan and his devotees may have been quelled somewhat by the November elections, many still remain in Washington that are all too willing to pick up the slack. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for one, appears eager to take up Moynihan's cause.

Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, the EPA is conducting comprehensive studies to determine the effect of lead on the environment. Included in these studies is a close look at the environmental impact of lead ammunition.

The EPA argues that as the lead bullet is dispersed from a firearm, it eventually finds its way into the ground, and therefore falls under its purview. This, along with the fact that the agency is predisposed to rule in favor of banning lead ammo, could spell bad news for gun owners. However, although it may come as a surprise to some at the EPA, a lot of people, including many Members of Congress, believe that the lead ban proposal goes well beyond the authority of the agency.
Congressional opposition

Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO) has been battling the EPA for years on this issue. "The EPA is trying to ban lead ammo, and no matter which way you look at it, that equals gun control. It's very clear that the law-abiding gun owner is being attacked on every side," Rep. Emerson told The Gun Owners.

In an effort to thwart the ban, GOA worked with Rep. Emerson to mobilize Congressional opposition. Emerson wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and GOA worked to get 52 Representatives to sign their names to it in the few days available for comment.

"We believe this is clearly an issue that falls outside the purview of the EPA," writes Emerson. "More importantly ... this proposal seriously infringes upon the right of American citizens afforded them in the Second Amendment. It is obvious to us that if lead ammunition is severely restricted or banned, then the EPA is effectively infringing on our right to keep and bear arms."

Emerson also challenged the agency's scientific data and its interpretation of TSCA. "The agency has done studies that they say prove lead is a major problem. Others have done studies which challenge the EPA's findings. But it's like the agency has a one-track mind: It wants to ban lead ammo," said Rep. Emerson.
GOA members make their voices heard

Congress is not alone in voicing opposition to the proposed ban. The EPA received so much E-mail from GOA members (in response to GOA FAX Alerts) that EPA Director of Chemical Management Division, John Melone, asked for a meeting with GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt (another example of how your calls, faxes and letters can influence Washington politics!)

In this meeting, Melone emphasized that the proposal was a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) and would not affect lead ammo because it is considered an existing use. However, when Pratt questioned the EPA's motives for singling out ammunition for its studies, Melone admitted that a "significant increase" in the volume of lead in the market could be considered a "new use," and could therefore fall under severe restrictions or prohibition.

EPA Administrator Carol Browner also was compelled to respond officially, thanks in large part to GOA members. "[The] EPA has not banned, nor does it plan to ban, the manufacture or use of lead ammunition," says Browner in a written statement.

If that is true, then several questions arise, such as why does the EPA classify lead shot ammo as one of "five priority classes" which are candidates for being regulated if in fact the agency has no intention of regulating the industry? And why is the agency conducting its studies under the heading of "health risks to children"? If nothing else, the EPA will have laid the groundwork for prohibiting lead ammo because of a supposed threat to children.

Lest anyone get the impression that this battle is merely an intellectual or scientific debate, it would be helpful to point out just a few cases where environmental extremism is taking away guns, closing down businesses and disrupting people's lives.
GOA helps reopen Texas shooting range

In Fort Bend, Texas, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC, a state version of the EPA) was a party in a suit filed against Bob Arwady, owner of a local shooting range.

The TNRCC claimed that lead bullets coming from the range were contaminating the environment by degrading the land and water in a drainage ditch behind the shooting barriers. Arwady "voluntarily" closed the range under the threat of a $25,000 fine for each round fired.

At that point GOA was made aware of the situation. GOA members in the area were contacted and encouraged to attend the TNRCC meeting on behalf of Arwady. So many people showed up at the hearing that a loudspeaker had to be placed outside the building because of the overflow.

A GOA alert also found its way into the hands of Dr. Peter Proctor, a board certified medical toxicologist. Subsequently, Dr. Proctor submitted a letter on behalf of Arwady, and volunteered to testify on his behalf.

In his research of over 5,000 scientific papers, Dr. Proctor "could find no reference to outdoor shooting ranges as significant sources of environmental lead." Dr. Proctor went on to say that the lead found in ammunition is entirely different than the lead associated with poisoning. In fact, many people have carried bullet fragments in their bodies for years without suffering any lead poisoning, Proctor noted.

Arwady also received assistance from Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) who wrote the TNRCC to voice his concerns about the state encroaching on individual property rights. Other legislators lending assistance to Arwady included pro-gun State Representatives John Culberson, Charles Howard and Mike Jackson, as well as State Senators Kenneth Armbrister and Drew Nixon.

The TNRCC, apparently a bit embarrassed over the incident, then denied being party to the suit brought against Arwady.

But Portia Poindexter, Fort Bend Assistant County Attorney, told the Houston Post that in fact, "the TNRCC is a necessary and indispensable party" to this case.

More recently, the TNRCC tried to change its tune altogether. It now claims the problem with the range is not an environmental issue, but with stray bullets hitting people. However, people being struck by stray bullets was not mentioned in the suit filed against Arwady.

Currently, the shooting range is preparing to re-open, which according to Arwady is due to GOA's involvement.

"When I asked GOA for help, they were quick to respond. GOA was the only organization that went to bat for me, generating pressure on the TNRCC to drop the case," said Arwady.
Gun manufacturers put on notice

Perhaps even more incredible is a situation that exists currently in California. Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5 requires a "warning before exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity."

Acting in the 'public interest," the Pacific Justice Center, a so-called watchdog civil rights organization, eagerly interpreted the code to mean gun manufacturers were required to put warning labels on their firearms.

When a gun is fired, said William Verrick of the Pacific Justice Center, "the shooter and those around him are exposed to dangerous levels of lead." Consequently, the group has notified several gun manufacturers in other states that they are in violation of the code. But here again, studies have been done that contradict the California statute.

The DO-IT Corp., located in Denver, Iowa, is a manufacturer of lead fishing lure molds. According to company president and GOA member Jerry Bond, DO-IT underwent an industrial hygiene inspection to determine the impact on employees who were exposed to lead virtually the entire workday.

The test, conducted by the Iowa Bureau of Labor, included placing a breathing apparatus near the employees' heads, which was worn the entire workday. The results of the test showed that lead was "not detectable" in the air breathed by the employees.

The DO-IT study tested employees who work full-time in a lead manufacturing plant, an enclosed environment with an obviously high concentration of lead material. If they were not harmed by lead exposure, it can hardly be argued that shooters or people around shooters are in any toxic danger due to exposure.

In spite of these clear abuses of authority at the state level, the EPA adamantly asserts that it will not abuse its authority. That may be so, but history gives us no expectation that federal agencies are less intrusive than state agencies. Here are some steps you can take to help protect our gun rights from environmental agencies:
 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2010, 08:50:48 AM »

I wonder how many jobs this disgusting act will kill. 

Where is 240 now? 

________________________ ________________________ _______

http://gunowners.org/nws9504.htm

________________________ ________________________ _______

4/95 GOA Fights Proposed EPA Lead Ammo Ban 
    "GOA was instrumental in generating Congressional opposition to the EPA's lead bullet ban."
    -- Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO)


AN OLD ADAGE states, "There is more than one way to skin a cat." Gun banning zealots have adopted a variation: "There is more than one way to gun control."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) understands this well. "Gun's don't kill people," he writes, "bullets kill people." The Senator argues that firearms can last many lifetimes but ammunition, on the other hand, is essentially disposable. If the supply can be curtailed, firearms will be reduced to mere decorations.

While Sen. Moynihan and his devotees may have been quelled somewhat by the November elections, many still remain in Washington that are all too willing to pick up the slack. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for one, appears eager to take up Moynihan's cause.

Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, the EPA is conducting comprehensive studies to determine the effect of lead on the environment. Included in these studies is a close look at the environmental impact of lead ammunition.

The EPA argues that as the lead bullet is dispersed from a firearm, it eventually finds its way into the ground, and therefore falls under its purview. This, along with the fact that the agency is predisposed to rule in favor of banning lead ammo, could spell bad news for gun owners. However, although it may come as a surprise to some at the EPA, a lot of people, including many Members of Congress, believe that the lead ban proposal goes well beyond the authority of the agency.
Congressional opposition

Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO) has been battling the EPA for years on this issue. "The EPA is trying to ban lead ammo, and no matter which way you look at it, that equals gun control. It's very clear that the law-abiding gun owner is being attacked on every side," Rep. Emerson told The Gun Owners.

In an effort to thwart the ban, GOA worked with Rep. Emerson to mobilize Congressional opposition. Emerson wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and GOA worked to get 52 Representatives to sign their names to it in the few days available for comment.

"We believe this is clearly an issue that falls outside the purview of the EPA," writes Emerson. "More importantly ... this proposal seriously infringes upon the right of American citizens afforded them in the Second Amendment. It is obvious to us that if lead ammunition is severely restricted or banned, then the EPA is effectively infringing on our right to keep and bear arms."

Emerson also challenged the agency's scientific data and its interpretation of TSCA. "The agency has done studies that they say prove lead is a major problem. Others have done studies which challenge the EPA's findings. But it's like the agency has a one-track mind: It wants to ban lead ammo," said Rep. Emerson.
GOA members make their voices heard

Congress is not alone in voicing opposition to the proposed ban. The EPA received so much E-mail from GOA members (in response to GOA FAX Alerts) that EPA Director of Chemical Management Division, John Melone, asked for a meeting with GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt (another example of how your calls, faxes and letters can influence Washington politics!)

In this meeting, Melone emphasized that the proposal was a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) and would not affect lead ammo because it is considered an existing use. However, when Pratt questioned the EPA's motives for singling out ammunition for its studies, Melone admitted that a "significant increase" in the volume of lead in the market could be considered a "new use," and could therefore fall under severe restrictions or prohibition.

EPA Administrator Carol Browner also was compelled to respond officially, thanks in large part to GOA members. "[The] EPA has not banned, nor does it plan to ban, the manufacture or use of lead ammunition," says Browner in a written statement.

If that is true, then several questions arise, such as why does the EPA classify lead shot ammo as one of "five priority classes" which are candidates for being regulated if in fact the agency has no intention of regulating the industry? And why is the agency conducting its studies under the heading of "health risks to children"? If nothing else, the EPA will have laid the groundwork for prohibiting lead ammo because of a supposed threat to children.

Lest anyone get the impression that this battle is merely an intellectual or scientific debate, it would be helpful to point out just a few cases where environmental extremism is taking away guns, closing down businesses and disrupting people's lives.
GOA helps reopen Texas shooting range

In Fort Bend, Texas, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC, a state version of the EPA) was a party in a suit filed against Bob Arwady, owner of a local shooting range.

The TNRCC claimed that lead bullets coming from the range were contaminating the environment by degrading the land and water in a drainage ditch behind the shooting barriers. Arwady "voluntarily" closed the range under the threat of a $25,000 fine for each round fired.

At that point GOA was made aware of the situation. GOA members in the area were contacted and encouraged to attend the TNRCC meeting on behalf of Arwady. So many people showed up at the hearing that a loudspeaker had to be placed outside the building because of the overflow.

A GOA alert also found its way into the hands of Dr. Peter Proctor, a board certified medical toxicologist. Subsequently, Dr. Proctor submitted a letter on behalf of Arwady, and volunteered to testify on his behalf.

In his research of over 5,000 scientific papers, Dr. Proctor "could find no reference to outdoor shooting ranges as significant sources of environmental lead." Dr. Proctor went on to say that the lead found in ammunition is entirely different than the lead associated with poisoning. In fact, many people have carried bullet fragments in their bodies for years without suffering any lead poisoning, Proctor noted.

Arwady also received assistance from Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) who wrote the TNRCC to voice his concerns about the state encroaching on individual property rights. Other legislators lending assistance to Arwady included pro-gun State Representatives John Culberson, Charles Howard and Mike Jackson, as well as State Senators Kenneth Armbrister and Drew Nixon.

The TNRCC, apparently a bit embarrassed over the incident, then denied being party to the suit brought against Arwady.

But Portia Poindexter, Fort Bend Assistant County Attorney, told the Houston Post that in fact, "the TNRCC is a necessary and indispensable party" to this case.

More recently, the TNRCC tried to change its tune altogether. It now claims the problem with the range is not an environmental issue, but with stray bullets hitting people. However, people being struck by stray bullets was not mentioned in the suit filed against Arwady.

Currently, the shooting range is preparing to re-open, which according to Arwady is due to GOA's involvement.

"When I asked GOA for help, they were quick to respond. GOA was the only organization that went to bat for me, generating pressure on the TNRCC to drop the case," said Arwady.
Gun manufacturers put on notice

Perhaps even more incredible is a situation that exists currently in California. Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5 requires a "warning before exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity."

Acting in the 'public interest," the Pacific Justice Center, a so-called watchdog civil rights organization, eagerly interpreted the code to mean gun manufacturers were required to put warning labels on their firearms.

When a gun is fired, said William Verrick of the Pacific Justice Center, "the shooter and those around him are exposed to dangerous levels of lead." Consequently, the group has notified several gun manufacturers in other states that they are in violation of the code. But here again, studies have been done that contradict the California statute.

The DO-IT Corp., located in Denver, Iowa, is a manufacturer of lead fishing lure molds. According to company president and GOA member Jerry Bond, DO-IT underwent an industrial hygiene inspection to determine the impact on employees who were exposed to lead virtually the entire workday.

The test, conducted by the Iowa Bureau of Labor, included placing a breathing apparatus near the employees' heads, which was worn the entire workday. The results of the test showed that lead was "not detectable" in the air breathed by the employees.

The DO-IT study tested employees who work full-time in a lead manufacturing plant, an enclosed environment with an obviously high concentration of lead material. If they were not harmed by lead exposure, it can hardly be argued that shooters or people around shooters are in any toxic danger due to exposure.

In spite of these clear abuses of authority at the state level, the EPA adamantly asserts that it will not abuse its authority. That may be so, but history gives us no expectation that federal agencies are less intrusive than state agencies. Here are some steps you can take to help protect our gun rights from environmental agencies:
 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2010, 10:21:05 AM »

HealthMarkets has 70 layoffs, expects 180 more
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2010

By Sandra Baker


sabaker@star-telegram.com


________________________ ________________________ ___________________



HealthMarkets, the North Richland Hills-based seller of health insurance, laid off 70 employees this month and expects to trim 180 more positions by the end of the first quarter of 2011, according to a recent federal filing.

In the Securities and Exchange Commission filing, HealthMarkets blamed the layoffs on "dropping enrollment levels experienced by the company's insurance subsidiaries," along with national healthcare reform and "related legislative developments."


HealthMarkets provides insurance plans to the self-employed, individuals and small businesses.

The filing did not disclose where the Aug. 10 layoffs occurred, and the company declined to comment further.

The filing "contains all the relevant information regarding the recent change to our work force," spokeswoman Donna Ledbetter said.

The cuts will cost the company $7.5 million to $10 million in severance and other employee-related costs, according to the filing. It is also losing $100,000 by terminating leases on office space.

In February, HealthMarkets laid off 130 employees, or 10 percent of its work force, at its headquarters at 9151 Boulevard 26. At that time, the company said it had 960 employees there. In November 2008, it cut about 220 employees in Texas, Oklahoma and Connecticut.

The cuts planned for this year and next could occur through attrition, the filing said. Assuming the cuts take place, HealthMarkets will have eliminated 600 positions by early next year.

HealthMarkets has been moving from underwriting health insurance policies to also marketing policies underwritten by other insurers, including United HealthCare and Aetna. This year, it created a subsidiary, Insphere Insurance Solutions, to sell insurance products through independent agents.

According to SEC filings, HealthMarkets earned $11.2 million in the year's first six months, about the same as a year earlier.

In June, HealthMarkets said in a separate SEC filing that it would close subsidiary Insphere Securities, a registered investment adviser, by the end of September. It bought the company in April. Insphere Securities has sales offices in Utah, Nevada and Arizona.

HealthMarkets was acquired by private equity investors in 2006. It underwrites insurance issued through its subsidiaries Chesapeake Life Insurance, Mega Life and Health Insurance Co., and Mid-West National Life Insurance Co. of Tennessee.

Sandra Baker, 817-390-7727

Looking for comments?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2010, 12:59:25 PM »

The Corner
How Vindictive Is This Administration?
August 26, 2010 9:54 A.M. By Daniel Foster   

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244814/how-vindictive-administration-daniel-foster

________________________ ________________________ _____


I’m not usually the conspiratorial type, but watch Gov. Chris Christie explain how the Obama administration disqualified the state of New Jersey from hundreds of millions in education funds because some clerk in Trenton turned in the wrong excel spreadsheet:
 
Democrats in Washington have already shown a willingness to withhold federal education dollars from states that don’t follow their preferred tactic for navigating the recession: giving teachers raises like it’s the Gay ’90s. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is more punishment for a state that committed the crime of balancing its budget.

But the Obama administration has made a serious mistake here: they’ve given Chris Christie an opening, a reason to take them on directly. And how does the old saying go? Never go up against a Sicilian, when political credibility is on the line?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLSahbjR3k0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLSahbjR3k0</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
BM OUT
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8229


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: August 26, 2010, 01:01:59 PM »

If he got in in 2012 he would DESTROY Imam Obama.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2010, 01:05:28 PM »

If he got in in 2012 he would DESTROY Imam Obama.

Definately.  I like Christie alot.     

But then again, I would vote for the BTK or Zodiac Killer over Imam Obama in 2012, piss be upon him.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2010, 06:20:39 AM »

Obamacare’s Bureaucracy Nightmare
FrontPage ^ | August 30, 2010 | Tait Trussell


________________________ ________________________ ___


We now see how the regulatory bureaucracy [1] works—or probably can’t work– and how it “may well push us into the single-payer health care system,” Grace-Marie Turner astutely pointed out Aug. 26 in the Detroit News. Turner is president of the Galen Institute, a research organization focusing on health policy. Under a single-payer system, the federal government would be the paymaster making the medical decisions.

Three influential House Democrats are now pushing [2] for a public option (single-payer). ModernHealh.com reported July 22. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif), chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, is leading the movement. The “public option offers lower cost competition to private insurance companies,” added Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif ) co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Il), is the third Member.

Even before a single-payer system could evolve, ObamaCare has the potential to topple from bureaucratic overload. Uncountable unelected and untested bureaucrats will be making life-affecting decisions. At this stage, not even experts who have pored over the 2,000-plus-word law know how many bureaucracies are hidden away in the ObamaCare statute. According to Politico no one can figure [3] out exactly how many new agencies ObamaCare will spawn once it comes into full effect. Congress authorized a “self-perpetuating bureaucracy, one that can expand on its own and make determinations far outside of the boundaries Democrats promised during the ObamaCare debate.”

A Congressional Research Service Report, “New Entities Created Pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act (PPACA) is a dramatic eye-opener. Curtis W. Copeland earnestly attempted to compile [4] and briefly explain the pieces and parts of the regulatory jungle in a 40-page report in July. In his summary section, author Copeland, described as a specialist in American National Government, writes:

Some of these new entities are offices within existing cabinet departments and agencies, and are assigned certain administrative or representational duties related to the legislation. Other entities are new boards and commissions with particular planning and reporting responsibilities. Still others are advisory bodies that were created to study particular issues, offer recommendations, or both. Although PPACA describes some of these new organizations and advisory bodies in detail, in many cases it is impossible to know how much influence they would ultimately have over the implementation of the legislation.

This report describes dozens of governmental organizations or advisory bodies that are mentioned in PPACA but does not include other types of entities…(e.g. various demonstration projects, grants, trust funds, programs, systems, formulas, guidelines, risk pools, websites, ratings areas, model agreements, or protocols)….The precise number of new entities that will ultimately be created…is unknowable….PPACA significantly increased the appointment responsibilities of the Controller General of the United States, and it is unclear how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will be able to independently audit entities whose members are appointed by the head of GAO.

Seemingly always conscious of racial matters, an example of the minority health provision that the CRS analysis mentions “requires the heads of six separate agencies within Health and Human Services to each establish their own offices of minority health.”

This astonishingly frank description of the law’s provisions reminds one of Shakespeare’s Act 3, Scene 4 when Lady Macbeth says “You have displaced the mirth…with most admired disorder.” A law perhaps admired by some in Congress, but certainly in disorder.

The Center for Health Transformation (CHT), founded by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, estimated 159 new [5] offices, agencies, and programs created by the health law, Politico reported Aug. 3. “Even in the few cases in which the PPACA set explicit creation dates for organizations, the consequences for missing these deadlines remain unknown.” The law’s provisions “vary dramatically in specificity.” It states a lot about some provisions, but a little about many other provisions. “Some have been authorized without any instructions on who is to appoint whom, when that might happen and who will pay.”

Gingrich’s CHT lists the sections of the law and page numbers for the 159 programs it finds in the ObamaCare law as well as the department or agency which would seem to logically oversee the specific provisions and programs. Matters to be regulated range from grants for women with postpartum [6] depression, to grants for long-term care ombudsmen, whose duties are vague. Five separate major programs deal with women’s health. Section 3509 (a), for instance, says PPACA “transfers all functions and authorities of the existing Office of Women’s Health of the Public Health Service. Located within the Office of he Secretary of HHS; no creation date specified…PPACA authorizes such sums as may be necessary for FY 2010 through FY 2014. Composition of the office not specified; headed by a director, who is appointed by and reports to the director of CDCP [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].” No date specified for appointment of director.

For the Office of Minority Health, the CRS analysis says: “PPACA transfers existing office within the Office of Public Health and Science of the Office of Secretary. No transfer day specified. Composition of the office not specified. Office headed by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health, who shall report directly to the Secretary (of HHS). Office is to ‘retain and strengthen authorities…for the purpose of improving minority health and the quality of health care minorities receive and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities.’ Submit a report to ‘appropriate committees of Congress by 03/23/11 (and biennially) summarizing agency activities.’”

Section 3012 (a), as described briefly by the CRS, is called “Entities to be established by the President. The President shall establish…Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality. No location or creation date specified….Composed of senior level representatives from HHS, CMS, NIH, CDCP, FDA, HRSA, AHRQ, SAMHSA, and ACF, 13 other specified departments and agencies, and any other agencies selected by the President…” (This large assemblage of “worker bees” is to report to Congress by 12/31/10 and annually thereafter.)

Copeland notes that in a number of cases, no mention is stated regarding the management, when a provision will cease to exist and the amount and timing of appropriations. These “may have significant implications for…agency discretion in the implementation of PPACA.” Elsewhere, he says, in other cases, PPACA provides a general description of the new organization, but permits substantial discretion regarding where the new entities are to be positioned…..Much more commonly, however, PPCAC does not indicate in either specific or general terms where the newly created entities are to be established…..Where specific duties are not delineated…those responsible for leading these organizations (and those responsible for appointing those leaders) appear to have substantial latitude in determining how the organizations will operate, and for what purposes.” In other words, faceless bureaucratic rule will be the order of the day.

Single-payer health care is financing the delivery of universal health care to an entire population through a single insurance pool, typically government regulated, according to wikipedia.org [7]. The disadvantages [8] of a single payer health system are the loss of choice, and inevitably increased expenses that are typical with government programs. We already have a single-payer system with Medicare, which certainly doesn’t cover everything, including routine dental care, dentures, hearing aids and exams for fitting hearing aids, cosmetic surgery, and acupuncture, for example. But we will spend about $375 billion [9] for it this year. In a National Bureau of Economic Research Study, authors comparing the U.S. and Canadian [10] Health Systems said that “while it is commonly supposed that a single-payer, publicly-funded system (as Canada has) would deliver better health outcomes …than a multi-payer system with a private component, their study does not support this view. Pap smears (for women) and PSA screenings (for men) were more frequent in the U. S. And the rate of cancer detection was higher in the U.S., for example. As George Will wrote in his July 11 column, “The new health care legislation is a step toward elimination, by slow strangulation, of private health insurance and establishment of government as the ‘single payer.’” [11]

A key bureaucrat in ObamaCare is Dr. Donald Berwick, who heads the federal Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and says he loves the single-payer [12] system, as reported July 27 by CNS News.com and others. Berwick was quoted as saying, like a single-minded bureaucrat, “I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That’s for leaders (translation: know-it-all bureaucrats) to do.”

Before his election, Obama said. “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. But as we all know, we might not get there immediately.” What makes us think he has changed his mind? And remember what Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a fervent proponent of the public option, said in the health-care debate last December “What we are buying here” is a “starter home.” He said, “At some point in the near future [13] we’re going to have some sort of public option.”



* aaaaaObamaCare-Chart.gif (96.17 KB, 375x292 - viewed 401 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
GigantorX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5458


GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2010, 08:06:46 AM »

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/dallas-fed-august-manufacturing-activity-comes-135-below-expectations-confirms-julys-plunge-

Another economic manufacturing report that doesn't look so hot.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2010, 08:09:34 AM »


That site is one of my favorites. 

Gigantor - did you see the interview I postd with the CEO from Intel on the costs to build a factory in Cali?     
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2010, 08:17:13 AM »

With Used-Car Prices Up 10 Percent Over 2009, Buyers Need Shopping Discipline
www.edmunds.com


________________________ ________________________ _____



Car buyers on average paid $1,800 more for a used vehicle in July than they paid a year ago at this time, according to Edmunds.com data. That's a 10.3 percent increase, bringing the average cost of a 3-year-old vehicle to $19,248. The price of a Cadillac Escalade spiked nearly 36 percent. "A lack of confidence in the economy is driving more people to used cars, putting upward pricing pressure on a limited supply of vehicles," said Joe Spina, a senior analyst for Edmunds.

There's a tricky aspect to this analysis, because last summer was marked by a used-car buying frenzy spawned by the Cash for Clunkers program. Spina said the effects of that program are hard to isolate precisely. "So many economic factors affect automobile sales and prices. It's believed that the program delayed purchases prior to the program and also pulled sales forward while in place," he said. "The program also eliminated inventory of older vehicles that were traded and then scrapped." After the jump, take a look at the vehicles whose prices moved the most this July. The model years have been averaged. You can also get some advice on how to proceed in a (relatively) pricey used-car market.

Spina said that at this time last year, a troubled economy had consumers buying less- expensive fuel-efficient vehicles and trading in "gas guzzlers" through Cash for Clunkers (more formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System). "Now, those who need trucks and large SUVs are buying them and in many cases are turning to used vehicles as a way to save money," he said. "Prices are high because this demand comes at a time when inventory is low as a result of the current shortage of lease returns and trade-ins for vehicles of this type." And, he said, while prices are indeed very high now, last year's prices were low, making the gains even more dramatic.

The point for used-car consumers is that it's more important than ever to do your homework before shopping, said Philip Reed, Edmunds' senior consumer advice editor. "For example, decide ahead of time how much you are willing to spend and keep yourself to that limit."

More guidance on how to make a smart used-car buy can be found in "10 Steps to Buying a Used Car."


________________________ ________________________ __

Another stupid program that failed and cost billions for no reason at all. 

It helped spike used car costs when said prices should be coming down.  Who did it harm?  Those in the middle and lower class. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2010, 08:31:47 AM »

Obama Blows Off 3 Billion Wannabe Billionaires: William Pesek
By William Pesek - Aug 29, 2010 3:00 PM ET
Bloomberg Opinion


________________________ ________________________ _________

For a guy who talked big about re- engaging Asia, Barack Obama has a funny way of showing it.

Nobody doubts the U.S. president’s team is supremely busy juggling oil spills, Muslim cultural centers, convincing ignoramuses he has a birth certificate and averting recession. Yet there’s no excuse for blowing off last week’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations trade meeting in Vietnam.

It was a dreadful decision and its significance didn’t escape members of the fourth-biggest market for U.S. goods. This is no time for the U.S. to be taking the most dynamic economies for granted. Not with China becoming an ever-bigger player both in Asia and globally.

On any list of George W. Bush’s failings, ignoring Asia deserves a prominent mention. When his administration bothered with Asia, it was all terrorism all the time. There was little talk about potential, cooperation or partnership. Bush just wanted to know how many bad guys governments were rounding up.

He tried to make amends in the twilight of his presidency, naming a U.S. ambassador to Asean in 2008. Recently, Obama tapped that official, Scot Marciel, to be U.S. ambassador to Indonesia. Obama hasn’t bothered to name a new Asean envoy.

The U.S. missed a timely opportunity last week to confer with the economic ministers of Asean’s 10 members, along with counterparts from Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Russia.

Blowing Off Asia

At a time of global crisis, one the U.S. caused, does Obama really want to be sending a message of indifference to Asia? Coming a week after the announcement that China’s economy has surpassed Japan’s, the U.S.’s closest Asian ally, you would think the White House would be stepping up a charm offensive. Instead, it risks turning off the region.

“Confidence in the United States and its ability to lead and follow through on commitments is based on its economic well- being, and that status is being questioned by friends and competitors alike in Asia,” Ernest Bower, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, wrote in a recent report.

China’s rapid growth is slowly, but surely, chipping away at the U.S.’s importance. Granted, at almost three times China’s economy, the U.S. will long be a vital customer for Asia’s goods. Officials here also know that depending on growth in a developing economy is risky.

U.S. Brand

Yet neglecting future trade ties with the liveliest economies is just plain dumb. Asia is churning out a fast- growing number of billionaires and is home to 3 billion consumers who aspire to join them. The U.S. wants to be in on that process.

Obama must not forget just how much the 2008 meltdown damaged the U.S. brand. During Asia’s 1990s crisis, U.S. officials preached the free-market gospel. They told leaders to raise interest rates to support currencies, slash spending and debt, scrap subsidies and avoid bailing out industries. When the U.S. faced a crisis, it did exactly the opposite.

There’s also considerable grumbling over the dollar. True or not, the theory that the U.S. is devaluing to help exporters is making the rounds. That perception is a problem if you want China to let its currency strengthen. It doesn’t play well in Japan, where panic is rising over the strong yen.

Nor can the U.S. complain about corruption in Asia. Incestuous ties between Washington and Wall Street helped cause the U.S. crisis. Conflicts of interest between regulators and oil companies led to BP Plc’s devastating Gulf of Mexico leak. The U.S. has little moral high ground on dodgy dealings.

Corruption’s Cost

That’s a shame, considering the magnitude of Asia’s corruption fight. In Indonesia, for example, officials face an uphill battle to weed out graft and allow more of the nation’s people to benefit from 6 percent growth.

In the Philippines, the honeymoon enjoyed by Benigno Aquino, since becoming president in June, ended last week in gunfire. Eight Hong Kong tourists being held hostage in Manila died in a botched rescue attempt. The tragedy was emblematic of what plagues the nation’s economy.

The gunman was a former police inspector who was dismissed on allegations of extortion. The standoff’s surreal finale suggested a breakdown in the nation’s security apparatus, ineptness at many levels and weak diplomacy. Corruption is the common link in all these shortcomings.

Lost Opportunity

Obama got off to a good start, becoming the first U.S. leader to meet with Asean in November. Vietnam was the perfect opportunity to go further -- to discuss views on credit markets, North Korea’s provocations, China’s currency, Australia’s election, Russia’s growth prospects, and Japanese deflation.

This last topic is a growing concern. Not only have consumer prices fallen for 17 consecutive months, but Japan now has a leadership battle on its hands. Prime Minister Naoto Kan faces a challenge to remain head of the ruling party by veteran kingmaker Ichiro Ozawa. It’s the last thing Japan needs: its sixth prime minister in three years.

Obama’s team could have learned about all of this, and much more, if it had only shown up in Asia. It should do so as soon as possible.

(William Pesek is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: William Pesek in Tokyo at wpesek@bloomberg.net


________________________ ________________

He is too busying partying, golfing, drinking, and figring out how to get an umbrella threw a gate. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2010, 08:39:27 AM »

August 11, 2010
The Conspiracy Against Economic Growth
By Louis Woodhill
www.realclearmarkets.com

________________________ _____________________

On July 11, Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of President Obama's Debt and Deficit Commission, made the following statement in a speech to the National Governors' Association annual meeting in Boston:

"We can't grow our way out of this. We could have decades of double-digit growth and not grow our way out of this enormous debt problem."

Mr. Bowles' assertion was widely reported. If you Google it, you get 2430 hits. The mainstream media treated it as a statement of the obvious, something that no reasonable person could disagree with. No one in the elite media said, "This is utter nonsense. Mr. Bowles should resign from the Debt Commission and devote his time to the study of arithmetic"-although this is, in fact, the logical response to Bowles' preposterous assertion.

Mr. Bowles' statement was almost certainly a reaction to the "Long Term Budget Outlook" (LTBO) released by the CBO on June 30. In the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" (AFS) case (which they represented as being more realistic than their "Extended Baseline Scenario"), Federal debt as a percent of GDP rises from 62% in 2010 to 100% by 2023, and then to 146% in 2030. At the end of the projection period, in 2084, the national debt reaches 947% of GDP, with a budget deficit equal to 61.5% of GDP in that year alone. As the CBO rightly points out, such a budgetary path would be completely untenable.

Now, the minimum growth trajectory that would fit "...decades of double digit growth..." would be 10.0% economic growth for 20 years. If you plug these assumptions into the CBO's AFS case (keeping everything else the same), the faster growth would eliminate the budget deficit by the end of 2014 and pay off the entire national debt by the end of 2020. In fiscal year 2030, the Federal government would run a budget surplus of $16.6 trillion (in 2010 dollars), or 16.9% of that year's GDP. In fact, the interest on the government's accumulated surplus ($69.4 trillion in 2010 dollars, or 475% of 2010 GDP) would pay for more than 60% of government spending that year.

Now, why would a co-chairman of Obama's Debt Commission make such an absurd assertion, and why would no one in the elite media challenge it? I believe that it is because our political and media elites want a bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive government, and they want a Value Added Tax (VAT) to pay for it. Their strategy is to de-legitimize other alternatives-particularly faster economic growth-to the point where they cannot even be discussed.

An example of this "conspiracy against growth" is the CBO's LTBO itself. The CBO assumes that economic growth over the next 74 years will average 2.16%. While the CBO considers the impact of various assumptions on the trajectory of the national debt, it does not consider (or even mention) the possibility of higher growth. This is particularly striking because over the 74-year period from 1935 to 2009, America's real annual economic growth averaged 3.73%.

The difference between 2.16% growth and 3.73% growth is enormous. If you increase the growth rate in the CBO's AFS case to 3.73% (again, holding everything else constant), instead of Federal debt rising steadily from 62% of GDP in 2010 to 87% in 2020, 146% in 2030, and 947% in 2084, the debt would peak at 67% of GDP in 2012 and then begin declining. Without any spending cuts and tax increases, it would fall to 60% in 2020 and 52% in 2030. By 2052, the entire national debt would be paid off.

In addition to the CBO and the mainstream media, the conspiracy against growth includes the Social Security Trustees. In their just-released "2010 Annual Report", the Social Security Trustees assume an economic growth rate of 2.25% over the next 74 years. While they do present a "Low Cost Case" that features (among other things), a real growth rate of 2.93%, they make no mention of this case in their "Conclusions". The solutions discussed are confined to tax increases and benefit cuts. Later in their report, the Trustees present "sensitivity analyses" of their projections (of doom) against eight different variables, but none of these is the one variable that would have the most impact-the rate of economic growth.

The Medicare Trustees' 2010 Annual Report uses the same economic assumptions as the Social Security report. The 38-page "Overview" of the Medicare report makes no mention of the tremendous impact that higher economic growth would have on our nation's ability to afford our Medicare program.

The Republicans running for Congress this year must expose and denounce the conspiracy against economic success. Prosperity is possible, but not if our economy grows at 2.25% per year or less. A "Prosperity Plan" comprising stabilizing the dollar, revoking the Federal Reserve's authority to pay interest on bank reserves, and tax reductions on work, savings, and investment would yield much higher rates of growth than those assumed in the gloomy CBO LTBO.

The Bush tax cuts must be made permanent for everyone. Beyond that, the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and the death tax should be repealed. These tax changes would reduce the Federal government's "tax take" from the LTBO AFS case level of 19.3% of GDP to perhaps 17.0% of GDP. The reduction in tax take would be less than predicted by static analysis, because the tax take rises significantly during economic booms. It is reasonable to expect that the Prosperity Plan would yield an economic growth rate averaging at least the 3.73% sustained by the U.S. from 1935 to 2009.

Plugging the revised tax and growth assumptions into the CBO's LTBO model (with no spending cuts), we see that, at first, the tax cuts cause the Federal debt to be higher in the Prosperity Plan (PP) case than in the AFS case. In 2012, the debt is 72% of GDP in the PP case against 69% in the AFS case. However, after that, the much higher rate of PP economic growth asserts itself.

By 2016, the debt levels in the two cases are the same, at 75% of GDP. In 2020, the PP case yields a debt-to-GDP ratio of 81%, vs. the AFS case's 87%. The PP case's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at 98% in 2034, while the AFS case debt ratio (which is 177% of GDP at that point) just keeps growing. The PP case brings the budget into balance in 2061, at which point the AFS case is running a budget deficit equal to an absurd 35.3% of GDP. The PP case pays off the entire national debt by 2075.

America does not need higher taxes, it needs more economic growth. Prosperity is possible, but the Republicans must make a decisive, public break from the conspiracy against economic growth.


Louis Woodhill (louis@woodhill.com), an engineer and software entrepreneur, is on the Leadership Council of the Club for Growth.

________________________ _______________________

Like we have said Obama and the far left hate this nation and are trying to collapse the system. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21035


All aboard the USS Leverage


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2010, 08:49:09 AM »

Destroy then rebuild. That's what the far-left and their cronies in the MSM are aiming for.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 83   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!