"Richard" wrote in message
m...
http://rense.com/general94/whstaff.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ef=NetworkNews

"
The Facts
Note that although the GOP presidential aspirant starts out by talking about
the "never-seen-before levels" of spending under Obama and then mentions
"the trillion-dollar stimulus," the example she cites - the number of
Transportation Department employees making more than $170,000 - uses the
metric of "the beginning of the recession." There's a reason for that
phrase: The recession started in December 2007, 13 months before Obama
became president.

In other words, Bachmann gives the impression that she is talking about
something that Obama did, but in fact, the big increase in government pay
that she denounces started under Obama's Republican predecessor, George W.
Bush.

In fact, the apparent source of Bachmann's claim, a 2009 article in USA
Today, made it clear that Bush recommended across-the-board raises that,
after they got through Congress, resulted in boosts of 3 percent in January
2008 and 3.9 percent in January 2009. By contrast, Obama in 2010 recommended
the smallest federal pay raise since 1975 - 2 percent - and then froze
salaries in 2011."

On 8/17/2011 7:59 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
wrote in message
m...
http://rense.com/general94/whstaff.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ef=NetworkNews

"
The Facts
Note that although the GOP presidential aspirant starts out by talking about
the "never-seen-before levels" of spending under Obama and then mentions
"the trillion-dollar stimulus," the example she cites - the number of
Transportation Department employees making more than $170,000 - uses the
metric of "the beginning of the recession." There's a reason for that
phrase: The recession started in December 2007, 13 months before Obama
became president.

In other words, Bachmann gives the impression that she is talking about
something that Obama did, but in fact, the big increase in government pay
that she denounces started under Obama's Republican predecessor, George W.
Bush.

In fact, the apparent source of Bachmann's claim, a 2009 article in USA
Today, made it clear that Bush recommended across-the-board raises that,
after they got through Congress, resulted in boosts of 3 percent in January
2008 and 3.9 percent in January 2009. By contrast, Obama in 2010 recommended
the smallest federal pay raise since 1975 - 2 percent - and then froze
salaries in 2011."

Typical Bachmann lying.

http://rense.com/general94/whstaff.htm again...

That's a heck of a lot more than 2 or 3%!

On 8/17/2011 12:10 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

I think her hubby is the sword swallower of the family.


Right wing nut jobs will probably oblige.....

Perry is a likely target.
The higher up the tree a monkey climbs the uglier the picture gets.
That ought to be easy enough to satirize. Perry is about as Cromagnon as a
modern human could be.
Even a Texican.

He reminds me of a slightly retarded version of Dumbya with an extra helping
of jeebus thrown in for good measure.


Don't believe it, John.
He's pure politician.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
http://rense.com/general94/whstaff.htm again...

That's a heck of a lot more than 2 or 3%!

And that is because most of those raises on the list were due to major
promotions. The actual average salary at the white house decreased.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/top...-house-raises/

I can not believe that people still take these propaganda blogs at face
value.

On 8/17/2011 12:55 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Richard wrote:
On 8/17/2011 12:10 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

I think her hubby is the sword swallower of the family.


Right wing nut jobs will probably oblige.....

Perry is a likely target.
The higher up the tree a monkey climbs the uglier the picture gets.
That ought to be easy enough to satirize. Perry is about as
Cromagnon as a modern human could be.
Even a Texican.

He reminds me of a slightly retarded version of Dumbya with an extra
helping of jeebus thrown in for good measure.


Don't believe it, John.
He's pure politician.

I believe every word of that, Richard.
I think he's actually got a chance. Not a big one but as good as any.
I just don't think his schtick will travel well.
Romney-Perry (unlikely), Romney-Bachmann or Perry-Pawlenty might be a
little confusing but could fly in the general.

One thing is for sure - anbd it's the only thing.
SNL is going to have a blast!



He will adapt to meet the needs of (his donors?).

And yeah, SNL will be a hoot!

People who learn from history are doomed to make new mistakes...

On 8/18/2011 3:32 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:

I just finished yesterday's press clippings on Perry.
Never a dull moment.
LOL

We'll all be having a good laugh as the economy takes us over the cliff.
You really couldn't make this guy up.

He speaks about auditing the Federal Reserve as if that doesn't happen on a
regular basis.
They publish their balance sheet and income statement on line every week.
Outside auditors review the books and records multiple times every year.
It's an ongoing process nearly.
How can Perry, a Presidential candidate, not know that?

I knew he was from the "Big Empty" but the real big empty appears to be
between his ears!
Mean sucker though, isn't he.
You wouldn't want him on your ass.



Welcome to the 2012 Presidential election!

That "mean" part might be what get's him elected.

My read is that people feel like we (US) have been pushed around too
long and limp wrist politicians are the cause of it all.
They might not be too wrong there too.

What "we" need (to put the world order back in it's place) is the best
liar and the meanest bully we can elect.

A little smoke and mirrors and who knows?

copy that!

On 8/18/2011 10:04 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Richard wrote:
copy that!

Think about what it must be like to be just starting out in todays world.
You'd have to be optimistic and look at everything as an opportunity but
thatse opportunities aren't nearly as promising as the ones I remember
looking forward to.
It's really a shame and maybe the worst result of all of this.



My girl friend has three daughters.
Two are still in school - or want to go to school.

But college loans are dumber than a 30 year mortgage.

We hear about it a lot.

You are right on..

On 8/18/2011 1:16 PM, Richard wrote:
On 8/18/2011 10:04 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Richard wrote:
copy that!

Think about what it must be like to be just starting out in todays world.
You'd have to be optimistic and look at everything as an opportunity but
thatse opportunities aren't nearly as promising as the ones I remember
looking forward to.
It's really a shame and maybe the worst result of all of this.



My girl friend has three daughters.
Two are still in school - or want to go to school.

But college loans are dumber than a 30 year mortgage.

College loans to get a graduate degree in art history or linguistics
seem like a pretty bad idea. Loans to get an engineering degree or a
hard-science degree, or for professional school (law/medicine/dentistry)
or in some cases an MBA, probably aren't such a bad idea. As in any
such investment decision, you need to think hard about the ROI and
expected income stream. Going to med school and then going off to
provide free medical care to savages in an jungle some place probably
isn't smart.



We hear about it a lot.

You are right on..

Ed disses me for quoting from Mother Jones, but that's where the story
is, so...


http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...-texas-miracle



I think it's obvious that there are lots of openings to criticize both
Texas' economic performance and Rick Perry's role in it. For one thing,
the Texas virtues that Perry likes to emphasize are actually common to
lots of low-tax, low-service states in the Sun Belt and the South. As Ed
Kilgore says, "Eventually, someone will draw attention to the fact that
if Perry’s low-tax, low-services, corporate-subsidizing policies really
were an economic cure-all, similar conditions should have made states
like Alabama and Mississippi world-beating dynamos years ago." This is
going to make it hard for Perry to make a convincing case that taxes and
regulation and general business friendliness are really behind his
state's performance. What's more, there are lots of obvious chinks in
the Texas armor: its poor rate of health care coverage, its high poverty
rate, its weak educational system, and so forth.

And yet…jobs! It's still the case that Texas has created lots and lots
of jobs and has attracted a huge influx of new residents thanks to those
jobs. No one's putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to move to
Houston, after all. No matter how many hits Perry takes over his
simplistic explanations, and no matter how many sophisticated arguments
his opponents make about the emperor's lack of clothes, it's still the
case that Texas has created lots of jobs. All Perry has to do is repeat
that until his face turns red while tossing out some folksy mockery of
the eggheads and bureaucrats and their ivory-tower Harvard
counterarguments. After all, who are you going to believe, all those
East Coast twerps who have never run a company in their lives, or your
own eyes?

This is going to be a tough row to hoe for Perry's detractors. It's
worth going after it, but in the end, Texas' record on jobs is good
enough and real enough that Perry will probably be able to brush off
most of the criticism. The Texas Miracle is going to be one of his
strongest calling cards.

His weakness for Texas-style crony capitalism, however, might be a real
problem. I suspect we're going to be hearing a lot more about that as
the oppo teams start to seriously gear up.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote:

Now we know where the tipping point lies. Debt becomes
poisonous once it reaches 80pc to 100pc of GDP for
governments, 90pc of GDP for companies, and 85pc of GDP for
households. From then on, extra debt chokes growth.

The federal debt was 122% of GDP in 1946
Did debt choke growth in the years that followed?
Was the debt poisonous?