Topics

5 Comments

1. 
   whatajoke said: On January 26, 2011 at 8:25 PM

   Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

   Bachmann narrowly avoided a gaffe of constitutional proportions in her speech.??? Excuse me? Where was the media when these gaffes came out then? OOH, it only works one way right? Yeah I forgot, sorry…Check this out then, remember the news that flew when all this happened? NO!!
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FDRy4&feature=player_embedded

   Also what about this as well? When he ran for President he said THEN no more earmarks! Did I miss something 2 years ago? No I think the media and others did!
   Here is your OWN fact check you always use!

   FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger

   WASHINGTON (AP) — The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.

   Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed “we redouble these efforts.” He coupled this with a call to “freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.”

   But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

   For example, he said he wants to eliminate “billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.” Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

   A look at some of Obama’s statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

   ___

   OBAMA: Tackling the deficit “means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit.”

   THE FACTS: The idea that Obama’s health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

   To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office’s analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

   In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there’s little reason to think that will change.

   ___

   OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include “earmarks,” pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. “Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.”

   THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. As recently as last month, Obama was prepared to sign a catchall spending measure stuffed with earmarks, before it collapsed in the Senate after an outcry from conservatives over the bill’s $8 billion-plus in home-state pet projects.

   It’s a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: “Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination,” he said then. READ MORE…

   OH THERE’S MORE…

   Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2  15

   Log in to Reply
2. 
   whatajoke said: On January 26, 2011 at 8:28 PM

   Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

   This is VERY FUNNY!!! What a liar in Chief…
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0Grra3QHs

   Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2  15

   Log in to Reply
3. 
   whatajoke said: On January 26, 2011 at 8:45 PM

   Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

   NO Earmarks remember? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R167ShA9PrU

   Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2  15

   Log in to Reply
4. 
   whatajoke said: On January 26, 2011 at 8:55 PM

   Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

   LIAR IN CHIEF: Obama, Jeffrey Immelt and Conflict of Interests

   When the stimulus passed just two short years ago, a lot of special interests piled on to try and grab some of the dough that was being doled out. General Electric was part of that group.

   From American Spectator:

   On February 17th of that year, Obama had signed the stimulus bill, which included $24.9 million in grants that would flow directly to GE, with roughly $20 billion more slated for health care record modernization of the kind that GE specializes in — “with a direct request to do so from GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt.”

   As Tabitha Hale from Freedomworks notes:

   Jeffrey Immelt has been unapologetic about using the government to grow his corporation. The L.A. Times reminds us that last year Immelt was quoted in the Atlantic saying that he wants GE and government to work “in concert,” claiming that it didn’t make him a “traitor” or a “bad guy”… just “practical that that’s gotta happen.”

   In reality, the idea of ‘working concert with government is only a pleasant if unintended byproduct of the business model GE has been following for the last decade. Under the direction of CEO Jeffrey Immelt, GE has made plenty of moves at the cost of American taxpayer dollars. From their backdoor bailout to their exporting of jobs and the selling of secrets to our enemies, it is safe to say that what is good for GE is not necessarily good for America.

   Why then, would President Obama appoint Immelt to the job of advising the administration on how to stop killing jobs create jobs? I put together a video for Freedomworks to help answer this question, but I’ll give you a hint: What’s green and kills jobs?
   Yes I am posting to myself for those that are too clueless to see the facts.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3da1PjHH_Z0&feature=player_embedded#

   Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2  15

   Log in to Reply
5. 
   Breezy Belle said: On January 27, 2011 at 12:55 PM

   The republicans want to pass legislation that would eliminate a VOLUNTARY donation by individual taxpayers to the general campaign fund?? If the donation is voluntary then what’s the problem with it?

   Like or Dislike: 10  2

   Log in to Reply