It seems almost a certainty that the first paycheck most Americans cash in January 2013 is going to be smaller than their last paycheck in December.
You can thank the current climate of Democrats and Republicans elected to represent all of us being unable or unwilling to work together to solve long-standing problems.
Dick Castner, western regional executive for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, gave a presentation this week to the directors of the Mesa Chamber of Commerce titled, “The ‘Fiscal Cliff’: Will We Plunge Into Crisis or Manage a Rescue?”
Castner said several big crises face taxpayers that left unsolved will mean a significant threat to the American economy.
First is the expiration of tax cuts and stimulus measures, including the Bush tax cuts.
The second crisis is automatic so-called sequestration of defense and non-security spending. If allowed to happen by Congress it would cut funding by $55 billion for defense and $55 billion for non-defense spending (federally funded domestic programs such as courts, farm subsidies, national park rangers, air traffic controllers and public housing projects). This is a total of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, Castner said.
And, finally, once again Congress must again vote to increase the debt ceiling, likely by December.
The problem is clear. The two parties may as well be on opposite ends of the globe.
The GOP has a no-tax pledge. That means its members are in a corner and can’t support any tax increases for the moment.
The Democrat Party has been insisting that the federal tax burden must be shared more “fairly,” which means a higher tax rate on the highest income Americans. Without that they won’t go along with GOP demands for any cuts in social services.
So there is no progress. And the country is headed toward a potential economic iceberg. Castner pointed out that the combined economic impact of increased taxes and the forced sequestration spending cuts will reduce the deficit by $607 billion. That may sound good to those worried about the deficit.
The bad news is that such drastic action all at once will have a huge negative economic impact — including here in the greater Phoenix metro area. The defense cuts alone are estimated to cost as many as 30,000 jobs in Arizona and take $1 billion out of the state’s economy annually.
And then there is the fact almost every one of us will have less net pay in our paychecks beginning in January due to the tax cuts being eliminated. That means less consumer spending and that means a slowing economy.
Castner says the Congressional Budget Office estimates that decisions — or lack of decisions by Congress — that allow the expiration of the tax cuts and the defense spending cuts would result in the estimated growth in Gross Domestic Product in 2013 to stall. The initial GDP estimate was a very modest 1.1 percent. Without the tax cuts being extended and the defense and other forced spending cuts the result is that CBO’s estimate of DGP drops to a half percent next year. Stagnation.
Castner accurately predicts the current Congress will do nothing on these issues between now and the election. After all, they have had all year to do something and have done nothing.
The November election will have a huge impact. Right now Democrats control the Senate and the GOP controls the House. A sweep of both legislative branches and the presidency will clear the way to move one way or the other.
Romney and most GOP candidates say they favor extending the tax cuts. They want to temporarily delay the sequestration cuts and then review them for the future. Castner says this is the safer approach for the economy. Congress’s own budget office seems to concur.
Democrats are right that the tax system needs to be overhauled and that the highest earners should pay their share. Even most members of the GOP admit the tax system needs overhauling. But taking the position to not extend the tax cuts — in effect, a tax increase — may be a very tough blow to the economy at a time when it still hasn’t picked up steam from the worst recession of most of our lifetimes.
Keep this in mind when you go to the polls this next week. The economy is still the No. 1 issue facing the country even though most of our elected officials don’t act like it. It might be a good idea to vote for the few that do.
Terry Horne is publisher and editor of the East Valley Tribune and general manager of 1013 Communications Arizona.
Arizona Willie posted at 2:50 pm on Fri, Aug 24, 2012.
You said " The GOP has a no-tax pledge. That means its members are in a corner and can’t support any tax increases for the moment. "
That ' moment ' is Norquist's lifetime.
Republican legislators took a no tax pledge to Norquist.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OATH OF OFFICE THEY TAKE WHEN SWORN IN?
Norquist is only a rich individual.
Congressmen take an oath to the United States of America -- but getting money from Norquist is more important to them than the oath of office they took.
Norquist enticing Congressmen to refuse to raise taxes so the country's bills can be paid is tantamount to traitorous behaviour.
I suspect if some lawyers gave it 5 minutes though they could come up with legal charges against Norquist.
He should be arrested and imprisoned for sedition.
He has persuaded Congressmen to violate their oath of office and vote in ways detrimental to the United States of America.
Cerulean posted at 4:32 pm on Fri, Aug 24, 2012.
Arizona Willie, your comment deserves [thumbup][thumbup]
samkat posted at 6:47 pm on Fri, Aug 24, 2012.
The democrats only know how to spend and the republicans only know how to cut taxes for the rich so the rest of us in the middle who actually pay taxes are caught in the middle.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:17 am on Sat, Aug 25, 2012.
samkat: Democrats believe in paying the bills as they go.
That's why Republicans try to label Democrats " Tax-And-Spend ".
Republicans believe in " Borrow and Spend ".
They preach personal responsibility but then refuse to raise the money to pay the bills for the wars they started and for the unfunded Medicare prescription benefit program.
Republicans want to leave the debt to the grandkids.
No one likes to pay taxes – – – but adults try to pay their bills.
And we can't pay the countries bills by cutting taxes.
Unfortunately we trusted the Republican President and Congress but they let us down.
They borrowed trillions of dollars to finance Bush's Follies and his unfunded Medicare prescription benefit program that he created to pacify voters. And now they refuse to raise taxes to pay the bills.
Which do you prefer to see our politicians do, act like a mature adult and stepping up and paying the bills, or throwing a tantrum and demanding tax cuts so you don't have to pay the bills and can go buy new yacht?
chatmandu002 posted at 10:23 am on Sat, Aug 25, 2012.
We don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
Cerulean posted at 10:55 am on Sat, Aug 25, 2012.
chatmandu, "we have a spending problem".
Your comment is too general. Where exactly is the spending problem? Is it Medicare?
Cerulean posted at 2:13 pm on Sat, Aug 25, 2012.
And, President Obama has said that he is willing to compromise with Republicans. There are Republicans who have not pledged allegiance to Grover Norquist, and those who want to move forward in the future.
President Obama has demonstrated his willingness to compromise, Republicans have not.
sdjtaz posted at 4:45 pm on Sat, Aug 25, 2012.
Slabside,
Just to point out a couple of difficult facts that most right-wingers ignore:
1. The Solyndra loan was one of many loans that the Department of Energy provided in a program to help develop "green" energy. The default rate for the entire program was under 4%. As any lending institution and they would love to have that low of a default rate. It is interesting that you point out the one company that defaulted, but none of many that have succeeded using this program.
2. The GM and Chrysler bailouts started as a Bush program, that Obama completed. The amounts for the loans were for nearly $50 million for GM (of which they have already paid back 22 million as of February) and $12.5 million (of which $11.2 million had already been paid back as of February). Their success rates were actually far greater than the banking TARP bailouts. The "cash for clunkers" program was also designed to help out the struggling automakers and also remove cars that polluted more off the road. Not a bad idea.
3. Your statement regarding the nine spending bills Obama signed is extemely misleading. The last Bush budget (For FY 2009) ran from Oct. 1, 2008 through Sept. 30, 2009. That budget failed to fully fund almost every government agency. The nine spending bills that Obama signed in 2009 was to ensure that the agencies that Bush had not fully funded could keep operating through the end of the fiscal year. The three agencies that you mention did not receive any emergency funding from President Obama simply because the Bush budget had funded those three departments.
Your tactics are typical of most right-wing posters. You simply regurgitate about of right-wing half truths and flat out lies without presenting any support or factual data. You also resort to name calling and insults. I suggest that you quit relying on tired cliches and do some independent research before posting. Because you fail to do so, you are the one that ends up looking like an empty suit.
Slabside posted at 12:19 am on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
sdjtaz, let me give everyone here the Readers Digest of your dribble.
Wahhhh! It's all Bush's fault!!!!
Mike McClellan posted at 5:42 am on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
The good news is that a bipartisan group of Senators has been meeting behind the scenes for the last several months, wrestling with a solution to the looming problem.
The bad news is that right now, anyway, both Presidential candidates simply want another stopgap measure.
It's a little late to play the finger pointing game -- this is too serious for that.
wdgnas posted at 6:45 am on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
Romney and most GOP candidates say they favor extending the tax cuts. They want to temporarily delay the sequestration cuts and then review them for the future. Castner says this is the safer approach for the economy. Congress’s own budget office seems to concur.
just kicking the can down the road, for our children to pay the bill. isn't that the issue the republicans always say they don't want to do?
Arizona Willie posted at 7:54 am on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
wegnas --- ALWAYS follow the money
wdgnas --- WATCH what politicians DO -- not what they say
Republicans preach personal responsibility == until it comes time to raise taxes to pay the bills for the 2 wars Bush started and his unfunded Medicare Prescription benefit.
When THEY have to pay-- then personal responsibility is something that is irrelevant.
Wealthy Republicans ( and not so wealthy ones ) owned stock in the defense contractors and have made tons of money from the wars.
They are quite happy to take the WAR PROFITS.
But unwilling to shoulder the WAR COSTS.
They know that sometime -- some day -- someone is going to have to pay taxes to pay on the deficit they have created.
And that's OK -- as long as it isn't THEM.
Republicans Party = Party of DEADBEATS
mnjcpa posted at 2:19 pm on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
The `1%` liberal talking point is such a joke. Did you realize this includes mom and pop small businesses? These folks aren't on the take with labor unions, state/local/fed or education pensions and hope to build a business, risking their family’s financial future, to maybe have something for retirement. In the last 4 years I've seen the most pathetic decline of small business enterprises that I've seen in my career, many of which have gone without income to make sure their employees kept their jobs. But here's what they get if Obama is reelected.
Most notably is a fiscal cliff that I've been predicting would occur about now in this column for close to a year. Capital gain rates are going to go from 15-20% and then tack on an additional 3.8% for the investment income tax related to Obamacare. This is a 60% tax increase. And I won’t even go in to how OC will bankrupt us. Business owners have already seen a 40% drop in their net worth. Put a 60% tax increase on top of that? I can only imagine the financial devastation.
Obama's inability to produce a budget should be reason alone to fire him, but I'm convinced this is by design. Open your eyes folks. This isn't a Democrat or Republican election. This is an American election.
When you understand how Obama's mind was shaped by everyone around him - it's not hard to figure out the path we're being taken. Every major influence in Obama's early life was about socialism or communism and he deeply hates what made America and Great Britain great. If that's not enough, also on the agenda will be the destruction of Israel and expansion of the Islam countries.
I was right about the fiscal cliff. I’m seeing more liberal commentators every day that are actually being journalists and calling out the lies and distortions of the Democrat party. This election isn’t about birth control or abortions. It’s about the financial collapse of America, period. Or don’t take my word for it. See 2016: Obama's America and tell me I'm wrong. There’s nothing wrong at all with changing your mind. In fact, it’s admirable.
sdjtaz posted at 10:57 pm on Sun, Aug 26, 2012.
Slabside,
It's nice to see that you are playing the typical right-wing Republican tactics. Let's look at that playbook:
1. Make a bunch of stupid statements that you have heard or read from a right-wing source.
2. Don't do any research on any of these statements.
3. Don't provide any evidence for your statements.
4. When someone calls you on your b.s. statements and provides the proof that they are wrong, you resort to name calling and your standard talking points (without providing any proof for your statements).
In regard to your claim that I am blaming Bush, point out where I was blaming George Bush. I was simply stating the truth. In fact, I gladly give credit to President Bush for his work to try to save the American auto industry. With regard to the budget, I was simply correcting your implied lie that President Obama did not fund the three agencies. They were already fully funded and in no need for more money.
If you have proof that any of my three statements are incorrect, I would gladly welcome any proof that you would like to provide. However, I suspect that you will follow the same pattern of most of your posts, relying on personal attacks and more stupid statements, without ever providing any concrete evidence that your statements have any basis in reality. In the immortal words of Col. Nathan R. Jessup, you can't handle the truth. In fact when confronted with it, you have to act like a child and cry about it.
mnjcpa posted at 8:04 am on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
Really sdjtaz? You need to insult Slabside to make your point?
The Obama administration has been a bastion for bad policy design, bankrupting this country. I believe Slabside's point is just to poke fun at Obama who can't take responsibility for one of his actions.
It doesn't take an intellectual to understand the despair that Obama has created. His policies including spending enormous sums of taxpayer money in unproven technologies have been a brutal failure. All the while gas is over $4 a gallon and oil production has all but been shut down. If this had happened under Bush we would never hear the end of it.
But to point this out is to assume that Obama wants America to be successful when I'm convinced America's destruction is by design. You want socialism? Go ahead and vote for Obama and you'll see an America-like Greece. Or better yet, dive deeper in to who influenced Obama in his early years. Whether you agree with it or not, see 2016: Obama's America. It's the story that should have been told in 2008. If not - I would say you're the one that has the closed mind.
sdjtaz posted at 10:56 am on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
I'm sorry that I hurt Slabside (and obviously your feelings) by initially pointing out the misstatements and lies in Slabside's initial posts. I also apologize for hurting Slabside (and you) by responding to his juvenile response to my post. I also apologize for using facts to prove my post and expecting others to do the same. I also apologize for expecting individuals that constantly talk about taking "personal responsibility" to also hold George Bush and other Republicans accountable for their actions. I forgot that "personal responsibility" only extends to those that you disagree with.
Now that I'm done apologizing, let me give you some more figures that you will want to dismiss, since they would fundamentally disprove the things that you seem to believe in.
Unemployment:
April 2008/Bush in office: 5.0%
January 2009/Last month Bush was in office: 7.8% (an increase of 2.8% in 9months)
Sept 2009/Last month of the budget passed by the Bush administration: 9.8% (a increase of 4.8% in the last 19 months of Bush budgets)
July 2012/lastest unemployment figures: 8.3% (an increase of .5% in the 42 months since Obama took office and a decrease of 1.5% since Obama's first budget took effect)
Two examples of Republican efforts to destroy any job creation bill: October 2011 Senate Republicans block floor debate on a jobs bill that would have helped retain and hire teachers and first responders (firefighters, EMT's, etc..). May 2012, Senate Republicans block floor debate on an Obama program that would have provided tax breaks to companies that insourced jobs back to the United States, while punishing companies that outsourced US jobs to other nations.
Spending:
George Bush took the United States to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, without providing funding for them. Costs to the United States, $1.3 trillion dollars(so far).
George Bush cut taxes (mostly for those in the upper range). Costs to the United States, $660 billion.
If you add in unfunded changes to Medicare (which benefitted the pharmaceutical companies), the picture left is that of Republicans being fully in love with deficits and deficit spending. It's funny that a) you blame Obama when Bush's bill come due and b) Obama actually does suggest a new funded program.
Gas:
Unlike your claim that gas is over $4 a gallon (either another Republican lie), the current cost of gas is around $3.45. During the second Bush administration, the price of gas peaked at $4.21 and was over $3.00 for most of the time. It only decreased significantly when the Bush recession started and the demand for gas plunged.
Socialism:
I suggest that you read a book on political philosophy (or at least look it up in the dictionary). Once you have done this, please point out any Obama programs that match the classic definition of socialism. Even Obamacare (much like Romneycare) uses private enterprise to provide coverage (as opposed to socialism, where the government would own all of the hospitals, pay the salary of all the employees, etc...)
Finally, rather than looking at your fantasy of America in 2016 (which does not have any basis in reality), let's look at the United States in 2012, if Romney had been in charge (using his own words):
U.S. auto industry: The auto makers have been allowed to go bankrupt, leading to large layoffs in the auto industry, further leading to even higher unemployment and pushing the US closer to an economic depression.
Osama bin Laden: is still in Pakistan, although we have evidence he is there. President Romney states that he does not believe in entering the airspace of an ally (even if they are unwilling to go after bin Laden themselves).
Deficit: Romney further extends the Bush tax cuts. Additionally, he cuts the top end income tax from 35% to 25%, further adding to the wealth gap between those at the top end and everyone else. Due to the Romney tax cuts, government revenues further decrease, cause the deficit to jump even higher.
I could go on, but I think that you get the point (but probably not, since you will simply dismiss any evidence that disproves your beliefs).
mnjcpa posted at 11:58 am on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
whew.........Would love to respond to your encyclopedia of information but I suspect it would be a waste of my time. It's clear how much you hate Bush & Romney. But what's amusing is you write a novel to do what? Convince people what a magnificent leader Obama is and how he shouldn't be viewed as a failure? Or that it's all Bush' fault. Please. You can't be serious.
I wasn't offended by your insults to slabside. It's more curiosity at the smug arrogance of liberals as if they've cornered the market on intelligence.
I listen to business owners across the country every day and what they experience. I don't need facts from you to substantiate what I hear every day or what small businesses are experiencing. 2016 is an absolute reality if Obama gets reelected. Business owners have already lost 40% of their net worth under his reign, and their taxes are going up by 60% in January. You're naive if you don't think that this won't further cripple an already stagnant economy.
Obama hasn't produced a budget during his term which in and of itself would be grounds to fire him. I just paid $4.29 gallon, disagree with you completely on tax cuts, GM should have gone bankrupt because all it did was funnel money to the unions to pay bloated pensions, spending must be slashed, and when every person you know that influenced your thinking is a socialist/communist it's not a stretch to suggest that you are too particularly when your policies show that you are.
You're just another liberal with your head permanently parked in the sand unwilling to consider that you just might be wrong. I listen to opposing points of view routinely because I want to know that I've listened to all sides. Wonder if you do the same.
Cerulean posted at 12:55 pm on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
sdjtaz, Thank you – slab can be rather crass.
It appears that mnjcpa holds dear the notion that if one repeats a lie enough times, it will eventually become truth. And, even if the lie remains a lie, he might confuse enough people to make the lie matter.
VofReason posted at 1:09 pm on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
Maybe it's easier then all that. Does anyone think that the US is better off now and poised for greatness after 3.5 years of President Obama and huis policies? Polls and human intuition say no. That is really all that matters. Football analogy: if you hire GM (President) and he hires a Coach and assistants (cabinet) and 3.5 years go by and you are worse than you started- how long will that GM remain?
mnjcpa posted at 1:29 pm on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
That makes for a great laugh Cerulean - you made my day.
sdjtaz posted at 6:16 pm on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
Cerulean, thanks for your support. I have yet to see any of the far-right provide any evidence to refute my facts. In fact, they can't, because they know that the truth is on my side. Their only hope is to tell a bunch of lies and hope that no one catches them.
mcj, you don't have to try to disprove all of my facts. How about choosing one of them. Good luck. BTW, unlike the right-wing who have hated President Obama from day one, I don't, nor have I ever hated either President Bush or Mitt Romney. While I disagree with many of the things that occurred in the Bush presidency, I also credit him, when he did something that he did correctly. Just to give you a couple of examples, I agreed with his decision to bail out the Auto industry, I also agreed with his plan on reducing HIV in Africa. Additionally, I agreed with the decision to go after al-Queda in Afghanistan. Where I disagreed with him from the start was our involvement in Iraq and his decision to place less emphasis on the war on terror.
Regarding Mitt Romney, it would have to depend on which Mitt Romney you are talking about. Do you mean the Governor of Massachusetts that was pro-choice, pro-gun control and believed in government requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or do you mean Candidate Mitt Romney who is pro-life, anti-gun control, and doesn't believe in government mandated health insurance. In reality, on this issues, I would probably disagree on some things with both. I am nominally pro-choice, but understand that there are times when abortion can be limited. I support the second amendment and believe that we should be careful, when advocating gun control. There are sensible measures that can be taken, but they shouldn't be so drastic as to restrict or deny anyone their constitutional rights. As for health care, I would like to see the results from Obamacare (or as it was originally called in Massachusetts, Romneycare) before making a judgement. However, i truly doubt it could be much worse than what we now have.
VofReason, you forgot a couple of players in that drama. You forgot the last GM (President Bush) that traded all of our draft picks, while signing several borderline free agents to max contracts. You also the former coach and assistants that believed that it was okay to cheat, which also set the team back several years. And you forget the assistant GM (Republicans in congress) that were overlooked for the GM position and have decided to undermine the GM, hoping that they may get the GM position next time.
mnjcpa posted at 8:50 pm on Mon, Aug 27, 2012.
Thanks for your political life story, but since this article wasn’t about that I would appreciate your keen intellectual insight to this question.
If Obama hasn’t fixed the economy in the last four years, what is he going to do over the next four years to make things any better? Even if you believe the last four years weren’t his fault, how can you possibly believe that the next four years would be any better?
Romney’s a decent family man that’s made a success of himself turning bankrupt situations around – repeatedly and he’s the perfect fit for the job.
sdjtaz posted at 9:42 am on Tue, Aug 28, 2012.
Sorry you didn't like my political life story. However, when people decide to lie about my beliefs, I have the right to correct them. To answer your question. Since you state that Obama hasn't fixed the economy in the last 4 years, you seem to agree with me that the economy needed to be fixed when Obama came into office. However, currently we are given two options. Barach Obama who has tried to fix the economy or Mitt Romney, whose actions as a candidate show that he will instead reinstate the same policies that broke the economy in the first place. Sorry, but I fail to see how that would serve us.
In my final statement on this subject, when Mitt Romney was governer of Massachusetts, he staked himself as an old-school Republican, pro-business, but also very liberal on social issues. Had he not flip-flopped on every single social issue, I would be voting for Mitt Romney in November. Instead, he chose to kowtow to the far-right to gain the nomination and he is still kowtowing to the far-right today. I don't want someone who is so spineless that they will change their positions on every major issue in the hopes that it will get them more votes.
mnjcpa posted at 11:02 am on Tue, Aug 28, 2012.
Mitt Romney wasn't part of the question. The question was:
1. If Obama hasn’t fixed the economy in the last four years, what is he going to do over the next four years to make things any better?
2. Even if you believe the last four years weren’t his fault, how can you possibly believe that the next four years would be any better?
I suspect you can't answer it because Obama doesn't have a plan. Nor a budget. Or a clue how to get us out of this mess. I'll take a business man any day of week experienced in turning bankrupt companies around than a guy educated by communists that promotes pitting Americans against one another. That's not a leader in my world.
mnjcpa posted at 11:37 am on Tue, Aug 28, 2012.
Another thing on Romney. Both parties are comprised of people from different walks of life with different ideas and desires. The Democrat party is no better aligned than the Republicans. So both Obama and Romney have to lead their charge appealing to different people. I don't consider that flip-flopping, nor do I think it's the central ingredient to this election. The economy is and Obama is unfit to lead us out of this.
Mitt's got the experience to turn this around. Obama's been personally responsible for policies that have done ZERO to change things. Economic conditions are atrocious and the economic cliff that I've been predicting in this column for close to a year is upon us.
We need a leader and it's not Obama.
Unless you can educate me on question #2, then the answer is simple.
mnjcpa posted at 8:20 am on Wed, Aug 29, 2012.
Figured you couldn't answer the question.
You support the guy whose shown that he can't lead, zero plan to change it, and taken us to an economic cliff versus the guy whose track record has proven that he's experienced at turning bankrupt situations around repeatedly.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense - not.
Cerulean posted at 8:44 am on Wed, Aug 29, 2012.
mnjcpa, I have not heard one person suggest that President Obama is not responsible for the last four years. He is! And, for that I support him!
There WILL be more cooperation In the next four years because, as Boehner said, “ideas about how to save Medicare, . . . will be part of the big policy debate we have next year. And it will come next year regardless of who wins the election.”
I want President Obama to be the final arbiter on Medicare policy!
mnjcpa posted at 1:32 pm on Wed, Aug 29, 2012.
You really seem nice Cerulean and I would love to help you understand how wrong you are.
Obama's going to suddenly become cooperative with 50% of the electorate when he's made it perfectly clear he's not interested in cooperating (need I remind you of the 2010 elections)? That's pretty naive. He's shown zero inclination to modify his point of view to reconcile with the other half of the country and instead he circumvents the constitution.
An Obama unfettered to do whatever he wants without another election? I shutter to think what America will look like.
mnjcpa posted at 2:08 pm on Wed, Aug 29, 2012.
I haven't met anyone yet that supports Obama that can answer these two questions.
So basically what you're saying when you can't answer these questions is that you're going to vote for him anyway even though he's shown he can't lead and he doesn't have a plan or budget. That's insanity if you ask me.
1. If Obama hasn’t fixed the economy in the last four years, what is he going to do over the next four years to make things any better?
2. Even if you believe the last four years weren’t his fault, how can you possibly believe that the next four years would be any better?
mnjcpa posted at 3:48 pm on Wed, Aug 29, 2012.
Cerulean - take a look at Mia Love's speech at the RNC last night. She knocked it out of the park and I align with her thinking 150%. NONE of the main media channels carried her video. Artur Davis rocked it too, but the biased media didn't telecast him either. Both of these can be found at realclearpolitics.com
I invite you to just consider that the press might be manipulating you in to believing something that might not be true. Listen to those videos above and be curious. It's that important to understand both points of view.
Cerulean posted at 5:07 pm on Thu, Aug 30, 2012.
Condi Rice was better. You can watch it here. http://youtu.be/QtaVWSXr8FY
mnjcpa posted at 10:19 pm on Thu, Aug 30, 2012.
Definitely - Condi's a class act. Loved when she said 'if America doesn't lead our adversaries will and the world will grow darker, poorer and much more dangerous'. Obama has only signed three trade agreements & those were negotiated in Bush' term. China has signed 15 & negotiating 18 more. So is it any wonder America's financial clout is in the toilet?
Cerulean posted at 8:42 am on Fri, Aug 31, 2012.
Yet, our exports are on the rise, higher than they were during the Bush admin. So high, in fact, exports are leading us out of this recession.
mnjcpa posted at 6:51 pm on Sat, Sep 1, 2012.
Simply not true. There's not any leading us out of any recession Cerulean. The business tax increases alone that Obama has set to take place in January will be 60%. That alone - by most experts accounts - will throw us back into a recession. You're rooting for the wrong team and it's too bad you won't consider another point of view.
yiyi posted at 12:02 am on Wed, Nov 7, 2012.
"hypocritical, particularly in light of their own candidate's stump speech speech cheap moncler jackets speech questioning the president's patriotism."Biden, she said, was simply underlining
need to 'unshackle' the middle class. Today's comments were a a cheap jordan shoes a derivative of remarks [made by Republicans regarding the private
describing the devastating impact letting Wall Street write its own own cheap moncler own rules again would have on middle class families."While their
exchanged talking points, the candidates were talking, too, about energy energy cheap jordans for sale energy policy to heavily-invested crowds in Iowa and Ohio, respectively.Romney
in coal country -- Beallsville, Ohio – where he declared declared knockoff handbags declared this "a time for truth.""If you don't believe in
if you don't believe in energy independence for America then then cheap jordans then say it," Romney said, before turning his attention to
"If you believe that the whole answer for our energy energy cheap jordans free shipping energy needs is wind and solar, say that. Because I
he says that to some audiences out west."Obama, who during during designer replica handbags during his last state of the union address promised investment
a wide range of energy options, including coal. But his his moncler jackets men his push to implement so-called "clean coal" technologies has flopped
as badly with environmentalists as it has mining communities from from cheap replica designer handbags from Ohio to West Virginia.The president, meanwhile, spent the afternoon
Iowa talking about the economic benefits of embracing wind energy energy cheap jordans energy options. He said tax credits the White House is