Posts tagged ‘Obama’

The Big Losers Of 2013


The Big Losers Of 2013

biggest losers 2013

WASHINGTON — Some people are losers because they have failed in their endeavors; others are losers because they’ve suffered misfortune. Here are HuffPost’s favorite losers of the year, in no particular order.

James Clapper — The intel honcho oversaw one of the greatest losses of intelligence in U.S. history and was also caught lying to Congress. He still has his job somehow, but otherwise he likely wants to forget 2013.

james clapper

Grand Bargaineers — This year saw the death of the Grand Bargain and the rise of the Petite Bargain. Henceforth, Barack Obama and John Boehner will have to find some other way to cut Social Security. Maya MacGuinneas, the head of Fix the Debt, raised tens of millions of corporate dollars to pressure Washington into a grand bargain, but began the year on the losing end of the “fiscal” cliff deal and ended it completely marginalized, with everyone from all sides dismissing the group’s central aim. Biggest loser runner-up in the deficit scold category is Peter Peterson, the private equity billionaire who funded much of MacGuinneas’ failed effort.

debt(via Dave Weigel)Fix The Debt’s can that kicks back is on its way to the recycle bin of history.

Ted Cruz — The Texas GOP senator’s vaunted strategy to foil Obamacare shut down the government, but did not foil Obamacare.

ted cruz

Pine Trees — Warmer weather allowed the mountain pine beetle to continue to gorge itself on Western forests. It’s just one of the many plagues that climate change is visiting upon the globe.

Bigots — Gay people have been getting married left and right; the sky hasn’t fallen.

Pizza

Mmmhmm.

Voters — The Supreme Court struck down part of a landmark civil rights law that protected voting rights for minorities, with Chief Justice John Roberts arguing that racism is over. Southern states immediately began passing laws intended to block minorities from voting.

Judgmental Catholics — Pope Francis said an amazing thing: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Indeed.

Pizza

Workers — The year started with shrunken paychecks thanks to the expiration of a 2 percent Social Security payroll tax cut, which essentially wiped out wage gains for millions. Then, Black Friday canceled Thanksgiving.

Dan Snyder — His Washington, D.C., football team began the year with its star quarterback’s tragic knee injury in the playoffs. Then, everyone started talking about the team’s racist name again, and Snyder trotted out a fake chief. Then, the team lost most of its games in the new season, and the organization is closing the year in hopelessness and disarray.

rg

The Washington Department of Football’s season in a nutshell.

Gun Control Advocates — How many mass shootings does it take to get to the hearts of gun lobbyists? The world may never know.

The Long-Term Unemployed — Congress had already shortened the duration of unemployment benefits available to the long-term unemployed, but people like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) still beat them up for receiving 99 weeks of aid. On Dec. 28, extra benefits will disappear altogether.

Rand Paul — Soso much plagiarism.

rand paul

People on Food Stamps — Republicans spent the summer claiming food stamp recipients are lazy surfers who use their benefits for sushi and lobster. Then in the fall, Democrats cut their assistance by $5 billion. Experts say it was the first-ever month-to-month drop in benefit amounts.

Third Way — Took on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Whoops.

Women in North Dakota, Arkansas, Texas — These states passed harsh abortion restrictions as part of a lesser-known Obamacare backlash. Reproductive freedom advocates in Texas had state Sen. Wendy Davis to thank for her filibustering high point, though a few weeks later Texas passed its unconstitutional abortion bill anyway. But we’ll always have that night.

Anthony Weiner — For a minute there he was actually winning the New York mayor’s race, despite being a serial sext offender. Then he flipped the bird and conceded he is an empty, soulless vessel.

Detroit Civil Servants — Because Detroit’s public employees have it so good, thevampire squid is sucking blood from their pensions.

Trey Radel — Florida man busted for cocaine possession. This time he also happened to be a GOP congressman.

Undocumented Immigrants — They’re being detained and deported at record rates, the president’s way of showing he’s tough on enforcement so Republicans will join him in reforming the system. Instead, reform went nowhere in 2013. People just got the stick.

Barack Obama — The signature achievement of his first term has badly underperformed in a big year, and the president’s “you can keep it” promise proved false. Despite his best efforts to prosecute leakers, a leaker exposed the administration’s extremely vast and creepy and probably unconstitutional surveillance activities. And his approval ratings, those aren’t so hot right now.

barack obama

Kim Jong Un’s Uncle — If you were the uncle of a 30-year-old North Korean dictator, this was not your year.

Federal Workers — President Obama earlier implemented a pay freeze to show how tough he is on spending and then spent the next several years being dubbed a big spender. After that thankless sacrifice, federal workers were furloughed in 2013, and the latest budget deal asks them to give up some of their pensions so we can keep tax rates low. We can’t think of a better way to manage employee morale and attract and retain top-quality talent.

Marco Rubio — The rising Republican star and Florida senator abandoned what could have been his first big legislative achievement. We don’t understand the long game here — the man wants to be president and he’s slowly losing his hair! Americans haven’t elected a bald president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s … and that guy had won World War II.

America — My God, what a year.

amerca

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

Anthony Weiner’s Uncomfortable Faces

1 of 23
Getty Images
  • Next
Advertisements

Former adviser: Romney lost because of the far right of this party



Former adviser: Romney lost because of the far right of this party (via Raw Story )

Former Bush Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said Sunday that he was shocked by Mitt Romney’s recent comments about President Barack Obama giving “gifts” to win re-election. “I was shocked,” the former Romney adviser told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “And frankly I don’t think that’s why…

Read more…

Pennsylvania Voter Suppress – Is Total Madness


.

If 2010 was a political earthquake, the epicenter may well have been the state of Pennsylvania. The Keystone State replaced Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell with Republican Tom Corbett, and elected far-right former Republican Rep. Patrick Toomey to the United States Senate. Worse still: the GOP picked up a gaudy five seats in the House of Representatives, sending Kathy Dahlkemper, Patrick Murphy, Chris Carney, and Paul Kanjorski to the rail, and picking up the seat of Senate candidate Joe Sestak.

The thundering crash of Democratic fortunes in Pennsylvania led many to speculate that the state that John McCain counted on as a desperation firewall in 2008 (and failed to win) would be a key cog in the GOP’s path to 270 electoral votes and Barack Obama’s early retirement.

Now, with little more than seven weeks remaining in the 2012 electoral cycle, it looks like Pennsylvania is nearly certain to remain in the Obama coalition of states, and quite possibly by a healthier margin than the 2008 landslide.

More on that in a bit, but first, on to the numbers:

PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TRIAL HEATS:

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Obama d. Romney (49-45)

NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Obama tied with Romney (48-48)

NEW JERSEY (Philadelphia Inquirer): Obama d. Romney (51-37)

PENNSYLVANIA (Philadephia Inquirer): Obama d. Romney (50-39)

DOWNBALLOT POLLING:

OHIO (Rasmussen): Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) 49, Josh Mandel (R) 41

A few thoughts, as always, await you just past the jump…

Last Fall, it actually appeared as if Pennsylvania would be a battleground state. SurveyUSA and PPP both had the prospective contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney deadlocked, while Quinnipiac gave Obama the most minuscule of leads (44-43). Given the 20 electoral votes that comes with victory in the Keystone State, it was not uncommon for pundits to talk about Pennsylvania in the same breath as Ohio and Florida as critical states for determining the occupant of the White House in January of 2013.

Perhaps the timing is coincidental, but it sure seems as if the Republican Primary battle turned out to be Barack Obama’s best friend. In the five polls prior to February 15th, the average Obama lead in Pennsylvania was barely discernible (1.2 percentage points). The five polls after the primary season began? Obama’s lead shot out to 7.0 percentage points. This morning’s new poll for the Philadelphia Inquirer gave Obama an 11-point edge, a lead only surpassed in this cycle by a late Spring poll by Franklin and Marshall.

If there is a downside for the Democrats, it is the fact that this palpable shift in Pennsylvania’s political preferences came too late to help downballot. While Democratic recruiting nationally for the House was quite good, their recruiting in Pennsylvania was comparably weak, especially given how many freshman members were facing voters as an incumbent for the first time. Realistically, Democrats only have three targets in the state, and four of those class of 2010 Republicans (Kelly, Meehan, Marino, and Barletta) are almost certainly safe.

That said, Pennsylvania being essentially off the boards (and the relative lack of campaign spending confirms what both campaigns think of their fortunes there) has one huge impact on the presidential race, as it reduces the pathways to victory for Romney.

In other polling news…

One Republican Senate aspirant whose polling has slipped notably in the past few weeks is Ohio’s Josh Mandel. Today’s polling release, showing him eight points behind incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown (with Brown just shy of 50 percent) is the latest blow, especially when one considers that it was the House of Ras levelling that blow at Mandel’s fortunes. NBC/Marist found Brown staked to a similar edge earlier in the week.
Speaking of how states have changed over the course of the cycle, though the polls have wavered little, there was some wishful thinking for GOPers earlier in the cycle that the emergence of blowhard Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey would make the Republican Party more attractive to the residents of the Garden State. And while Christie’s numbers in the state remain pretty decent, he is offering no coattails for his presidential nominee. The Philly Inquirer poll is the second poll in a week (the Fairleigh Dickinson poll was the other) showing Romney down 14 points to Obama in the state.
In a national poll finding that may have implications for several downballot initiatives, yesterday’s new poll by CBS/NYT shows one of the wider spreads in support for same-sex marriage in recent data. According to the survey, support for marriage equality now stands at 51 percent, with opposition down to 41 percent. That was a marked difference from the previous CBS/NYT poll, where a bare plurality (48-46) supported marriage equality. Equality advocates are looking to initiatives on the ballot in four different states.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:00 PM PDT.
Also republished by Daily Kos.

How the Republican Party Became the Party of Hate


How the Republican Party Became the Party of Hate.

I became an atheist because of the hatred generally associated with the Republican Party and their love of God. A party based upon: homophobia, xenophobia, racism, oppression as well as violence seems to be the norm, regardless of sex or age.

A story written by reporter Sarah Jones titled-What Do You Do With a 16-Year-Old Who Calls for the Assassination of Obama? Is proof positive that the conservative party is not the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Ricard Nixon or arguably, Ronald Reagan. It has morphed into some evil entity that even Richard Nixon would shudder at.

@Alyssa_Douglas: Someone needs to assassinate Obama…like ASAP #DieYouPieceOfShit

Alyssa Douglas, a 16-year-old girl was questioned by the Secret Service and most likely, not be charged for making a threat, seemed to have a hatred for a man she knows nothing about, except what is spewed from Fox News or other conservative media. Her photo shows a happy-go-lucky girl who probably typed what she wrote as a naive and gullible teen. But her actions are leading to her eventual path everyone fears to follow… prison.

Many wondered why would she tweet:

@Alyssa_Douglas: Someone needs to assassinate Obama…like ASAP #DieYouPieceOfShit

Maybe because no one taught her that a threat against the president is a federal offense:

18 USC § 871 – Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 41 › § 871

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.

I knew from elementary school that making a threat against the president is a federal offense. I knew I was abiding by the law when I said that George W. Bush must be hanged at the Hague. The threat was no threat because the comment of punishment was the result of a fair and impartial jury and the hanging is the punishment portion of the fair and impartial hearing.

Yet what is the progenitor of the Republican Party or the neo-conservative hate movement and when did it first reared its ugly head? Arguably since WWII. And it began with George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush.

How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/…

The Republican Party of the 20th century aligned itself with the right winged Christian hate groups, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan and other far right fringe groups that in the past, the Republicans abhorred. As the party grew, the continual hatred grew in leaps and bounds and problems ensued.

Hate groups like God Hates F@gs are the norm and not the exception. Other norms within the Republican party are:

American Border Patrol/American Patrol
Ideology:
Anti-Immigrant

American Family Association
Ideology:
Anti-Gay

American Third Position
Ideology:
White Nationalist

Aryan Nations
Ideology:
Neo-Nazi

Blood & Honour
Ideology:
Racist Skinhead

Brotherhood of Klans
Ideology:
Ku Klux Klan

And other extremist groups aligning themselves with the Republican Party mainly because:

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Now is Mitch McConnell racist? Not necessarily, but his goal to get Obama out of office, not because he’s black, but because Obama is a Democrat, and the Republicans want control of the House, Senate, White House and the SCOTUS. But in order to get the Democratic Party out, they will delve into the above-mentioned extremists and play with fire, in order to win.

So when Douglas, a 16-year-old white girl writes her garbage, it just incites the base and where ever the chips fall, McConnell and his band of idiots will only try to take the power away from the people and ultimately, throw people like Douglas and the other right winged extremists under the bus…oh and blame Obama and the Democratic Party.

So be aware of your surrounding, know your enemies and vote Democratic.
PHP Freelancer
Related Posts

Two Pictures Shatter the Mainstream Media Myth of an ‘Obama Enthusiasm Gap’
Romney Cannot Talk About Ideas He Does Not Have
Ask Osama bin Laden is he is better off now than he was four years ago
Obama Unleashes a Barrage of Truth and Honesty that Leaves Republicans Defenseless
How God Got Back Into the Democratic Platform
Blame the Media for Not Reporting Just How Much Republicans Hate America
2012 is Already the Best Democratic Convention in Many Years

Posted by Tim From LA on September 8th, 2012. Filed under Featured News,Tim In LA. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
3 Responses to How the Republican Party Became the Party of Hate

Ken Reply

September 8th, 2012 at 9:31 pm

I became an atheist because the religion doesn’t make sense – not because some of them are hateful. There are also a lot of loving religious people (they just aren’t making a lot of obnoxious noise so are not noticed).

Olmert Dave Reply

September 8th, 2012 at 9:38 pm

When you have talk radio hosts saying, what if I said I want to k— Obama, and get away with it cuz he says “what if” what else can a person expect? This host is leaving and retiring so maybe his influence over these people who believe everything he says and do not hear the ” What If ” will get over this blind hate! Not likely, but hopefully.

Sally Reply

September 8th, 2012 at 9:50 pm

I hope they make an example of this girl. She is sixteen and knows better. And so should her parents, from whom she has learned well. As the song says, “You’ve got to be carefully taught.” And she learned ehr lessons well. Obama is evil. He’s destroying America because he hates white people. He is a closet Muslim, commie, Stalinist, fascist, China lover, Israel hater angry black man. It doesn’t matter to them that every one of those is untrue. After all, they heard Hannity clain last night that the Democratic Convention was dull and boring. Funny, anyone who watched it saw dozens of speakers give the speeches of their lives, with facts, fore, and conviction. I guess the GOP is so used to defending their boring lying sleazyball candidates, they no longer recognize facts. It is a shame that Palin threw gasoline on this fire and somehow permission was granted to hate and hate big. Wish death on elected officials. Buy elections, or cheat with machines if you can’t win on class and ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Comment
of a maximum 2000 characters remaining.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

Our Latest on Facebook
Public Service Advertisement
Senior Companions - Make Independence a Reality. Click here to learn more.
Subscribe By RSS and Email
Subscribe in a reader

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner
Recent Posts

How the Republican Party Became the Party of Hate
11,000 Show Up for Obama in Florida While Romney Draws Hundreds in Virginia
Bobby Jindal is Fighting Right of First Black Supreme Court Justice to be Chief
POTUS Marks the 11th Anniversary of 9/11 with Proclamation for National Day of Prayer and Remembrance
Two Pictures Shatter the Mainstream Media Myth of an ‘Obama Enthusiasm Gap’

Recent Comments

Anthony Belvedere on 11,000 Show Up for Obama in Florida While Romney Draws Hundreds in Virginia
Gary Vaughn on With Hope as His Weapon President Obama Completely Destroys Mitt Romney
ibwilliamwsi on 11,000 Show Up for Obama in Florida While Romney Draws Hundreds in Virginia
debracaballero on What Do You Do With a 16-Year-Old Who Calls for the Assassination of Obama?
ibwilliamwsi on 11,000 Show Up for Obama in Florida While Romney Draws Hundreds in Virginia

Public Service Advertisement
Foster Grandparents - Share Today. Shape Tomorrow. Click here to learn more.

K E N N E D Y Kennedy insightfully says "Reducing the debt is not a positive thing unless it's done equitably taking into account all issues and we can't be the world's leading country unless our whole population is highly educated and our environment can be sustained. Any other growth model is hollow and meaningless."

Survive Disasters

37 things you should hoard...
Read more...
Political Websites We make campaign websites easy!
Accept online contributions, manage volunteers & more.
CampaignPartner.com

Read more...

Buy a Blogad!

GreenLivingEveryday.com Solar Chargers
Solar Panels
iPod Touch Solar Charger
Product Reviews & Tips

Read more...

Advertise here for as little as $40 a week
blog advertising is good for you

Paul Volcker: Obama Socialist Comments Have ‘No Connection With Reality’


Paul Volcker Obama

 

Paul Volcker sounded off on critics of President Obama in an interview with CBS’s Anthony Mason.

 

Asked whether he agrees with accusations that the president is waging class warfare by pushing for Wall Street reforms and higher taxes for the rich, Volcker said, “I don’t understand the depth of that feeling. I really don’t. This business that he’s a great socialist and out to undermine the free enterprise system and so forth, I just think it has no connection with reality.”

 

He balked at the notion that Obama could have taken office without going after the banks.

 

“How could you have a President of the United States taking office in the midst of a financial crisis and a deep recession and not be critical of the financial system? He would have been deaf, dumb and blind,” he said.

 

Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve and Obama adviser, is the namesake for “the Volcker Rule,” a major provision in the Wall Street reforms that could take effect as early as this July.

 

Though Obama has been critical of Wall Street, a survey from the end of last year found that he had approved fewer regulations than President Bush had at the same point in his presidency.

 

As HuffPost’s Jen Bendery reports, Wall Street executives actually thrive under President Obama. Still, most major Wall Street donations are heading to Mitt Romney, who is perceived as much friendlier to banks.

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Volcker: Obama Socialist Comments Have ‘No Connection With Reality’.

Does O’Brien Know The Facts About Critical Race Theory


Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update: A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update: A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Revised Obama Tax Plan: Higher Dividend Tax On The Wealthy | True Tax Facts | Digg Mynews


It seems out of nowhere, President Obama has made a significant change in his tax plan proposal. Obama’s 2013 budget year now calls for more taxes on the wealthy, specifically a higher tax on dividends.

His new tax plan calls for an increase of the dividend tax to a maximum of 40% for households earning $250,000 a year. Coincidentally, that is equal to the higher maximum income tax rate set to go into effect in 2013.

According to the Obama administration, the increase in the dividend tax rate is needed to pay down the federal deficit and to make the tax code more progressive.

“Choices had to be made,” a senior Obama administration told reporters, explaining the bid to raise more than $200 billion over a decade with the steeper dividend taxes on the wealthy.

In addition to an increase in the dividend tax rate, the Obama administration is proposing to raise the current 15% long-term capital gains tax to 20% for the wealthiest Americans.

If you look closely, the Obama tax plan to tax the rich seems like an election year campaign ploy to win the lower and middle class vote. Fortunately for the wealthy and big corporations, it is extremely unlikely that Obama’s tax provisions will be become law, including his dividend tax increase.

“This is a reversal of what was a very specific policy feature of the first three budgets to keep dividends and capital gains taxed at the same rate,” said Michael Mundaca, a former top Treasury tax official under Obama, now at the accounting firm Ernst & Young.

“Companies may be more likely to retain earnings or seek alternatives ways to distribute their earnings such as by buying back stock,” Mundaca said.

Tax experts believe that big corporations may accelerate 2013 dividend payments into 2012 to dodge tax hikes.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if we see moving all their 2013 dividends into 2012,” Kies said. “A lot of U.S. companies are sitting on cash.”

source: reuters.com

Tags: budget deficit, dividend tax, dividend tax increase, Income Tax, obama administration, obama tax, obama tax plan, Tax Experts, tax increase, tax plan

Filed under Taxes by
Permalink Print Comment
February 13, 2012
Obama Tax Plan Calls For Buffet Rule

After four consecutive years of one trillion dollar-plus deficits, the U.S. administration predicts a budget deficit drop below 1 trillion. That’s what President Obama’s budget plan calls for based on his proposed tax and spending policies.

One of the biggest contributors to reducing the deficit calls for a raise in the income tax rate on the wealthy. The so-called “Buffett Rule” would guarantee that households making more than $1 million a year pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.

This proposal was actually presented by America’s wealthiest businessman, Warren Buffett. To support this tax proposal, he used the real life example that it’s unfair that he (being a billionaire) pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.

The implementation of the Buffet Tax would raise approximately $1.5 trillion dollars. Additional sources of revenue to reduce the deficit would come from a tax reform plan that includes the expiration of the Bush Tax and the elimination of various tax preferences.

Will Obama’s tax plan work, or will it backfire?

Maybe the focus of cutting the deficit should be on creating jobs. New jobs mean more tax revenue and less expenditures to pay the unemployed.

Tags: budget deficit, buffet rule, buffet tax, obama tax, obama tax plan, tax plan, tax proposal, Tax Rate, tax revenue

Filed under Taxes by
Permalink Print Comment
February 10, 2012
Free Tax Help For Preparing Your Return

The IRS has a new online tax tool to help low and middle income taxpayers find local sites to get free tax help. The free tax help is made available by individuals in the IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) and the Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) programs.

The tool, available 24 hours a day, makes it easier for qualified individuals to find free tax help directly from the Internal Revenue Service. Taxpayers with incomes of $50,000 or less can get their taxes done for free by IRS volunteers. Senior citizens aged 60 and older can get free tax help from volunteers in the Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) program.

Taxpayers can access the application by clicking on this free tax help tool link or by going to irs.gov and entering the letters “VITA” in the search box. Next, click on the “Free Tax Return Preparation For You by Volunteers” option, then select the “Find a VITA site near you” option.

Once there, an easy-to-use locator prompts users to enter a zip code to search thousands of free tax preparation sites, narrowing the results to a selected radius. VITA sites are listed by location name, address, phone number, days and hours of operation, and the language-assistance options offered. Finally, taxpayers select a specific tax preparation site to get a map to provide step-by-step directions.

More than three million tax returns were prepared by VITA and TCE volunteers in during the 2011 tax season.

The IRS is continually improving its website to provide the latest tax information to taxpayers.

source:irs.gov

Tags: free tax help, irs tax help, irs volunteers, Tax Help, Tax Preparation, VITA

Filed under Taxes by
Permalink Print Comment
Next Page »

Archives
February 2012 (5)
January 2012 (3)
November 2011 (2)
October 2011 (7)
August 2011 (2)
July 2011 (3)
April 2011 (1)
March 2011 (3)
February 2011 (20)
January 2011 (15)
December 2010 (8)
November 2010 (5)
August 2010 (2)
July 2010 (1)
June 2010 (4)
May 2010 (2)
April 2010 (2)
March 2010 (2)
February 2010 (2)
January 2010 (5)
December 2009 (11)
October 2009 (1)
September 2009 (1)
August 2009 (4)
April 2009 (1)
March 2009 (3)
February 2009 (17)
January 2009 (17)
December 2008 (14)
November 2008 (17)
October 2008 (10)

FreeTaxUSA_Cash_120x60
Tax Help and Resources
Slash Your Taxes
Succeed in Tax Court
E-commerce Tax Guide
Property Tax Consultant
Internet Tax Guide
Recent Posts
Revised Obama Tax Plan: Higher Dividend Tax On The Wealthy
Obama Tax Plan Calls For Buffet Rule
Free Tax Help For Preparing Your Return
Expanded Version of IRS Smartphone Tax App Now Available
New Jersey Income Tax Cut Proposal Would Help The Rich

Copyright 2012

Revised Obama Tax Plan: Higher Dividend Tax On The Wealthy | True Tax Facts | Digg Mynews.