Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, January 26, 2011


You're gonna LUV today's newsbites theme video!

Yeah, yeah... it's from May 2010, but give me a break - I just stumbled upon it today!

(*GRIN*)
Posted by at

13 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHl2pjSLvsB4iEnZ4vuPzG3hWnKQ?docId=839518e1ddf242e1afc34ac1e8b34107

A new estimate predicts the federal budget deficit will hit almost $1.5 trillion this year, a stunning new record.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The latest figures from the Congressional Budget Office are up from previous estimates because Congress and President Barack Obama teamed up in December on bipartisan legislation to extend Bush-era tax cuts that were due to expire.

* IN A WORD: BULLSHIT.

* FOLKS. WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT KEEPING THE TAX RATES EXACTLY WHERE THEY'VE BEEN FOR THE PAST 9 YEARS IS SOMEHOW A REVENUE "EXPENSE." WRONG. (*SMIRK*) IT WAS THE PREVIOUS ESTIMATES THAT WERE LOWBALLED BASED UPON THE FALSE PREMISE THAT WHEN PUSH CAME TO SHOVE EVEN THE DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE THE BALLS TO RAISE TAXES IN THE MIDST OF THIS RECESSION.

* FOLKS... THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF "REPORTING" I WARN AGAINST. YOU GUYS READING THIS PROBABLY KNEW THE REALITY I'M OUTLINING HERE EVEN BEFORE YOU READ IT HERE - BUT SADLY... THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH THE AVERAGE AMERICAN WHO BASICALLY TAKES "REPORTING" SUCH AS THIS AT FACE VALUE.

The nonpartisan budget agency predicts the deficit will drop to $1.1 trillion next year.

* IF REPUBLICANS ARE SMART, THEY'LL SHOOT FOR UNDER A TRILLION - UNDER A TRILLION AT A BARE MINIMUM!

Legislation passed in December to extend tax cuts, unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and provide a 2% payroll tax cut this year adds almost $400 billion to this year's deficit.

* O.K. WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS "EXTENDING TAX CUTS" RHETORIC. THE BASIC TAX RATES AGREED TO FOR THIS YEAR ARE THE SAME TAX RATES AS LAST YEAR... AS THE YEAR BEFORE... AS THE YEAR BEFORE... AS THE YEAR BEFORE... AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THE DEMS AND THEIR MEDIA ALLIES ARE DELIBERATE DISTORTING REALITY. IT'S SAD. IT'S PATHETIC. IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND VENAL.

* AS TO EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND THE 2% PAYROLL TAX CUT... (*SIGH*)... I WAS AGAINST BOTH MEASURES AND WHEN PUSH CAME TO SHOVE MORE REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THESE GIVEAWAYS THAN DID DEMOCRATS. INDEED, THESE WERE DEMOCRATIC DEMANDS!

January 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_us/us_state_of_union

Newly in charge of the House, Republicans already have made an early down payment on their commitment to cut costs, voting to pare spending on their own office and committee accounts by 5%.

On Tuesday, hours before Obama spoke, they went on record in favor of reducing most domestic programs to levels in place when Obama took office, and 17 Democrats joined them.

Even larger cuts are expected as winter turns to spring, but another relatively small change was on the House agenda for the day after Obama's speech. It would eliminate the program of federal matching funds that helps finance presidential campaigns, and supporters said savings would total $520 million over a decade.

The White House opposes the bill..,

(*SMIRK*)

[Republican] House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Wednesday that the GOP can work with Obama on programs to stimulate the economy and create jobs, but that significant spending cuts are needed immediately. "We need to force the budget down," he said on CBS's "The Early Show."

* AND IN CONTRAST... (*SMIRK*)

For his part, Obama was following up his speech with a trip to Wisconsin...

(*SNICKER*)

* HEY... FOLKS... REMEMBER CANDIDATE OBAMA IN 2008 PROMISING TO GO THROUGH FEDERAL BUDGETS "LINE BY LINE?"

* FOLKS... A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WERE FOOLED IN 2008; WE MUSTN'T BE FOOLED AGAIN.

Joblessness remains at 9.4%...[but]...polls place [Obama's] approval rating above 50%, higher than it has been in almost a year.

(*HEADACHE*)

Republicans were unanimous on one point - that Obama's calls for spending cuts weren't strong enough.

The party's leader in the Senate, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said overall the president had "changed the tone and the rhetoric" from his first two years in office. But, he said, "freezing government spending for five years at the increased levels of the last two years is really not enough."

* DAMN STRAIGHT...! (I WONDER IF ABSENT MCCONNELL NOTING THAT OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS OBAMA AND THE DEMS HAVE ADDED HUGE PERCENTAGE INCREASES TO FEDERAL AGENCY BUDGETS/SPENDING THE NEWS REPORT WOULD HAVE NOTED THAT "SMALL DETAIL." (*SMIRK*)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who backed numerous tea party-backed challengers in last fall's elections, [noted,] "When the President says 'investment' he means bigger federal government and higher taxes. Americans sent a clear message in the 2010 elections. They no longer wish to 'invest' in President Obama's big-spending plans."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said in a statement: "A partial freeze is inadequate at a time when we're borrowing 41% of every dollar we spend, and the administration is begging for another increase in the debt limit.

* THIS BEARS REPEATING: "WE'RE BORROWING .41-CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR SPENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT COLLECTS .59-CENTS AND THEN GOES OUT AND SPENDS A DOLLAR - LEAVING TAXPAYERS ON THE HOOK FOR THE BORROWED .41-CENTS... ON THE HOOK FOR REPAYING THIS BORROWED .41-CENTS WITH INTEREST. THING IS... WE'RE NOT TALKING PENNIES... WE'RE TALKING TRILLIONS (LITERALLY TRILLIONS!) OF DOLLARS OF DEBT WITH MORE ADDED YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT WITH NO WAY TO EVER REPAY IT...!!!

* BOEHNER CONTINUED...

"Rather than lock in the job-crushing spending binge of the last two years, we are working to carry out our pledge to cut spending to pre-'stimulus,' pre-bailout levels and impose real spending caps."

(*NOD*)

And Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, said Obama's proposed freeze was "nothing less than recklessly driving toward a brick wall at 80 miles per hour, then putting on the cruise control and calling it 'responsibility."'

(*SOUR SMIRK ALONG WITH A NOD AND A DEEP SIGH*)

January 26, 2011 at 12:24 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FACT-CHECK-Obama-and-his-apf-989878074.html?x=0&.v=2

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.

* YA THINK...?!?!

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.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."

* YEAH... (*SMIRK*) "FREEZE IN" THE BLOATED OVERSPENDING HE AND THE DEMS HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR SINCE JANUARY 2009 (AND WHICH THE PAST DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SINCE JANUARY 2007).

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.)

* NOW THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF GOOD REPORTING... PUTTING "NEWS" IN CONTEXT. (*APPRECIATIVE NOD*)

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.

* YEAH... (*SMIRK*)... UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR! (*CHUCKLE*)

[THE FACTS:] 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.

* "UNREALISTIC..." HA! HA! HA! THESE PRICKS FUDGED THE NUMBERS - DELIBERATELY - AND THERE'S NO DEBATE ABOUT THAT.

(*SIGH*)

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.

* HMM... NOW REMIND ME... WHICH PARTY CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS "JUST LAST MONTH...???"

(*SNICKER*)

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.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES PLENTY OF OTHER EXAMPLES OF HOW DISINGENUOUS AND FRANKLY DISHONEST PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN AS PRESIDENT. READ THE FULL ARTICLE FOR YOURSELVES... OR... JUST THINK BACK ON OBAMA PROMISES VS. OBAMA REALITY.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

January 26, 2011 at 1:33 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/26/obamas-plan-would-cost-another-20-billion

President Obama's agenda...would boost spending an additional $20 billion and lead to higher taxes, according to a line-by-line analysis from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

In their report provided to [U.S. News and World Report], the foundation conceded that the $20 billion in additional spending was far less than the additional $70 billion in his last State of the Union where he also called for a budget spending freeze and earmark ban.

* WOW... SOME "CONCESSION," HUH? (*SNORT*) (SERIOUSLY... HOW THE HECK DID THAT ONE GET THROUGH THE EDITING PROCESS? AS IF WE CAN'T DO THE MATH AND NOTICE, "HEY... WOW... $20 BILLION ADDED TO LAST YEAR'S $70 BILLION EQUALS $90 FRIGG'N BILLION...!)

* PETE SEPP AND DOUG KELLOG, AUTHORS OF THE NTUF REPORT NOTE:

[A]ll the quantifiable items in President Obama's speech taken together would increase federal spending by more than $20 billion, but the large number of items whose impact is unclear could dramatically affect this total.

* ANYONE WANNA HAZARD A GUESS AS TO WHICH DIRECTION SUCH "IMPACT" WOULD MOST LIKELY DRIVE THE FEDERAL BUDGET...? (*SMIRK*)

"President Obama's speech last night hinted at tax reform, and spending restraint, but also opened the door to tax increases and major spending initiatives," said NTUF Senior Policy Analyst Demian Brady. "Americans heard encouraging words about more efficient government, but little in the way of specifics about spending priorities.

* NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!

* To be continued...

January 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

President Obama outlined items whose enactment would increase federal expenditures by a net of $21.349 billion per year, compared to the $70.46 billion in higher annualized costs to taxpayers that he called for in his 2010 State of the Union speech.

(*JUST ROLLING MY EYES*)

The single largest item Obama mentioned was increased "investment" in transportation infrastructure, which according to available sources could amount to $50 billion in additional outlays. Other large initiatives included $1.35 billion in possible higher spending for the "Race to the Top" educational program.

* AH, A BILLION HERE, A BILLION THERE... (*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)

NTUF also identified several elements that could yield budgetary reductions for taxpayers. In 2010, Obama announced a three-year freeze on certain discretionary spending. He now proposes to extend that freeze for another two years, for net additional savings of $15 billion annually.

* I DEALT WITH THIS IDIOCY ON A STAND-ALONE POST.

[T]he most important fiscal policy aspects in Obama's speech are the number of blanks the President left behind for taxpayers. For example, his highly generalized call to "merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government" holds potential for large reductions in expenditures, but this is by no means guaranteed. Proponents for a Department of Homeland Security argued that consolidating programs under such an agency could help streamline bureaucracy, but there is little evidence of substantial savings to taxpayers from this venture.

* FORGET "LITTLE EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS;" AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SAVINGS; INDEED, UNLESS SOMEONE CAN SOMEHOW DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE, THE ASSUMPTION MUST BE THAT CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ADDED TO FEDERAL SPENDING...!!!

(*HEADING TO MY BAR TO POUR MYSELF A STIFF DRINK*)

(*RETURNING WITH A WATERFORD TUMBLER CONTAINING A TRIPLE SHOT OF CROWN ROYAL CASK 16 WHISKEY*)

Since 1999, when NTUF began tracking Presidential addresses, the lowest recorded total was President George W. Bush's address in 2006, coming in at under $1 billion in new spending; the highest was President Clinton's 1999 speech, which proposed $305 billion in new outlays. Bush's first State of the Union speech, in 2002, racked up $106 billion in higher expenditures.

* NOW THAT'S KINDA INTERESTING, HUH? (PERHAPS "DUBYA" WASN'T SO BAD AFTER ALL; AND MAYBE PAPPY BUSH WASN'T EITHER.)

January 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.fox41.com/story/13911626/rand-paul-proposes-500-billion-in-federal-budget-cuts

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul wants to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps for the poor, to save $500 billion in a single year.

* GOOD! ME TOO...!!!

A legislative proposal Paul introduced on Tuesday would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food stamp program - a 30% spending reduction.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

* FOLKS... PUT THAT 30% IN PERSPECTIVE; CHECK OUT THE NUMBERS AND HOW THEY'VE GROWN (ADJUSTED FOR POPULATION GROWTH) SINCE THE PROGRAM'S INCEPTION.

His proposal would eliminate numerous other programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

(*PICKING UP MY GLASS... TOASTING RAND PAUL... TAKING A SIP*)

Paul said the proposal would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs.

* AH... GUESS YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TOO FAR BACK TO ACCOUNT FOR WHERE THAT EXTRA 30% INCREASE CAME FROM! (*SMIRK*)

The Kentucky Republican said he hopes his proposal will spark a dialogue within the Senate about how to repair the nation's economy.

* FROM RAND PAUL'S MOUTH TO GOD'S EAR!

January 26, 2011 at 3:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/cops-probe-ihop-melee-caught-tape

South Carolina cops are attempting to identify the participants in a wild brawl early Saturday at an International House of Pancakes, video of which has gone viral online.

(*HUMMING THE THEME FROM JEOPARDY*)

(*SMIRKY SMILE*)

As seen [on video] the female combatants are seen punching and wrestling with each other as tables are toppled.

At one point, a woman picks up a coffee pot and strikes another woman in the head while she is being pinned to a table.

Later, a man is seen swinging a cane at the woman who was struck with the coffee pot. The woman, adopting a lion tamer’s pose, picks up a chair and tosses it at the cane wielder.

When Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Department deputies arrived at the IHOP at 5:10 AM, the fight participants had already departed. And despite the restaurant having been wrecked by the brawlers, security and management “did not want to pursue any charges on the incident,” according to a sheriff's report.

* DISGUSTING. THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD SHUT THE PLACE DOWN AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

However, investigators are “making a diligent effort” to “identify all parties involved,” according to Barbara Walters, the interim sheriff.

* GOOD FOR THE SHERIFF...!!!

Walters told The Smoking Gun that investigators were conducting interviews and piecing together the names (some of which are street names) of those involved in an attempt to make arrests.

* STREET NAMES... (*SMIRK*)

* HEY, FOLKS... YOU THINK BECAUSE THIS SORT OF THING IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN IN ANY ESTABLISHMENT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY FREQUENT THAT YOU CAN JUST AVERT YOUR GAZE? THE DISEASE IS SPREADING MY FRIENDS... IT'S SPREADING...

(*SHRUG*)

January 26, 2011 at 3:56 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCT4GhKaleCpy570YTLr9p7nq54Q?docId=7a1abd4a6937454f90aa34acf72c9870

Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

* DUH!

(*SMIRK*)

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

* "PROBABLY..." YEAH... LIKE "PROBABLY" I'M NOT GONNA WIN THE NEXT POWERBALL JACKPOT AND "PROBABLY" OPRAH ISN'T GOING TO ANNOUNCE ON HER NEXT SHOW THAT I'M HER LONG LOST HALF BROTHER. (*SMIRK*)

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.

As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."

* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... WHAT'S IT GONNA TAKE...???

Foster was a thorn in the side to the administration throughout the health care debate, doubting that Medicare cuts would prove to be politically sustainable and raising other questions. An equal opportunity skeptic, he was also a bane to the George W. Bush administration during the debate that led to creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003.

(*NOD*)

Costs "could"...increase if Medicare [scheduled] cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years.

* HE MEANS IN THE SAME WAY THEY'VE PROVEN TO BE SMOKE AND MIRRORS IN THE PAST - INCLUDING LAST MONTH'S REFUSAL BY THE THEN-DEMOCRATIC HOUSE AND THEN/NOW DEMOCRATIC SENATE TO STICK BY THE LAST ROUND OF PROMISED CUTS.

* FOLKS... YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT LYING SCUM THESE POLITICIANS ARE...!!!

The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15% of providers into the red.

(*SMIRK*) (*SIGH*) (*HEADACHE*)

As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.

* FOLKS... OBAMA AND THE DEMS LIED RIGHT TO OUR FACES!

Medicare recipients who lose private coverage would still be guaranteed coverage in the traditional program, but they would likely have to take out a supplementary insurance plan for gaps in their coverage.

* SO IN OTHER WORDS MEDICARE INSURANCE ISN'T WORTH SQUAT ON ITS OWN... "SUPPLEMENTARY" INSURANCE IS REQUIRED.

* FOLKS... WHERE WILL IT END?

January 26, 2011 at 4:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

* WOW...!

* YESTERDAY THE NUMBER BEING QUOTED WAS "ONLY" 222 OBAMACARE WAIVERS; ONE DAY LATER WE FIND OUT THE REAL NUMBER IS AT LEAST 733.

* I FOUND THIS ON DRUDGE. THINK IT'LL GET MUCH PLAY IN THE MAINSTREAM "RESPECTABLE" MEDIA?

(*SMIRK*)

January 26, 2011 at 7:07 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nj.com/ledgerlive/index.ssf/2011/01/slopes_behind_ropes_fear_of_la.html

* WE'RE LOSING OUR COUNTRY, FOLKS - IN SMALL WAYS AS WELL AS BIG WAYS.

It's one of the simple, most wonderful pleasures of life: zooming down a snow-covered hill just fast enough for a touch of fear to quicken your pulse. Maybe it's a solo run. Maybe you're clinging to a loved one as you tear down the hill tandem. Surely, sledding is one of those things that makes it worth toughing it out and living in New Jersey when sunnier climes often beckon.

* NOT JUST NEW JERSEY... (*SIGH*)

Unfortunately, it's getting tougher and tougher to find a place to do it. For the past two years on Ledger Live, we've taken viewers suggestions and hit the road in search of New Jersey's best sledding hills. But more and more, we found, the hills that have thrilled generations of sledders are now closed.

Lawsuits filed by injured sledders, it seems, have struck fear in the hearts of municipal and county government officials, prompting them to simply ban sledding at some of the state's erstwhile sledding meccas.

* FOLKS... OUR "JUSTICE" SYSTEM IS BROKEN. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

* I REMEMBER AS A YOUNG BOY... I'M TALKING 5, 6, 7 YEARS OLD... MY UNCLE ART TYING ONE END OF A ROPE TO THE BACK BUMPER OF HIS CAR AND THE OTHER TO A SLED AND WHEN THE LOCAL ROADS WERE SNOW COVERED UNCLE ART - WW-2 TANKER WITH PATTON AND UNION BRIDGE PAINTER - WOULD TAKE US KIDS FOR CAR POWERED SLEDDING RIDES ALL AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT WOULD THE COPS DO? THEY'D FRIGG'N WAVE...!!!

* FOLKS... THE AMERICA I LOVE IS BEING SLOWLY DISMANTLED.

January 26, 2011 at 7:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104040647573056.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

President Obama says he wants to purge regulations that are "just plain dumb," like his humorous State of the Union bit about salmon.

* BTW... (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)... HASN'T PRESIDENT OBAMA BEEN... er... PRESIDENT... FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS? (WITH A COMPLIANT DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS FOR THOSE FIRST TWO YEARS?) WHY DIDN'T HE HANDLE THE "SALMON DEAL" DURING THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS... HUH...???

[One regulation the president] should review a new rule that is supposed to prevent oil spills akin to the Gulf Coast disaster - at the nation's dairy farms.

Two weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that subjects dairy producers to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure program, which was created in 1970 to prevent oil discharges in navigable waters or near shorelines.

(*SNORT*) FOLKS... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!

[Seems Obama's] EPA has discovered that milk contains "a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil," as the agency put it in the Federal Register.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN MY HANDS*)

(Other dangerous pollution risks that somehow haven't made it onto the EPA docket include leaks from maple sugar taps and the vapors at Badger State breweries.)

The EPA rule requires farms - as well as places that make cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream and the like - to prepare and implement an emergency management plan in the event of a milk catastrophe. Among dozens of requirements, farmers must train first responders in cleanup protocol and build "containment facilities" such as dikes or berms to mitigate offshore dairy slicks.

* PEOPLE... (*SIGH*)... THIS REPRESENTS HIGHLY PAID FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS IN ACTION!

These plans must be in place by November, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is even running a $3 million program "to help farmers and ranchers comply with on-farm oil spill regulations." You cannot make this stuff up.

* I KNOW! I KNOW! IT'S UNBELIEVABLE - YET TRUE...!!!

We appreciate Mr. Obama's call for more regulatory reason, but it would be more credible if one of his key agencies wasn't literally crying over unspilled milk.

(*SIGH*)

January 26, 2011 at 9:02 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754304576096243375872076.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

So maybe we aren't reading our friends in the liberal media as carefully as we should.

Earlier this month several media sources reported that the Obama Administration will soon resume trying Guantanamo detainees in military tribunals, almost a year to the day after the prison was supposed to have been closed for good.

(*SMIRK*)

Yet somehow we missed the avalanche of commentary denouncing "kangaroo courts," "legal black holes" and all the other epithets once reserved for the Bush Administration when it was doing precisely the same thing.

Critics in Europe are also notably silent.

(*SNICKER*)

[I]t's worth noting that even as the [Obama] Administration prepares to try some 30 detainees, it also plans to hold another 50 without trial.

We won't hold our breath awaiting the outpouring of liberal outrage.

(*CHUCKLE*)

* FOLKS... ON A SERIOUS NON-WISEASS NOTE... YOU REALLY DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW UNPRINCIPLED AND UNETHICAL ALL TOO MANY MEMBERS OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA ARE. THEY'LL LIE BY COMMISSION.... THEY'LL LIE BY OMISSION... THEY'LL ENGAGE IN DOUBLE STANDARDS WITHOUT A MOMENT'S PAUSE.

January 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-01-25-editorial25_ST_N.htm

What's the matter with kids today?

A great deal more than you might realize.

(*NOD*)

One-third are overweight or obese.

Nearly a third drop out or can't finish high school in four years.

All told, 75% are in such a poor state that they are ineligible for military service for reasons ranging from health to drugs to criminal records to lack of education. (Last month came bad news about the rest: 23% of those who try to enlist fail the basic entrance exam.)

(*PURSED LIPS*)

In 2009, 41% of children born in the USA were born to unmarried mothers... That includes 73% of non-Hispanic black children, 53% of Hispanic children and 29% of non-Hispanic white children.

* I'LL BE FRANK WITH YOU FOLKS... I DON'T KNOW IF BLACK AMERICA IS SALVAGEABLE. AS TO HISPANIC AMERICA... (*SIGH*)

[W]edlock does not guarantee untroubled kids.

* TRUE!

Even so, evidence is overwhelming that children of single mothers - particularly teen mothers - suffer disproportionately high poverty rates, impaired development and low school performance.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... WHO DO YOU THINK IS "RAISING" THESE ANIMALS WHOSE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES I KEEP HIGHLIGHTING HERE IN NEWSBITES...?!?!

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a Labor Department official and later a prominent senator, rang alarm bells when unmarried births in the black community were nearing 24%. (The rate among white mothers was about 3% then.) But his paper on the subject ignited a furor, particularly among fellow liberals and civil rights leaders, who charged him with racism and blaming the victim.

Today, the 1965 numbers look quaint.

(*SIGH*)

When 41% of babies born in the USA have unwed parents and most children reach adulthood with serious problems...

* ...IT'S A CLEAR SIGNAL THAT WE'RE IN DEEP, DEEP, DEEP SHIT.

January 26, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)