Friday, February 24, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, February 24, 2012


Spent an hour and a half with a trainer today at the gym.

I... am... on... track...!

By the way, folks... I've placed some really good newsbites about Romney inside the Comments Section. I do truly hope you take the time to find out who Romney really is.
Posted by at

11 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384194-503544/gingrich-says-obama-surrendered-by-apologizing-to-afghans/?tag=nl.e875

Newt Gingrich said President Obama "surrendered" Thursday when he apologized to the Afghan government for the burning of several Qurans at an American military base near Kabul.

* CONTEXT, FRIENDS... CONTEXT... (READ ON!)

Referring to the burning of "radical Islamic material" that included the Qurans...

* FOLKS... NOTICE... ALMOST NONE OF THE NEWS REPORTING YOU'RE HEARING OR READING BOTHERS TO NOTE THAT THESE WEREN'T JUST "ANY OLD QURANS" WE'RE TALKING ABOUT... THAT THESE WEREN'T RANDOM ACTS OF DESECRATION ON THE PART OF OUR SOLDERS. I SUGGEST ANY OF YOU WHO AREN'T AWARE OF WHY THE QURANS WERE BURNED DO A BIT OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.

...the former House speaker said the situation had been "blown into a huge incident by various fanatics in Afghanistan."

* AND AS IS THE CASE FAR MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, MR. GINGRICH IS CORRECT!

Gingrich told a crowd gathered at a campaign rally at the Bing Crosby Theater that while the president had apologized for the burning, he had not called on the Afghan government to issue an apology for the deaths of two NATO soldiers who were killed by a man wearing an Afghan army uniform during increasingly violent protests of the desecration of the Muslim holy book.

* GOOD FRIGG'N POINT, NEWT!!!

"There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama's attention in a negative way," Gingrich said, "and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States, period."

(*THUMBS UP*)

"If Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn't feel like apologizing, then we should say, 'Goodbye and good luck, we don't need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn't care.'"

* GOD BLESS YOU, NEWT GINGRICH...!!!

February 24, 2012 at 3:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/family-money/why-college-aid-makes-college-more-expensive-1330033152060/

Federal aid for students has increased 164% over the past decade, adjusted for inflation, according to the College Board.

* AND IF YOU THINK THIS IS A POSITIVE THAN YOU'RE A MORON! READ ON!

[S]chools view a student's sources of federal aid before deciding how much to give on their own, rather than the other way around. The result is a crowding out effect, where some schools give less as the government gives more.

Lesley Turner, a PhD candidate at Columbia University, looked at data on aid from 1996 to 2008 and calculated that, on average, schools increased Pell Grant recipients' prices by $17 in response to every $100 of Pell Grant aid.

More selective nonprofit schools' response was largest and these schools raised prices by $66 for every $100 of Pell Grant aid.

Aid from schools over the past decade has increased about half as fast as federal aid, according to the College Board.

Perhaps worse for students than a crowding out effect is the Bennett Effect, named for William Bennett, who 25 years ago as Secretary of Education wrote for the New York Times, "Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions."

* DUH! AS IF A "STUDY" WERE NEEDED TO FIGURE THIS OUT! (*SMIRK*)

If subsidies puff up buying power and shift prices higher, as economics courses teach, could federal aid for college help create an affordability problem?

* IN A WORD... "YES!"

[T]he federal government began spending more on college aid with the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the full funding of Pell Grants in 1975. Since 1979, tuition and fees have tripled after adjusting for inflation. That's much faster than the increase for real estate and teacher pay.

* UMM... YEAH! (JUST AS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH BASIC ECONOMICS AND HUMAN NATURE WOULD EXPECT!)

There have been mixed findings on the Bennett Effect in recent decades, with some studies finding a dollar-for-dollar relationship and others, none at all.

* AND HOW MANY STUDIES SHOWING ACROSS THE BOARD LOWER PRICES FOR STUDENTS? (I'M GUESSING EITHER NONE, OR, AT BEST, NOT MANY.)

Determining why college costs are rising is a difficult task, after all.

* NO IT'S NOT. ANYTHING SUBSIDIZED GETS MORE EXPENSIVE. DUH! WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE HEALTHCARE COSTS HAVE EXPLODED IN LINE WITH MORE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AND THIRD-PARTY FINANCING...?!?!

Stephanie Riegg Cellini of George Washington University and Claudia Golden of Harvard take a new approach, focusing on for-profit schools. Some of these are eligible to participate in so-called Title IV aid programs (named for a portion of the aforementioned Act) and some not.

After adjusting for differences among schools, the authors find that Title IV-eligible schools charge tuition that is 75% higher than the others. That's roughly equal to the amount of the aid received by students at these schools.

(*SMIRK*)

Studies like these suggest that if one goal of government is to make college affordable, aid should become more thoughtful instead of merely more plentiful.

* YEAH... (*SNORT*)... GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

And the total cost of federal spending on college isn't fully known. That's because spending on loans dwarfs that on grants. (Student loans recently eclipsed credit card debt.)

With credit cards, borrowers pay high interest rates to make up for their lack of collateral. Many many student loans have subsidized rates; others have low rates based on the assumption that a college education is a good financial risk for lenders.

If costs outpace the ability of graduates to find jobs with good pay, and repayment rates on these loans slide, taxpayers could end up feeling the crunch.

* THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT EDUCATIONAL LOAN BAILOUTS WHICH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY INSTITUTED TO SOME DEGREE. (*SIGH*)

* FOLKS... WE'RE SO FRIGG'N FUCKED!

February 24, 2012 at 3:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-florida-mall-footlocker-riot-gear-20120223,0,2886722.story

* NOTICE ANYTHING ABOUT THE MAKE-UP OF THE CROWD FROM THE PHOTOS...? (*SMIRK*)

The launch of an expensive new basketball shoe — timed to Orlando's hosting of the NBA All-Star Game — triggered a melee Thursday night at Florida Mall that was quelled by deputies in riot gear.

* PERHAPS AMERICAN MALLS SHOULD HIRE SYRIAN SECURITY GUARDS? JUST SAYIN'...!!!

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... READ THE ARTICLE. TELL ME THERE'S HOPE FOR THIS COUNTRY.

February 24, 2012 at 4:18 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-deportation-drop-20120224,0,5847742.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Flocal+%28L.A.+Times+-+California+|+Local+News%29

The number of deportation cases filed by federal immigration officials dropped by nearly a third in the first three months of the fiscal year, according to a report by the Syracuse University Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

* FOLKS... I'LL LET THIS ONE SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

The proportion of filings during the period that sought deportation on grounds of alleged criminal activity was 14%, down from nearly 16% in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. Those numbers led the report's authors to say there is little evidence cases are being better targeted toward serious criminals.

* ONE BRIGHT SPOT:

The number of convicted criminals deported...nearly doubled last year.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*) GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

February 24, 2012 at 4:18 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577241623995642182.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

* SOUNDS LIKE THE EDITORS OF THE WSJ HAVE BEEN READING "USUALLY RIGHT." (*CHUCKLE*)

The oil price surge has several likely sources.

One is the turmoil in the Middle East, especially new fears of a supply shock from a conflict with Iran. But it's worth recalling that Mr. Obama...blamed the last oil-price surge, in spring 2011, on the Libyan uprising. Moammar Gadhafi is now gone and Libyan oil production is coming back on stream, yet oil prices dipped only briefly below $90 a barrel and have been rising since October. Something else must be going on.

Mr. Obama yesterday blamed rising demand from the likes of Brazil and China, and there is something to that as well. But this energy demand is also not new, and if anything Chinese and Brazilian economic growth has been slowing in recent months.

Another suspect — one Mr. Obama doesn't like to mention — is U.S. monetary policy. Oil is traded in dollars, and its price therefore rises when the value of the dollar falls, all else being equal. The Federal Reserve throughout Mr. Obama's term has pursued the easiest monetary policy in modern times... It has done so with the private support and urging of the White House and through Mr. Obama's appointees who are now a majority on the Fed's Board of Governors.

(*SIGH*)

Oil staged its last price surge along with other commodity prices when the Fed revved up its second burst of "quantitative easing" in 2010-2011. Prices stabilized when QE2 ended. But in recent months the Fed has again signaled its commitment to near-zero interest rates first through 2013, and recently through 2014. Commodity prices, including oil, have since begun another surge, and hedge funds have begun to bet on commodity plays again.

(*NOD*) (*SHRUG*)

Fed officials and Mr. Obama want to take credit for easy money if stock-market and housing prices rise, but then deny any responsibility if commodity prices rise too, causing food and energy prices to soar for consumers.

* SCUMBAGS!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

February 24, 2012 at 4:36 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

They can't have it both ways, as not-so-stupid Americans intuitively understand when they buy groceries or gas. This is the double-edged sword of an economic recovery "built to last" on easy money rather than on sound fiscal and regulatory policies.

* AH... BUT ARE THE MASSES TRULY BRIGHT ENOUGH - AND WELL INFORMED ENOUGH - TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON? I FEAR... (*SHRUG*)... WELL... LET'S JUST LEAVE IT AT "I FEAR."

As for domestic energy, Mr. Obama rightly points to the rising share of U.S. oil consumption now produced at home. But this trend began in the late Bush Administration, which opened up large new areas on and offshore for oil and gas drilling that are now coming on stream. (Mr. Obama sneered at expanded drilling as a candidate in 2008 and for most of his term has done little to expand it.)

* TRUE!

According to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permits Index for January 31, over the previous three months the feds issued an average of three deep-water drilling permits a month compared to the historical average of seven. Over the same three months, the feds approved an average of 4.7 shallow-water permits a month, compared to the historical average of 14.7.

(*JUST THROWING MY HANDS UP*)

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... THESE ARE THE FACTS!

Approval of an offshore drilling plan now takes 92 days, 31 more than the historical average.

[S]o far in 2012, an average of 23% of all drilling plans have been approved, compared to the [historical] average of 73.4%.

Oh, and don't forget the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have increased the delivery of oil from Canada and North Dakota's Bakken Shale to Gulf Coast refineries, replacing oil from Venezuela.

* NOPE... CAN'T FORGET KEYSTONE!

The reality is that most of the increase in U.S. oil and gas production has come despite the Obama Administration. It is flowing from the shale boom, which is the result of private technological advances and investment. Mr. Obama has seen the energy sun rise and is crowing like a rooster that he made it happen.

* THIS... IS... TRUE...!!!

February 24, 2012 at 4:36 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/brooks-america-is-europe.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1330092020-ATvNBDsKGZrfxzgpAkfPww

* READ THIS ESSAY.

* JUST READ THE ESSAY.

February 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/krugman-romneys-economic-closet.html?ref=opinion

According to Michael Kinsley, a gaffe is when a politician accidently tells the truth. That’s certainly what happened to Mitt Romney on Tuesday, when in a rare moment of candor — and, in his case, such moments are really, really rare — he gave away the game.

Speaking in Michigan, Mr. Romney was asked about deficit reduction, and he absent-mindedly said something completely reasonable: “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.”

Aah-ha! So he believes that cutting government spending hurts growth, other things equal.

[A] Romney spokesman tried to walk back the remark, claiming, “The governor’s point was that simply slashing the budget, with no affirmative pro-growth policies, is insufficient to get the economy turned around,” but that’s not what the candidate said, and it’s very unlikely that it’s what he meant.

Almost surely, he is, in fact, a closet Keynesian.

(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

* FOLKS... I HATE PAUL KRUGMAN. BUT ON THIS ONE... (*SHRUG*)

How do we know this? [W]e know who he turns to for economic advice: heading the list are Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard. While both men are loyal Republican spear-carriers — each served for a time as chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers — both also have long track records as professional economists. And what these track records suggest is that neither of them believes any of the propositions that have become litmus tests for would-be G.O.P. presidential candidates.

* IN OTHER WORDS, KRUGMAN IS SAYING THAT IF ROMNEY WEREN'T A KEYNESIAN HIMSELF, WHY WOULD HE CHOOSE AS HIS CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISORS KEYNESIANS.

Consider Mr. Mankiw, in particular. Modern Republicans detest Keynes; Mr. Mankiw is the editor of a collection of papers titled “New Keynesian Economics.” In an early edition of his best-selling textbook, he dismissed supply-side economics — the doctrine embraced by the sainted Ronald Reagan — as the creation of “charlatans and cranks.” And, in 2009, he called for higher inflation as a solution to the economic crisis, a position anathema to Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, who warn ominously about the evil of “debasing” our currency.

* JEEZUS... (*DEEP SHUDDERING SIGH*)

Given his advisers, then, it seems safe to assume that what Mr. Romney blurted out Tuesday reflected his real economic beliefs — as opposed to [what he] pretends to believe - because it’s what the Republican base wants to hear.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

February 24, 2012 at 4:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291860/romney-conservative-immigration-steve-baldwin

One of the biggest myths of the 2012 presidential campaign, propagated by Team Romney and the mainstream media, is that Willard Mitt Romney is a hard-liner on immigration issues.

Romney’s “hard-line” positions on immigration suddenly arose as he began thinking of running for president in 2006.

Moreover, his current views on immigration usually contradict what he actually said and did as governor.

It appears that Romney’s immigration positions have been created solely for his presidential run or were based upon events that simply never occurred.

Romney has made opposition to any amnesty proposal a central campaign plank. This message first surfaced during the run-up to his 2008 race when his potential rival, Senator John McCain, introduced an immigration measure that included amnesty. Romney attacked it. Moreover, Romney specifically opposed any kind of “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens, saying, “I don’t think there should be a pathway to citizenship for people who are here illegally.”

* SOUNDS GOOD, RIGHT? SOUNDS LIKE "ONE OF US." BUT READ ON...

Romney gave the Boston Globe an interview in 2005 in which he argued that the McCain-Kennedy immigration-reform bill was “quite different” from an amnesty bill and even called the bill “reasonable,” proclaiming, "I think an amnesty program is what — which is all the illegal immigrants who are here are now citizens, and walk up and get your citizenship. What the president has proposed, and what Senator McCain and Cornyn have proposed, are quite different than that. They require people signing up for a, well, registering and receiving a registration number. Then working here for six years and paying taxes — not taking benefits. . . . And then at the end of that period, registering to become a citizen. . . . And I think that those are reasonable proposals."

(*SNORT*)

And in contrast to his attacks on a “pathway to citizenship,” Romney specifically supported such an approach while governor, saying, "Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

* THAT FAKE, PHONY FRAUD!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

February 24, 2012 at 5:19 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

In 2006, as reported by the AP, Romney even criticized Republicans who didn’t support the Bush-McCain amnesty legislation, [AP quote]: "Meantime, one of McCain’s potential rivals for the GOP nomination, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has made it known that he supports the president’s immigration position, saying that Republicans who have broken rank with Bush “made a big mistake.”

(*PURSED LIPS*)

* THERE'S MORE.

At least four times during the last three months, Romney has boasted in various debates and on Fox News that he “even deputized state police to enforce our federal immigration laws.” His campaign literature makes the same boast, stating, "Romney signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the federal government allowing Massachusetts State Troopers to investigate immigration status and enforce federal immigration laws. The agreement included authority to arrest illegal aliens encountered during the normal course of their duties."

Indeed, during the ’08 campaign, Romney even produced a campaign commercial called “Cops on the Case,” in which Romney authoritatively states, “As Governor, I authorized the state police to enforce immigration laws.”

* AGAIN... SOUNDS GOOD, RIGHT? WELL, FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... SOUNDBITES CAN BE DECEIVING. READ ON...

[T]his policy never was implemented.

It never happened.

Even though Romney had the authority to sign such an order with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency four years earlier upon becoming governor, he waited to sign this agreement on December 13, 2006 — 18 days before his term ended.

* NOW WHY WOULD HE DO THAT YOU MAY ASK... (*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)

Since the officers required a five-week course before they could enforce federal immigration law, this policy never was implemented. The order never took effect. State police never were deputized, nor did they ever detain illegal aliens. In any case, the order quickly was overturned by Romney’s successor a few weeks later.

* AS THAT FAKE, PHONY, FRAUD ROMNEY KNEW IT WOULD BE...!!! (FOLKS... ROMNEY KNEW WHO HIS SUCCESSOR WAS! HE KNEW HIS SUCCESSOR WOULD AX THE PROGRAM THE MOMENT HE TOOK OFFICE!

It is difficult not to conclude that Romney signed this agreement simply at the request of his political handlers so that he could portray himself as a conservative for his upcoming campaign. After all, by the end of his gubernatorial term, Romney already was laying the groundwork for his ’08 presidential bid.

Indeed, a member of Romney’s Advisory Council for Refugees and Immigrants, Westy Egmont, said in an interview in the October 4, 2011, issue of USA Today, “It came late in his administration as a political statement more than as a well-thought-out policy.”

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* FOLKS... THIS IS A FOUR PAGE EXPOSE. MAYBE I'LL COME BACK TO IT. IN THE MEANTIME, JUST WHAT I'VE TAKEN OUT OF THE FIRST PAGE AND A HALF TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT LYING PIECE OF SHIT ROMNEY.

February 24, 2012 at 5:19 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291860/romney-conservative-immigration-steve-baldwin

* I CAN'T HELP MYSELF... HERE'S THE REST OF THE ROMNEY EXPOSE:

“Sanctuary cities” are municipalities that defy federal law by offering safe haven for illegal aliens. Romney talked tough on this issue in both of his campaigns.

Moreover, the ’08 Romney campaign produced television ads that said he would “cut funding for sanctuary cities.”

Romney also attacked his former rival Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) as weak on this issue.

* BTW... REMEMBER, FOLKS... PERRY IS BACKING GINGRICH. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? NOT SANTORUM... GINGRICH. AS IS HERMAN CAIN. (*SHRUG*) FUNNY HOW THE MEDIA SEEMS TO HAVE LOST COMPLETE INTEREST IN THE VIEWS OF PERRY AND CAIN SINCE THEY THREW THEIR SUPPORT TO GINGRICH, HUH?

But what is Romney’s actual record on sanctuary cities? Let’s check FactCheck.org:

"Romney might well get tough on sanctuary cities in the future, but he didn’t when he was governor. During his tenure, at least four Massachusetts cities enacted or renewed legislation declaring themselves sanctuary for illegal immigrants. . . . we asked Romney’s campaign if he had acted against these cities, but they didn’t provide us with any examples. As far as we were able to determine in our own research, Romney made no attempts to penalize, censure, or cut funding to them."

(*SMIRK*)

* FOLKS! THREE WORDS! 1) FAKE! 2) PHONY! 3) FRAUD!

Indeed, Romney continued to give “local aid” to three cities providing sanctuary to illegal aliens — Cambridge, Orleans, and Somerville.

In Romney’s 2006 budget — just a year before he called for the federal government to cut off aid to sanctuary cities — Governor Romney poured more than $88 million in state aid to these three municipalities. ... Romney made no effort whatsoever to propose any reductions in state aid to these three sanctuary cities.

As a candidate, Romney also opposed drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens. As Romney boasted in the 2007 Republican presidential debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, “Let me tell you what I did as governor; I said no to driver licenses for illegals.”

* HERE'S THE PROBLEM, FOLKS... (*SMIRK*)

Romney never “said no” to any such legislation; a search of all legislation during that time shows no such bill ever reached his desk.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Moreover, we really don’t know what Romney would have done if he had been presented with such a bill. His campaign wants voters to believe that he would have vetoed it, but why should voters believe that? If he supported amnesty, refused to punish sanctuary cities, and initiated a phony order to empower the state police, why should anyone think Romney would have vetoed such a bill?

(Indeed, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was “undecided” on this issue a week before the legislature voted on it.)

February 24, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)