Obama buying more votes with taxpayer dollars
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Comments
First, what you are saying is silly. But, is he not to be held to at least some sort of higher standard? Or, is he just a regular ol' politician?
http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... y-election
Yet Another Survey: Fox News Viewers Worst-Informed, NPR Listeners Best-Informed
http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-anot ... -informed/
It’s Official: Watching Fox Makes You Stupider
http://www.thenation.com/blog/167999/it ... u-stupider
Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... d-20120524
University Study Determines Fox News Has Least-Informed National Audience Based on These Questions
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/univers ... questions/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and left leaning sources mostly too. :?
Perhaps attempting to discredit and to be derogatory?
So the Obama supporters here disregard the OP's article because it comes from Fox News?
Again just a line drawn between red and blue?
Getting older and weaker by the minute guys
I don't watch FoxNews but I do like Mr Riley. He's a gas!
I only get to watch on Friday nights though with cocktails and such.
I adore his voice, mannerisms, he seems less biased then a lot of news people.
Reasonably right I like to call him.
He's got a new book out I need to find about JFK.
And yes our President it buying votes, pitiful but of course works every time.
Even the blues don't seem to deny that.
17 trillion dollar deficit and he's buying votes :fp:
Can we fathom 17 trillion?
http://www.votebigspendersout.com/voteb ... cle&id=104 :shock:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... f-notices/
there, better source for you? same story.
don't do this now, and we will PAY YOUR LEGAL COSTS LATER...you know, legal costs that don't have to be incurred by simply giving 60 days notice. Basically the president is saying, "don't issue the notices now because of our failure to actually make cuts that matter... we have plenty of others peoples money to cover the legal challenges that are sure to come because you didn't follow the labor laws." Interesting...lots of respect for the rule of law there in Washington. A super committee created outside of the constitution couldn't do the job they were supposed to do, and because of that, TAXPAYERS will fit the bill for legal challenges because the President, and other politicians, don't want layoff notices until after the election. How can they even make this guarantee? how is it legal for the US gov't to cover those costs incurred by a private enterprise without congress signing on in at least a discretionary spending bill? Maybe I shouldn't be confused, but I am.
this isn't 'Nam, there are rules.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
how does this equal buying votes....?
What do you think the impact of a few large companies dropping 10's of thousands of 60 day notices a week before the election would be?
10's of thousands....?
and who agreed to the cuts...wasn't it congress...?
So they are deferring cuts once again?
And yes, it would VERY detrimental to Obama to have a defense contractor (Lockheed) that employs lots of people in a key battleground state (Virginia) to have a lot of lay-off notices go out several days before the national election.
In order to avoid publicly voting to raise the debt ceiling again, a provision was put in so we could automatically raise it BUT automatic spending cuts would kick in.
Since we can't stop spending, it's time to pay the piper (although I imagine someone in congress will go Tanya Harding on the piper's kneecap before he can get to Washington).
The GOP and Dems did it right after the last election. The GOP made a "Pledge to America" that they would cut the budget by $100 billion (which unfortunately is just chump change in the grand scheme) if we put them in office.
After the election, they shortened it to $60 billion ... and compromised at around $38 billion ... but as you pointed out, most of the supposed $38 billion was just cutting future proposed spending ... so it the end, the real cuts were less the $1 billion.
:fp: :fp: :fp:
That's the problem. If you cut spending, you don't get re-elected. Your opponents will attack you for it in the next campaign cycle.