Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (80101)	6/4/2010 1:05:11 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Biden gleefully proclaims that the stimulus has created INFINITY JOBS! By: David Freddoso Online Opinion Editor 06/03/10 10:36 AM EDT From The Hill, on last night’s Charlie Rose appearance by VP Joe Biden: <<< The Obama administration’s signature stimulus program has been an “absolute success” so far, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday. Biden, who heads up the administration’s effort to implement the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), said the legislation will have saved or created between 3 and 3.5 million jobs before the end of 2010. An absolute success,” Biden termed the stimulus during an interview on “Charlie Rose” to air Wednesday evening. “We will create over 3.5 million or save over 3.5 million jobs before this is over.” >>> A few things to note: 1) Let me start by saving some work for the folks at Media Matters but Truth Doesn’t. As long as Biden does not claim that the stimulus has “created or saved” more than 139.4 million jobs — the number of jobs in the United States — you cannot prove that he is lying. So ha! 2) Even if you believe Biden’s estimates of potential job creation, the stimulus would be costing $246,000 per job. (When you check my math, bear in mind that the stimulus now costs closer to $860 billion.) You could create jobs more cheaply if you just added 3.5 million new members to the House of Representatives and held elections in November. (Or if you just had Jim Messina offer three USAID jobs apiece to 1.2 million people.) 3) A recent Harvard study suggests that stimulus money is not creating net jobs, but instead crowding out private sector investments that would have occurred without the stimulus. Stimulus money is also hiring away employees that private businesses in some places were thinking of hiring, the study says. 4) Jobs are being created by the Census. Temporary jobs. These will account for 425,000 jobs in May’s employment numbers. Do you suppose the Obama administration will use the inflated job numbers to crow about the stimulus’ great success? Answer: Does the White House offer jobs to keep people out of elections? Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (80101)	6/4/2010 7:38:57 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 90947

Mary Katherine has it nailed.

To: Sully- who wrote (80101)	6/24/2010 11:46:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

House ’shreds our constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain’ by vote of 219-206 By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer 06/24/10 6:10 PM EDT The DISCLOSE Act is the Democrats big legislative “fix” to pushback against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that eliminated a number of campaign finance restrictions on first amendment grounds. It just passed the House this afternoon — even with 36 Democrats voting against it. House Republican Leader John Boehner’s already declaring that the legislation will “Shred Our Constitution for Raw, Ugly, Partisan Gain.” Normally, I’d automatically dissmiss such a press release as hyperbole, but this time I’m not so sure. For one thing, the DISCLOSE Act does this: <<< A Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night also drew fire from Republicans and their allies, who contend it gives special treatment to Democrat-allied labor unions. The language in question would exempt from disclosure requirements transfers of cash from dues-funded groups to their affiliates to pay for certain election ads. It was inserted into the bill by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a big union backer. >>> So unions now get nearly unrestricted, undisclosed political spending. Further, the restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way — against business. If you took TARP funds as a business, express political advocacy is now verboten. So GM has very limited first amendment rights, but even though arguably primary beneficiary of the auto bailout was the United Auto Workers union which got government garunteed billions directly as a result of the TARP funding — UAW can spend almost whatever it pleases, and it has a history of spending millions on Democratic campaigns. Further, under the DISCLOSE Act if a company has more than $7 million in government contracts, it has no right to political speech. But public sector unions can spend millions of recycled tax dollars campaigning for Democrats, no problem. All this will likely do is make business spend more money on lobbyists rather than campaigns. Of course, campaign spending is much more transparent than lobbying, but when it comes to the DISCLOSE act, clean elections and free speech seem to be secondary considerations to getting Democrats elected. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com