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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (635425)	11/10/2011 9:08:29 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1583868

Lefty algeri HATES blacks.

To: Alighieri who wrote (635425)	11/10/2011 11:26:37 AM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583868

Uh..........ole Newt isn't a lobbyist.............he's....uh...a historian. Who knew? Reminding Newt of his lobbying past In last night’s debate, Newt Gingrich went after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is a pretty standard Republican talking point. It did, however, offer co-moderator John Harwood an opportunity to remind the disgraced former House Speaker that Freddie Mac paid Gingrich $300,000 in 2006. The candidate replied: “I have never done any lobbying. Every contract was written during the period when I was out of the office, specifically said I would do no lobbying, and I offered advice. And my advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, ‘We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do,’ as I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.” So, let’s see. Freddie Mac needed a “historian,” so it paid $300,000 to a disgraced former House Speaker, who proceeded to tell them he didn’t like their business model. That sounds plausible, right? Well, actually no, it doesn’t. In fact, as Benjy Sarlin reported, there’s ample reason to believe Gingrich’s account just isn’t true. The Associated Press reported in 2008 that Gingrich was paid $300,000 in 2006 as a consultant to help battle efforts to regulate the housing giant. Per the AP, Newt “talked and wrote about what he saw as the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model.” In other words, Gingrich’s version of events was largely the opposite of what appears to have happened. There’s ample talk in the media about how every Republican presidential hopeful gets to take a turn as the non-Romney candidate, and Gingrich is poised to enjoy his day in the spotlight. Some recent polling even shows him edging past Rick Perry into third place. But there’s a limit to how far this boomlet can be expected to last — Gingrich’s past is simply too extensive, and too ugly, to allow him to thrive.

To: Alighieri who wrote (635425)	11/10/2011 11:37:24 AM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1583868

Democrats want war savings to fund new stimulus package By Erik Wasson and Julian Pecquet - 11/10/11 10:43 AM ET Democrats on the supercommittee have proposed that the savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be used to pay for a new stimulus package, according to a summary of the $2.3 trillion plan obtained by The Hill. The latest offer from Democrats on the deficit panel, made Monday night to their Republican counterparts, would use some of the war savings to help pay for spending on infrastructure. The plan cuts $1 trillion in federal spending, $100 billion of which would come from Medicare benefits. Another $250 billion in cuts would be made to payments to Medicare providers. The offer from Democrats includes $200 billion in defense cuts and slashes $200 billion from other discretionary spending. The plan would raise $650 billion in new federal revenue by setting in motion an overhaul of the tax code, and would raise $1 trillion in total revenue. A previous, $3 trillion package offered by supercommittee Democrats included larger cuts to Medicare benefits and a change to the way inflation is calculated for Social Security, which would result in lower benefits. The latest plan would not touch Social Security. The earlier offer also raised $1.3 trillion in new revenue through tax increases, which the GOP rejected out of hand. In the new offer, Democrats proposed using some of the war savings to pay for the so-called “doc fix,” which would repeal scheduled cuts to Medicare payments to doctors. The budget savings from ending the wars are estimated to total around $1 trillion over a decade, according to an estimate in July from the Congressional Budget Office. The GOP is opposed to counting the war savings in the supercommittee package and does not want the panel’s special powers to be used to fast-track President Obama’s stimulus request. If a majority of the 12-member supercommittee agrees to a deal by the Nov. 23 deadline, it would need only a majority in both chambers to pass, and could not be filibustered in the Senate. Failure by the panel would result in $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts divided between discretionary and security spending. The new Democratic plan’s $650 billion in new revenue would be generated from tax reform. To ensure that the revenue is found, they are proposing a “fast-track” procedure for the reform process that would have enforceable triggers if Congress fails to act. If tax reform were not completed by January 2013, $325 billion would be raised by capping the use of income tax deductions and by imposing a deficit-reduction surcharge on all income. The trigger also specifies that any entitlement cuts would not take effect until tax reform is completed or the trigger is pulled. Democrats are combing through healthcare spending to find many of the latest cuts. The offer includes $8 billion in cuts to the prevention and public health trust fund set up by the healthcare reform law, a program the GOP derides as a “slush fund.” The revised offer includes $5 billion in cuts to payments for durable medical equipment, and $4 billion from payments to hospitals who care for the indigent. The offer counts $13 billion from changes to state taxes on Medicaid providers. The savings comes because the federal government would no longer have to reimburse the cost to providers, but could draw fire from states already straining under tight budgets. —Updated at 11:24 p.m. thehill.com