noun \-fənt also -ˌfant\\ˈsi-kə-fənt also ˈsī- & -ˌfant\
Definition of SYCOPHANT
:a servile self-seeking flatterer
If history is any guide, Obama has about a year to notch major accomplishments before midterm politics—and the shadow of lame-duck status—undermine his effectiveness. But it is equally true that by failing to lay out a detailed agenda in 2012, Obama forfeited his ability to claim a specific mandate.
When Bush won a close election in 2004, he said he planned to spend his political “capital”—and pushed a Social Security privatization scheme he had never proposed in the campaign. It quickly went down in flames.
Obama’s best hope is that he can hammer out compromises on issues that would yield political dividends for both sides. Mann says the president could make progress on immigration, energy, and education. But it would be hard to argue, given the vagueness of his campaign, that he won a specific mandate.
Barack Obama ran on a “Not-Romney” platform. He won reelection, but so did most of the House Republicans. The Democrats control the Senate but they don’t have enough votes to defeat a filibuster.
In short, the people voted for more gridlock.
Considering the election result and the Supreme Court decision last June, I think it’s pretty clear that Obamacare will be fully implemented. When it goes into effect people will find how bad it really is.
I think we will also see some or all of the Bush tax cuts expire, and some version of the Dream Act will be passed. I doubt we will see significant immigration reform or any real progress on the budget deficit. Mostly we’re gonna see a lot more kick-the-can stuff as neither side appears willing to face reality just yet. “Don’t do today what you can put off until tomorrow” seems to be the bipartisan policy in Washington these days.
That’s what the people voted for, and that’s what they’re gonna get.
This video of an Obama supporter bragging about having an “Obama phone” has gone viral on the web, but where do these “free cell phones” come from?
The program is called Lifeline, established in 1984 was originally created to subsidize landline phone service for low income Americans, funded by government-collected telecommunication fees, paid by consumers.
In 2008, the program was expanded to support cell phones which quickly escalated the cost of the program. In 2008 the program cost $772 million, but by 2011 it cost $1.6 billion.
A 2011 audit found that 269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers. Several websites have been created to promote “free” government cell phones, including the”The Obama Cell Phone” website at Obamaphone.net.
I want an Obamacar filled with Obamagas. And an Obamalaptop, an Obamaplasmatv, and an Obamablu-rayplayer. But I ain’t drinking any of that nasty Obamabeer.
If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan. The narrative writes itself. He will emerge as an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al -Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery. To be sure, the Obama recovery isn’t likely to have the same oomph as the one associated with Reagan—who benefited from a once-in-a-century cut of top income tax rates (from 70 percent to, at first, 50 percent, and then to 28 percent) as well as a huge jump in defense spending at a time when the national debt was much, much less of a burden. But Obama’s potential for Reagan status (maybe minus the airport-naming) is real. Yes, Bill Clinton won two terms and is a brilliant pol bar none, as he showed in Charlotte in the best speech of both conventions. But the crisis Obama faced on his first day—like the one Reagan faced—was far deeper than anything Clinton confronted, and the future upside therefore is much greater. And unlike Clinton’s constant triangulating improvisation, Obama has been playing a long, strategic game from the very start—a long game that will only truly pay off if he gets eight full years to see it through. That game is not only changing America. It may also bring his opposition, the GOP, back to the center, just as Reagan indelibly moved the Democrats away from the far left.
“With so much at stake in this election, both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan should ‘go rogue’ and not hold back from telling the American people the true state of our economy and national security,” says Palin. “They need to continue to find ways to break through the filter of the liberal media to communicate their message of reform.”
Palin also suggests that Romney and Ryan can be responsible for an epiphany on this country’s fiscal standing. “America desperately needs to have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment in discussing our big dysfunctional, disconnected, and debt-ridden federal government,” says Palin.
“It is nothing short of appalling that President Obama couldn’t even remember how much our national debt is during his interview with David Letterman the other night. Even my 10-year-old daughter knows that it’s $16 trillion, and unlike Obama, she’s not responsible for adding trillions to it. Obama casually told America that we don’t have to worry about our debt in the ‘short term.’ Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan need to ask him how long that ‘short term’ will last.”
Well that would certainly be historic.
I’m torn here.
With all due respect to the former governor, it might be better to wait until after the election before they go hog wild with that honesty stuff. I’m all in favor of our politicians telling us the truth, but history shows that too much honesty can be hazardous to their careers.
I don’t mean they should lie to people. There’s just some things you don’t share on a first date.
From Working people are the Job Creators by Riverdaughter:
Anyway, leaving aside the philosophical aspect, there is a straightforward reason why the real job creators are average working people. And when I say working people, I mean anyone not living on their investments. That means drop outs to professionals. I’m not an economist and I’ve only taken a couple of econ courses but none of this is over your head. It’s all common sense. Here’s how it works: you get money from work or a benefit that you worked for. With that money, you can buy things. And the more things you can buy, the more things need to be created for you to buy. And the more need for things to be created, in either goods or services, the more people need to be hired to create those goods and services.
Note that all this depends on there being money priming the pump. There must be a release of money into the system that gets the whole ball rolling. That money can come from either the private or public sector. There is no good or bad money. Public sector money is just as virtuous as private sector money in priming the pump. The money goes into the hands of working people and those working people pass that money into the hands of other working people.
Well that’s simple enough. Government spends money and jobs magically appear. But where does all that money come from if nobody has a job? If there are no jobs there are no working people. If there are no working people how can they create jobs? We have a “chicken or the egg” dilemma here.
Artificial respiration will keep you alive but it’s not the same as breathing. It’s one thing for the government to maintain our social safety nets and another thing entirely to let it try to manage our economy.
Public sector money IS NOT just as virtuous as private sector money because it’s OPM – “Other People’s Money.” It puts politicians in a position to reward campaign contributors and cronies with windfalls. Take a look at Solyndra – half a billion dollars gone and the relatively few jobs it created are gone too.
The government spent $800 billion on the failed stimulus and it barely made a ripple. And nobody went to jail.
But wait! There’s more:
Let me stop here and say a few words about the Government. Wealthy people make The Government sound like some big, unresponsive, evil thing. But the government is whoever you elected to office. They’re supposed to spend money in the way that YOU direct them to. So, if you elect a lot of people who want to spend money in Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s what they’ll do. If you elect people who want to give all our disposable tax money to bankers who wrecked the economy, that’s what they’ll do. If you don’t want the treasury to run out of money to fund highways, schools, high speed internet infrastructure and all of the other stuff that makes this country a potentially nice place to live, stop voting for the people who are giving away your tax money to other wealthy people. It’s YOUR government and you have a right to say what things are important to you to fund. If Government is not working for you, get rid of the people who aren’t listening to what you want. We don’t have to live in a banana republic.
If government doesn’t have my tax money, they can’t spend it. They can’t give it to bankers or spend it on wars. Don’t get me wrong – I believe in government, social safety nets and the need for infrastructure. But the idea that I should give them my money and hope they spend it wisely or I’ll vote them out is bassackwards.
Money is power. The more money we give government, the more power we give them. And as Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts.” I always find it amusing that lefties are the ones most concerned with “Big Brother” while at the same time they are the ones who want to create and empower him.
The news is out that Mitt Romney paid a 14.1% effective tax rate on an income of over $13.7 million in 2011, a number that will strike many people as high but that is actually artificially inflated. He didn’t fully deduct all his charitable contributions in order to make sure his effective rate stayed above 13 percent.
The main reason Romney’s effective rate is so low is that the American tax code contains a lot of preferences for investment income over labor income. That’s something that strikes many people as unfair on its face, and particularly unfair since it often means very low rates for extremely rich people like Rommey. And Rommey himself as a rich guy who’s also a member of the political party seen as favoring the rich, and who’s been recorded as whining that the working poor are undertaxed is perhaps not an ideal messenger for a defense of this policy.
But this is definitely an issue where the conservative position is in line with what most experts think is the right course, and Democrats are outside the mainstream.
The reasoning is basically this. You imagine two prosperous but not outrageously so working people living somewhere—two doctors, say, living in nearby small towns. They’re both pulling in incomes in the low six figures. One doctor chooses to spend basically 100 percent of his income on expensive non-durables. He goes on annual vacations to expensive cities and eats in a lot of fancy restaurants. The other doctor is much more frugal, not traveling much and eating modestly. Instead, he spends a lot of his money on hiring people to build buildings around town. Those buildings become houses, offices, retail stores, factories, etc. In other words, they’re capital. And capital earns a return, so over time the second doctor comes to have a much higher income than the first doctor.
So then there are too different scenarios:
— In the world where investment income isn’t taxed, the second doctor says to the first doctor “all those fancy vacations may be fun, but I’m being much more prudent. By saving for the future, I’ll be comfortable when it comes time to retire and will have plenty left over to give to my kids.”
— In the world where investment income is taxed like labor income, the first doctor says to the second “man you’re a sucker—not only are you deferring enjoyment of the fruits of your labor (boring) but when the money you’ve saved comes back to you, it gets taxed all over again. Live in the now.”
And the thinking is that world number one where people with valuable skills take a large share of their labor income and transform it into capital goods is ultimately a richer world than the world in which such people just go out to a lot of fancy dinners.
We want to encourage thrift, and we do this by incentivizing saving and investment. That’s one of the basic pillars of capitalism. We even teach it to our kids in fables like The Ant and the Grasshopper.
What is the point of delaying gratification if, after inflation and taxes, you end up with the same amount you started with or less? Let’s not forget that in most cases the gratification is delayed for years and that there is an element of risk involved as well. And the money being invested has already been taxed once.
Yes, there is a certain amount of luck involved. It’s not all hard work. A lucky few are like lottery winners who receive disproportionate rewards. But what is the rationale for hitting lottery winners with tax rates as high as 90%?
They think they “caught” Mitt Romney in a major gaffe.
No, seriously. Watch the video.
The overwhelming majority of voters who back President Barack Obama do so because they are “dependent on government” and “believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,” Mitt Romney told a closed-door gathering of about 30 major donors earlier this year, according to video of the event that has surfaced on the Internet.
The person who uploaded a series of potentially inflammatory videos from the fundraiser has claimed authorship of them in an email exchange with The Huffington Post. The source said he or she wishes to remain anonymous for professional reasons and to avoid a lawsuit. The videos, which have created a buzz on the Internet, were blurred and at times blacked out to obscure the location of the filming, the source said.
“I have obviously degraded the quality to attempt to camo the location,” said the clandestine filmmaker. The original, which has not been posted in full, is very high quality, the source said.
The source has given the full video to Mother Jones’ David Corn, the source said.
It’s Romney’s remark about the president’s backers that might have the most potential to undermine his candidacy, however, as Romney seeks to persuade people who voted for Obama in 2008 to switch this time.
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney says in one clip. “All right — there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.”
Now think about these words:
“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” – John F. Kennedy.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
Is this poll an outlier or the tipping point of a preference cascade? We’ll find out in the next couple weeks.
Here’s what I want to know:
It’s been three days now. Where are the polls showing public opinion on Mitt’s statement from Tuesday night and the media reaction? I have yet to see a single poll, scientific or otherwise, asking Joe and Jane Public what they think.
The reason I ask is because I get the feeling that this lady here is not an exception:
“I think you’ve been suck ups…I think you’ve got your embroidered knee pads from the White House, buddy. That’s what I think.”
Department of You Can’t Make This Shit Up:
Leah Kauffman, the singer-songwriter behind the 2008 “Obama girl” hit video, is back with a new pro-Obama song, “Still Got a Crush on Obama.”
Out just in time for President Barack Obama’s Democratic National Convention speech in Charlotte, the song’s music video is missing something, though: the infamous “Obama girl.”
Actress Amber Lee Ettinger, who lip-synced Kauffman’s 2008 song, had recently expressed disappointment with Obama’s presidency and said she might not vote for her former crush.
In an interview with The Daily Caller this summer, Ettinger said she’s “not as excited as I was the last time, that’s for sure.”
Then, in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Ettinger gave Obama a “B-minus” for his work as president and said she had an “infatuation” with the president in 2008.
In the new “Still Got a Crush” song, Kauffman plays the Obama girl part herself. A publicist for the video suggested to Politico that Ettinger was not asked to participate.
“Amber, who is now pursuing acting, isn’t involved at all,” the publicist said. ”This is something Leah has wanted to do completely on her own. She and Amber have remained on good terms.”
The Huffington Post downplayed Obama girl’s absence as well, saying Kauffman was the “actual brains and pipes behind the 2008 hit.”
In a separate video, Kauffman confirmed she still believes in the president.
“This song comes from a place of sincerity,” Kauffman said. “Obama’s created a lot of great changes over the last four years, and I hope he has the chance to influence the next four.”
If there was ever a sign that Obamania was out of gas this is it. This video reminds me of one of those comedy movies that spawns numerous sequels. The original was hip and funny with several talented stars. By the time you get to Police Academy 8 the stars are long gone and the jokes are stale and lame.
Last night was a goldmine of stuff to talk about.
Conventions produce a lot of oddball claims and weird arguments, but last night’s speech by Deval Patrick had one of the strangest I’ve yet heard made. In fact, I had to double-check the transcript and the video this morning to be sure I’d heard it correctly. According to the current elected governor of Massachusetts, contesting Barack Obama’s record and opposing his bid for a second term amounts to bullying:
The list of accomplishments is long, impressive and barely told—even more so when you consider that congressional Republicans have made obstruction itself the centerpiece of their governing strategy. With a record and a vision like that, I will not stand by and let him be bullied out of office—and neither should you[.]
I don’t want to see Obama bullied out of office either. I want to see him VOTED out.
BTW – If Obama’s list of accomplishments is long and impressive, why aren’t the Democrats talking about it?
I’m am thinning out my Facebook friends list rapidly of people I knew around 4 years ago that I thought supported my vision–not the Romney/Ryan vision–because it is also the vision of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I’m all fine with the support of third party candidates but any one that tries to send me propaganda that Romney is a feminist based on hiring a few women years ago back in Massachusetts and therefor deserves my vote can frankly sell their frigging uterus and announce themselves a neutered slave imho. You’re going to be deleted from contact with me on Twitter and Facebook and you’re not going to be very welcome here either. I will not watch everything I care about–our immigrant heritage, our appreciation for the rights of minorities, women, GLBT communities, and others and our heritage of doing right by the least among us–be destroyed by greedy Vulture Capitalists who lie. I don’t care how mad you are at Obama, if you’re encouraging this group of race-baiting, women-hating, middle class destroying, religiously intolerant Republicans then be prepared to axed from my list and be moderated into byte hell here at Sky Dancing.
I have seen several lefty blogs recently announcing a “If you can’t say something bad then don’t say anything” policy in regards to Romney/Ryan. I haven’t noticed any similar policy on Wingnut blogs regarding Obama.
It’s pretty bad when your ideology is so weak you can’t stand to hear anything contrary.
Bill and Hillary are never afraid to debate anyone.
Via Legal Insurrection:
Team Obama promises it will fill every one of the seats in Charlotte’s mammoth football stadium Thursday night when President Obama closes the Democratic National Convention with a speech accepting his party’s nomination.
For weeks, Democrats have been concerned about filling Bank of America Stadium, home to the NFL’s Carolina Panthers. They feared a devastating image of an enthusiasm gap if Obama spoke to empty upper decks at the venue.
But the Obama campaign says it’s got it covered, and that all 73,778 of the stadium’s seats will be spoken for. The campaign also insists this success will showcase a ground operation that will help Obama win North Carolina for a second cycle in a row this November.
According to Weather Underground there is a 50% chance of rain on Thursday.
Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
- Proverbs 16:18
A torrential downpour that struck Charlotte Saturday afternoon damaged the Mount Rushmore-style sand sculpture bust of President Obama — an ominous beginning to what many fear is a plagued convention.
Workers were trying Saturday afternoon to reform the base of the sculpture, built from sand brought in from Myrtle Beach, S.C., pounding and smoothing out the sand that had washed off the facade of the waist-up rendering of the chief executive.
The sand sculpture was protected from above, and Mr. Obama’s face didn’t see too much damage. But the storm was so strong that its heavy winds blew the rain sideways, pelting the president’s right side and leaving the sand pockmarked and completely erasing his right elbow.
A week ago some pinheads were gloating that Hurricane Isaac was going to descend on Tampa and wash out the GOP convention, thus proving that God hates Republicans. Isaac promptly veered away from Florida.
I wonder what they think now?
And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does them not, shall be likened to a foolish man, which built his house on the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. – Matthew 7:26-27