Glenn links to this study noting the various "fiscal cliffs" faced by low income recipients of mens-tested Government aid. Why work, one wonders?
The Tax Policy Center looked at this problem last summer and reched a similar conclusion. However, they added a second question - why get married?
Marriage Penalties. Means testing and joint filing has resulted in hundreds of billions of
marriage penalties for low and middle income households.
Essentially, when moderate-income couples marry, their marginal tax rate moves up from, say, 25 percent, to the 50 and 80 percent ranges shown above.
For instance, a moderate income male marrying a working mother with children can easily cause her to lose EITC, SNAP, Medicaid, and other benefits as well. Marriage penalties arise because of the combination of variable U.S. tax rates and joint, rather than individual, filing by married couples for benefits and taxes.
If graduated taxes were accompanied by individual filing or if all income and transfers were taxed at a flat rate, there would be no marriage penalties. The EITC, by the way, can provide both subsidies and penalties, and Social Security generally provides very large marriage bonuses.
Someone looking at our system from Mars would conclude that we don’t want moderate income families with children to marry, since we penalize them, but we do want older households (at ages when children are likely to be gone) to marry, since we subsidize them.
Government assistance is an area where Obama could show Nixon-to-China leadership. And pigs might fly.
I want to see a flying pig. There are so many things that I've been promised...when pigs fly.
Posted by: Sue | November 28, 2012 at 02:56 PM
For instance, a moderate income male marrying a working mother with children can easily cause her to lose EITC, SNAP, Medicaid, and other benefits as well.
I don't understand this mindset. At all. Would you want the children of your wife to be on Medicaid, food stamps, welfare?
Posted by: Sue | November 28, 2012 at 02:58 PM
And pigs might fly out of my butt Mike Myers.
Posted by: GMAX | November 28, 2012 at 02:58 PM
Married life is one of the buffers between the individual and the State that progs want to destroy. The Julia ad was not only a clever slice and dice ad (helping increase Obama's margin among unmarried women), it was also quite in keeping with the prog view of things. The work and marriage penalties in the article TM linked are features for progs.
Similarly, a 2013 recession would be a plus for Obama. It should by now be clear that Obama's goal for a second term is to consummate the bringing of a leftist ruling oligarchical structure to the US. The slight pathetic pushback seen today in some of MSM to Obama's "no cuts to the welfare state" negotiating posture will wither away. Even if it doesn't, Obama and Jarrett, I suspect, think they can complete the coup even if MSM turns against them.
I think there will be enough resistance to Obama in the next four years to prevent the consummation of the coup. But it's going to be a tough four years.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 28, 2012 at 03:03 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/28/morning-bell-disabilities-treaty-just-another-u-n-power-grab/
A large part of completing the coup is getting the UN involved in every part of American life so that Americans are controlled by others. Tell your Senator to stop the madness.
Posted by: pagar | November 28, 2012 at 03:09 PM
Would marriage change SSI payments for spouse or child?
Posted by: Ralph L | November 28, 2012 at 03:09 PM
TC-it turns out there is a name for it too. The Fair Shares society.
It believes in collective action and that the day of the focus on the individual needs to be over.
That, get this, individual differences and characteristics, either do not exist or do not matter.
Posted by: rse | November 28, 2012 at 03:10 PM
Nixon had his flaws, but he wasn't a POS lazy ex-stoner slacker too enthralled by the trappings of the office to do any work.
Posted by: Peter | November 28, 2012 at 03:16 PM
There are no marginal effects in lefty land unless it suits their purposes.
Kind of how, when Bush passed his tax cuts, they were only for his rich fat cat friends, but now if his middle class portion of those cuts disappear somehow the middle class will be devastated by higher taxes which were supposedly never cut.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 28, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Sue:
I don't really care if I see pigs fly or not. But I want to make sure I am not underneath them if they start doing so.
Posted by: Appalled | November 28, 2012 at 03:26 PM
I don't understand this mindset. At all. Would you want the children of your wife to be on Medicaid, food stamps, welfare?
We've had 50 years of policies designed to take the shame out of being on welfare/food stamps/etc. And, in that sense, those polices have succeeded probably beyond the wildest expectations of their architects.
It all goes together. You are not responsible for providing for yourself. Society is. There is no shame in that, there is nothing wrong with that. The only sin is taking pride when you do make money, since you're only earning it by exploiting others, and you're only able to do it due to your unearned racial, gender or ethnic priviledges.
You're owed free health care. You're owed free education, from pre-K through graduate school. You're owed a "living wage" regardless of whether or not you work for it.
This is the message we've been teaching our children since the 60's; this shines through in all the horrifying things rse is digging up; it's clear as day in Zero's speeches, and in the policies and wishlists of the Democrat party.
Of course you don't feel bad that your children are on food stamps. Why would you?
Posted by: James D. | November 28, 2012 at 03:31 PM
I don't understand this mindset. At all. Would you want the children of your wife to be on Medicaid, food stamps, welfare?
I agree personally, of course, but the mindset of the takers is to keep taking. Plus, if they don't get married, she's not "your wife."
The penalty is also present for two-income couples, in terms of their tax rate. This doesn't usually keep them from getting married, but sometimes it does.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 28, 2012 at 03:33 PM
In my case, pagar, that would be Liz Warren or John Kerry, so I don't think I would get very far. I could write my Congresscritter. Oh, that's Joe Kennedy. Never mind.
By the way, do any Bay State JOMers think that, if Kerry becomes SoS or SoD and Joseph P. Kennedy III wanted to become Kerry's replacement, anyone could stop him?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 28, 2012 at 03:33 PM
TC:
That is a frightening aspect of his second term. I just keep hoping that people especially in congress and in the courts wake up to this MOrsi-like power grab of Obama's and put a stop to it. Maybe we have to take it to the streets.
Posted by: maryrose | November 28, 2012 at 03:33 PM
They typos are hilarious.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | November 28, 2012 at 03:36 PM
I said this on the other thread, but I'll say it again here, as I think it makes a good slogan for the Republicans. The Dems always want higher taxes now in exchange for spending cuts that never materialize. Why not turn the tables, and insist on seeing the spending cuts first? What's the rush in increasing taxes? "Spending cuts first!" seems like a good slogan. How would a Democrat answer that? We "promise" to consider tax increases down the road once we see real cuts in place.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 28, 2012 at 03:37 PM
When welfare benefits were being debated, it was to be an expansion of the widow's and orphan's benefits that were already in existence. An orphan didn't include a child from an unwed mother. The mother and child were on their own. Progressives argued that the law needed to be changed because these children were not at fault and really, who in their right mind would get pregnant and have a child out of wedlock? The numbers would be small because society would never stand for unwed mothers to become the norm.
How'd that work out for us?
Society doesn't really care anymore what anyone does.
Posted by: Sue | November 28, 2012 at 03:38 PM
Is that Joe Kennedy III who's on those commercials talking about the great program where Hugo Chavez sends cheap heating oil to poor Americans?
Every single member of the Kennedy family, from the eldest right down to the newborn babies, ought to be thrown into prison for the rest of their lives. And that's my being leinient.
Posted by: James D. | November 28, 2012 at 03:39 PM
jimmyk:
An excellent idea and slogan. I hope they use it.
Posted by: maryrose | November 28, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Someone looking at our system from Mars would conclude that we don’t want moderate income families with children to marry, since we penalize them
This is the reason why I find it so odd that so many gays are so intent on being allowed to marry. Contract for what you want and take the tax benefits. As it stands now, gays still are considered single under Federal law - which is helpful with certain taxes, but taxed as couples under state law - in states where it is legal.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | November 28, 2012 at 03:40 PM
Is Fair Shares the theory discussed in the first link of the LUNed Google page, rse? It sounds like the typical dressing up with a pseudo-scientific robe naked prog ideological pseudo-thought.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 28, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Sue, it's all deliberate. It's not just "society" changing arbitrarily, it's something that has been done to it.
Like you say, every expansion in welfare or public assistance is implemented with earnest declarations like the one you mention - it'll only be a few people, it won't cost that much, it certainly won't change anyone's behavior.
But the people saying that are lying. They know that it will be a lot of people, it will cost far more than they tell us, and it's xpressly designed to change people's behavior.
And it's complemented by the news and entertainment media who then take up the baton to explain to the rest of us why these changes (which we were promised would never happen) are both positive and inevitable, and how it would be heartless, stupid and most of all futile to oppose them.
And here we are.
Posted by: James D. | November 28, 2012 at 03:46 PM
If it's a middle aged guy, James D., that's Joe K II. Joe K III, son of Joe K II, is in his early thirties and just took over for Barney Frank in the House.
Maryrose, I think Obama's Morsi tendencies are going to come out more and more over the next couple of years. Obama needed to keep them somewhat under wraps until he was reelected.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 28, 2012 at 03:46 PM
James,
Every change has been to "help". When income taxes were being debated, they originally wanted a cap at 10%. The argument against a cap was people wouldn't allow it to rise above 10%, they would take up arms if their representatives tried it.
How'd that work out for us?
Posted by: Sue | November 28, 2012 at 03:50 PM
Where is Capt Hate?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | November 28, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Exactly, Sue!
Posted by: James D. | November 28, 2012 at 03:59 PM
This article on the fiscal cliff is informative, and points out that the Republicans stupidly agreed to a cliff that is mostly (like 80%) higher taxes, not spending cuts.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/print/2012/11/the-fiscal-cliff-explainer-what-it-is-where-its-from-who-will-pay-and-why-it-matters/264990/
Posted by: jimmyk | November 28, 2012 at 04:11 PM
TC, I think Brown is still the Senator, but I could be wrong since he was elected in a special election.
Posted by: pagar | November 28, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Forgot to add my new slogan.
Posted by: Spending cuts first!--jimmyk | November 28, 2012 at 04:12 PM
--Where is Capt Hate?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | November 28, 2012 at 03:57 PM--
Jane,
When last heard from he had just met up with the impeccable Elliott out here in sunny (ahem) California.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 28, 2012 at 04:46 PM
TC-that LUN is close to what these clowns have in mind but what I am looking at is more radical. You LUN would indicate that the Fair Shares name has stuck though.
I am looking at a 1982 book by someone else.
Posted by: rse | November 28, 2012 at 04:56 PM
Iggy,
I saw that. Hmm, he's had enough time off.
Jimmy I completely agree with your slogan and have zero confidence it will happen.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | November 28, 2012 at 04:56 PM
Peter, you mentioned Obama's finer points, but not his bad points. He's a Marxist who seems to enjoy the company of men as well.
He's a fine man.
Posted by: Gus | November 28, 2012 at 05:13 PM
My God, its even more pernicious than I thought. So, we are using our IRS tax code to create a dependent society of single mothers raising fatherless sons and daughters who will only, after being educated in rse's government schools, become more hollow, more dependent and more robotic to the signals from DC.
We are so screwed. DOOM!
Posted by: Jim Eagle | November 28, 2012 at 05:17 PM
"We've had 50 years of policies designed to take the shame out of being on welfare/food stamps/etc."
Not to mention bearing children out of wedlock or aborting fetuses. You can tell me till you're blue in the face that there is no connection between such policies and the rise to celebrity status of such crass vulgarians as Madonna, Lady Gaga, Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, but you'll never persuade me. We have become, by and large, an ignoble people.
Posted by: Danube of Thought on IPad | November 28, 2012 at 05:24 PM
So what's so bad about Kerry at State? A singularly uncool doofus, uniformly loathed by military veterans and many others far and wide, and so easily lampooned that we can look forward to four straight years of comedy at the gigolo's and his boss's expense. Even if MA changes the law to avoid his seat being challenged by Brown, it'll surely be worth it.
And don't tell me he'll be incompetent or worse: an anti-American twit in charge of foreign policy. Obama already guarantees that, so I say it's a no-lose situation.
Down with Rice. Bring on Lurch!
Posted by: Extraneus | November 28, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Well it's a question of degrees, Ext, Kerry has been more explicitly antiAmerican, in Vietnam,
Central America, et al, but you're right, they aren't going to come up with a sensible candidate, he'll do less harm at State,
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 05:54 PM
John effin' Kerry will do far less harm at SoS than a hard core ideologue like Rice. Rice wants the job to "transform" DoS into an organization dedicated to lifting up the lives of Brown and black peoples all over the globe. J. Effin' kerry is looking for a capstone to his useless political career.
Posted by: NK | November 28, 2012 at 06:00 PM
John F'n Kerry's uber doofusness was a major factor in turning my husband toward conservatism. The dead duck photo op was just too much.
Posted by: Janet | November 28, 2012 at 06:01 PM
Meanwhile in other news...
Ther's a book out by Rebecca Dean called The Shadow Queen about Wallis Warfield's early years, ending shortly after she and the Prince of Wales begin their relationship. It's called a novel, but with a few exceptions so far as I know it's historically accurate. And lo and behold there are my grandfather and grandmother, a great aunt and some cousins, all speaking in made-up dialogue. Kind of unsettling. My dear one has read it but I have not yet done so.
Posted by: Danube of Thought on IPad | November 28, 2012 at 06:01 PM
That is creepy, Danube, from which side of the family,, though, I though she was from Baltimore, and most of you from Southern California?
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Bunch of troublemakers those Thoughts, if you ask me.
Posted by: Clarice | November 28, 2012 at 06:09 PM
What a treat it would be to see a bored out of her mind, drunk as a skunk Teresa in the limelight again giving advice to heads of state and all......
Posted by: Clarice | November 28, 2012 at 06:11 PM
Somewhere I read Kerry is going around today trying to promote the UN treaty that they are trying to pass. Every day Kerry is in the SOS or the SOD position he will be working against the US and for the UN, IMO. He does the least damage where he is now.
Posted by: pagar | November 28, 2012 at 06:16 PM
I saw Norquist on Cavuto last night. I don't know that much about him, but was impressed. He sounds like our own DoT when he asks "What kind of principles have an expiration date?"
Posted by: Spending cuts first!--jimmyk | November 28, 2012 at 06:22 PM
My father's parents. My grandmother was from Virginia, as was Wallis's mother (her first cousin). Wallis's father was from Maryland but he died when she was young and she went to live with her uncle in Baltimore.
Posted by: Danube of Thought on IPad | November 28, 2012 at 06:24 PM
Wasn't the uncle Pres of B & O?, DOT
I stand by bo read the book it ends talking about acorn
Posted by: rse | November 28, 2012 at 06:36 PM
Yes, you're right, about that,
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 06:37 PM
If I hear one more person say its tie for Obama to stand up and lead, I'm going to throw up.
When will these idiots learn.
Posted by: Pops | November 28, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Pops,
I've said it's time for Obama to stand up and leave since the day he was almost sworn in.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 28, 2012 at 06:40 PM
He's such a sneering jackass;
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/28/wh-obamas-not-particularly-concerned-about-whether-rice-mislead-the-public/
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 06:45 PM
"On March 19 2004 Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts retreated from his earlier steadfast denials that he attended a meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plan to assassinate U.S. Senators was debated."
""John Kerry is probably the first man in 200 years of American history to make Benedict Arnold look good." McManus said this in a film entitled "Stolen Honor" according to the obit story. "
http://keywiki.org/index.php/John_Kerry
John Kerry SOS or SOD
America's disgrace!
Posted by: pagar | November 28, 2012 at 06:45 PM
They need 2/3 of the Senate to ratify a treaty, pagar. If Lurch can convince Republicans to support one, virtually anyone else could have done the same more easily.
I like Clarice's image of Teresa out on the shuttle diplomacy circuit in the Middle East, wrapped in a head scarf and staggering behind big John as he begs for mercy. Looking forward to it.
That douchebag as the face of the U.S. can only help us.
Posted by: Extraneus | November 28, 2012 at 06:50 PM
If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime, but if you teach a man to watch another man fish, you destroy the first man's ability to feed his family and you create another Bureaucrat and run amuck Government Bureaucracy for life.
Fishing groups protest expanded observers program
Posted by: daddy | November 28, 2012 at 06:59 PM
My mistake, pagar. Looks as if the 113th Congress gets sworn in on January 3, 2013.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 28, 2012 at 07:11 PM
It was the Seaboard Railway.
Posted by: Danube of Thought on IPad | November 28, 2012 at 07:16 PM
One of the PMSNBC fellas questioned the manhood of Miss Lyndsay.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/john-heilemann-makes-lindsay-graham-joke-on-morning-joe-edited-out-of-8am-reair_b156605
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | November 28, 2012 at 07:18 PM
Interesting, also sort of besides the point;
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334330/report-susan-rice-holds-major-stakes-canadian-oil-companies-would-profit-keystone-pipe#
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 07:26 PM
'shirley they are not serious,' yet they sort of are;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/liz-thatcher/2012/11/28/environmentalists-push-downsizing-200-sq-ft-homes
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 07:52 PM
Great narcissi, Al Gore should go first.
Posted by: henry | November 28, 2012 at 08:29 PM
sorry narciso, I forgot I had autocorrect on this machine. I will drink a beer as punishment.
Posted by: henry | November 28, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Anyone wanna bet that iBama is just playing "run out the clock" on the Fiscal Cliff games (this includes ignoring a "debt ceiling")?
I'll make a market for it if anyone's interested.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 28, 2012 at 08:31 PM
Ex-
Don't forget the Senate power known as "Deem It Passed". I bet you only need a simple majority to get to 2/3rds.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 28, 2012 at 08:37 PM
That's about the size of it, problem is we can't count on him to hit the brakes,
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 08:37 PM
Jim Cramer just figured out that iBama wants to go over the cliff.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 28, 2012 at 08:41 PM
What brakes? He's off to party. No need to negotiate anything.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 28, 2012 at 08:42 PM
More later. Gold got gamed today, too.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 28, 2012 at 08:43 PM
He is swift, next week he;ll discover water is wet, don't tell him, it will spoil the surprise,
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 08:43 PM
And "It's the GOP's fault".
I'll write that epitaph now.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 28, 2012 at 08:45 PM
How they do it:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/pay-for-comments-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-internet-shill_102012
Posted by: pagar | November 28, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Why do the republicans time and again put themselves in this stupid position? Why is Boehner even trying, oce again, to negotiate with Obama? Its beyond stupid. It gets him nowhere. He should simply act within the House, what can pass the House.
The idea that now Obama and the Democrats are the champions of the Bush tax cuts...THEY OPPOSED THOSE VERY CUTS WHEN THEY WERE MADE. Boehner should have made it clear that Obama and all his liberal friends didn't want the middle class tax cut, they wanted the Clinton rates on the middle class.
Tax bills occur in the House, period. Boehner should be very busy in the house passing a bill that raises the reenue level and not rates and forget about Obama. Tell the press Obama needs to start spending some time figuring out how he is going to manage the Sequestration cuts tht OBAMA PROPOSED and the Democrats agreed to rather then spending any time on false negotiations.
We'll pass a tax bill thirty times and they can refuse to act on them, we can always make them retroactive. But while were so busy passing the tax cuts, Obama will be busy handling sequestration and reaching the debt ceiling.
Have a great second term President Obama.
And then for the love of God and everything thats wholly, DON'T FREAKING CAVE AGAIN. If your planning to cave do it now and save us all the agony of watching you act like idiots the next two months.!!
Posted by: Pops | November 28, 2012 at 08:47 PM
That's the mirroer image of my experience, pagar,
some on sites like the American Conservative, admitted they deliberately trashed the old Contentions subsidiary cite, and I suspect Douthat's old site was similarly undermined, but
the m.o is likely correct,
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 08:53 PM
You mean Obama would let the "Middle class" pay more taxes, just to further the neutering of American Capitalism??
I'll never believe that. Oh crap!!!!!, be right back, I just dropped my crack pipe.
Posted by: Gus | November 28, 2012 at 08:54 PM
--You mean Obama would let the "Middle class" pay more taxes, just to further the neutering of American Capitalism??--
That can't be. Bush only cut taxes for the rich so how can the middle class pay more if the Bush tax cuts expire?
The mind reels.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 28, 2012 at 09:06 PM
I'm with Pops.
Posted by: sailor | November 28, 2012 at 09:06 PM
Mel-a stagnant to worsening economy creates victims and victims want to be rescued.
And the rescue continues the takeover.
I have finished the book and dealt with teenagers. The quick post was a door bell ringing.
I know what I am looking at. My guess is the author was at if not a speaker at those NYC conferences in 1983 that Kurtz described in Radical in Chief. Like I said the end explains why ACORN is different and why community organizing is so critical.
Group action for group benefits.
Posted by: rse | November 28, 2012 at 09:08 PM
Cleaning up old bookmarks. Came across this -
"Just ponder how a third-rate community organizer — from the most incestuously corrupt political region in the U.S.; with a record of participation in the most vulgar gathering of Jeremiah Wright posing as a reverend, spouting Fanonian rhetoric and bigotry; with mentors such as the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; channelling the teachings of Saul Alinsky and Rashid Khalidi of the Chomsky school of self-loathing and sophistry — could advance through the ranks of American politics at an astounding speed, with little or no record of experience in government, to become the 44th president."
and although everything is worse...he was reelected. I am still stunned.
Posted by: Janet | November 28, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Fascinating Pagar!
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | November 28, 2012 at 09:51 PM
rse-
Just pound on the "Guilt" button. Very simple imagery. Shrinking pie might be lost on them. Very 70's of them.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 28, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Busy few weeks ahead. I doubt I'll be able to post. I'd remind folks to look at Canadian institutions for their cash sources and depositories.
G'night all.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 28, 2012 at 10:18 PM
mel-
Anyone wanna bet that iBama is just playing "run out the clock" on the Fiscal Cliff games (this includes ignoring a "debt ceiling")?
Think I've been saying that for a while now. Unfortunantely, I've had to set aside money for my tax bill going up* so I'll take a pass on putting money on it.
*It took me a year to convince my dad that straightening out his taxes was a good idea. He started to believe me when he had to send in an extra 12 grand earlier this year.
Posted by: RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location) | November 28, 2012 at 10:28 PM
So, we are using our IRS tax code to create a dependent society of single mothers raising fatherless sons and daughters who will only, after being educated in rse's government schools, become more hollow, more dependent and more robotic to the signals from DC.
Wasn't this the case for welfare reform in the 1990's in the first place? Everything old is new again...having a Scooter Libby memory moment.
Posted by: RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location) | November 28, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Yes, Rich, Obama is Bizarro president, he didn't agree with welfare reform, back in the 90s, this is clear from his speeches on NPR, his syllabi
at the U of Chicago lecture notes, et al.
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 10:44 PM
When the BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH are allowed to expire by OFUKWAD. How will the middle class taxes go up????
Posted by: Gus | November 28, 2012 at 10:47 PM
To be clear, yes that was the purpose of welfare reform,
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 10:47 PM
still catching up.
In re: Susan Rice...
1. She was sent out for the Full Ginsburg because she was the highest ranking, seemingly relevant person in the administration who wouldn't know what was going on in Libya. What she was told was what she knew.
2. The video cover story would be something that would come naturally to her. Given her leftism and academic background, th idea of free speech zones and speech codes could easily associate a video (which no one of note saw-let alone some barely literate jihadists in a remote desert outpost without tv, cell service, internet connection, or reliable power) with a terroist attack on a consulate (safe house, secret prison, weapons bazaar...upickum).
Posted by: RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location) | November 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM
"White House Deploys Secret Service To Stop Press From Talking To Goldman Sachs CEO
By Zeke Miller @ BuzzFeed
WASHINGTON — As CEOs concluded their meeting with President Barack Obama Wednesday evening, the White House deployed three uniformed Secret Service officers to keep the awaiting reporters from speaking with the group, among them Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.
CONTINUED HERE: http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/white-house-deploys-secret-service-to-stop-press-f
AND HERE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2963870/posts
White House Correspondent Olivier Knox tweeted: "Until tonight, I had never seen Secret Service prevent reporters from talking to people leaving the West Wing on the main drive."
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/11/obama-deploys-secret-service-to-stop-press.html
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 28, 2012 at 10:52 PM
You know she shows some signs of sense, then she does this sort of thing;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/28/exclusive-feinstein-commissioned-report-on-housing-gitmo-detainees-in-us/
the references to Rice, on the other thread, come from Mann's 'the Obamians' which does show in the delusional leftwing light, conflating Kigali with Benghazi, had she not rescued the militias in that instance, like the February 17th, and others, the back of the revolt would have been broken,
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 10:54 PM
One small flaw Rich. You and I knew by that Sunday. Obama claimed in his debate that he told us all on Sept 12 from the Rose Garden. Susan Rice is a hack. She knew, she is a cabinet officer, she gets the intel. SHE KNEW. She did this in exchange for consideration for Sec State. She lied on purpose. Now she is backtracking like a convicted felon.
Posted by: Gus | November 28, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Gus-
I think it was jimmyk that linked this regarding going over the cliff.
Regarding my own situation, I've under paid my taxes via withholding this year modestly (this was back of the envelope and didn't take into account state taxes or student loan interest). Going forward, I'm thinking about various obamacare taxes, expiring provisions of the stimulus [the modest cut in the employee side of social security tax] and all rates, not just those on the rich, going back to the Clinton era. And if I set aside too much, I'll have more money to spend on my west coast expedition or re-finance my car.
Posted by: RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location) | November 28, 2012 at 10:58 PM
I'd remind folks to look at Canadian institutions for their cash sources and depositories.
Sorry, this isn't quite cryptic enough. We have to watch out for Canadians with suppositories?
Posted by: Ralph L | November 28, 2012 at 11:00 PM
It's sort of like the Untouchables, only the flow runs backwards away from Chicago,
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM
White House Correspondent Olivier Knox tweeted: "Until tonight, I had never seen Secret Service prevent reporters from talking to people leaving the West Wing on the main drive."
The MFM created this monster. Remember this video - Doug Mckelway reporting the truth. He got fired. Sept. 2010.
"WJLA-TV has fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway for a verbal confrontation this summer with the station's news director (Bill Lord) that came after McKelway broadcast a sharply worded live report about congressional Democrats and President Obama."
Posted by: Janet | November 28, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Gus-
Susan Rice is a hack. She knew, she is a cabinet officer, she gets the intel. SHE KNEW.
More of a Costanza. And it doesn't matter that she is a cabinet office, she wouldn't have a clue as to what was going on in Benghazi Sept 11 2012 and no amout of her wanting to know would have gotten her the info. She went out and dribbled out the video story because she believed it, and like any good campaign surrogate, repeated her talking points perfectly. Anyway, all this really doesn't matter. It didn't matter at the time and the further we get from the event the less it will matter. It certainly didn't affect the election. Years from now maybe, but now, Obama's got more latitude.
Posted by: RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location) | November 28, 2012 at 11:09 PM
A whole host of squirrels have been released;
http://news.yahoo.com/shifting-account-cias-libya-talking-points-fuels-rice-020905401--finance.html
Posted by: narciso | November 28, 2012 at 11:10 PM
"I'd remind folks to look at Canadian institutions for their cash sources and depositories."
Thank goodness for that reminder. First thing I'm gonna do on waking up tomorrow is look at those Canadian institutions, with a gimlet eye trained on their cash sources and depositories. There lies the road to great wealth, for sure. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted by: Danube of Thought on IPad | November 28, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Rice gets intel briefings and attends National Security meetings.
SHE KNEW.
To think she didn't know is naive. My brother is STATE DEPT DIPLOMATIC SECURITY.
He knew on the 12th. Rice isn't Prom Queen, she is a cabinet level AMBASSADOR to the U.N. SHE KNEW.
Posted by: Gus | November 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Janet-
Maybe they can find that unfortunate Orlando Sentinel reporter that got locked in a closet during an Obama campaign event. They are such f'ing idiots.
Posted by: RichatUF (at my secret, undisclosed location) | November 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Bilk The Whales!
"Former Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission director Maggie Ahmaogak, who admitted to stealing from the nonprofit organization, was sentenced Wednesday to 41 months in prison and ordered to pay back more than $393,000."
Posted by: daddy | November 28, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Leave it to narciso to be even more cryptic than Melinda. Even I have no clue, and I usually know what Mel is talking about.
Posted by: Spending cuts first!--jimmyk | November 28, 2012 at 11:18 PM