¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005
0 Kudos


[ Editado ]



Some  get rich off taxpayers in Obama's greenback energy  program

Under the Obama Energy Department, a lot of people are winning  big by losing the taxpayers’ money. In the government-sponsored green energy  industry, working Americans have effectively handed millions in salaries and  bonuses to executives of companies on the road to bankruptcy. At the most famous failed solar company, Solyndra—to which the Obama  administration gave a $530 million loan guarantee—several executives were making  nearly half a million dollars a year, including large bonuses taken in the  months before the company filed for bankruptcy. For them, the failed endeavor  was extremely lucrative. Solyndra was hardly the only  taxpayer-backed firm that paid big bonuses while stumbling to bankruptcy,  however. As ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity recently uncovered in a report, Beacon Power, which received a $43  million loan guarantee, paid bonuses of about $260,000 to three individuals  before going bankrupt last year. Another company, Ener1, the recipient of a grant worth $118 million, paid its CEO a $450,000 bonus. In January,  it, too, filed for bankruptcy. Supposedly, the  Department of Energy approved these loans to foster an industry which the market  didn’t come close to supporting. Certainly most Americans, if they knew about  the program at all, did not imagine leaders at these startups paying themselves  millions in taxpayer dollars.



In 2009, after bailing  out many of the country’s   financial institutions, President Obama made executive  compensation  a  major political issue, proposing rules to limit it for firms that   had  received the taxpayer money. He observed that “what gets people upset — and  rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure.  Especially  when those  rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.” He  said these words  just weeks before  his administration made its  half-billion dollar  commitment to  Solyndra. Later that same year,  President Obama  demanded executives  at AIG return their bonuses, asking “How do they justify this  outrage  to  the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”I   have a couple questions of my own. Why isn’t the   President just as concerned about the looting  of failed energy startups at   taxpayer expense? Why isn’t he demanding that   executives at Solyndra and the  other bankrupt green energy firms return their bonuses, since we were  keeping those firms afloat with  gigantic  and unjustified  loans? In truth, the real  scandal goes  far  beyond bonuses and salaries. Many of these companies were  dependent on  an  enormous amount of government support all along—far more  than  just a little  boost to get them going. Two   numbers give you a sense  of the scale of the bad energy bets the  Obama  administration is making. Several  weeks ago, in my newsletter  on the  transition to liquefied natural gas as a less  expensive  source of fuel, I  reported that Chesapeake Energy had invested more   than $150 million to  build a national network of LNG truck stops—an  investment  by a private  company to be supported by genuine  demand. President  Obama, on the other hand, is  putting taxpayer money into  dozens of risky  ventures. Last week yet  another green energy firm, Solar Trust  of America, declared bankruptcy after having  received  a  $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the Department  of   Energy. That loan guarantee is more than  the value of Regal Entertainment, the nation’s largest  chain of  movie  theaters, and about the value of HSN, the Home Shopping Network.  It’s one heck of a loan for a startup. And it put taxpayers on the   hook  for 14 times the amount Chesapeake invested in its far more  viable  project to  build a nationwide natural gas highway.Of course,  there could be a lot more where all this came  from.  The Energy Department’s  current loan program has approved  nearly $35  billion in total—more than $110  from every American  citizen. Feel like  you’re getting your money’s   worth?

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Unbelievable: Jon Corzine still bundling mega-bucks for  Obama’s campaign

Hotair ^ | 04/20/2012 | AllahPundit


The information's hiding in plain sight but it’s still a nifty  catch by the Standard’s Daniel Halper. You know why? Because the idea  that Jon Corzine is still raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for The One  is so insane and implausible, virtually no one would have thought to check. Of coursethat's not happening. Of course.

And yet.

He's in the $500,000+ club for the first quarter of this year,  the most elite group there is among O's cash cows. You know what else happened  during that quarter? News broke that more than a billion dollars in MF Global  client funds had apparently been “vaporized” in the firm’s collapse, with investigators  clueless as to where the money might have gone. As recently as last month, new  evidence emerged pointing to Corzine’s direct involvement in using clients’ cash to cover  the firm’s debts. And yet, presumably, he was squeezing his rich friends for  dough for Obama the whole time. Ace asks a good question: “Why is a man under  investigation by a government agency permitted to raise money for the man who  controls that agency?” Wouldn’t be the first time Corzine’s used his political leverageto personal advantage.

If you missed it a few days ago, read Ed’s post on Patrick  Kennedy claiming that the White House rewards its rich donors with certain quid pro quos. Can’t wait to see what Jon Corzine gets in return for his extreme  diligence on behalf of the “Not a Republican” reelection effort. Exit question: Does  Team O understand that transparency is supposed to act as a deterrent to  impropriety or the appearance of impropriety? They love to pat themselves on the  back for voluntarily disclosing the names of their bundlers, but the point of  disclosure is that it dissuades you, at least in theory, from dealing with  cretins lest you be scrutinized for it. Where’s the dissuasion, guys?











Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama's Tainted   Bundler

By Jonah Goldberg 4/25/2012


Jon Corzine left Goldman Sachs with a net worth far  exceeding  even that of Mitt Romney today. Many accounts of his tenure at  Goldman suggest  he "failed up" the corporate ladder.

Pushed out of Goldman in a power struggle (sparked in part  by  his support for a government bailout of Long-Term Capital Management),  he  nonetheless pocketed somewhere between $350 million and $500 million  when the  company went public. He used the cash to buy himself a Senate  seat, spending $62  million out of his own pocket.

After the Senate, he spent nearly $40 million of his own  money  to win the New Jersey governorship. While he was running for  senator, the  married-but-separated Corzine struck up a romantic  relationship with Carla Katz,  also married and head of Local 1034 of the  Communications Workers of America.  They broke up in 2004, but the flirting  apparently never ended. In 2007, Katz  and Corzine were both involved in  negotiations over a state workers contract. In  one email during that time  obtained by the Newark Star-Ledger, Katz informs the  governor, "BTW, I had  an over the top erotic dream about you last night. Bad  boy!!"

Bad boy indeed. When the couple broke up, and after her  union  had endorsed Corzine and worked for his re-election, the governor's  lawyers  negotiated a settlement whereby he reportedly paid Katz more than  $6 million and  forgave a half-million-dollar loan he made to her when they  were still an  item.

When Corzine ran for re-election as governor, both  President  Obama and Vice President Joe Biden stumped for him. Biden  explained that from  the moment he and the president sat down to figure out  their economic strategy,  "Literally, the first guy I called was Jon  Corzine. It's not a joke. It's not a  joke. First of all, he's the smartest  guy I know in terms of the economy and on  finance, and I really mean  that."




Despite that ringing endorsement, Corzine lost  his 2009  re-election bid to reformer Chris Christie. So Corzine went back  to Wall Street,  as chief executive of MF Global Holdings, a bond trading  firm. A research note  from the firm of Sander O'Neill Partners summarized  what the Street expected  from Corzine: "We suspect that his contacts in  Washington could prove useful as  MF Global navigates a shifting regulatory  environment."

Corzine proceeded to do exactly the sorts of things Wall   Street has become infamous for: making crazy bets with other people's  money,  counting on governments to bail out the private sector and,  allegedly, expecting  to get friendly treatment from regulators. Gary  Gensler, chairman of the  Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was an old  friend and colleague of  Corzine's at Goldman Sachs and in Washington.  Gensler had been a key aide to  Sen. Paul Sarbanes and had reportedly  worked closely with Corzine writing the  Sarbanes-Oxley bill. At MF Global,  under Gensler's watch, Corzine bet more than  $6 billion on the European  sovereign debt crisis, using borrowed client money.  MF Global also  apparently commingled client and company funds to pay off  financial  obligations, which is illegal.

Under Corzine, MF Global lost well over $1 billion, and  I  don't mean in the profit/loss sense. I mean it was physically misplaced  and  Corzine cannot account for where it went. The Justice Department  is  investigating, and news media accounts suggest a criminal prosecution  is likely.  Somewhat better late than never, Gensler recused himself after  MF Global went  bankrupt.

So, why the trip down memory lane? Because the Obama  campaign  just announced that Corzine is still on the list of top-tier  bundlers for the  Obama re-election campaign. Corzine has raised more than  half a million dollars  for Obama.

Obama is constantly denouncing "millionaires and  billionaires"  for playing by their own rules. It's true that the campaign  told one reporter in  February that it wouldn't take more money from  Corzine himself, but it's been  happy to let the man solicit donations for  Obama even as Corzine is under  investigation by Obama's own Justice  Department. How cozy.

Tell me, what's the point of the Occupy Wall Street  movement,  and its countless sympathizers in the Democratic Party and the  media, if that's  good enough? Whatever happened to changing how Washington  works?

We're about to enter a very long campaign in  which  where an apparently squeaky-clean Mitt Romney is going to be  demonized for his  success and dragged through the gutter. Meanwhile, Obama  took cash from a true  denizen of the gutter.


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


New Obama slogan has long ties to  Marxism, socialism

By Victor Morton

April 30, 2012

The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into  history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long  and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities  throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign  cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of  socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist  political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist,  communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online  encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European  Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which  would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in  a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this  weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official  beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the  Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and  Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that  party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly  reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among  the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin  (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication “Vpered” (the Russian  word for “forward”) in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a  documentary whose title is sometimes translated as “Forward, Soviet” (though  also and more literally as “Stride, Soviet”).

Conservative critics of the Obama administration have noted  numerous ties to radicalism and socialists throughout Mr. Obama’s history, from  his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former  Weather Underground members, to appointing as green jobs czar Van Jones, a  self-described communist.

OBAMA'S SLOGAN: "Forward Forward" A Hitler Youth  Anthem

A few people have commented on the fact that Obama's 2012  campaign slogan 'Forward' has a long history in socialist and communist  ideology. The most chilling and in your face example I've seen so far is from  the National Socialist Hitler Youth Anthem "Forward,Forward." The themes of  youth have always been a big part of Obama's campaigns, but seeing his campaign  slogan being sung by actual Hitler Youth Members really brings it all together  and creeps me out. As I said on Twitter, those who fail to learn from history  are doomed to release it as campaign material. Forward Forward.




No nos sorprende a los cubanos que Obama arme su campaña para reelección con el grito de lucha escogido por los marxistas y fascistas desde Hitler hasta Castro, ya que es parte del himno del 26 de Julio que empieza: "Adelante cubanos que Cuba premiará tu heroísmo ..."

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


The Lowlights Of Obamanomics

The Obama Record

IBD Editorial 6/3/2012

The Obama Record: May’s weak jobs report further confirms the president’s policies are failing to help the economy. This is, indeed, the worst recovery since the Depression.

Negative superlatives associated with this presidency keep piling up. The toll so far:

• The share of Americans who’ve been out of work a long time — now at 42% of the unemployed — is the highest since the Great Depression (source: Labor Department).

• The proportion of the civilian working-age population actually working, at 58%, is the smallest since the Carter era (Labor Department).

• Growth in nonfarm payroll jobs since the recovery began in June 2009 is the slowest of any comparable recovery since World War II (Hoover Institution).

• The rate of new business startups — the engine of job growth — has plunged to an all-time low of 7.87% of all businesses (Census Bureau).

• 3 in 10 young adults can’t find jobs and live with their parents, highest since the 1950s (Pew Research).

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

• 54% of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 are jobless or underemployed, the highest share in decades (Northeastern University).

• Black teen unemployment, now at 37%, is near Depression-era highs (Labor Department).

• Almost 1 in 6 Americans are now poor — the highest ratio in 30 years — and the total number of poor, at 49.1 million, is the largest on record (Census).

• The share of Hispanics in poverty has topped that of blacks for the first time, 28.2% to 25.4% (Census).

• The number of Americans on food stamps — 45 million recipients, or 1 in 7 residents — also is the highest on record (Congressional Budget Office).

• Total government dependency — defined as the share of Americans receiving one or more federal benefit payments — is now at 47%, highest ever (Hoover).

• The share of Americans paying no income tax, at 49.5%, is the highest ever (Heritage Foundation, IRS).

• The national homeownership rate, now at 65.4%, is the lowest in 15 years (Census).

•The 30-point gap between black and white Americans who own their own homes is the widest in two decades and one of the widest on record (Census).

• Federal spending, now at 23.4% of GDP, is the highest since WWII (CBO).

• Excluding defense and interest payments, spending is the highest in American history, at 17.6% of the economy (First Trust Economics).

• The federal debt, at 69% of GDP, is the highest since just after WWII (CBO).

• The U.S. budget deficit, now at 9.5% of the economy, is the highest since WWII (CBO).

• U.S. Treasury debt has been downgraded for the first time in history, meaning the U.S. government no longer ranks among risk-free borrowers (S&P).

This is what Obamanomics has wrought. Fiscal promiscuity. Trickle-up poverty. Shared misery.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



By Jim Geraghty

NRO June 5, 2012

Does President Barack Obama know how much he is  spending?

Critics of the president asked that question after he  asserted, “Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the  lowest pace in nearly 60 years.” (This  figure comes from an online article that has been widely debunked because, among  other sleights of hand, it interprets modest rates of increase in annual  spending as a reduction in the spending, even though the total actual spending  under Obama’s watch has been gargantuan.)

But the same question could apply to the president’s  personal finances as well, given that the president and Mrs. Obama have spent  enough money during their time in the White House to reportedly express anxiety  about their personal finances — even as the president earns several million  dollars from his book sales and even though the taxpayers cover a portion of the  Obamas’ living expenses.

The Obama campaign has been quick to shine a spotlight on  symbols of Mitt Romney’s wealth — the fact that he owns a Swiss bank account,  the car elevator in his California home. And the media have exhibited a  particular fascination with the cost of Ann Romney’s blouse and her expensive  enjoyment of horse riding and training.

But President Obama also enjoys  the finer things in life: hosting White House dinners that feature $59-per-pound  Wagyu steak, hosting fundraisers where guests are treated to quail egg with  caviar and salmon ceviche, and enjoying 100 rounds of golf as president. And  Michelle knows how to relax in **noallow** as well. She and the girls recently  got away to attend Beyoncé’s comeback concert.

Some of these things are paid for by the taxpayers, such as  the president’s transportation. But other costs are covered by the Obamas — clothes, incidental costs, most food (but taxpayers cover the cost of state  dinners and official events). When Michelle Obama and their daughters  travel abroad without the president, they reimburse the government the cost of  their first-class tickets to the destination. Of course, that reimbursement is a  much smaller sum than the actual cost of transporting the first lady; a  much-derided trip to Spain by the first lady cost taxpayers $467,000 in  transportation and security expenses.

In Jodi Kantor’s book about the president’s first three years  in office, The Obamas, she describes tensions in the White House before the 2010  midterms:

Even the president made  uncomfortable jokes about why his wife needed so many things. Behind the scenes,  aides said, the Obamas were concerned about money: the president’s books could  only sell so many copies, and it would be years until he could write more and  the first lady could write her own. From vacation rental homes big enough to  accommodate the Secret Service to all the personal entertaining they did at the  White House, their lifestyle had grown fearsomely  expensive.

Every president lives a lifestyle more expensive than  all but the most ostentatious billionaires. But the Obamas’ cost of living may  become a political liability for the president for three  reasons.

For starters, key demographics of voters perceive President  Obama as a man who spends lavishly on his family and himself, according to focus  groups convened by the organization Resurgent Republic.

“Our spring focus groups with Obama Independents undecided  today primarily focused on the economy, Obama’s job performance, economic  fairness arguments, taxes, energy, and health care,” said Luke Frans of  Resurgent Republic.

“Concern over Obama vacations wasn’t a topic we  probed, but that also is somewhat interesting since these comments were  unprompted. It didn’t come up in all of our groups, but it was mentioned several  times among the working-class groups we conducted. This issue doesn’t carry the  same level of concern as the desire for quality, family-supporting jobs. But  it’s noteworthy since these comments came from working-class swing voters, not  strong Republicans.”

Among the comments from women in the focus groups in  Cleveland, Ohio:

· “Michelle Obama spent a  million dollars to take her kids to Hawaii.”

· “President Obama is the only  president to take so many trips.”

· “The president needs to come  down to our level.”

· “We have restrictions. He  [President Obama] needs them, too.”

In an April interview with NRO, Romney took a shot at  Obama’s personal spending habits while discussing the GSA scandal: “I  think the example starts at the top. People have to see that the president is  not taking elaborate vacations and spending in a way that is inconsistent with  the state of the overall economy and the state of the American  family.”

Second, as a candidate, Obama emphasized his humble beginnings  and the fact that he was uninterested in material wealth or a luxurious  lifestyle. He repeatedly noted that after graduating from Columbia, he chose a  poorly paying job as a community organizer instead of following more lucrative  paths. In her 2008 convention address, Michelle Obama touted her husband: “Instead of heading to Wall Street, Barack had gone to work in neighborhoods  devastated when steel plants shut down and jobs dried up.”

On the campaign trail in 2008, she proudly  described her and her husband’s career path to a group of women at a day-care  center in Zanesville, Ohio, where the median household income in 2004 was  $37,192. “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young  people to do,” she said. Then she offered advice to the group: “Don’t go into  corporate America,” she urged, dismissing it as a “money-making  industry.”

Of course, it’s very easy to belittle “the  money-making industry” when you have a lot of money. Even in the White House,  President Obama has lashed out at what he perceives as others’ greed, declaring, “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Perhaps that’s  easier to say when you live rent-free in a mansion and don’t pay for your own  gas.

Finally, as a candidate and as president, Obama reminds us  that he and his family went through tougher times earlier in their lives and  sometimes struggled to handle their debts. One of the intriguing and  little-known aspects of the Obamas’ life is just how much they struggled with  personal debt issues well into their adult lives and after they were making  six-figure incomes.

The first year of tax returns that the Obamas have  disclosed is from 2000, and it shows a joint total income of $240,726. (Adjusted  for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, that would be roughly $321,646  today.) Surprisingly, the family’s personal finances in that year were evidently  so troubled that Obama had his credit card rejected at the Hertz rent-a-car  counter. Obama has told this story several times to emphasize that not long ago,  he was “broke.”

In the following three years,  the Obamas’ income ranged from about $275,000 in 2001 (roughly $357,000 in  today’s dollars) to a low of $207,647 in 2004 (about $253,000 in today’s  dollars). In 2004, Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father, became a  national bestseller and the couple’s income jumped to $1.7  million.

Michelle Obama, campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2008, shared  this surprising anecdote, as described by a Chicago Tribune reporter:

Michelle Obama is pretending to take a call, thumb and pinkie  finger up to her face, telling how she and her husband used to get calls from  loan debt agents not that long ago.

“I remember those days clearly, sweating to get that  mail,” she said. “That collection agency, the loan debt people calling you  telling you that you’ve got a few more days before you’re in  trouble.”

David Mendell discussed the  Obamas’ surprisingly dicey personal finances in his 2007 biography of the  then-senator, Obama: From Promise to Power:

He and Michelle were living a middle- to  upper-middle-class, white collar existence, going home to a spacious town house  in Hyde Park and employing a caregiver to help with child care. But despite  their combined incomes, which topped $250,000 a year, Obama had personal debt.  He had maxed out his credit card, partly on campaign expenses, and the couple  were both repaying student loans from Harvard.

Those campaign expenses came from Obama’s 2000  Democratic-primary bid to unseat Representative Bobby Rush, a four-term  incumbent with 90 percent name recognition and a 70 percent approval rating. Obama lost, garnering 30 percent to Rush’s 61 percent. Michelle  reportedly thought the campaign was a bad idea, and a new book, Ed Klein’s The  Amateur, claims that the stress of the defeat and resulting debt brought the  couple to the brink of divorce.

Undoubtedly the 2012 election  will focus more on the federal government’s spending under Obama than on the  president’s personal spending. But the parallel between the two financial  pictures is worth noting.

Almost all spendaholics  or those who are unable to control their spending engage in a certain amount of  denial, an effort to fool themselves about the hard truths of their financial  situation. They assure themselves that they must spend money now in order to  save more money later, or they count on additional earnings that are unlikely to  materialize (say, through rosy assumptions of future economic growth). When  confronted with evidence of a serious problem, they assert that it doesn’t  really matter (“No matter what some rating agency may say, we have always been,  and we will always be, a AAA country”).

In light of all this, “Does  Obama know how much he is spending” appears to be an extremely relevant and  entirely fair question.

—Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot on NRO.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



Obama Gives Half a $BILLION of Our Money to ACORN  Crony

moonbattery.com ^ | 06/11/2012 | Dave Blount

La corrupta mafia de Obama que lo  puso en la Casa Blanca por medio del fraude electoral, recibe de Obama  billones  por sus servicios,un escandaloso robo de los dineros del  pueblo que perpetran con plena impunidad.


Obama’s alma mater has been revealed as the most  profoundly corrupt institution conceivable. But that isn’t stopping the nuts  behind ACORN from receiving massive amounts of our money, compliments of the  Manchurian Moonbat.

[An] ACORN official (Joe  McGavin) will go from operating a corrupt leftist community group that’s banned  by Congress from receiving federal funding to controlling over $445 million in  U.S. taxpayer funds. The money is  part of a $7.6 billion Treasury Department program to help the “unemployed or  substantially underemployed” make their mortgage  payments.

McGavin is director of the Illinois Hardest Hit Program, which  funnels our money to Obama’s homies back in Chicago.

Before that he was director of counseling for ACORN Housing in  Chicago and operations manager for a Chicago ACORN offshoot called Affordable  Housing Centers of America (AHCOA). His strong ties to ACORN make him a suspect  candidate to handle such a huge amount of taxpayer dollars.

That’s putting it mildly. But then, the same goes  double for Obama himself.

The Obama-tied community organization supposedly shut  down after a series of exposés about its illegal activities, including  fraudulent voter registration drives and involvement in the housing market  meltdown. Read all about it in Judicial Watch’s special report, “The Rebranding  of ACORN.” The legal scandals led Congress to pass a 2009 law banning federal  funding for ACORN, which for years enjoyed a huge flow of taxpayer dollars to  promote its various leftwing causes.

However, the Obama Regime has  ignored the ban. This constitutes the massive theft of public money. If the media establishment were the least bit responsible, the  Moonbat Messiah would be on his way to prison in the familiar Illinois political  tradition, rather than possible reelection.



If we had a responsible media  establishment and rule of law.