Posted on 12/23/2012 4:47:18 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
December 23rd, 2012
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Kent Conrad, D-N.D.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association; Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): David Keene, NRA president; Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and Mark Warner, D-Va.; Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; actor Ben Affleck.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, N.J.; Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Reps. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., and Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio; former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who's leading an NRA program that will develop a model security plan for schools that relies on armed volunteers.
LaPierre brings up Sen Feinswines guns Haha.
Grepory pushing for a “new” gun law. Lapierre not playing his game. Talks about 20,000 gun laws on the books to enforce.
Everything the media does is to promote the DNC and our enslavement. It is their reason for being.
Merry Christmas
LaPierre beat Gregory pretty good in that debate. Gun grabber Chucky Schumer and Sen Graham next up.
Smucky calls LaPierre “extreme” and he blames everything but the gun. Hey Chuck, all you do is blame the gun for the last 40 years. Loser.
Sen. Schumer does not look well today. I wonder about his health. Is he ill? I haven’t heard. I hope he is not suffering from cancer. His face looks puffy and his eyelids look saggy and droopy. He is not his usual sharp, dapper self today.
Chucky Schumer calls himself the “gun safety guy.” One BS comment after the next.
Graham says he owns an AR-15. Don’t deny me of my right and my freedom.
Gregory is getting his lunch ate - moves on the the ‘fiscal cliff’ issue.
Unless, of course, all the schools are inside the security area at an airport. Then we have TSA in charge of solving the problem. What could go wrong with that?
You’ll recall Independent Counsel Fitzpatrick forced W to personally testify on the Scooter Libby case.
Even when Hil becomes a “private citizen” she may still be forced to testify. That’s when O claims executive privilege.
We all know that he and/or Valerie Jarrett gave the “stand down” order.
If the GOP asked for an independent counsel loud enough, a federal court would appoint one even over Holder’s objection. Court’s have inherent power to do so even in the absence of an IC law.
Too simplistic. Sounds good until you get into the details. Our entitlement programs will continue to increase due to our aging population. They will go up much more than 1% a year. And now we have added Obamacare, which will not be cost neutral by any metric. Medicare costs nine times what it was projected to cost. Obamacare will be the same if not worse.
What impact will inflation have? Do you take 1% a year in inflation adjusted dollars? And what percentage of GDP do you expect in terms of revenue?
When almost two thirds of the budget is on automatic pilot, much of it going up due to COLAs, inflation, a aging population, and interest rates, can you really make 1% annual cuts across the board?
The sad reality is that Americans want the benefits of the welfare state, but don't want to pay the taxes to pay for it. Mark Steyn said this:
A few months ago, I dined with a (pardon my English) French intellectual who, apropos Mitt Romney's stump-speech warnings that we were on a one-way ticket to Continental-sized dependency, chortled to me, "Americans love Big Government as much as Europeans. The only difference is that Americans refuse to admit it."
My Gallic charmer is on to something. According to the most recent (2009) OECD statistics: Government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00. That's adjusted for purchasing-power parity, and, yes, no comparison is perfect, but did you ever think the difference between America and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would come down to quibbling over the fine print? In that sense, the federal debt might be better understood as an American Self-Delusion Index, measuring the ever-widening gap between the national mythology (a republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens) and the reality (a 21st century cradle-to-grave nanny state in which, as the Democrats' Convention boasted, "government is the only thing we do together.").
Generally speaking, functioning societies make good-faith efforts to raise what they spend, subject to fluctuations in economic fortune: Government spending in Australia is 33.1 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are 27.1 percent. Likewise, government spending in Norway is 46.4 percent, and revenues are 41 percent – a shortfall but in the ballpark. Government spending in the United States is 42.2 percent, but revenues are 24 percent – the widest spending/taxing gulf in any major economy.
So all the agonizing over our annual trillion-plus deficits overlooks the obvious solution: Given that we're spending like Norwegians, why don't we just pay Norwegian tax rates?
No danger of that. If (in Milton Himmelfarb's famous formulation) Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans, Americans are taxed like Puerto Ricans but vote like Scandinavians. We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes "the rich" to pay their "fair share" – presumably 80 percent or 90 percent. After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in The New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds like a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year's federal deficit. And after that you're back to square one.
It's not that "the rich" aren't paying their "fair share," it's that America isn't. A majority of the electorate has voted itself a size of government it's not willing to pay for.
Yeah, Chucky looked like he’s under.
In other words its not likely the hildabeast will ever have to answer for the four deaths on her watch.
No, I think Schumer has a more serious health issue. Of course they won’t tell us. That kind of indicates it may be true.
no matter how much artificial work Hillary gets done...she will still be 70’ish and her energy, level and her physical abilities will diminish..she will not be able to jump steps and and slide across a stage and talk at the same time..it happens to everyone..the aging process at work..
I talk from experience..70 and no longer able to jump, run, or keep up a 20 hr. day!!! use too though...as I LOL P.S. watch Harry Reid, he is barely able to still stand up straight and he walks...like someone with NO energy in his 70's...
Some states like VA and Ohio are talking about allocating their electoral votes by Congressional District and then awarding the two votes from the Senate to whomever wins the majority of the congressional districts. It would help the Reps in swing states offsetting the huge Dem advantage in urban areas. It is a stop gap measure but could help us in the short term.
I'll see your pair and raise you one.
Cause I am a great fan of fashion shows, makeover shows, yada, yada.
Not that I'm proud of this necessarily.
But no one in Hillary Clinton's position goes out in public like that, no one.
She told Baba Wawa that she had no courtesans to pamper her but what a lie, what a damnable lie. She has coterie of would-be attendants, sheesh were we born at night, LAST night?
She's being set up for a breath-taking makeover, yes she is, and it's part of the plan.
It's the only reason I halfway agree with Kabar as I see the script as written and it will be effective, thank me very much.
She will lose weight, she will get hair cut and shaped, she will get surgery as required, yes she will and she will enter upon the political scene to capture the attention of all, especially the low information voters.
She will be interviewed by Katie Couric, who the MSM is STILL trying to salvage despite being kicked off Today and failing miserably as a new nightly news anchor for a year. Payback for her participation in the destruction of Sarah Palin as they see it cause it's how these people wield their power.
Hillary will tell Katie how stressed she was during her term as Secretary, how she didn't get to see her family, especially her daughter Chelsea. The last thing she could deal with was her appearance what with her dedication to serving the American public.
I can write the script and it will work. Americans, especially the low information voters, will mist up and while gazing at her new look will be happy to make such a dedicated woman their president.
The only way this makeover will work is for Hillary to offer the striking contrast, which she does now by walking all over the world looking like Broom Hilda.
We need to teach the elected pubs how this all works. I bet not a one of them ever watched "What Not to Wear".
Okay, thank me very much.
The official WH talking points are that there was an armed guard at Columbine (is this true?) and why do we need these high capacity magazines.
Dick Gregory, sycophant of the highest order, even held up some kind of black box supposed to be a gun magazine....sheesh the drama. I’ll never know how this guy sleeps at night with any pride but I guess his checking account keeps him cozy.
I’ve heard these talking shows on four or five shows now. They’re desperately trying to rebut LaPierre’s challenge for armed guards at all schools and the many-bulleted guns are the best they could throw out there.
Pathetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.