Bookmark this for tomorrow, it’ll come in handy:
I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.
The Artist behind “Dilbert” is a Democrat — but says he’s voting for Romney.
The doodler is blaming the Obama administration for enforcing federal drug laws that earned Aaron Sandusky, a 41-year-old from Southern California, a 10-year prison term for running a medical marijuana dispensary.
“While President Obama didn’t technically kill a citizen, he is certainly ruining this fellow’s life, and his family’s lives, and the lives of countless other minor drug offenders,” Adams wrote. “And he is doing it to advance his career. If that’s not a firing offense, what the hell is?”
People are still reading Dilbert?
Hold up for a second. While Obama’s faced some understandable criticism over his handling of medical marijuana laws, the prior president spent millions of dollars investigating and prosecuting Tommy Chong for running a business that sold bongs — not even the drug themselves — because the administration wanted to set a high-profile example. Romney has a far tougher stance on this issue than Obama does, and he’s on the record for saying “I’m going to fight it tooth and nail.” If this is what’s going to make Scott Adams bend, why isn’t he voting for Gary Johnson? He actually has a platform that runs counter to either of the two candidates.
(Side note: Scott Adams is complaining about media outlets misrepresenting what he’s said on the blog post. If you’re going to complain, Scott, then give a better reason for voting for Romney than claiming “he’s enough of a chameleon and a pragmatist that one can’t be sure” he’ll stick with a tough marijuana policy. Saying we’re going to fire a president for something the other candidate is likely to also do is no way to deal with a problem. If you think we’re taking you out of context, too, it’s because you’ve created a terrible context.)
They showed up there, and they did not have permission…The photo-op they did wasn’t even accurate. [Paul Ryan] did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall.
Buried deep in the tax returns released by Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign are references to dozens of offshore holdings with names like Ursa Funding (Luxembourg) S.à.r.l. and Sankaty Credit Opportunities Investors (Offshore) IV, based in the Cayman Islands.
Mr. Romney, responding to opponents’ barbs about his use of overseas tax havens, has offered a narrow defense, saying only that the investments, many made through the private equity firm he founded, Bain Capital, have yielded him “not one dollar of reduction in taxes.”
A review of thousands of pages of financial documents and interviews with tax lawyers found that in some cases, the offshore arrangements enabled his individual retirement account to avoid taxes on its investments and may well have reduced Mr. Romney’s personal income tax bills.
But perhaps a more significant impact of Mr. Romney’s offshore investments has been on the profit side of the ledger — in the way Bain’s tax-avoidance strategies have enhanced his income.
Some of the offshore entities enabled Bain-owned companies to sidestep certain taxes, increasing returns for Mr. Romney and other investors. Others helped Bain attract foreign investors and nonprofit institutions by insulating them from taxes, again augmenting Mr. Romney’s bottom line, since he shared in management fees based on the size of each Bain fund.
The documents — which include confidential Bain prospectuses and foreign regulatory filings, many previously unreported — illustrate how these tax-avoidance strategies are woven into the fabric of Bain’s deal making. While hardly a novel concept and not unique to Bain, the inevitable result is that elite investors like Mr. Romney are able to increase their fortunes in ways unavailable to most taxpayers.
Obama currently leads Romney by ten points in Ohio, nine points in Florida and 12 points in Pennsylvania. Which wouldn’t be a problem (for Romney) — if between now and November 6th, we could just get 290 million people to move to Arkansas.
Downplaying the need for the government to ensure that every person has health insurance, Mitt Romney on Sunday suggested that emergency room care suffices as a substitute for the uninsured.
“Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance,” he said in an interview with Scott Pelley of CBS’s “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night. “If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”
This constitutes a dramatic reversal in position for Romney, who passed a universal health care law in Massachusetts, in part, to eliminate the costs incurred when the uninsured show up in emergency rooms for care. Indeed, in both his book and in high-profile interviews during the campaign, Romney has touted his achievement in stamping out these inefficiencies while arguing that the same thing should be done at the national level.
And while Romney refused to agree on Sunday that the government’s role is to ensure that every American has health care, he has endorsed such an idea in the past.
When asked in a March 2010 interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether he believes in universal coverage, Romney said, “Oh, sure.”
“Look, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way,” he said.
So how does the Fox “News” Channel try to aid and abet Mitt Romney’s campaign, already mired in controversy over 49 minutes worth of candid, damn-the-47-percent, I-wish-I-was-Latino talk?
By ginning up “controversy” over a “1998 audio clip that purports to feature Obama saying he believes in wealth ‘redistribution.’”
“Fair and balanced” in action.
If this doesn’t convince some one that FOX is just an arm of the GOP then nothing will.
Mitt Romney should be seriously worried about Ohio. Recent polls, and interviews conducted with about two dozen Ohioans in recent days, show that he’s dangerously underperforming in the must-win state.
There’s a growing concern in Republican ranks, and even within Romney’s campaign itself that the GOP nominee is dangerously underperforming in Ohio — and that was before yesterday’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed Obama jumping to a 7-point lead in the state. The Buckeye State’s 18 electoral college votes are critical to Romney’s White House hopes. No Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio, and even if Romney sweeps seven swing states carried by Obama in 2008, including Florida, Virginia, Iowa and North Carolina, he still can’t win if he loses here.
So goes Ohio, goes the nation.
Romney formally secures Republican presidential nomination
CNN: New Jersey cast the votes that put Mitt Romney over the top to win the Republican nomination at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.
Follow updates from the convention on BreakingNews.com.
Photo via CNN
“Over the top.” For people already sick of the 2012 race, that has more than one meaning.
Less than 24 hours after Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate on Saturday, his campaign was already trying to distance itself from Mr. Ryan’s politically toxic budget plan. His budget is not ours, the campaign said; Mr. Romney “will be putting together his own plan for cutting the deficit and putting the budget on a path to balance.”
It’s no wonder that Mr. Romney does not want to take full responsibility for his running mate’s ideas. Mr. Romney hasn’t issued a real budget plan and appears to have no interest in doing so before the election, perhaps for fear that voters might realize how little they would like it. Mr. Ryan, on the other hand, has assembled two spending plans, both of which were passed by the House. While the country is fortunate they were never enacted, they reveal Republican priorities in a way that Mr. Romney up to now has avoided.
Most voters know little about Mr. Ryan. Those who have heard of him are probably most familiar with his Medicare plan, which would turn the program into a voucher system that would pay beneficiaries a fixed amount for their medical care, leaving them on their own if the voucher did not cover their costs.
This notion so alarmed the public last year that Mr. Ryan was forced to backtrack and leave the existing Medicare system as an option. Even so, the plan would leave older Americans on average with $6,400 in extra costs by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Even less familiar to voters are Mr. Ryan’s plans for the rest of the federal budget, which if anything are worse than his Medicare proposal. By cutting $6 trillion from federal spending over the next 10 years, he would eliminate or slash so many programs that the federal government would be unrecognizable. That has long been a goal of the Tea Party ideologues who support Mr. Ryan fervently, but it is not one shared by anywhere near a majority of Americans.
As House Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Ryan drew a blueprint for a government that would be absent when people needed it the most. Medicaid, food stamps, and other vital programs would be offloaded to the states, but the states would not be given the resources to run them. The federal government simply would not be there to help the unemployed who need job training, or struggling students who seek college educations. Washington would be unable to respond when a city cannot properly treat its sewage, or when the poor and uninsured overload emergency rooms as clinics close.
More than three-fifths of the cuts proposed by Mr. Ryan come from programs for low-income Americans. These cuts are so severe that the nation’s Catholic bishops protested the proposal as failing to meet society’s moral obligations, saying the plans “will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors.”
To Mr. Ryan, the poor will benefit when they no longer rely on government handouts. But his plans contain no pathway to self-reliance for the tens of millions of people who are either poor, unemployed or uninsured. In his world, they will be entirely on their own, or will rely on charity.
He certainly can’t pretend to turn around the economy by eliminating the deficit. Mr. Ryan’s budget would not reach a surplus for 30 years, according to the C.B.O., because he would cut taxes, largely for the rich and for corporations, by $4 trillion. That’s even more than Mr. Romney’s extravagant tax giveaways, because Mr. Ryan would erase all capital gains taxes. Since investments are the principal income generators for Mr. Romney and millions of other high earners, Mr. Romney made the more prudent choice to cut capital gains taxes only for the middle class.