Tag Archives: Money

Fed Leads America “To The Brink Of Collapse”

When even the New York Times and CNN are admitting that the United States faces not only a double-dip recession but potentially a new great depression, any alarm bells that have not been rung should now be sounding loudly. Following in the footsteps of the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, who in June wrote that the United States had entered a third depression similar to the Long Depression of the 19th century, CNN Money carried an article yesterday brazenly entitled, Is this finally the economic collapse?. The piece, written by Keith R. McCullough, points out that the Fed’s announcement that it will start buying Treasury debt, is a “crossing the Rubicon” moment and “could lead the country to the brink of collapse”. “Crossing the 90% debt/GDP threshold is the equivalent of crossing the proverbial Rubicon of economic growth. It’s a point from which it’s almost impossible to return,” states the article, adding that the market has not responded to quantitative easing so to engage in more of the same would be completely futile. “With 40.8 million Americans on food stamps (record high) and 45% of the unemployed having been seeking employment for 27 weeks or more (record high), what’s left if (or when) QE2 doesn’t kick start GDP growth? Should we start begging for QE3? Should we cancel the bomb of the National Association of Realtors’ existing home sales report, scheduled for public release on August 24th? Or should we bite the bullet and accept that current economic policy dictates 0% returns-on-savings, even as Washington continues to lever-up our future to the point of economic collapse?” writes McCullough. The Dow Jones slipped by 265 points yesterday as both the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve indicated that, as we predicted all along, the happy clappers who blithely talked of “robust recovery” were in fact completely wrong and now that the futile and transitory life-support machine of quantitative easing has been turned off, the picture looks almost as bad as when the crisis began in 2008. Predictions on GDP growth seem to be shrinking by the day as Ben Bernanke greases the skids for QE2 – a fresh round of printing money out of thin air, destroying the long term value of the dollar which has already had 9 consecutive down weeks since June but ensuring the central bankers that run the United States continue to reap lucrative interest payments on the spiraling national debt. The U.S. government, via the taxpayer, paid out nearly $20 billion in interest on debt last month alone, as the Federal Reserve enjoys record profits, only 20 per cent of which is returned to the Treasury…. Continued at: http://www.prisonplanet.com/fed-leads-america-to-the-brink-of-collapse.html added by: Dagum

Reinforcements Ordered in the War on Brains [video]

Rachel Maddow talks about her former show, The War on Brains — she mentions that even though the program no longer exists, America’s war on brains continues. Perhaps the most ridiculous example is the woman who claims that “the separation of church and state” is not mentioned in the US Constitution — a fact that can be easily confirmed by anyone who can read by checking the original document. added by: GrrlScientist

Police Stole $100,000 Which "Smelled" of Marijuana

Although a search of a vehicle that yielded a backpack full of cash that smelled like marijuana was ruled invalid, the money was never returned to the vehicle’s occupants. In June the appellate division of the state Superior Court ruled the search was invalid but many readers — including John Paff, who is chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party’s Open Government Advocacy Project — were curious as to what happened to the smelly money. It was divided between the agencies involved in the case. The Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office got $25,197.60, the Readington Police Department $37,796.40 and the state kept the remaining $41,906. Ricardo Webb and Brian Bennett of Georgia were arrested on May 5, 2005. According to police, at 2:26 a.m. a motorist called to tell them that a white Chevy Yukon with New York plates had been driving erratically on Route 202 before turning onto Old York Road near the Branchburg/Readington township line. Patrolman Joe Greco spotted the SUV turning onto Pleasant Run Road and pulled it over after having to go 60 mph in a 25 mph zone. Greco reported that he searched the vehicle after smelling a “strong odor of raw marijuana” and found a black backpack with more than $100,000 stuffed inside. added by: Omnomynous

Justin Bieber Donates Ticket Sale Proceeds to Tennessee Flood Relief

Is it possible that Justin Bieber is even more charitable than he is adorable? The 16-year old sensation performed at the Bridgestone Arena in Nashville, Tennessee last night. Prior to the concert, he announced that, for every ticket purchased, $1.06 would go to area flood relief, as the region still recovers from a massive spring storm that left many dead and homeless. Ke$ha, Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus have all performed benefit concerts in the state since this natural disaster struck. “I’m really glad to be here and help out, something that’s really important to me,” Bieber said at a press conference prior to the event, which raised $32,000-plus for the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee. No wonder Justin is considered a young world leader , huh?

See more here:
Justin Bieber Donates Ticket Sale Proceeds to Tennessee Flood Relief

Young Jeezy Made ‘Jizzle’ ‘For My Fans’

‘Lil Jon was the extra spice to give it a different feel,’ he says of TM103 first single. By Jayson Rodriguez Young Jeezy Photo: Prince Williams/Getty Images Young Jeezy is set to release TM103 in September, and while the Atlanta rapper said he plans to step out of his usual box on the LP, for the first official single, “Jizzle,” he kept to his comfort zone. ” ‘Jizzle’ was my formula,” Jeezy told MTV News about the Lil Jon-featured track. “It’s like the music that I wanna hear when I’m in the club. I did that for my fans, before I even step out of my box, which I will for this album, as far as singles I wanted to do what I do. What comes to heart to me. And when I hear that [song], that’s Jeezy, that’s ‘Jizzle.’ Lil Jon was just the extra spice to give it a little different feel so it wouldn’t just be a Jeezy record. Jeezy is scheduled to deliver at least one mixtape before his album arrives: 1,000 Grams, Vol. 1, with DJ Scream, will drop online on Thursday. The first track from that collection, “Death B4 Dishonor,” arrived earlier this week and led to speculation the rapper was attacking labelmate Rick Ross in rhyme. On the song, Jeezy appears to be taking offense at Ross’ single “(B.M.F.) Blowin’ Money Fast,” on which the Miami rapper shouts out a notorious criminal organization that Jeezy has had some association with. While the lyrics appear to be directed at Ross, Jeezy spoke to MTV News on Tuesday and refuted the rumblings. “It’s not a dis,” Jizzle told us. “First of all, I’m not gonna get nothing out of dissing that guy. That’s one. What am I gonna get out of dissing him? I think sometimes people can read into things too deep. They trippin’, man. They crazy out there. Basically, if homie takes that as a dis, he’s insecure.” Are you excited to hear the rest of Jeezy’s mixtape this week? Tell us in the comments! Related Artists Young Jeezy

See the article here:
Young Jeezy Made ‘Jizzle’ ‘For My Fans’

Top Obama Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Vanity Fair Editor Pine for Days of ‘Responsible’ Media

Vanity Fair’s national editor Todd Purdum has a long piece in the most recent issue (in the print edition only, as far as I can tell) bemoaning what he argues are the new and unique challenges facing the Obama administration, including the state of the news media. Purdum’s opinions on the state of the news business boil down to a call for the press’s continuing political uniformity. He offers a quote from White House adviser Valerie Jarrett that also captures the author’s opinions on the issue. Purdum writes: Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett looks back wistfully to a time when credible people could put a stamp of reliability on information and opinion: “Walter Cronkite would get on and say the truth, and people believed the media,” she says. Today, no single media figure or outlet has that power to end debate, and in pursuit of “objectivity,” most honest news outlets draw the line at saying flatly that something or other is untrue, even when it plainly is. Purdum’s and Jarrett’s statements are comprised of one part revisionist nostalgia, and one part liberal elitism. “Objectivity” was never really present. What they’re longing for is the reliable white-collar liberalism of the 20th century news media. The uniformity of political views among the media and governing elite feeds a longing for an era of objectivity that was never really there. Jarrett’s comment about Cronkite – and Purdum’s endorsement of that comment – demonstrate the insularity of the elite liberal worldview. Cronkite was hardly the paragon of “objectivity” that so many journalists and academics make him out to be. As NewsBusters has documented, Cronkite had an agenda, and occasionally used his massive soapbox to promote it. His occasional activism included, FBI files recently revealed , aiding Vietnam war protesters – hardly a sign of political objectivity for the man who, according to media lore, set in motion events that turned public support against the war effort. Purdum seems aggravated that journalists “draw the line at saying flatly that something or other is untrue, even when it plainly is.” If Cronkite is a model of journalistic objectivity, yet famously opined against the war effort, it stands to reason that he believes what Cronkite was reporting (that the war was not winnable) was simple fact. But as we now know, Cronkite was not weighing in from a position of objectivity. He was politically inclined to oppose the war, as demonstrated by his aid to protestors. So what Purdum is advocating in waxing nostalgic about Cronkite is in fact journalistic activism – injecting political opinion into ostensibly “straight-news” reporting. That Purdum is also concerned about the liberal elite’s loss of control over the news cycle – that he longs for a “responsible” party to “control” the news – demonstrates that he is only comfortable with the Legacy Media having the power to use their pulpit to weigh in on political issues. Purdum obviously considers some facts to be “plainly” correct, and therefore worthy of an on-air opinion or two. But surely Cronkite thought his view of the futility of the Vietnam war was “correct.” His longing for Cronkite’s era of journalism has nothing to do with contemporary citizen-reporters expressing opinions. It has to do with them expressing the wrong opinions. He and Jarrett, given the chance, would return the United States to a media environment in which a small group of liberal elites retained a strangle-hold on the news cycle and used it to promote the correct opinions. And who has the correct opinions? Why the 20th century New York/DC media gatekeepers, of course. Purdum writes that “the capacity to assert, allege, and comment is now infinite, and subject to little responsible control.” This is where the element of liberal elitism comes in: Purdum is concerned that modern media gatekeepers have not satisfied the prerequisites for traditional purveyors of information. Increasing numbers do not have Ivy League degrees, did not attend journalism school, and have not been privy to the upper-middle class, urbane lifestyle that pervaded and defined the 20th century newsroom. “Responsible control” in this context means control wielded by professionals who have the proper credentials, and share the homogenous values and experiences of the intelligentsia. Purdum and his ilk are concerned that the great unwashed masses are gaining influence over the national dialogue. In fact, those masses can define the conversation. And that, by Purdum’s account, is the problem. A single blogger can upload an iPhone video of a congressman saying something stupid, the Drudge Report can pick it up, and almost instantaneously the entire country can be talking about it. All without aid from traditional media outlets! It’s a frightening loss of control for those who dominated the news cycle for so long – and determined what was and was not news. Journalists have always been keen on telling Americans that the Republic could not survive without the media elite. That’s a convenient position for people with such power. Now that they stand to lose that power, it’s full court press on their respective soapboxes to convince Americans that they, the traditionally-defined media, are needed. Hence, Purdum’s dire tone. Is journalism-by-the-masses less polished? Certainly. Does it spell the downfall of traditional news outlets? Maybe. Would the demise of a news cycle dominated by individuals with a uniform worldview and the consequent homogeneity of their left-of-center politics be a total disaster for the nation and its government? Only if you’re a member of that declining elite. Purdum clearly is, and worries that the “wrong” opinions are making inroads into the national political dialogue through new media, talk radio, and the Fox News Channel. The latter, by Purdum’s account, “is waging a fiercely partisan war against the administration.” The partisanship, though, is nothing new. What is new, and Purdum fairly notes this fact, is the omnipresence of an unprecedentedly large number of opinions, many of them very strong, some of them hostile. Writes Purdum: The world is so constantly with us that the White House press office no longer even tries to hold a daily morning “gaggle,” when beat reporters used to ask press secretaries about the expected news of the day, because it will almost certainly be overtaken by events. Under the 20th century, Old Media conception of the news cycle, the White House did not need to respond to events in real time. Barring some major event, it could hold one press briefing every 24 hours covering the day’s events, and providing comment for the following day’s print edition or the evening news broadcast. The proliferation of citizen journalism demands that official respond to more people, and face questions of a broader nature and variety. In that sense, it does not change the essential nature of the news cycle, but only broadens it. But the “hyperkinetic” news cycle, as Purdum dubs it, changes the means by which officials must respond to reporters and handle information. There are changes to which governing officials and reporters must adapt. Purdum is wrong to wish for a return to the 20th century model, where the opinions of elites were more worthy than those of the “the masses.” A diversity of opinions among the gatekeepers of information enhances, not diminishes, the national dialogue. That is a change all Americans should welcome.

Visit link:
Top Obama Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Vanity Fair Editor Pine for Days of ‘Responsible’ Media

The Strange Case of Charles ‘Paulson Put a Gun to All Their Heads’ Gasparino

Earlier today, NB’s Lachlan Markey covered Bill O’Reilly’s interview with the Fox Business Channel’s Charles Gasparino. In that interview, Gasparino confirmed what the New York Post reported in April of last year, namely that  “GE Execs Encouraged CNBC Staff to Go Easy on Obama.” The suits at GE, including Chairman Jeff Inmelt, had a clear motivation for encouraging their reporters to lighten up, namely that “General Electric at the time was hoping to profit handsomely from policies that would benefit a few companies, including GE, at the expense of the majority of the economy”– specifically cap and trade. But speaking of motivation: What about former CNBCer Gasparino’s? The easy answer would be that sometime in the past two years he has seen the light and realizes his past reporting at CNBC was lacking in fairness and balance. Despite his move to Fox, there’s reason to doubt that. In October 2008, Gasparino and CNBC’s Dylan Ratigan smirked their way through their report on what has turned out in retrospect to have been the event that marked the official beginning of Washington’s financial tyranny (“arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”) over the banking system. That tyranny has largely been codified into law in the recently passed and laughably misnamed “Financial Services Reform” legislation. On October 14, 2008, less than two weeks after Congress passed legislation creating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) with the supposed intent of using the money to buy up specific “toxic assets,” mostly subprime mortgages, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson radically shifted course, forcing the nation’s largest banks to take TARP money directly (i.e., to accept government “investment”) regardless of whether they wanted it or believe they needed it. What follows is a transcript containing most of the early portion of what Ratigan and Gasparino reported before going to other talking heads for their comments (video is still here at CNBC, and must be seen to fully appreciate the conversation’s smarmy arrogance, especially with Gasparino; bolds are mine): Ratigan: Well we all know that obscene amounts of risk (were) taken inside of the banking system, leaving some banks crippled, some banks frozen, and other banks with huge opportunities. Uh, many of the banks didn’t want to be tainted with the government bailout funds because they didn’t want to be mistaken for a fool when they actually felt that they were the smart one that didn’t do it. Well Hank Paulson said “The heck with that.” He stuck all of them with some of the bailout money. And he said “Listen, we’re going to reset the clock here and move forward.” Charlie, how are the banks that felt they basically didn’t commit the crime, as it were, of excess or reckless risk, uh, respond to the fact that even they will be stuck with this capital? Charlie Gasparino: Well y’know they were all kind of stupid to some extent ….. ….. the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put all these egos in the room, and basically put guns to their heads, forcing them to take the money to bolster the banking system. Some of the firms say they didn’t want the cash, but it’s pretty clear that all of them did need to take the cash, given the continued upheaval in the banking system that crushed shares last week of Morgan as well as Goldman Sachs and just about everybody else. So this is essentially, uh, Dylan, a case where, y’know, you can deny you have any problems. Even the best-capitalized banks have problems. They own this stuff. And Paulson at one point said, “Listen, if you don’t want it, it doesn’t matter, gun to your head, you gotta take it.” Ratigan: Yeah, whether you think you’re sick or not, you’re taking the medicine. Gasparino: Because you’re sick anyway. Ratigan: Exactly. Part of my reax at the time: It was very unsettling to see the two CNBC reporters basically smile and smirk their way through the opening segment of the clip, with what I saw as an air of insufferable “we know it all” arrogance. … This “bailout” was originally advertised as being targeted towards troubled loan situations, principally mortgages. Instead, Paulson, Bernanke, and Bush have turned it into a de facto, no good deed goes unpunished (i.e., responsible lending) tool for partial nationalization. How many Congresspersons, or presidential candidates, thought this was what they were voting for, or that this is what the people wanted? Commenter dscott’s reax at the time : Something is up because this is not how a government official acts in a Democracy. “Something” was up all right. We should never forget that the congressmen and senators from both parties, including each party’s presidential candidate, voted TARP into existence despite the intense opposition of the vast majority of Americans, thereby allowing a loophole-laden law to open the door to what has since transpired. Then, less than two weeks later, virtually everyone just stood around while tyranny took its first sweeping steps. Charles Gasparino thought it was sort of funny at the time, as if the financial system’s private players were getting a richly deserved comeuppance. That attitude is consistent with the theme of his most recent book, and of the one that will be released shortly. In November of last year, Gasparino’s ” The Sellout ” was subtitled “How Three Decades of Wall Street Greed and Government Mismanagement Destroyed the Global Financial System.” Given what we have learned about the frauds by design known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the two years since they went into government conservatorship, it’s more than a little odd that he would mention Wall Street first. Gasparino is releasing a book in October whose title is, “Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street.” The book’s tagline: “A top reporter exposes the deep ties between the Obama administration and the big banks that are bankrupting our country.” I’m sure there’s no shortage of material. But fundamentally, Charles, how could it be that Wall Street perpetrated this mess with just a bit of cooperation from and co-opting of Uncle Sam, when it’s Fan and Fred who led the way in compromising prudent lending standards, and it’s Fan and Fred who lied about the underlying quality of their securitized mortgages for about 15 years to the tune of hundreds of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars, doing damage that Wall Street couldn’t hope to do even at its most malicious? Someone –maybe Bill O’Reilly — should ask Gasparino if he still thinks Wall Street is the primary culprit. He clearly did at crunch time in October 2008. Cross-posted in longer form at BizzyBlog.com .  

Read the original here:
The Strange Case of Charles ‘Paulson Put a Gun to All Their Heads’ Gasparino

Exclusive: Young Jeezy Addresses Rick Ross ‘Dis’ Speculation

‘What am I gonna get out of dissing him?’ the Snowman says to MTV News, addressing ‘Death B4 Dishonor’ verse. By Shaheem Reid Young Jeezy and Rick Ross, Atlanta, GA, 10.12.2009 Photo: MTV News We’re not going to make you wait 26 episodes until the season finale to reveal the answer to this cliffhanger. On Monday night, Young Jeezy released “Death B4 Dishonor,” the first song from his upcoming mixtape, 1,000 Grams, Vol. 1. On it, he raps over Rick Ross’ “(B.M.F.) Blowin’ Money Fast” instrumental, which quickly fueled heavy speculation among fans that the Snowman was actually dissing the Bawse. Jeezy settled the question straight-up on Tuesday (August 10). “It’s not a dis,” Jizzle told MTV News via phone from ATL. “First of all, I’m not gonna get nothing out of dissing that guy. That’s one. What am I gonna get out of dissing him? I think sometimes people can read into things too deep. They trippin’ man. They crazy out there. Basically, if homie takes that as a dis, he’s insecure, and anybody else out there who does, they are insecure. “When it comes to that [Black Mafia Family] situation, I’m gonna talk about it a little flyer anyway,” Young added. “I happen to know that situation very well. But basically [‘Death B4 Dishonor’], it’s off a mixtape that’s coming out. My mixtape is coming out on Thursday, it’s called 1,000 Grams. I took all the records I liked and flipped them my way. It’s a gang of records on there like that. It’s like 12 joints, all records that I heard in the club that I like and flipped them my way. While Jeezy doesn’t mention Ross by name on “Death B4 Dishonor,” one of the lines fueling the speculation questions: “How you Blowin’ Money Fast?/ You don’t know the crew/ Oh, you part of the fam?/ Sh–, I never knew.” “That’s for real,” Jeezy explained. “That’s for anybody. I got n—as in prison behind that sh–. I feel that if you speaking on sh–, you gotta at least know who you talking about. That’s like n—as speaking on Cash Money: If he ain’t never been a part of Cash Money, [then] I’mma speak it better if I’m a part of Cash Money. To me, [BMF] was real. I know all the members. Who else would say a line like that, but me? I’m one of the few people who can say that, so I said it. That’s real life, though. You gotta know the crew, baby. I thought that was the purpose of the game: to get on records and talk your sh–, right? “Subliminals, for what?” the Snowman added. ‘What’s understood ain’t gotta be said. I didn’t think people would take the record like that. I did it like I would have any Shawty Lo record, any Rocko record, whoever. I got on [Ross’ beat] and did it like how I do it, the best way I know how. I don’t know if because the BMF situation is for real for me that everybody is like, ‘Ooh. Oh, sh–.’ Twitter is a muthaf—a, by the way.” During our talk, Jeezy said that his song “The Real BMF” had already been recorded (and was sitting in his vault) before Ross’s “(B.M.F.)” was released. “The Real BMF” was supposed to have been included on the upcoming TM103, but once he heard that Ross put out a song so similar, he decided it didn’t belong on his LP; it would just be a giveaway to the streets. Young also described Ross’ “(B.M.F.)” as “dope” and said he was bound to jump on the record one way or another, either officially or through the mixtape circuit, which he ultimately did. On 1,000 Grams, Vol. 1 he also flips Soulja Boy’s “Pretty Boy Swag” into “Dope Boy Swag” and Kanye West’s “Power” into the record & #8212; so aptly titled for the #1 Trap Star & #8212; “Powder.” Records by the Clipse and Young Money also get their instrumentals borrowed for the tape. “It was one of those things, you get in a zone and wanna get some sh– off,” he said of the DJ Scream-hosted tape. “I wanted to have some fun. Get in the booth, smoke me one or two.” And yes, his long awaited TM103 album is still on the way. He promises it’ll drop before the end of 2011. What do you think of Jeezy’s explanation? Does this end the speculation for you? Tell us your thoughts in the comments. Related Artists Young Jeezy Rick Ross (Hip-Hop)

Go here to see the original:
Exclusive: Young Jeezy Addresses Rick Ross ‘Dis’ Speculation

Biden’s ‘The View’ Interview Tougher Than Obama’s, But Why?

Although there are few tough interviews on ABC’s “The View” – this was an exception to the rule – Vice President Joe Biden received a surprisingly more serious reception than did President Obama on the daytime celebrity show. He even had a snide remark for Whoopi Goldberg about high taxes for the wealthy. As Newsbusters reported , President Obama’s interview was essentially a rousing festival of praise for the administration and Obama’s family. By contrast, Vice President Biden’s interview, although by no means tough, was missing the slew of softball questions that Obama enjoyed. There were even some awkward exchanges between Biden and co-hosts Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg, on the issues of foreign policy and taxes, respectively. While the show’s hosts continually fawned over President Obama, token conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck soon brought up Biden’s infamous F-bomb gaffe at the health care bill’s signing. Sherri Shepherd followed up by asking about the administration’s answers for angry Tea Partiers, and Whoopi Goldberg then pressed about the problem of high taxes. Biden quipped, “You have a lot of money, that’s why it bothers you,” before assuring Goldberg that he was kidding. That didn’t suffice for the comedian and actress, who continued to press the issue. “People do assume – they see somebody and say ‘They have a lot of money, so take it from them,'” Goldberg pointed out. “But no one says, ‘Well what are they doing with their money, and how are they working? Are they taking care of their family?'” “If we’re going to start talking about a national sales tax, on top of everything else, what taxes can you guys remove?” and exasperated Goldberg demanded of Biden. “I think that they’re worried, too, about how [their money] is being spent,” Hasselbeck remarked about Americans frustrated with the administration. “I think that’s a main issue, not just how it’s being taxed, but how it’s being spent, and it’s astronomical right now.” Veteran journalist Barbara Walters later pressed the Vice President on foreign policy, resulting in another mildly tense exchange. You can view the questions for President Obama’s interview on “The View” here , and compare it with Vice President Biden’s questions, which are listed below: ABC THE VIEW 8/9/10 11:23 a.m.-11:49 a.m. EDT JOY BEHAR: I was wondering, why did Dick Cheney never want to come on? Was it something I said? … BARBARA WALTERS: Mr. Vice President, you have the second most powerful job in the country, and I’m going to ask you a very simple question that may sound like a very simple question. But most people have no idea what the Vice President does except for ceremonial things. Vice President JOE BIDEN: (Unintelligible) (Laughter) WALTERS: Well, that’s why I asked. You know, you break the tie in the Senate, but do you have any power, I mean, what do you do every day? … ELISABETH HASSELBECK: You mentioned relationship with the President, and it obviously is very good, too. You know, it’s – he’s been in the past talking about words, you know, he’s told us that there are certain words that, as America, we should kind of stay away from. The “War on Terror,” “radical Islam,” etc. You get up there, health care bill signed, and you throw the F-bomb, and I’m thinking “Oh man! That might be one we shouldn’t say, too!” (Laughter) So were you surprised that you got the pass from him on that? (Laughter) BIDEN: I was just thankful my mother couldn’t hear or see it. And it was a little embarrassing. JOY BEHAR: Did you realize there was a microphone? … BEHAR: You know, there seems to be a lack of decorum in politics these days. (Laughter) You know, somebody yells out “You lie!”, another person calls Stupak a “baby killer,” and then there was a thing out of your office, Rahm Emanuel, saying that these liberal guys were a bunch of “retards,” my quotes are there. What is going on? And is it dangerous, and is it different? SHERRI SHEPHERD: Well what about the – you know, we have these Tea Party – the Tea Party people now, they’re protesting big government, health care, uh, spending — WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Taxes – SHEPHERD: And your administration – taxes – is saying that they’re these far right lunatics. I mean, why haven’t you addressed any of their – BIDEN: Well by the way, the President and I haven’t said they’re far right lunatics. Look, I think there’s an awful lot of people out there are frightened and scared. It’s a very difficult time. I travel all over the country, I’ve been in over 60 cities, people have lost their jobs, they’re unsure if they’re going to keep their homes, they’re not sure that the jobs they have they’ll keep, can I get my kid back to college, etc.? And they’re very worried. There’s fringes in every outfit. But the vast majority of these people, I think, are just frustrated. And what they don’t get yet, and I understand it, is they’re going to see that we’ve spent our time cutting taxes. We’ve given the largest tax cut in the history of America to middle class people. We’re actually paying for what we do. GOLDBERG: Okay. I like the idea of that. But when you look at how much taxation is going on in this country, you know, I ‘ve been crutching about this from the beginning. Because I don’t mind paying taxes. BIDEN: You have a lot of money, that’s why it bothers you. (Laughter) I’m joking. (Crosstalk) GOLDBERG: Here’s the interesting thing. You may see somebody, and people do assume – they see somebody and say they have a lot of money, so take it from them. But no one says, well what are they doing with their money, and how are they working? Are they taking care of their family? Are they doing – so now, if we’re going to start talking about a national sales tax, on top of everything else, what taxes can you guys remove? BIDEN: Well by – we aren’t talking about that. WALTERS: The President is. BIDEN: No, the President said he was open to listening about that. Look, we’ve set up a commission, a fiscal commission that is designed bipartisan, that is going to report after November elections back to us to say that “This is what we recommend is how to get control of the long-term deficit. And the President said everything’s on the table, everything’s on the table, from cuts, to even considering revenues. And so look, here’s the deal. The question is nobody likes taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes. And I don’t blame them. The question is, who deserves the biggest break right now?  From 2000-2007, the middle class lost ground in America. They lost ground. For the first time since 1929, you had one percent of the people making 23.5 percent of all the income. GOLDBERG: Then why not hit – and I know this must be crazy – but you know, the communications taxes, you look on the phone bill – we are being taxed within an inch of our butt. Why can’t we get some relief from those folk – people don’t mind paying the federal and the state. HASSELBECK: I think that they’re worried too about how it’s being spent. I think that’s a main issue, not just how it’s being taxed, but how it’s being spent, and it’s astronomical right now. …     BEHAR: Before we go any further, I must ask you – what is the appeal of Sarah Palin, exactly, do you think? … HASSELBECK: Is [Palin] something that the administration’s eyeing in 2-12? Or is she someone that they consider to be a legitimate threat again? … WALTERS: Can I ask some foreign policy questions, okay? While we’re at it? Because there’s some important things. Last week Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the administration does not have an adequate plan to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The whole world is worrying about this. Why don’t we have a plan? BIDEN: Barbara, we do have a plan, and look, if, as the secretary said, when that, a reference to that memo was leaked. It was inaccurate, what was said, it does not reflect what the memo said, I’ve read the memo, I know the memo. We have, from the day we – actually before we took office, before we took office, one of the first things we did in putting together our national security team, was come up with a game plan as to how to deal with Iraq’s – I mean Iran’s – effort to get a nuclear weapon. We have clearly known exactly what we were doing, and – WALTERS: Sanctions are not working. BIDEN: No, no, no. Sanctions – WALTERS: But you have China doesn’t want to agree to have sanctions – BIDEN: China will agree to sanctions. There will in fact be – this is the first time the entire world is unified that Iran is out of bounds. You have a – they’re more isolated than they have ever been. They are more isolated with their own people, they are more isolated externally, they are more isolated in the region – WALTERS: So is the next step sanctions? BIDEN: The next step is sanctions. WALTERS: And if they don’t work?          BIDEN: I’m not going to speculate beyond that. It’s not appropriate to do that. … WALTERS: Also the Israelis are debating now whether they should attack themselves, without U.S. permission – attack Iran without U.S. permission. If they decided to do that, what are your thoughts? … HASSELBECK: You know, I was reading, growing up they called you “Joe Impedimenta,” is that correct, because of a stutter that you had? I mean, so many people do struggle with that. Exactly how did you overcome it over the years? … WALTERS: And you still today, you work with the American Institute of Stuttering, I just want to mention that – … SHEPHERD: One thing you’re not embarrassed about, which is so great. You’ve been married for 32 years to your wife Jill. But – I love it, because – you asked Jill five times, five times to marry you. When she said no the other four, what made you keep asking? … WALTERS: Why didn’t [Jill] want you? … HASSELBECK: A lot of people are in love with you, Mr. Vice President. Truly, you’re a pretty cool guy, I have to say. I mean, we don’t sit on the same side of the political aisle, but it’s good to share the sofa!  We’re so thankful that you are here. Thanks to the Vice President, and we’ll be right back.

Go here to see the original:
Biden’s ‘The View’ Interview Tougher Than Obama’s, But Why?

Ohio Dems Try to Revive Debunked Smear Against Hannity-backed Charity

The Democratic Party of Ohio has recycled a thoroughly debunked smear against Fox News host Sean Hannity and Freedom Alliance, a charity he works with regularly that raises money to educate the children of American servicemen. A release  from the Ohio Dems claimed that Rep. John Kasich, Republican candidate for governor, “promote[d] Hannity’s scandal-ridden ‘Freedom Alliance’ concerts that are under investigation for misappropriating charitable donations.” The Ohio Dems cited a complaint by the technically non-partisan, but ideologically liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW claimed that the charity, Freedom Alliance, had “awarded $2,147,750 in scholarships,” only half of what they spent on salaries, and a quarter of what they spent on shipping expenses, according to their complaint to the Federal Trade Commission. But this line of attack on Freedom Alliance is bogus. CREW fails to note that since most servicemen are relatively young, most of money Freedom Alliance raises is put in a trust fund until soldiers’ children are old enough to take advantage of it. Hence, while the charity raised roughly $2.1 million for scholarships in 2008 alone, according to its 990 form ( pdf ), it only spent about $800,000 that year, putting the rest into the trust. CREW’s claim that the charity only spent $2.1 million on scholarships over five years is disingenuous. While the number is technically correct, the scholarship fund contained $15,919,391 as of 2008, according to the 990 linked above, all slated to be spent on educating the children of servicemen when they reach the appropriate age. Jon Soltz, chairman of the left-wing advocacy group VoteVets.org, which according to Politico “is backing CREW,” claimed “80 to 90 percent” of funds raised should benefit veterans and their families. But there is no indicator that Soltz was referring to any funds other than the money spent directly on scholarships the year they were raised. As noted above, that number does not tell the full story. Also noted in the Democratic release is Freedom Alliance’s “F” rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy. But the release does not delve into AIP’s criteria for that grade. According to the organization’s website , top-rated charities “generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve, and receive ‘open-book’ status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to AIP.” Accorfing to its 990 form for 2007 (the year it got that rating, according to the release – pdf ), Freedom Alliance spent $1,011,501 on fundraising, and raised $10,762,256 in public support. That means it spent less than $10 on fundraising for each $100 it raised, well below the $25 threshold set by AIP. Of Freedom Alliance’s $7,461,350 budget that year, $6,084,474, or roughly 81.5 percent, was spent on programs. The remaining two criteria – a charity’s open-book status and the size of its reserves – are the only factors that could have earned it the “F” rating. But as discussed above, Freedom Alliance keeps massive reserves (compared to the amount it pays out annually) so that it can afford to pay for scholarships when the young children of currently twenty-something servicemen come of age (the average soldier is in his mid-twenties). So either the nature of the Freedom Alliance charity earned it the “F” rating – a completely benevolent reason – or AIP does not enjoy “open-book” status with it (or both). In any case, it hardly seems that Freedom Alliance is deserving of the “scandal-ridden” label given it in the Ohio Democrats’ release. In all, the release contains nothing more than baseless accusations against Hannity and Freedom Alliance. The Democratic Party is apparently trying to revive it in an effort to damage a political opponent. It’s a shame that Hannity and Freedom Alliance are caught in the middle of this political game.

See the article here:
Ohio Dems Try to Revive Debunked Smear Against Hannity-backed Charity