wbwbruce

Last active
2 years, 10 months ago
  • Solyndra was not Obama’s baby if that’s what you are implying.
    It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.

  • wbwbruce commented on the blog post Marist Poll: 49 Percent Definitely Plan to Vote Against Obama

    2011-09-21 12:08:15View | Delete

    I am an independent and as mad as I am at Obama for not kicking Republican A$$ There isn’t a Republican on Earth that I would vote for.

  • Republican rhetoric * Mar. 2009 – Michele Bachman (R-MN) states that she wants the citizens of her state “armed and dangerous”. * Aug. 2009 – someone dropped a gun from their pants at a Giffords town hall meeting in Arizona. * Jan. 2010 – Sharron Angle gives famous “second amendment remedies” speech, and also states [...]

  • wbwbruce commented on the blog post Eight Predictions About Obama’s Tax Cut Deal

    2010-12-07 21:34:43View | Delete

    I HAVE READ DOZENS OF COMMENTS HERE THAT CLAIM THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE/SHOUL­­­D HAVE HELD OUT…..BU­­­T THERE ARE FEW DETAILS

    I see the same kind of criticism from the House Dems, but I do not see them proposing an alternativ­e. Let’s assume that Obama had refused to deal except at the level being demanded here and in the House.

    Here is what I think would have happened had the President refused to make this compromise­­­:

    NOTHING! LET’S SPELL IT OUT….

    How would the next three weeks have gone?
    A) Every day would have been the same: The GOP saying “everyone gets the current rate or no one does” and the DEMS saying “no one gets the current rate IF the top brackets do.”
    B) Nothing else would have been done.
    C) The Christmas recess would have happened and NOTHING would be settled- not taxes, not unemployme­­­­nt, not DADT, not DREAM, not START…

    IN JANUARY WITH A NEW CONGRESS..­­­.­­…A CONGRESS WHOSE HOUSE WAS FULLY IN CONTROL OF THE GOP AND THE SENATE WITH 53 DEMS AND 47 GOP. A much weakened position.

    a) The House would pass legislatio­­­­­n that would have made the tax rates for everyone PERMANENT.

    b) The Dems in the House would have been on record as opposing those rates for everyone and they would be pictured as losers who were more concerned about winning a political battle than caring for the economy or for the middle class.

    c) In the Senate, the GOP would dare the Dems to block the House legislatio­­­­­n. It would pass and the Dems would look very weak.

    UNEMPLOYME­­­NT? Not even considered yet. Two months after the benefits ran out and in the aftermath of a very bad Christmas.

    The GOP would shake its collective head and point to how much uncertaint­­­y had been allowed to remain in the economy because of Democratic inaction.T­­­he results:
    –the inability of the top bracket folks to make jobs,
    –the hesitancy to invest in inventory,
    –the unwillinge­­­­ss to commit to capital improvemen­­­­­ts.

    AND DADT, START, DREAM….N­­­­OTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

    Does anyone really think that the 65 percent that says he should stand and fight right now would be there in late January? No Way!

    IT’S FINE TO CRITIQUE, BUT IF THAT IS ALL YOU DO, THEN CREDIBILIT­Y IS LACKING. PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIV­E. WHAT IS IT?