I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From Dr. Dave
Originally posted 2016-12-08 16:26:08.
Category Archives: Recent Posts
You will NOT Believe this!
But then maybe you will knowing how ruthless liars the Democrats are, and as they leave office we, the taxpayers, including all you Democrats, are left with the tab. Thank you Obummer, make sure you add this to your legacy in your next book and in your library you plan on building in Chicago. Maybe President Trump will be your contractor — NOT! You POS
And remember the debtors are those fragile, safe space kids who we find out now could be having a free ride on their college loans. Maybe President Trump will surprise them — I hope.
From the Wall Street Journal as reported by the GAO
Democrats devised the government takeover of student loans as an entitlement that might never be repaid, though they sold it as a money saver. New evidence of this giant con arrives courtesy of a report this week by the Government Accountability Office that estimates the taxpayer losses at $108 billion and counting.
To help pay for Obamacare, Democrats simultaneously federalized the student loan market and projected fictitious savings, all while adding more than $1.2 trillion to the federal balance sheet. The amount keeps increasing like the debt clock. Liberals then cited the government “savings” to peddle the fallacy that the feds make money off student loans—a pretext they then used to sweeten debt forgiveness plans that have helped keep default rates artificially low.
The Education Department claims the national student loan default rate is 11.3%, yet only half of all debt is in repayment. Borrowers can seek forbearance or deferment if they are unemployed, return to school or claim financial difficulties. Or they can enroll in income-based repayment plans that let them discharge the debt after making payments equal to 10% of their discretionary income for 20 years. Those who work in “public service”—government or a nonprofit—can wipe out their debt in 10 years without a tax penalty.
Initially, only students who borrowed in 2014 or later were eligible for these generous loan forgiveness plans. Then President Obama retroactively extended the benefits to buy millennial votes. Over the last three years the share of outstanding federal direct loan dollars in income-based repayment plans has doubled to 40%. Costs have exploded.
GAO estimates that 5.3 million borrowers, or 24% of former students, have enrolled in income-based repayment plans. They collectively owe $355 billion, $108 billion of which will eventually be forgiven. But this sum covers only loans through the current school year and will likely grow as more borrowers exploit the entitlement. In April the Administration announced a goal of adding two million to the debt-forgiveness rolls over the next year.
The agency scores the Education Department for repeatedly low-balling the cost, which has made its loan forgiveness look more affordable. Over eight years the Administration’s budget estimates for income-based repayment plans have more than doubled to $53 billion. The department now forecasts that taxpayers will pick up about 21% of the cost for loans in these plans.
GAO warns that the department may still be undershooting the actual cost since it “assumes no borrowers will switch into or out” of the plans. The department’s “quality control practices do not ensure reliable budget estimates,” GAO concludes, with hilarious understatement. A company that was this sloppy with its accounting would be prosecuted.
To sum up: The Obama Democrats used student loans and loan forgiveness to buy votes and dissembled about the cost. Now as they leave town they are handing Republicans the bill. As for millennials, they’ll pay in the end with higher tax rates.
Originally posted 2016-12-02 13:18:03.
Can you believe this?
I can. I would not put anything past these scumbag HRC supporters. Oh Lord, how I wish these liberal %$#&^’s would come and try to vandalize my property, it would be their last act in life! I’ll make sure they would never walk again. Come and get me you liberal derelicts, I’m easy to find, but you best bring a squad, better yet, make that a platoon.
Navy Veteran’s Home Torched and Vandalized with Anti-Trump Graffiti
Navy veteran Matthew Smith returned home after spending the night with relatives to find his house in Plant City, Fla., heavily damaged by fire and vandalized with obscene anti-Donald Trump graffiti. Smith believes his home was targeted because of his support for Trump.
Smith and his wife, Brittany, said they had supported Trump since he announced his candidacy for president in 2015, but never publicly identified themselves as Trump supporters by, for example, displaying a campaign sign in their yard. “We were all very nice to everybody,” Brittany said. “We got along with people. So it’s very odd.”
Matthew was not shy, however, when it came to expressing his political views on Facebook, where he said he frequently posted comments in support of Trump, gun rights, and other conservative causes. He also flies the American flag in front of his house, along with the Navy flag and a black flag supporting prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action.
Police are investigating to determine if there is a link between the attack on the Smiths’ home and similar incidents in nearby Mango, Fla., where two mobile homes were recently defaced with anti-Trump graffiti. One of the attacks reportedly involved at an attempt to set the home on fire.
Originally posted 2016-11-30 14:08:53.
No “Hail to the Chief”
By Linda Tripp
Arguably at no time since the aftermath of the Civil War has there ever been a time when unity in America was more critical. In a unique position to facilitate that unity, Hillary Rodham Clinton decided instead to champion divisiveness by actively questioning the outcome of the election. For those who intimately know and understand the Clinton Playbook, this is business as usual. There are never any real surprises with Hillary. For the President-elect who has been remarkably magnanimous concerning his erstwhile opponent, this divisive tactic will make his enormous job all the more difficult. And that is precisely the point.
The Hillary many of us know emerged by not emerging on election night. To the dismay of her supporters not only in Manhattan’s cavernous Javitz Center but across the entire country, she was a no show. Her loyal supporters had anticipated a victory, a blow out. All the networks, the print press, the pundits had virtually assured them of this. Yes, the grand fireworks display over the Hudson River had been inexplicably cancelled, but sunshine and lollipops would reign supreme anyway. Her victory was a foregone conclusion.
As election night became early morning, and as their friends at the networks were forced (in abject horror) to call the election in favor of her opponent, her supporters faced not jubilant victory but unthinkable yet indisputable defeat. They faced it alone. As they waited in vain for their candidate to appear, classic HRC is what they got.
Foregoing a gracious and necessary personal appearance, she threw the wily John Podesta out on the stage. Best known for his emails, this odd choice of stand-in appeared pale, in visible shock and much like a marionette whose tangled strings had a mind of their own. His bizarre appearance left more questions than answers and his shaken performance seemed to suck all the oxygen out of the room. Clinton’s supporters were left with not only morose defeat but also a sense of abandonment as they wandered aimlessly out of the victory hall. As Donald Trump faced the enormity of his win, he gave a heartfelt, humble and gracious victory speech, one which in its inclusiveness was clearly meant to begin our national healing. Hillary’s voters across the country finally went to bed, monumentally let down by all of it. Their mistake was in believing she actually cared about all of them.
All this occurred due to a fundamental Hillary truth: It is first, last and always all about her. Period. It was never about her supporters in the hall or voters across the country. They are routinely forgotten once the votes are tallied and she resurrects their importance only if and when the next election approaches. They have always been nothing more than a means to an end. They are not living, breathing, feeling individuals.
By many reports, on election night this strong glass ceiling breaker was too busy crying inconsolably and pitching a less than presidential fit to give a fig about anyone else. Too distraught to appear, in the end this supposedly strong candidate who proudly touted the gender card became little more than a weak and tired cliché. At the risk of dating myself, she became less “I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar” and more “It’s My Party and I’ll Cry If I Want To,” and exposed once and for all the real woman behind the mask.
Always a bridesmaid, never a bride about sums it up when one looks at this election and that of 2008. Hillary was the odds-on favorite to win both times. In 2008 she couldn’t even clinch the nomination. She considered it stolen. In 2016, her opponent snatched victory from the jaws of defeat and in one fell swoop crushed a coronation. She was resoundingly defeated by an unlikely candidate who never served even one day of his 69 years in government service. It appears she is not quite ready to give up that crown.
Her concession speech the day after the election began her attempt at rebuilding what was fast becoming her tattered legacy.
When she finally appeared, she didn’t congratulate the President-elect, she didn’t throw her support behind him. Instead, she stated the obvious fact that “he will be our next president” and opined that we needed to give him a chance. After checking that requisite box for any losing candidate, she promptly fell back on her tired refrain of “women and girls” and glass ceilings, offering them hope for the future. While aspirational in its resonance, just about all women not named Hillary Clinton have long since known this artificial glass ceiling had been thoroughly and completely shattered years before.
Countless Presidents and Prime Ministers, world leaders all, have been and are women. Some going back decades. For the sake of argument, we won’t even consider the female surgeons, pilots, astronauts, CEOs, elected officials and diplomats to name just a few both here and around the world who years later are still picking shards of glass out of their hairdos. Women have long since arrived at the pinnacle of power, they are just named something other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Apparently they don’t count.
Today we see a machination that many who know Hillary knew to expect. If one wonders if the less than impactful Jill Stein had a little “help” in her quest to challenge the election, wonder no more. That the Clinton campaign has joined forces to ensure “fairness” tells the whole story. Everyone questioned whether or not Donald Trump would accept the outcome of the election. With the pervasive corruption attributed to his opponent on so many fronts, he was wise to question a potentially rigged system.
But it was a question that if asked of one, should have been asked of the other. In an election cycle that was from all accounts preordained, no one bothered to ask Hillary. It might have been a good idea to run that one by her. On her plane following the debate, she opined on this subject as it pertained to her opponent. She characterized him dismissively in a denigrating way and blathered on about our democratic process, but failed to include herself in this equation. Now we know her answer. As many of us have always known, the rules always apply to everyone else but absolutely never apply to Hillary. We understood she would be the very last one to accept defeat, graciously or otherwise.
The fact is, Hillary Clinton still cannot comprehend or accept what she believes is an inconceivable outcome of the election. She never will. Her likeness was supposed to grace our currency decades in the future. That was the plan. Instead of leaving the national stage with grace and dignity, she is hanging on by her fingernails. This time she is using the inconsequential Jill Stein to do her public dirty work.
Loath to exit the international arena, she will use every trick in the book in what will be a futile attempt to change the outcome of the election. She will not publicly participate, she will leave that to her now defunct campaign, ensuring her minions do it for her. Those minions have their marching orders, and in Hillary’s world, there is not a minion alive who would question her direct order. Not while there is a chance they could change the election and retake the White House.
So as the President-elect conducts a well-disciplined transition and prepares to lead the nation in a matter of weeks, the country will simply have to endure Hillary’s behind-the-scenes temper tantrum. With strains of “Hail to the Chief” echoing silently in her mind, all else pales for Hillary. Unity be damned. She’s going for it. Not for the good of the country. Never for the good of the country. It is for personal achievement, for personal gain, for personal riches. And that’s the gal I know.
Originally posted 2016-11-29 17:10:15.
Now we know the rest of the story
Jill Stein’s recount efforts aren’t going to win her the presidency. What they will get her is donor data potentially worth millions of dollars.
The former Green Party candidate has raised more than $6.4 million to fund voting recount efforts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania since November 23. Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in each state by a narrow margin, leading some still-optimistic progressives to hold onto the slim hope the results will be flipped. But Stein, whose distaste for Clinton is obvious, isn’t trying to oust Trump. She’s gathering email addresses.
Stein is the owner of the name, contact and credit card information of each and every individual who donates to the #Recount2016 cause. And while at first glance it may appear a trivial detail, in the political realm, it’s gold. Not only can she use them for future fundraising efforts of her own, but she can also rent out the emails gathered for thousands and even millions of dollars.
“She’s collected tens of thousands of high-quality donor emails, and many of those folks will continue to give and give over and over again if her campaign asks,” said Kenneth Pennington, former national digital director of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.
An average, fresh email address is generally worth $5 to $10, but donor emails can easily be valued at $20 to $30, said Vincent Harris, a Texas-based digital strategist who worked for Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich and Ted Cruz, among others.
The Stein recount campaign has received donations from nearly 140,000 individuals. Taking that into account, a conservative calculation puts the list Stein is now in possession of at $2.8 million. Harris estimated she could command a fee of $50,000 to $75,000 for a one-time blast.
“It’s a really powerful asset for her, and it’s one that could be a moneymaker,” he said.
Stein uses NationBuilder, a Software as a Service for political causes and campaigns, for her fundraising efforts. Unlike other platforms that use crowdsourcing like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, NationBuilder does not take a cut of any of the donations. It doesn’t hold onto donor information, either — Stein does.
“Jill Stein then owns that data and can use the emails, use the amounts they save and have the information about the amounts they’ve donated and also, if they’ve recruited other people,” said Emily Schwartz, vice president at NationBuilder.
Once a person has donated, they have the option to share that via Facebook or Twitter. This is part of what has helped Stein’s campaign go viral — and garnered her more information and names.
“That creates a natural engine for her to keep that going,” said Schwartz.
Donor lists are a hot commodity in politics. “The immediate donations are gravy, but the emails, which they will trade and sell to other like-minded groups, is where the enduring value is,” said John Phillips, CEO of nonpartisan political technology firm Aristotle.
Ben Carson collected information from more than 700,000 supporters during his presidential run. The list could earn the retired neurosurgeon $4 million over three years of rentals, according to one estimate. Wisconsin Republican Scott Walker used the rental of 675,000 emails on his list to pay off his more than $1 million in campaign debt.
According to FEC filings, Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign committee made $2.2 million in list rentals in 2015 and the first three quarters of 2016. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign committee made $3.1 million on list rentals in the 2010 midterm election cycle two years later.
Bernie Sanders is in possession of what could potentially be a very lucrative list — more than 2.4 million donors gave to his presidential campaign. But he’s not renting it out. He is instead using it for his Our Revolution political action organization, which raises money for various progressive candidates and causes.
Email lists owned and used by a candidate’s campaign committee are the property of the candidate’s campaign committee, and any money derived from renting the lists belongs to the committee, not the candidate, said Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Common Cause.
“Both the email lists and money derived from rental of the lists are campaign committee assets and can’t be converted to the personal use of the candidate. Doing so would violate well-established federal campaign finance law,” he said.
Scam super PACs are more prevalent on the right than on the left, and the same happens with list rentals, though to a lesser degree. Progressive organizations tend to have stricter standards about opting users in to receive emails, and they are generally more wary of falling into traps by sending a lot of unsolicited mail.
Still, there’s no doubt Stein is now in possession of a valuable asset.
A Stein spokeswoman said that the average donation size for the recount campaign is about $45, and that three-quarters of the donations received have been under $100. Only a little over 300 contributions of over $1,000 have been made. The maximum amount allowed legally is $2,700 per donor per campaign.
The spokeswoman declined to comment on Stein’s intentions for the donor list.
Trump spokesman Jason Miller on a call with press Monday called Stein’s recount efforts a “completely frivolous, throwaway fundraising scheme.” But that isn’t the case.
“I’d pay at least $2 for any old working email address. These are donor addresses so they’re worth much, much more. The future value depends on the quality and tenacity of the fundraisers are who control the fate of the list down the line,” said Pennington.
Originally posted 2016-11-29 12:42:31.
