O-baa-ma

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-221...

Or do I need to read the 2 that were previously released (I believe one was Messenger)?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2862591/p...

As in, this is the most transparent, desperate move to appear to want "smaller government" and only his mindless sheep and the politically ignorant will actually think this is sincere?

http://news.yahoo.com/r-p-department-commerce-pres...

According to Lib logic?

Or do we just live with a left leaning media in a right leaning country?

And the narrative from the Left this morning is the debate was Republicans talking about religion and war?

Are they dumb, or purposely misleading?

Are they THAT out of touch with reality? About 3% of the population cares about these things.

Are they not talking economy because they know Republicans will destroy Obama?

Are 'progressives' getting progressively more vile and disgusting?

...to be born?

and entitlement spending has increased?

and/or back in Texas.

What gives?

Found this in the comment section of a liberal rag. Not the first time I've heard it suggested:

"The Laughing Hyena says:

I changed my registration to GOP so I can vote for Paul in the primary. I do want to throw a hand grenade at the GOP. Limbaugh advocated voting in the Democratic primary in 2008, and many of his followers did so in ‘Operation Chaos.’

I do find it amusing that the Democrats I talk to about ‘Operation Chaos’ redux are horrified at casting a vote for Paul in the GOP primary, despite the fact they can vote for Obama in the general election. In this sense, the left seems just as devoted to ‘purity’ as the GOP, but simply expresses it in a different, less pragmatic way.

Why not wreck THEIR party? The GOP base is horrified by Paul. Give them Paul."

The "no one but Paul" crew need not reply. I'll be happy to vote for Paul if he is against Obama, but let's chillax until then.

Anyway...

An economist I really respect, James Pethokoukis, took a look at Santorum's economic plan and seemed to be impressed. Your thoughts?

"Bottom line: Santorum has one of the most politically and economically cohesive policy plans in the GOP field. He wants to help middle-class families and sees tax policy as a way of directly doing that, beyond trying to boost GDP growth. It’s more populist-conservative in many ways than pure free-market/libertarian, the latter of which seems to more reflect the Tea Party trend in GOP economic policy. Not something a Wall Street or Ivy League economist would cook up, certainly. And supply-side economics is about altering incentives to boost growth (and incomes and jobs), not altering fertility rates to boost human capital or easing the tax burden on families. No matter Santorum’s political fate, his ideas may gain further traction on the right as some policymakers and wonks see the limits of an economic approach geared almost exclusively around lowering marginal tax rates and cutting spending."

Sex with no consequence and no marriage has lead to 70% of black children being raised by one parent, generally absent a father.

And that's if they make it out of the womb alive. Roughly 47% of black pregnancies end in abortion.

This lack of family, responsibility, and respect for life has lead to higher rate of living off the government, a higher crime rate, and less emphasis put on education as a necessity.

No racists, it's not because the color of their skin.

But no apologists, it's also not just simply 'socioeconomic.'. The poorest counties in the country are in ND, SD, TX...

Is it time we look at the real issue?

Is it really hard for some to connect these dots?

I asked my Mexican friend, and he said he was on the fence.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-...

Incarceration rate, drugs, murder, education...the issues are big, and not improving.

10 points to the person that hits on the reason(s) why.

*Racist comments will not get BA. It's not simply due to color of skin.

*Socioeconomics will not receive BA, because it's a PC oversimplification of the issue. The poorest counties in the country are in ND, SD, TX, etc. And have nowhere near the crime rate.

So what's the big issue, and potential solutions?

No libs, you don't?

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up the national debt from 5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added 4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have 9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

President Obama has added another $4 trillion all by his lonesome. In just two and a half years, no less. That’s $ 46,930 for every man, woman, and child.

Is that irresponsible? Is it unpatriotic? Or do the new rules regarding civility in public discourse render such questions (especially when uttered by Tea Partiers/terrorists) irresponsible and unpatriotic?