Obama is just a joke....he's aiming for more economic progress in 2012???...and because the Congress extended the payroll tax holiday for 2 more months????...we've had the payroll tax holiday for all of 2011 and what did it get us...NOTHING!...more of the same just gives more of the same...
This President just does not have a CLUE!...and while he's offering this payroll tax holiday which does NOTHING to help the economy and jobs he's continuing to bankrupt social security funding..and is turning his back on real job creators like the Canadian Pipeline.....
This Arrogant Idiot needs to be replace in 2012....or we will continue America deline.
Obama Aims for More Economic Progress in 2012
Published December 31, 2011 | Associated Press
HONOLULU – Reflecting on a challenging year, President Obama says he's hoping for more economic progress following action by Congress to prevent tax increases at the start of 2012.
"It was good to see members of Congress do the right thing for millions of working Americans," said Obama, using his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to deliver a New Year's message.
He said the public made itself heard on a Social Security payroll tax cut and that was one big reason that lawmakers agreed to extend it for two more months.
The American people, Obama said, "had the courage to believe your voices could make a difference."
The president said he expects Congress to finish the job when lawmakers return to Washington in January and extend the tax cut through the end of the year.
Reflecting on 2011, Obama said it was a time of great challenge and progress, including the end of the war in Iraq, the death of Osama bin Laden and signs of an economic recovery.
"There's no doubt that 2012 will bring even more change," Obama said. "And as we head into the new year, I'm hopeful that we have what it takes to face that change and come out even stronger -- to grow our economy, create more jobs and strengthen the middle class."
On the eve of an election year, Obama said the months ahead will help determine "what kind of country we want to be and what kind of world we want our children and grandchildren to grow up in."
Sen. Johnny Isakson, delivering the GOP address, outlined his party's commitments to the American people for 2012.
The Georgia lawmaker said his party's No. 1 goal is to make it easier for small businesses to create jobs.
"We'll accomplish this by focusing on three things: fundamental tax reform, regulatory reform and energy security," he said.
Isakson said that while some people may think Congress will be too consumed with the 2012 elections to accomplish anything significant, the public deserves better.
"Americans cannot wait until after the November election," he said. "They need us to do our job and do it right now to create an economic climate that makes it easier to put people back to work."
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Rush is Right Again...
Rush explains simply what's wrong with the way Obama and the liberals are running America...
Once Again Obama's Policies Have Us In A Worse Place Than We Need To Be In...
War Games, An Energy Crisis, and the Iranian Threat
The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, providing passage for some 15.5 million barrels of crude oil per day, amounting to one third of the world's seaborne oil shipments. In a word, it is a 34-mile-wide chokepoint, making Iran's threat this week to shut down the strait all the more serious for the global community.
The Iranian regime's provocative warnings came on Tuesday from Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi who threatened to close the strait if Iran faces sanctions for its nuclear ambitions. And Wednesday, Iran's top naval commander Habibollah Sayyari said, "Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or, as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water."
Iran's closing of the strait -- and its economic ramifications -- is a scenario that has been contemplated before. From December 2006 to March 2007, Heritage Foundation scholars conducted a computer simulation and gaming exercise that examined the likely economic and policy consequences of a major oil disruption in the Persian Gulf. Specifically, the war game was based on a scenario in which Iran began blockading the Strait of Hormuz in January 2007.
What did they find? Based on their modeling, if Iran succeeded in fully blockading the strait for up to one week, Americans would see a massive spike in oil prices, a one-quarter drop in GDP of $161 billion, the loss of one million jobs, and a drop of real disposable personal income costing more than $260 billion.
With those threats at hand, the scholars recommended a series of steps to manage the theoretical blockade and its worldwide economic consequences:
A focused but restrained use of military power oriented toward objectives that address vital national interests would demonstrate U.S. determination to uphold freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, help to calm global markets, and reassure American consumers, and measures liberalizing energy policies and rolling back regulatory restrictions would allow the marketplace to work to meet global energy needs.
At the time this war game analysis was conducted, the scholars described why a potential blockage of the Strait of Hormuz would be such a significant threat. Their words ring true today. They looked back to the energy crises during the Arab oil embargo in 1973-1974 and the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979 -- both of which led to fuel shortages, long gas lines, gasoline rationing, high inflation, and energy-related damage to the overall economy.
In those instances, they wrote, America suffered not only as a result of the changes in global oil supply, but also because of policies emanating from Washington:
At almost every turn, Washington policymakers exacerbated the already challenging energy situation with their own policy blunders. The federal government's newly created maze of economic and environmental regulations and implementing agencies greatly hampered domestic energy supplies and limited the private sector's ability to respond to events.
In retrospect, the U.S. government probably caused at least as much harm as any foreign entity did. Much of the energy crisis was self-inflicted by bad decisions made in Washington. The errors of the 1970s should serve as a cautionary tale as America again faces similar energy challenges.
Today, Washington is throwing up similar roadblocks to energy independence. President Barack Obama has postponed a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to refineries in Texas, and give a major boost to the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, his Administration has blocked access to shale resources and slowed down and even halted offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which supplies 30 percent of domestic oil production. And the Environmental Protection Agency is imposing new, costly regulations on energy production. And all of this comes as Iran is threatening to cut off a quarter of the world's energy supply.
As Heritage's war game analysis showed, there are things America can do to respond to such provocations from Tehran, but no actions can totally eliminate the economic consequences. However, there are things Washington can and should do today to help America become less dependent on the Middle East for its energy and soften the blow should Iran choose to lash out at the West. America's security depends on it.
The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, providing passage for some 15.5 million barrels of crude oil per day, amounting to one third of the world's seaborne oil shipments. In a word, it is a 34-mile-wide chokepoint, making Iran's threat this week to shut down the strait all the more serious for the global community.
The Iranian regime's provocative warnings came on Tuesday from Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi who threatened to close the strait if Iran faces sanctions for its nuclear ambitions. And Wednesday, Iran's top naval commander Habibollah Sayyari said, "Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or, as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water."
Iran's closing of the strait -- and its economic ramifications -- is a scenario that has been contemplated before. From December 2006 to March 2007, Heritage Foundation scholars conducted a computer simulation and gaming exercise that examined the likely economic and policy consequences of a major oil disruption in the Persian Gulf. Specifically, the war game was based on a scenario in which Iran began blockading the Strait of Hormuz in January 2007.
What did they find? Based on their modeling, if Iran succeeded in fully blockading the strait for up to one week, Americans would see a massive spike in oil prices, a one-quarter drop in GDP of $161 billion, the loss of one million jobs, and a drop of real disposable personal income costing more than $260 billion.
With those threats at hand, the scholars recommended a series of steps to manage the theoretical blockade and its worldwide economic consequences:
A focused but restrained use of military power oriented toward objectives that address vital national interests would demonstrate U.S. determination to uphold freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, help to calm global markets, and reassure American consumers, and measures liberalizing energy policies and rolling back regulatory restrictions would allow the marketplace to work to meet global energy needs.
At the time this war game analysis was conducted, the scholars described why a potential blockage of the Strait of Hormuz would be such a significant threat. Their words ring true today. They looked back to the energy crises during the Arab oil embargo in 1973-1974 and the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979 -- both of which led to fuel shortages, long gas lines, gasoline rationing, high inflation, and energy-related damage to the overall economy.
In those instances, they wrote, America suffered not only as a result of the changes in global oil supply, but also because of policies emanating from Washington:
At almost every turn, Washington policymakers exacerbated the already challenging energy situation with their own policy blunders. The federal government's newly created maze of economic and environmental regulations and implementing agencies greatly hampered domestic energy supplies and limited the private sector's ability to respond to events.
In retrospect, the U.S. government probably caused at least as much harm as any foreign entity did. Much of the energy crisis was self-inflicted by bad decisions made in Washington. The errors of the 1970s should serve as a cautionary tale as America again faces similar energy challenges.
Today, Washington is throwing up similar roadblocks to energy independence. President Barack Obama has postponed a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to refineries in Texas, and give a major boost to the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, his Administration has blocked access to shale resources and slowed down and even halted offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which supplies 30 percent of domestic oil production. And the Environmental Protection Agency is imposing new, costly regulations on energy production. And all of this comes as Iran is threatening to cut off a quarter of the world's energy supply.
As Heritage's war game analysis showed, there are things America can do to respond to such provocations from Tehran, but no actions can totally eliminate the economic consequences. However, there are things Washington can and should do today to help America become less dependent on the Middle East for its energy and soften the blow should Iran choose to lash out at the West. America's security depends on it.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Obama Says he's Funding his Campaign with small Donations....That's Bullshit!....
Is this guy nuts???...Does he think we are all stupid????....All Obama has done is spend his time this spring and summer at fund raisers with big dollar supporters...these are NOT $3 and $5 donators....Obama is Big Business, Big Corruption and Big Labor Driven...he's bad for America...he's got to GO in 2012...
Anyone that gives them a nickel is NUTS!!!
Anyone that gives them a nickel is NUTS!!!
This is where Obama and Democrats are Taking America...
This is where Obama and the Democrats are taking America!!!...It's time for a real change...
Obama...totally asleep at the switch...
Here's your President...as always...a day late, a dollar short and totally asleep at the switch....he's just getting this nation is worse and worse shape....
Obama Now Giving Aid to Illegals....Is that Who Want to be Our President???
It makes sense that Obama would install this hotline for illegals in prison to get aid....many of his family members in this nation are illegal and here illegally....BUT is this the kind of person you want for your next President????
ICE launches hotline for busted immigrants
By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 12/29/11 2:05 PM EST
As states across the nation ramp up their efforts to catch illegal immigrants, the Obama administration on Thursday launched a new free hotline for people busted on violations to get help.
The hotline, run by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is available 24/7 for detained individuals to phone if they think they “may be U.S. citizens or victims of a crime.”
The hotline will have translation services available in several different languages. ICE personnel will gather the caller’s information and send it to a field office for immediate action, according to the press release.
The purpose of the hotline and other measures are “to ensure that individuals being held by state or local law enforcement on immigration detainers are properly notified about their potential removal from the country and are made aware of their rights.”
The measures, which also include a new detainer form, have been introduced to ensure that people held on immigration charges are properly notified about their possible removal and understand their rights.
The new practices are “part of a broader effort to improve our immigration enforcement process and prioritize resources to focus on threats to public safety, repeat immigration law violators, recent border entrants, and immigration fugitives while continuing to strengthen oversight of the nation’s immigration detention system and facilitate legal immigration,” ICE wrote in its press release.
ICE is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security.
ICE launches hotline for busted immigrants
By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 12/29/11 2:05 PM EST
As states across the nation ramp up their efforts to catch illegal immigrants, the Obama administration on Thursday launched a new free hotline for people busted on violations to get help.
The hotline, run by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is available 24/7 for detained individuals to phone if they think they “may be U.S. citizens or victims of a crime.”
The hotline will have translation services available in several different languages. ICE personnel will gather the caller’s information and send it to a field office for immediate action, according to the press release.
The purpose of the hotline and other measures are “to ensure that individuals being held by state or local law enforcement on immigration detainers are properly notified about their potential removal from the country and are made aware of their rights.”
The measures, which also include a new detainer form, have been introduced to ensure that people held on immigration charges are properly notified about their possible removal and understand their rights.
The new practices are “part of a broader effort to improve our immigration enforcement process and prioritize resources to focus on threats to public safety, repeat immigration law violators, recent border entrants, and immigration fugitives while continuing to strengthen oversight of the nation’s immigration detention system and facilitate legal immigration,” ICE wrote in its press release.
ICE is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security.
Romney can Beat Obama!
Romney's probably going to be the candidate (although I'd really like to see Newt)...and it looks like if it is, he can beat Obama and that's ALL THAT COUNTS!
2012 Presidential Matchups
Election 2012: Romney 45%, Obama 39%
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.
The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%. The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.
A generic Republican candidate holds a narrow lead over the president again this week as has been the case all but three times in weekly tracking since late May. Obama leads all the other named GOP candidates by as little as seven and as much as 15 percentage points. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain have all surged ahead of the president at one point but did not maintain those leads.Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are running one-two in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of the Republican race in Iowa as next Tuesday’s caucus approaches.
Romney also has more second-choice support than any of the other candidates among likely caucus-goers. Rasmussen Reports will release new numbers from Iowa at noon Eastern today.
Sign up for the Rasmussen Reader subscription using the promo code “HOLIDAY” between now and January 15, 2012 and get access to more than 20 exclusive stories each week, including all 2012 election articles, until November 7, 2012 for just $24.95 .
The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on December 27-28, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Obama
39%
Romney
45%
Dec 27-28, 2011
Obama
47%
Gingrich
37%
Dec 26, 2011
Obama
48%
Bachmann
35%
Dec 22, 2011
Obama
47%
Santorum
37%
Dec 16-17, 2011
Obama
43%
Paul
35%
Dec 10-11, 2011
Obama
46%
Perry
34%
Dec 4-5, 2011
Obama
41%
Huntsman
34%
Dec 2-3, 2011
Obama
42%
Johnson
27%
Oct 4-5, 2011
In his latest matchup with the president, Romney holds a 20-point lead among male voters but trails by six among female voters. The Republican posts a 45% to 29% lead among voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties.
Romney earns an overwhelming 75% of the vote from those Tea Party members, while the president leads 49% to 37% among those who are not part of the grass roots movement.Obama has 65% support from the Political Class. Romney leads 51% to 31% among Mainstream voters.
2012 Presidential Matchups
Election 2012: Romney 45%, Obama 39%
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.
The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%. The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.
A generic Republican candidate holds a narrow lead over the president again this week as has been the case all but three times in weekly tracking since late May. Obama leads all the other named GOP candidates by as little as seven and as much as 15 percentage points. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain have all surged ahead of the president at one point but did not maintain those leads.Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are running one-two in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of the Republican race in Iowa as next Tuesday’s caucus approaches.
Romney also has more second-choice support than any of the other candidates among likely caucus-goers. Rasmussen Reports will release new numbers from Iowa at noon Eastern today.
Sign up for the Rasmussen Reader subscription using the promo code “HOLIDAY” between now and January 15, 2012 and get access to more than 20 exclusive stories each week, including all 2012 election articles, until November 7, 2012 for just $24.95 .
The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on December 27-28, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Obama
39%
Romney
45%
Dec 27-28, 2011
Obama
47%
Gingrich
37%
Dec 26, 2011
Obama
48%
Bachmann
35%
Dec 22, 2011
Obama
47%
Santorum
37%
Dec 16-17, 2011
Obama
43%
Paul
35%
Dec 10-11, 2011
Obama
46%
Perry
34%
Dec 4-5, 2011
Obama
41%
Huntsman
34%
Dec 2-3, 2011
Obama
42%
Johnson
27%
Oct 4-5, 2011
In his latest matchup with the president, Romney holds a 20-point lead among male voters but trails by six among female voters. The Republican posts a 45% to 29% lead among voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties.
Romney earns an overwhelming 75% of the vote from those Tea Party members, while the president leads 49% to 37% among those who are not part of the grass roots movement.Obama has 65% support from the Political Class. Romney leads 51% to 31% among Mainstream voters.
Another Failed Obama Program....More Rhetoric NOT backed up with Action....
Another of Obama's Failed Programs....This guy is so out of touch with America...He really needs to be sent home in November 2012....
A Bad Year for Obama's Green Dream
For President Barack Obama, 2011 began with a bang -- a bold pronouncement that his green dream for America would bring forth a jobs explosion and a new economy fueled by alternative energy, a vision he likened to President John F. Kennedy's "moon shot" in the 1960s. Much to Obama's chagrin, the year has ended in a whimper with his green energy "sun shot" sputtering to the ground before it even took off.
The President set the bar awfully high in his State of the Union Address last January, hailing alternative clean energy as "our generation's Sputnik moment" and claiming that it would be "an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people." The President said, "Already, we're seeing the promise of renewable energy." Unfortunately, what the President predicted is much different than what the rest of the country experienced in the ensuing year. The jobs that the President promised didn't materialize, and his green energy investments are careening into the ground, not shooting to the moon.
That news was sealed in The Washington Post this week with a story that didn't see much light of day, published as it was on Christmas Day. The Post reported that politics, not policy, has been largely behind the President's green jobs program:
Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama's green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal e-mails. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials.
Of course, central to the story is solar energy company Solyndra, which received a $535 million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee. President Obama spoke at the company's newly unveiled factory in May of last year, bragging that "[W]e can see the positive impacts [of the stimulus] right here at Solyndra." Despite the President's boosterism, Solyndra went bankrupt last summer, leaving 1,100 people out of work. The jobs the President promised didn't stick around long, and they came at a heavy price.
The Post took a look at the Solyndra story and found that senior officials "pushed career bureaucrats to rush their decision" on the solar energy company's taxpayer-backed loan guarantee in order to coincide with a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. And it reported that politics, "optics," and political theater were at the top of the Administration's mind, with one Obama staffer writing that "a meltdown" at Solyndra "would likely be very embarrassing for DOE and the Administration."
The Post also found that the White House granted "easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration," many of whom were Obama campaign donors. And others were given jobs in the Administration and "helped manage the clean-energy program."
If that story weren't enough bad news for one week, on Tuesday another headline landed like with a thud on the White House's doorstep. The Wall Street Journal reported that "Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector" and that "Bankruptcies, plummeting stock prices and crushing debt loads are calling into question the viability of an industry that since the 1970s has been counted on to advance the U.S.--and the world--into a new energy age."
But wait, there's more! The notoriously liberal New York Times printed a harsh assessment of the "green" economy in August and concluded that the President's promise to create five million green jobs over 10 years is nothing more than "a pipe dream." Case in point? The Times pointed to California's Bay Area, where "green" jobs have actually been lost, not gained. And farther up the West coast, a $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization programs was a total failure. Seattlepi.com reported that "only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program." Their conclusion: "Seattle's 'green jobs' program a bust."
The White House, though, tries to tell a different story. On its website, you can find headlines like "Fastest Growing Industry in the U.S. -- Solar Energy," "Now Is Not the Time to Wave the White Flag on Clean Energy Jobs," and "Investing in America's New Energy Frontier" -- all of which lead to stories that promote alternative energy as America's brave new future. But as this year has shown, that is more fiction than fact, as much as President Obama would tell you otherwise.
Meanwhile, the President has flat out turned his back on real jobs and tangible energy sources by postponing a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline--a project that would directly create 20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs and an estimated 179,000 American jobs by 2035, bring with it a $20 billion private-infrastructure investment in the United States, and also promote energy independence. It seems that when it comes to jobs, energy, and investment, this is a President who prefers to choose fantasy over reality.
A Bad Year for Obama's Green Dream
For President Barack Obama, 2011 began with a bang -- a bold pronouncement that his green dream for America would bring forth a jobs explosion and a new economy fueled by alternative energy, a vision he likened to President John F. Kennedy's "moon shot" in the 1960s. Much to Obama's chagrin, the year has ended in a whimper with his green energy "sun shot" sputtering to the ground before it even took off.
The President set the bar awfully high in his State of the Union Address last January, hailing alternative clean energy as "our generation's Sputnik moment" and claiming that it would be "an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people." The President said, "Already, we're seeing the promise of renewable energy." Unfortunately, what the President predicted is much different than what the rest of the country experienced in the ensuing year. The jobs that the President promised didn't materialize, and his green energy investments are careening into the ground, not shooting to the moon.
That news was sealed in The Washington Post this week with a story that didn't see much light of day, published as it was on Christmas Day. The Post reported that politics, not policy, has been largely behind the President's green jobs program:
Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama's green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal e-mails. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials.
Of course, central to the story is solar energy company Solyndra, which received a $535 million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee. President Obama spoke at the company's newly unveiled factory in May of last year, bragging that "[W]e can see the positive impacts [of the stimulus] right here at Solyndra." Despite the President's boosterism, Solyndra went bankrupt last summer, leaving 1,100 people out of work. The jobs the President promised didn't stick around long, and they came at a heavy price.
The Post took a look at the Solyndra story and found that senior officials "pushed career bureaucrats to rush their decision" on the solar energy company's taxpayer-backed loan guarantee in order to coincide with a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. And it reported that politics, "optics," and political theater were at the top of the Administration's mind, with one Obama staffer writing that "a meltdown" at Solyndra "would likely be very embarrassing for DOE and the Administration."
The Post also found that the White House granted "easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration," many of whom were Obama campaign donors. And others were given jobs in the Administration and "helped manage the clean-energy program."
If that story weren't enough bad news for one week, on Tuesday another headline landed like with a thud on the White House's doorstep. The Wall Street Journal reported that "Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector" and that "Bankruptcies, plummeting stock prices and crushing debt loads are calling into question the viability of an industry that since the 1970s has been counted on to advance the U.S.--and the world--into a new energy age."
But wait, there's more! The notoriously liberal New York Times printed a harsh assessment of the "green" economy in August and concluded that the President's promise to create five million green jobs over 10 years is nothing more than "a pipe dream." Case in point? The Times pointed to California's Bay Area, where "green" jobs have actually been lost, not gained. And farther up the West coast, a $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization programs was a total failure. Seattlepi.com reported that "only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program." Their conclusion: "Seattle's 'green jobs' program a bust."
The White House, though, tries to tell a different story. On its website, you can find headlines like "Fastest Growing Industry in the U.S. -- Solar Energy," "Now Is Not the Time to Wave the White Flag on Clean Energy Jobs," and "Investing in America's New Energy Frontier" -- all of which lead to stories that promote alternative energy as America's brave new future. But as this year has shown, that is more fiction than fact, as much as President Obama would tell you otherwise.
Meanwhile, the President has flat out turned his back on real jobs and tangible energy sources by postponing a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline--a project that would directly create 20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs and an estimated 179,000 American jobs by 2035, bring with it a $20 billion private-infrastructure investment in the United States, and also promote energy independence. It seems that when it comes to jobs, energy, and investment, this is a President who prefers to choose fantasy over reality.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Merry "Obama" Christmas....
Merry "Obama" Christmas...only 11 months until we can vote this bum out of office and start to get America back on the right track again....
More Corrupt Democrat Behavior....
More Corrupt Insider behavior from the Democrats.....Often it's so obvious that it's evident that they just don't give a damn....Schumer, Lautenberg and Menedez all need to go the next time they are up for reelection....
White House Gives Nod to Schumer's Brother-in-Law to Be Federal Judge
Published December 26, 2011| New York Post
Sen. Charles Schumer's brother-in-law was quietly nominated this month to a federal judgeship in New Jersey -- a move that has some in the Garden State crying political foul, The New York Post has learned.
Kevin McNulty, who is married to Schumer's sister, Fran, was named to the U.S. District Court by the White House late on Friday, Dec. 16. According to a boilerplate quote, President Obama believes McNulty is a "distinguished individual" who "will serve the American people with integrity and a steadfast commitment to justice."
New Jersey's two US senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, followed that up with their own news release heaping praise on the nominee.
What no one mentioned is that McNulty, 57, was the last-minute choice of Lautenberg, who had been leaning toward other candidates until surprisingly submitting McNulty's name to the White House.
Lautenberg and his aides have given no public explanation for the decision to go with McNulty even though the latter had never been publicly touted as a contender for the job, which carries life tenure and a $174,000-a-year salary.
"No one knows why he did it," said one person involved in the nomination process. "Everyone thinks it's all about 2014 and Frank making sure he has Chuck in his corner."
The White House declined to comment, as did McNulty.
White House Gives Nod to Schumer's Brother-in-Law to Be Federal Judge
Published December 26, 2011| New York Post
Sen. Charles Schumer's brother-in-law was quietly nominated this month to a federal judgeship in New Jersey -- a move that has some in the Garden State crying political foul, The New York Post has learned.
Kevin McNulty, who is married to Schumer's sister, Fran, was named to the U.S. District Court by the White House late on Friday, Dec. 16. According to a boilerplate quote, President Obama believes McNulty is a "distinguished individual" who "will serve the American people with integrity and a steadfast commitment to justice."
New Jersey's two US senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, followed that up with their own news release heaping praise on the nominee.
What no one mentioned is that McNulty, 57, was the last-minute choice of Lautenberg, who had been leaning toward other candidates until surprisingly submitting McNulty's name to the White House.
Lautenberg and his aides have given no public explanation for the decision to go with McNulty even though the latter had never been publicly touted as a contender for the job, which carries life tenure and a $174,000-a-year salary.
"No one knows why he did it," said one person involved in the nomination process. "Everyone thinks it's all about 2014 and Frank making sure he has Chuck in his corner."
The White House declined to comment, as did McNulty.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Obama phones it in ....and then goes shopping...What a Leader...
Now this is certainly REAL LEADERSHIP.....NOT!!!...what a pathetic excuse for a President Obama is....
Obama calls Boehner, Reid amid tax cut standoff
The Associated Press
Posted: 12/21/2011 09:54:33 AM PST Updated: 12/21/2011 09:54:34 AM PST
WASHINGTON—The White House says President Barack Obama has called House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to urge a resolution to the payroll tax cut standoff.
Spokesman Jay Carney says Obama urged Boehner to bring the House back into session to pass a two-month extension of the cuts previously approved by the Senate. Carney says Obama reiterated that he is committed to then working on a full-year extension of the cuts.
Carney would not say how Boehner responded to Obama's request.
Carney says unless the House passes the two-month extension, taxes will increase on 160 million people after the first of the year.
Obama seems really interested doesn't he?
Obama and Bo go Christmas shoppingObama and Bo go Christmas shopping
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 12/21/11 2:38 PM EST Updated: 12/21/11 3:45 PM EST
President Barack Obama took a break from wrangling with House Republicans on Wednesday afternoon for a quick pre-Christmas shopping trip to buy gifts for his daughters and Bo the dog.
After calling congressional leaders to reaffirm his support for the Senate-passed two-month extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, Obama exited the Oval Office with Bo in tow and headed to a shopping strip in Alexandria, Va. — a man alone with his dog as his family vacations in Hawaii.
The first stop was PetSmart, a pet supply store that allows animals to shop alongside their owners and play with other dogs, including a brown standard poodle named Cinnamon at the checkout counter. “OK, Bo, don’t get too personal here,” Obama said, holding his dog’s leash tight.
Obama picked up a $24.99 chew toy and another item for a total of just over $41, a little more than the $40 per paycheck that Americans making $50,000 a year won’t see come January if a tax cut extension isn’t signed into law — a dollar amount the White House has been citing in a social media campaign to build support for the two-month extension. He paid with a $50 bill.
From PetSmart, Obama moved on to a nearby Best Buy, telling reporters the stop was “for the girls.” Inside the store, he made a beeline for the video game “Just Dance 3” for Nintendo Wii. “The girls beat me every time on these dance games,” he told reporters traveling with him, “but you’ll never get a picture of me.”
Obama also picked up two $50 iTunes gift cards and "The Sims 3: Pets." In all, his total was $194.48 and the president whipped out his credit card to pay. “Let’s see if my credit card still works,” he said.
Daughters Malia and Sasha, and First Lady Michelle Obama left Washington on Friday to spend more than two weeks vacationing in Kailua, Hawaii. The president is expected to join them, though it’s not clear when. He declined to say whether he’d be able to deliver the gifts in person.
From the electronics store — which is in Potomac Yards, the same shopping center the first lady went to this fall on her incognito trip to Target — he was on to Del Ray Pizzeria, a local place known for having some of the best pies in the D.C. area. He was joined there by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and walked out with three pizzas to bring back to the White House.
White House press secretary Jay Carney was mum on the symbolism of the trip – whether it’s commentary on Congress, a way to urge Americans to spend money in the days leading to Christmas or the president doing some last minute shopping.
“The president’s obviously very busy here,” Carney said, noting that the president had spoken to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in separate phone calls earlier in the day. But “sometimes it’s nice to get out of the house.”
Obama urged Boehner “to take up the bipartisan compromise passed in the Senate with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support that would prevent 160 million working Americans from being hit with a holiday tax hike on January 1st,” the White House said in a readout.
Meanwhile, Obama thanked Reid for working with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to pass their deal for a two-month extension.
Obama calls Boehner, Reid amid tax cut standoff
The Associated Press
Posted: 12/21/2011 09:54:33 AM PST Updated: 12/21/2011 09:54:34 AM PST
WASHINGTON—The White House says President Barack Obama has called House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to urge a resolution to the payroll tax cut standoff.
Spokesman Jay Carney says Obama urged Boehner to bring the House back into session to pass a two-month extension of the cuts previously approved by the Senate. Carney says Obama reiterated that he is committed to then working on a full-year extension of the cuts.
Carney would not say how Boehner responded to Obama's request.
Carney says unless the House passes the two-month extension, taxes will increase on 160 million people after the first of the year.
Obama seems really interested doesn't he?
Obama and Bo go Christmas shoppingObama and Bo go Christmas shopping
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 12/21/11 2:38 PM EST Updated: 12/21/11 3:45 PM EST
President Barack Obama took a break from wrangling with House Republicans on Wednesday afternoon for a quick pre-Christmas shopping trip to buy gifts for his daughters and Bo the dog.
After calling congressional leaders to reaffirm his support for the Senate-passed two-month extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, Obama exited the Oval Office with Bo in tow and headed to a shopping strip in Alexandria, Va. — a man alone with his dog as his family vacations in Hawaii.
The first stop was PetSmart, a pet supply store that allows animals to shop alongside their owners and play with other dogs, including a brown standard poodle named Cinnamon at the checkout counter. “OK, Bo, don’t get too personal here,” Obama said, holding his dog’s leash tight.
Obama picked up a $24.99 chew toy and another item for a total of just over $41, a little more than the $40 per paycheck that Americans making $50,000 a year won’t see come January if a tax cut extension isn’t signed into law — a dollar amount the White House has been citing in a social media campaign to build support for the two-month extension. He paid with a $50 bill.
From PetSmart, Obama moved on to a nearby Best Buy, telling reporters the stop was “for the girls.” Inside the store, he made a beeline for the video game “Just Dance 3” for Nintendo Wii. “The girls beat me every time on these dance games,” he told reporters traveling with him, “but you’ll never get a picture of me.”
Obama also picked up two $50 iTunes gift cards and "The Sims 3: Pets." In all, his total was $194.48 and the president whipped out his credit card to pay. “Let’s see if my credit card still works,” he said.
Daughters Malia and Sasha, and First Lady Michelle Obama left Washington on Friday to spend more than two weeks vacationing in Kailua, Hawaii. The president is expected to join them, though it’s not clear when. He declined to say whether he’d be able to deliver the gifts in person.
From the electronics store — which is in Potomac Yards, the same shopping center the first lady went to this fall on her incognito trip to Target — he was on to Del Ray Pizzeria, a local place known for having some of the best pies in the D.C. area. He was joined there by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and walked out with three pizzas to bring back to the White House.
White House press secretary Jay Carney was mum on the symbolism of the trip – whether it’s commentary on Congress, a way to urge Americans to spend money in the days leading to Christmas or the president doing some last minute shopping.
“The president’s obviously very busy here,” Carney said, noting that the president had spoken to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in separate phone calls earlier in the day. But “sometimes it’s nice to get out of the house.”
Obama urged Boehner “to take up the bipartisan compromise passed in the Senate with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support that would prevent 160 million working Americans from being hit with a holiday tax hike on January 1st,” the White House said in a readout.
Meanwhile, Obama thanked Reid for working with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to pass their deal for a two-month extension.
The House was Right...."Dirty" Harry Reid was Wrong Again!
The Editors December 21, 2011 4:00 A.M.
The House, Harry Reid, and the Payroll Tax
Today the House voted to reject a Senate plan for temporarily extending the payroll-tax cut and subsequently moved to recess, and they deserve credit for doing so.
This move does not eliminate the possibility of extending the tax cut, which expires at the end of December: The House previously passed a bill extending the cut for a full year, and that bill is good policy. It doesn’t increase the deficit. It forces a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. And it’s President Obama’s major year-end priority. So why is the Democratic Senate blocking the bill’s path between Capitol Hill and the White House signing desk, and pushing the bill the House rejected instead?
Because Harry Reid doesn’t like how the House version is paid for. Having failed — not once, but multiple times — to offset the payroll-rate cut with a new surtax on job creators, Senate Democrats were forced to huddle with Republicans to find common ground. What they came up with were enough offsets to fund a 60-day extension, mostly via increased fees on Fannie and Freddie. (This makes a certain amount of sense: Republicans abhor the government-sponsored enterprises, Democrats adore fees.)
The Senate plan, then, was to pass the temporary extension, send it back to the House, and enjoy a lengthy Christmas holiday. The New Year, they seem to believe, will bring with it fresh opportunities to kick the can down the road. But the 60-day extension is both irresponsible and unworkable, and House Republicans were right to hold the line against it, even if it keeps Congress in Washington through these holy nights.
Don’t take our word for it. Ask the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, a non-profit, non-partisan trade association of tax-service providers. NPRC warns that a last-minute, temporary extension of the payroll-tax cut could create chaos for small businesses, causing “substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.” The National Association of Wholesale Distributors agrees, warning that the Senate measure “would exacerbate and escalate the uncertainty about fiscal policies that has inhibited business activity and slowed economic recovery . . . for the last several years.”
By contrast, the House bill is paid for by, among other things, extending the federal pay freeze, reforming government-employee pensions, introducing modest means-testing to Medicare, and stepping up (sadly necessary) efforts to prevent millionaires and illegal immigrants from improperly receiving government checks. Such reforms should hardly be controversial, let alone a cause for which Senate Democrats are willing to make 170 million American taxpayers suffer.
The bill contains more conservative provisions as well, such as checking the devolution of unemployment insurance into de facto welfare, undoing onerous EPA regulations, and implementing a two-year Medicare “doc fix” partially offset by further defunding of Obamacare. But as Speaker Boehner implied in a letter to President Obama, there is room for negotiation on the contours of these provisions — if the Senate will appoint negotiators to join House Republicans in a conference committee, something they have so far been unwilling to do.
This ought not persist. On one side of the table sit the House of Representatives, the president’s avowed goal of a year-long extension, the taxpayers, and time. On the other sits Harry Reid, who could be in for a very blue Christmas.
The House, Harry Reid, and the Payroll Tax
Today the House voted to reject a Senate plan for temporarily extending the payroll-tax cut and subsequently moved to recess, and they deserve credit for doing so.
This move does not eliminate the possibility of extending the tax cut, which expires at the end of December: The House previously passed a bill extending the cut for a full year, and that bill is good policy. It doesn’t increase the deficit. It forces a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. And it’s President Obama’s major year-end priority. So why is the Democratic Senate blocking the bill’s path between Capitol Hill and the White House signing desk, and pushing the bill the House rejected instead?
Because Harry Reid doesn’t like how the House version is paid for. Having failed — not once, but multiple times — to offset the payroll-rate cut with a new surtax on job creators, Senate Democrats were forced to huddle with Republicans to find common ground. What they came up with were enough offsets to fund a 60-day extension, mostly via increased fees on Fannie and Freddie. (This makes a certain amount of sense: Republicans abhor the government-sponsored enterprises, Democrats adore fees.)
The Senate plan, then, was to pass the temporary extension, send it back to the House, and enjoy a lengthy Christmas holiday. The New Year, they seem to believe, will bring with it fresh opportunities to kick the can down the road. But the 60-day extension is both irresponsible and unworkable, and House Republicans were right to hold the line against it, even if it keeps Congress in Washington through these holy nights.
Don’t take our word for it. Ask the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, a non-profit, non-partisan trade association of tax-service providers. NPRC warns that a last-minute, temporary extension of the payroll-tax cut could create chaos for small businesses, causing “substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.” The National Association of Wholesale Distributors agrees, warning that the Senate measure “would exacerbate and escalate the uncertainty about fiscal policies that has inhibited business activity and slowed economic recovery . . . for the last several years.”
By contrast, the House bill is paid for by, among other things, extending the federal pay freeze, reforming government-employee pensions, introducing modest means-testing to Medicare, and stepping up (sadly necessary) efforts to prevent millionaires and illegal immigrants from improperly receiving government checks. Such reforms should hardly be controversial, let alone a cause for which Senate Democrats are willing to make 170 million American taxpayers suffer.
The bill contains more conservative provisions as well, such as checking the devolution of unemployment insurance into de facto welfare, undoing onerous EPA regulations, and implementing a two-year Medicare “doc fix” partially offset by further defunding of Obamacare. But as Speaker Boehner implied in a letter to President Obama, there is room for negotiation on the contours of these provisions — if the Senate will appoint negotiators to join House Republicans in a conference committee, something they have so far been unwilling to do.
This ought not persist. On one side of the table sit the House of Representatives, the president’s avowed goal of a year-long extension, the taxpayers, and time. On the other sits Harry Reid, who could be in for a very blue Christmas.
The Senate the Obama are to Blame.....
The Heritage Foundation is Correct...If anyone is to blame for the payroll tax holiday going away it's the President and the Democratically controlled Senate.....Certainly not the House....
Senators, Do Your Job and Get to Work
On the front page of the White House's website, a clock slowly ticks away, second by second, counting down to the day, hour, minute, and second that the nation's payroll tax "holiday" expires and the American people get socked right where it counts -- in the pocket book. And just next to that clock is a message laying the blame squarely on the House of Representatives. But today the real culprit in this debacle is the U.S. Senate which, right now, is home for the holidays already, celebrating with family while Washington sits in a stalemate.
In a rare appearance in the White House press room yesterday, President Barack Obama reiterated his message, blaming Washington's inaction on "a faction of Republicans in the House" and their "refusal to cooperate" with the Senate -- as if it's the job of Members of Congress to go along and get along for the sake of advancing the President's agenda, regardless of whether it's the right move for America. As a reminder, this is the same President who has not met with House Republican leadership in five months and is now praising the grand accomplishment of a Senate that has failed to pass a budget for nearly 1,000 days under Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) direction.
As you might not be surprised to learn, there is, of course, more to the story than the President lets on. Here's what you need to know about the latest standstill in Washington that, unfortunately, follows much of the same order of business that America has witnessed for the past year.
In a matter of days, the payroll tax "holiday" will expire, meaning higher taxes for working Americans. At the same time, fees for physicians and hospitals providing Medicare services will be severely cut and additional weeks of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed will run out. None of this was unexpected. This was not an unforeseen calamity that caught Washington by surprise. They saw it coming, and it's been on their list of things to do since last December--yet here we are waiting for a resolution and watching as Republicans and Democrats point fingers at each other.
Heritage's Alison Fraser, Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, describes the state of play on the Hill today:
To its credit, the House passed a bill which, while not perfect, would at least prevent the looming tax hike for all working Americans, extend additional unemployment benefits and prevent cuts to Medicare providers with another “Doc Fix” for a full year. Besides these three key policies, the House also included some policies helpful to job creation as well as an important change to fix Medicare’s finances, thus strengthening it for seniors today and tomorrow. This change is crucial toward tackling the nation’s largest and most pressing fiscal issue -- our entitlement crisis.
Somehow this was too much to do for the Senate. Unable to get the job done right, they passed a measly two-month extension of these three policies and quickly got out of Dodge, a.k.a. the Nation’s capital. Somehow, this is supposed to reassure us that [Reid] and the rest of his Senate colleagues are able to do the people’s business.
The trouble with the Senate's two-month plan is that it leaves so much undone and with so many people hanging. Working Americans will have no idea whether or not they'll suffer a tax hike when the extension expires. Employers will take on additional costs and have to jump through more hurdles in having to change their payroll systems to keep up with Washington's policy du jour -- and that will be an even bigger pain in the neck for small businesses who do payroll by hand. In short, it's terrible policy, and the American people deserve better.
To make this fruitcake taste even worse, as Fraser explains, the Senate packed in some good old-fashioned class warfare by "limiting the amount of income that qualifies for payroll tax relief so that upper-income earners don’t get more than their 'fair share' of the tax relief during this brief two-month period." And they paid for it all by increasing fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Though such fees could have been used to help improve the government-sponsored housing agencies' horrendous financing, it is of course being used to pay for more spending and to offset the costs of avoiding a tax hike.
And this is where America finds itself. The House is in one corner. The President is in another. And Senators checked the box and hopped a flight home for the holidays instead of doing the people's business and reaching a compromise. Though President Obama would like us to believe the onus is on the House, it's the Senate that has dropped the ball. And for the sake of the American people, they should come back to Washington and get to work on reaching an agreement.
Senators, Do Your Job and Get to Work
On the front page of the White House's website, a clock slowly ticks away, second by second, counting down to the day, hour, minute, and second that the nation's payroll tax "holiday" expires and the American people get socked right where it counts -- in the pocket book. And just next to that clock is a message laying the blame squarely on the House of Representatives. But today the real culprit in this debacle is the U.S. Senate which, right now, is home for the holidays already, celebrating with family while Washington sits in a stalemate.
In a rare appearance in the White House press room yesterday, President Barack Obama reiterated his message, blaming Washington's inaction on "a faction of Republicans in the House" and their "refusal to cooperate" with the Senate -- as if it's the job of Members of Congress to go along and get along for the sake of advancing the President's agenda, regardless of whether it's the right move for America. As a reminder, this is the same President who has not met with House Republican leadership in five months and is now praising the grand accomplishment of a Senate that has failed to pass a budget for nearly 1,000 days under Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) direction.
As you might not be surprised to learn, there is, of course, more to the story than the President lets on. Here's what you need to know about the latest standstill in Washington that, unfortunately, follows much of the same order of business that America has witnessed for the past year.
In a matter of days, the payroll tax "holiday" will expire, meaning higher taxes for working Americans. At the same time, fees for physicians and hospitals providing Medicare services will be severely cut and additional weeks of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed will run out. None of this was unexpected. This was not an unforeseen calamity that caught Washington by surprise. They saw it coming, and it's been on their list of things to do since last December--yet here we are waiting for a resolution and watching as Republicans and Democrats point fingers at each other.
Heritage's Alison Fraser, Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, describes the state of play on the Hill today:
To its credit, the House passed a bill which, while not perfect, would at least prevent the looming tax hike for all working Americans, extend additional unemployment benefits and prevent cuts to Medicare providers with another “Doc Fix” for a full year. Besides these three key policies, the House also included some policies helpful to job creation as well as an important change to fix Medicare’s finances, thus strengthening it for seniors today and tomorrow. This change is crucial toward tackling the nation’s largest and most pressing fiscal issue -- our entitlement crisis.
Somehow this was too much to do for the Senate. Unable to get the job done right, they passed a measly two-month extension of these three policies and quickly got out of Dodge, a.k.a. the Nation’s capital. Somehow, this is supposed to reassure us that [Reid] and the rest of his Senate colleagues are able to do the people’s business.
The trouble with the Senate's two-month plan is that it leaves so much undone and with so many people hanging. Working Americans will have no idea whether or not they'll suffer a tax hike when the extension expires. Employers will take on additional costs and have to jump through more hurdles in having to change their payroll systems to keep up with Washington's policy du jour -- and that will be an even bigger pain in the neck for small businesses who do payroll by hand. In short, it's terrible policy, and the American people deserve better.
To make this fruitcake taste even worse, as Fraser explains, the Senate packed in some good old-fashioned class warfare by "limiting the amount of income that qualifies for payroll tax relief so that upper-income earners don’t get more than their 'fair share' of the tax relief during this brief two-month period." And they paid for it all by increasing fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Though such fees could have been used to help improve the government-sponsored housing agencies' horrendous financing, it is of course being used to pay for more spending and to offset the costs of avoiding a tax hike.
And this is where America finds itself. The House is in one corner. The President is in another. And Senators checked the box and hopped a flight home for the holidays instead of doing the people's business and reaching a compromise. Though President Obama would like us to believe the onus is on the House, it's the Senate that has dropped the ball. And for the sake of the American people, they should come back to Washington and get to work on reaching an agreement.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Boehner is Right....Obama will again show He is NOT a Leader...
Boehner is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT....If Obama is any kind of a leader he will call the Senate back to Washington to finish the job....and he would give "Dirty" Harry Reid a piece of his mind for letting them go home in first place with out this resolved.....But he will be silent...he will try to play the blame game...his favorite game and let this one sit...Once again he's not interested in what's best for the American People..he's only interested in trying to keep his job....what a shameful President...
Boehner: It's time for Obama to get involved on tax deal
This fall, President Obama called for a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut, and the House passed a year-long extension, with bipartisan support. Our bill would also extend and reform unemployment insurance, protect seniors' access to doctors through Medicare, and help create jobs. Unfortunately, instead of passing the House bill or any other year-long extension, Democratic leaders in the Senate passed a two-month measure and left town for the holidays.
Washington doesn't get to punt on this one.
The president and the House are right to want to extend this tax cut a full year, rather than two months. Having run a small business, met a payroll, and hired workers, I've seen first-hand how Washington's Band-Aids and gimmicks cause further uncertainty for employers and employees alike. The idea that the federal government can set tax rates in two-month increments without doing any harm is exactly the kind of Washington thinking that has helped run our economy off the tracks.
Don't take my word for it. Non-partisan payroll tax experts have told Congress that a two-month extension is "unworkable," and that it "could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees."
Just as important, hardworking taxpayers trying to make ends meet or save for college or retirement deserve to know what their paychecks will look like for the whole year — not just an eight-week stretch.
The American people expect Congress to pass a one-year extension, and we should not wait to finish this work. We should complete it immediately.
That's why the House has voted to begin a formal conference committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills. There's nothing unusual about this. This is the system our Founders gave us. It's as old as our nation, as clear as our Constitution. Republicans have appointed eight lawmakers to this conference committee, and they are in Washington now, ready to meet.
Despite all this, Senate Democrats are refusing to return from vacation and negotiate with the House. We hope the president, who has repeatedly said he won't go on vacation until this matter is resolved, will urge Senate Democrats to change their minds. He should call on them to appoint negotiators so we can extend payroll tax relief for a full year and help create jobs. Otherwise, Senate Democrats' refusal to negotiate means Americans' taxes going up on Jan. 1. It should not come to that, and I'm confident it won't.
When hardworking taxpayers have work to finish, they don't knock off early. They stay and get the job done. Let's follow their example and come together to do the right thing for our economy and our country.
John Boehner, R-Ohio, is the speaker of the House of Representatives.
Boehner: It's time for Obama to get involved on tax deal
This fall, President Obama called for a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut, and the House passed a year-long extension, with bipartisan support. Our bill would also extend and reform unemployment insurance, protect seniors' access to doctors through Medicare, and help create jobs. Unfortunately, instead of passing the House bill or any other year-long extension, Democratic leaders in the Senate passed a two-month measure and left town for the holidays.
Washington doesn't get to punt on this one.
The president and the House are right to want to extend this tax cut a full year, rather than two months. Having run a small business, met a payroll, and hired workers, I've seen first-hand how Washington's Band-Aids and gimmicks cause further uncertainty for employers and employees alike. The idea that the federal government can set tax rates in two-month increments without doing any harm is exactly the kind of Washington thinking that has helped run our economy off the tracks.
Don't take my word for it. Non-partisan payroll tax experts have told Congress that a two-month extension is "unworkable," and that it "could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees."
Just as important, hardworking taxpayers trying to make ends meet or save for college or retirement deserve to know what their paychecks will look like for the whole year — not just an eight-week stretch.
The American people expect Congress to pass a one-year extension, and we should not wait to finish this work. We should complete it immediately.
That's why the House has voted to begin a formal conference committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills. There's nothing unusual about this. This is the system our Founders gave us. It's as old as our nation, as clear as our Constitution. Republicans have appointed eight lawmakers to this conference committee, and they are in Washington now, ready to meet.
Despite all this, Senate Democrats are refusing to return from vacation and negotiate with the House. We hope the president, who has repeatedly said he won't go on vacation until this matter is resolved, will urge Senate Democrats to change their minds. He should call on them to appoint negotiators so we can extend payroll tax relief for a full year and help create jobs. Otherwise, Senate Democrats' refusal to negotiate means Americans' taxes going up on Jan. 1. It should not come to that, and I'm confident it won't.
When hardworking taxpayers have work to finish, they don't knock off early. They stay and get the job done. Let's follow their example and come together to do the right thing for our economy and our country.
John Boehner, R-Ohio, is the speaker of the House of Representatives.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Reid Senate is totally Disfunctional!
Just more evidence that "dirty" Harry Reid's Senate is totally disfunctional....what gives them the right to change the passed House Bill and then leave town?....Boehner is absolutely right have the House have their way with this....if Obama wants to talk about a "do nothing" Congress he better be talking about Reid's Senate....I have also lost respect for McConnell....maybe it's time for him to get out of the way also.....this IS nothing other than kicking the can down the road the giving Obama more fodder to talk about in the weeks, months ahead....
I'd keep this thing going until 12/24 and make Obama stay in Washington for Xmas IF he would really do that.....then I would force Reid to call the whole Senate back into session....
House Republicans Aim to Reshape Senate's Payroll Tax Cut Bill
Published December 19, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Congress is edging closer to yet another down-to-the wire showdown as House Republicans shun a bipartisan payroll tax cut bill approved by the Senate and prepare to write a package to please rank-and-file GOP lawmakers clamoring for a more conservative version.
The House was returning to work Monday, two days after the Senate easily approved a compromise solidly supported by both parties and left town for a month. The House scheduled a vote late Monday, with leaders saying they would either formally request talks with the Senate on a new bill or make changes in the Senate measure that were uncertain late Sunday.
Without congressional action, the payroll tax would rise 2 percentage points on Jan. 1 -- a boost that Democrats eagerly said would be the GOP's fault. The brinksmanship is a familiar pattern this year between the two parties, who have narrowly averted a federal default and several government shutdowns in past fights.
Extending the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits have been a keystone of President Barack Obama's and congressional Democrats' effort to spur a revival of the flaccid economy. Congressional Republican leaders also say they support the idea, but some of their rank-and-file remain unconvinced, saying the unemployment coverage is too generous and that cutting the payroll tax does not create jobs.
The Senate bill would cut the payroll tax, extend jobless benefits and avoid cuts in Medicare payments to doctors through February. Both sides say they want to renew all three for a full year, but bargainers have so far failed to agree on how to pay for a package that size, which could cost roughly $200 billion.
"If House Republicans refuse to pass this bipartisan bill to extend the payroll tax cut, there will be a significant tax increase on 160 million hardworking Americans in 13 days that would damage the economy and job growth," Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said Sunday.
"It is a make-or-break moment for John Boehner's speakership," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the Senate's No. 3 Democratic leader. "You cannot let a small group at the extreme resort to brinksmanship every time there is a major national issue and try to dictate every move this nation makes."
After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., struck a deal on their two-month bill Friday night, McConnell expressed optimism that Congress would approve it and lawmakers would revisit the battle in February.
But Boehner, R-Ohio, said Sunday he opposed the Senate bill and wanted a yearlong version and other changes, a stance echoed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.
They expressed their views a day after House GOP lawmakers on a conference call voiced vehement opposition to the Senate bill, saying it lacked serious spending cuts. They also said they were tired of their leaders striking compromises and not battling harder for their positions, according to several participants.
"We can find common ground," Boehner said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. Of the Senate bill, he said, "It's just the usual, let's just punt, kick the can down the road" approach.
Boehner did not specify the changes he would like in the bill, but touted "reasonable reductions in spending" and language blocking some Obama administration anti-pollution rules in a yearlong payroll tax bill the House approved last week. That bill covered its costs -- more than $180 billion -- by carving savings from federal workers, higher-income Medicare recipients, fees paid to insure mortgages and elsewhere.
Reid and Schumer said Sunday that Boehner had asked McConnell and Reid to negotiate a compromise, seemingly suggesting that Boehner had walked away from a deal. Republicans said that is untrue and said the House GOP played no role in last week's bargaining between the Senate leaders.
McConnell offered support for Boehner Sunday. His spokesman, Donald Stewart, said the best way to "provide certainty for job creators, employees and the long-term unemployed is through regular order" -- a term used to describe the normal process of negotiations between the House and Senate.
The Senate bill also includes a provision dear to Republicans that would force Obama to approve a proposed Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline within 60 days unless he declares the project would damage the national interest.
Obama had previously said he would make no decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until 2013, allowing him to wait until after next November's elections to choose between two Democratic constituencies: unions favoring the project's thousands of jobs and environmentalists opposed to its potential pollution and massive energy use. Obama initially threatened to kill the payroll tax bill if it included the pipeline language but eventually retreated.
One potential hindrance to quick approval of a new payroll tax bill is the Senate's adjournment. It would take approval from all 100 senators to let the Senate hold any votes before the chamber's late January return.
I'd keep this thing going until 12/24 and make Obama stay in Washington for Xmas IF he would really do that.....then I would force Reid to call the whole Senate back into session....
House Republicans Aim to Reshape Senate's Payroll Tax Cut Bill
Published December 19, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Congress is edging closer to yet another down-to-the wire showdown as House Republicans shun a bipartisan payroll tax cut bill approved by the Senate and prepare to write a package to please rank-and-file GOP lawmakers clamoring for a more conservative version.
The House was returning to work Monday, two days after the Senate easily approved a compromise solidly supported by both parties and left town for a month. The House scheduled a vote late Monday, with leaders saying they would either formally request talks with the Senate on a new bill or make changes in the Senate measure that were uncertain late Sunday.
Without congressional action, the payroll tax would rise 2 percentage points on Jan. 1 -- a boost that Democrats eagerly said would be the GOP's fault. The brinksmanship is a familiar pattern this year between the two parties, who have narrowly averted a federal default and several government shutdowns in past fights.
Extending the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits have been a keystone of President Barack Obama's and congressional Democrats' effort to spur a revival of the flaccid economy. Congressional Republican leaders also say they support the idea, but some of their rank-and-file remain unconvinced, saying the unemployment coverage is too generous and that cutting the payroll tax does not create jobs.
The Senate bill would cut the payroll tax, extend jobless benefits and avoid cuts in Medicare payments to doctors through February. Both sides say they want to renew all three for a full year, but bargainers have so far failed to agree on how to pay for a package that size, which could cost roughly $200 billion.
"If House Republicans refuse to pass this bipartisan bill to extend the payroll tax cut, there will be a significant tax increase on 160 million hardworking Americans in 13 days that would damage the economy and job growth," Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said Sunday.
"It is a make-or-break moment for John Boehner's speakership," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the Senate's No. 3 Democratic leader. "You cannot let a small group at the extreme resort to brinksmanship every time there is a major national issue and try to dictate every move this nation makes."
After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., struck a deal on their two-month bill Friday night, McConnell expressed optimism that Congress would approve it and lawmakers would revisit the battle in February.
But Boehner, R-Ohio, said Sunday he opposed the Senate bill and wanted a yearlong version and other changes, a stance echoed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.
They expressed their views a day after House GOP lawmakers on a conference call voiced vehement opposition to the Senate bill, saying it lacked serious spending cuts. They also said they were tired of their leaders striking compromises and not battling harder for their positions, according to several participants.
"We can find common ground," Boehner said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. Of the Senate bill, he said, "It's just the usual, let's just punt, kick the can down the road" approach.
Boehner did not specify the changes he would like in the bill, but touted "reasonable reductions in spending" and language blocking some Obama administration anti-pollution rules in a yearlong payroll tax bill the House approved last week. That bill covered its costs -- more than $180 billion -- by carving savings from federal workers, higher-income Medicare recipients, fees paid to insure mortgages and elsewhere.
Reid and Schumer said Sunday that Boehner had asked McConnell and Reid to negotiate a compromise, seemingly suggesting that Boehner had walked away from a deal. Republicans said that is untrue and said the House GOP played no role in last week's bargaining between the Senate leaders.
McConnell offered support for Boehner Sunday. His spokesman, Donald Stewart, said the best way to "provide certainty for job creators, employees and the long-term unemployed is through regular order" -- a term used to describe the normal process of negotiations between the House and Senate.
The Senate bill also includes a provision dear to Republicans that would force Obama to approve a proposed Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline within 60 days unless he declares the project would damage the national interest.
Obama had previously said he would make no decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until 2013, allowing him to wait until after next November's elections to choose between two Democratic constituencies: unions favoring the project's thousands of jobs and environmentalists opposed to its potential pollution and massive energy use. Obama initially threatened to kill the payroll tax bill if it included the pipeline language but eventually retreated.
One potential hindrance to quick approval of a new payroll tax bill is the Senate's adjournment. It would take approval from all 100 senators to let the Senate hold any votes before the chamber's late January return.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Michelle Does it Again...traveling separately and not giving a DAMN about taxpayer expense....
Trust me Everyone knows that Barack and Michelle don't give a damn about how much taxpayer money they spend....This broad flys separately everytime she goes anywhere...it's a disgrace!!!!
I can't wait until they both get sent home after the Nov 2012 election...then they will be back to getting Chicago Gangsters to negotiate their travel plans...
I can't wait until they both get sent home after the Nov 2012 election...then they will be back to getting Chicago Gangsters to negotiate their travel plans...
Americans are Finally Starting to Wake Up...
Poll: More Than Half Say Obama Should Lose in 2012
Published December 16, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Obama's re-election prospects are essentially a 50-50 proposition as he enters 2012, with a majority saying the president deserves to be voted out of office despite concerns about the Republican alternatives, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
Obama's overall poll numbers suggest he is in jeopardy of losing, even as the public's outlook on the economy appears to be improving, the AP-GfK poll found. For the first time since spring, more said the economy got better in the past month than said it got worse.
The president's approval rating on unemployment shifted upward -- from 40 percent in October to 45 percent in the latest poll -- as the jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent last month, its lowest level since March 2009.
But Obama's approval rating on his handling of the economy overall remains stagnant: 39 percent approve and 60 percent disapprove.
Heading into his re-election campaign, the president faces a conflicted public that does not support his steering of the economy, the most dominant issue for Americans, or his reforms to health care, one of his signature accomplishments. Yet they are grappling with whether to replace him with Republican contenders Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
The poll found an even divide on whether Americans expect Obama to be re-elected next year.
For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves another term. The numbers mark a reversal since last May, when 53 percent said Obama should be re-elected while 43 percent said he didn't deserve four more years.
Obama's overall job approval stands at a new low: 44 percent approve while 54 percent disapprove. The president's standing among independents is worse: 38 percent approve while 59 percent disapprove. Among Democrats, the president holds steady with an approval rating of 78 percent while only 12 percent of Republicans approve of the job he's doing.
"I think he's doing the best he can. The problem is the Congress won't help at all," said Rosario Navarro, a Democrat and a 44-year-old truck driver, who voted for Obama in 2008 and intends to support him again.
Robin Dein, a 54-year-old homemaker, who is an independent, said she supported Republican John McCain in 2008 and has not been impressed with Obama's economic policies. She intends to support Romney if he wins the Republican nomination.
"(Obama) spent the first part of his presidency blaming Bush for everything, not that he was innocent, and now his way of solving anything is by spending more money," she said.
Despite the soft level of support, many are uncertain whether a Republican president would be a better choice. Asked whom they would support next November, 47 percent of adults favored Obama compared with 46 percent for Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. Against Gingrich, the president holds a solid advantage, receiving 51 percent compared with 42 percent for the former leader of the House.
The potential matchups paint a better picture for the president among independents. Obama receives 45 percent of non-aligned adults compared with 41 percent for Romney. Against Gingrich, Obama holds a wide lead among independents, with 54 percent supporting the president and 31 percent backing the former Georgia congressman.
Another piece of good news for Obama: people generally like him personally. Obama's personal favorability rating held steady at 53 percent, with 46 percent viewing him unfavorably. About three-quarters called him likable.
The economy remains a source of pessimism, though the poll suggests the first positive movement in public opinion on the economy in months. One in five said the economy improved in the last month, double the share saying so in October. Still most expect it to stay the same or get worse.
The Associated Press-GfK Poll was conducted December 8-12 2011 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Published December 16, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Obama's re-election prospects are essentially a 50-50 proposition as he enters 2012, with a majority saying the president deserves to be voted out of office despite concerns about the Republican alternatives, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
Obama's overall poll numbers suggest he is in jeopardy of losing, even as the public's outlook on the economy appears to be improving, the AP-GfK poll found. For the first time since spring, more said the economy got better in the past month than said it got worse.
The president's approval rating on unemployment shifted upward -- from 40 percent in October to 45 percent in the latest poll -- as the jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent last month, its lowest level since March 2009.
But Obama's approval rating on his handling of the economy overall remains stagnant: 39 percent approve and 60 percent disapprove.
Heading into his re-election campaign, the president faces a conflicted public that does not support his steering of the economy, the most dominant issue for Americans, or his reforms to health care, one of his signature accomplishments. Yet they are grappling with whether to replace him with Republican contenders Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
The poll found an even divide on whether Americans expect Obama to be re-elected next year.
For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves another term. The numbers mark a reversal since last May, when 53 percent said Obama should be re-elected while 43 percent said he didn't deserve four more years.
Obama's overall job approval stands at a new low: 44 percent approve while 54 percent disapprove. The president's standing among independents is worse: 38 percent approve while 59 percent disapprove. Among Democrats, the president holds steady with an approval rating of 78 percent while only 12 percent of Republicans approve of the job he's doing.
"I think he's doing the best he can. The problem is the Congress won't help at all," said Rosario Navarro, a Democrat and a 44-year-old truck driver, who voted for Obama in 2008 and intends to support him again.
Robin Dein, a 54-year-old homemaker, who is an independent, said she supported Republican John McCain in 2008 and has not been impressed with Obama's economic policies. She intends to support Romney if he wins the Republican nomination.
"(Obama) spent the first part of his presidency blaming Bush for everything, not that he was innocent, and now his way of solving anything is by spending more money," she said.
Despite the soft level of support, many are uncertain whether a Republican president would be a better choice. Asked whom they would support next November, 47 percent of adults favored Obama compared with 46 percent for Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. Against Gingrich, the president holds a solid advantage, receiving 51 percent compared with 42 percent for the former leader of the House.
The potential matchups paint a better picture for the president among independents. Obama receives 45 percent of non-aligned adults compared with 41 percent for Romney. Against Gingrich, Obama holds a wide lead among independents, with 54 percent supporting the president and 31 percent backing the former Georgia congressman.
Another piece of good news for Obama: people generally like him personally. Obama's personal favorability rating held steady at 53 percent, with 46 percent viewing him unfavorably. About three-quarters called him likable.
The economy remains a source of pessimism, though the poll suggests the first positive movement in public opinion on the economy in months. One in five said the economy improved in the last month, double the share saying so in October. Still most expect it to stay the same or get worse.
The Associated Press-GfK Poll was conducted December 8-12 2011 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Democrats Once Again Scewing with the Free Market....
Here's the Democrats once again fooling around with marketplace economics..The Post Office is dinasaur of an industry...it is dying the same way the Video rental business is already dead...It's time to move on...downsize the post office and let it ride out what business is left...the private sector will pick any/all opportunities for growth and jobs will come (although not as many as are lost) from the private sector.....for example the post office has said they will stop next day delivery....if folks need next day they will move to FedEx, UPS or some other private business that will provide this service......
Plus the jobs will go from the high paid, union driven, noncompetitive jobs to jobs that will allow America to stay competitive going forward....
It's time to start biting the bullet and let the post office start to die it's natural death....Let the free market work...
U.S. Postal Service to Delay Closures for Five Months
Published December 14, 2011 | Associated Press
The U.S. Postal Service has agreed to delay the closing of 252 mail processing centers and 3,700 local post offices until mid-May.
The cash-strapped agency, which is forecast to lose a record $14.1 billion next year, announced last week it was moving forward on cutbacks. It had planned to begin closing processing centers as early as April, and shutter some post offices early next year.
A group of senators planned to announce the agreement Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the deal who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid preempting the announcement.
Last Thursday, a group of 18 Senate Democrats signed a letter to congressional leaders asking them to add language to legislation that would halt closings for six months.
Closures could cost 100,000 postal employees their jobs.
Plus the jobs will go from the high paid, union driven, noncompetitive jobs to jobs that will allow America to stay competitive going forward....
It's time to start biting the bullet and let the post office start to die it's natural death....Let the free market work...
U.S. Postal Service to Delay Closures for Five Months
Published December 14, 2011 | Associated Press
The U.S. Postal Service has agreed to delay the closing of 252 mail processing centers and 3,700 local post offices until mid-May.
The cash-strapped agency, which is forecast to lose a record $14.1 billion next year, announced last week it was moving forward on cutbacks. It had planned to begin closing processing centers as early as April, and shutter some post offices early next year.
A group of senators planned to announce the agreement Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the deal who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid preempting the announcement.
Last Thursday, a group of 18 Senate Democrats signed a letter to congressional leaders asking them to add language to legislation that would halt closings for six months.
Closures could cost 100,000 postal employees their jobs.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Obama's Chances get Even Worse....
Swing State Poll Shows Obama’s Narrow Options
"It means that the votes that President Obama needs to cobble together are going to be made up more of independents than they were last time. This time, it's going to be much, much closer..."
-- Lanae Erickson of moderate Democratic group Third Way talking to USA Today about the flight of registered Democrats from the party in battleground states.
In the dozen swing states where voters will decide the 2012 presidential election, a new Gallup/USA Today poll shows President Obama losing to the current Republican frontrunners by significant margins.
Obama trailed Mitt Romney by 5 points, 43 percent to 48 percent and trailed Newt Gingrich by 3 points, 45 percent to 48 percent, in the survey of these 12 battleground states
It’s a pretty big deal.
While Obama continues to tie or lead national polls, his performance in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin matters more. And there, things are not so good for the incumbent.
Part of the gap with the national numbers can be explained by the fractious, boom-and-bust Republican nominating process. While the overwhelming number of Democrats in deep-blue states already know who their nominee will be next year, Republicans are still squabbling amongst themselves in bright-red states like Georgia and Texas. That will change after there is a nominee and the national number for the GOP standard bearer will even out.
But the biggest problem for Obama is that he is underperforming his national number by so much in the swing states. Compared to his national number, his score falls by 4 points against Gingrich and 5 points against Romney. While Obama believes he can drive down the support for whoever the Republican nominee may be, it seems unlikely that he can get his own numbers up very much.
And this is where the president’s decision to not stay focused on the economy in his term is really a kick in the pants. In that dozen states, you have once prosperous places that have experienced major busts driven by a continually poor real estate market further retarded by extremely poor job growth (Colorado, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina) or states that were already struggling economically and have seen hopes for a brighter future dashed in the non-recovery recovery of the past three years (Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).
Only Virginia is an economic success story, thanks in large part from federal outlays that support good incomes for residents in the northern part of the commonwealth and a large military presence across the Old Dominion. That, combined with the same business hospitality seen across the South, has made Virginia a rare swing-state success story. Most of the good economic news in the country has been in states down South or in the Midwest or Appalachia – thanks in part to an ongoing energy boom – where Obama cannot benefit.
Obama spent most of his first two years in office banging away at a health care law that proved to be an unpopular distraction for an economically anxious electorate. In his third year, Obama has been stymied by the historic Republican gains in the House. Despite his promise of a “hard pivot” to jobs, Obama has spent most of his time in 2011 in three pursuits: getting a jump on swing-state campaigning, raising money and engaging in the kind of grinding, small-bore budget battles that generally profit no one involved.
The overarching Obama miscalculation seems to have been that he needed to burn his political capital to get something big done with Democratic supermajorities in the Congress. The first miscalculation was that the legislation would be popular. It is not. The second miscalculation was on how many seats his party would lose in the midterms.
Had Obama lost the same number as Ronald Reagan did in 1982 (26) or even Bill Clinton did in 1994 (54), the Democratic plan might have worked better. That’s certainly the range Team Obama was thinking about as the president and his crew mostly stayed out of the fight as incumbent Democrats sent out distress signals.
But with a 63-seat shellacking, Obama was not able to pivot to anything except a battle over debt, deficits and spending. Even if Obama had found it in himself to moderate after midterms as Reagan and Clinton had done he was faced with the most Republican house since the 1920s.
Obama’s first bad bet was prematurely pursuing the health care law, which may yet be struck down by the Supreme Court. That resulted in the 2010 landslide, making it harder for Obama to reassume his 2008 centrist pose for his re-election campaign. Clinton paid a price for his attempt to overhaul healthcare, but Obama’s decision to try again at exactly the wrong political moment looks increasingly like one of the great blunders in American electoral history.
Obama won all 12 of the swing states in 2008, but how many of them will he win again?
He has structural advantages and history on his side in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (though all three states skewed heavily Republican statewide in 2010). Polls and electoral trends suggest the president is unlikely to prevail in Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina.
That leaves Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia as the swingingest swing states and Obama trailing in electoral votes 245 to 242 with 51 up for grabs. And there, team Obama will be counting on the most expensive, aggressive and negative re-election campaign ever waged.
And that’s where there’s real trouble in the poll for Obama in this poll.
Since 2008, swing state voters have become 9 percent less Democratic. When Obama won the swing states by 8 points, Democrats boasted an 11-point party identification edge. Now it’s down to 2-points. The huge advantage was the result of a huge registration drive among young and minority voters by the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party and labor unions. But it was also the natural result of four unhappy years for the GOP. The Iraq war and the Panic of 2008 left many moderates feeling frustrated with the party that had been in power for eight years.
Those folks, believing Obama was a sensible moderate, flocked to the blue banner. Having found that Obama was more of a doctrinaire liberal than they had assumed (health care, again) and now having heard the president engaging in an endless loop of partisan attacks, they have drifted away.
The president’s promise is that the base will be ready to roll by Election Day (hence all of the raw, red meat he has been serving up) combined with a high-tech, very expensive grassroots organization will compensate for the disaffection of the moderates.
But there, the poll has bad news for Obama too. Democratic enthusiasm, despite the president having devoted most of the fall to baiting his base with attacks on the red team and the plutocratic “1 Percent,” trails Republican enthusiasm in swing states 61 percent to 47 percent.
This sets up a scenario in which Obama spends more and more time trying to whip up the dwindling number of Democrats, further annoying moderate independents who are desperate for Washington to be less of a eye-popping failure. With Republicans shunning the most conservative contenders in their race, Obama finds himself with a narrower electoral map and narrower strategic options.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It means that the votes that President Obama needs to cobble together are going to be made up more of independents than they were last time. This time, it's going to be much, much closer..."
-- Lanae Erickson of moderate Democratic group Third Way talking to USA Today about the flight of registered Democrats from the party in battleground states.
In the dozen swing states where voters will decide the 2012 presidential election, a new Gallup/USA Today poll shows President Obama losing to the current Republican frontrunners by significant margins.
Obama trailed Mitt Romney by 5 points, 43 percent to 48 percent and trailed Newt Gingrich by 3 points, 45 percent to 48 percent, in the survey of these 12 battleground states
It’s a pretty big deal.
While Obama continues to tie or lead national polls, his performance in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin matters more. And there, things are not so good for the incumbent.
Part of the gap with the national numbers can be explained by the fractious, boom-and-bust Republican nominating process. While the overwhelming number of Democrats in deep-blue states already know who their nominee will be next year, Republicans are still squabbling amongst themselves in bright-red states like Georgia and Texas. That will change after there is a nominee and the national number for the GOP standard bearer will even out.
But the biggest problem for Obama is that he is underperforming his national number by so much in the swing states. Compared to his national number, his score falls by 4 points against Gingrich and 5 points against Romney. While Obama believes he can drive down the support for whoever the Republican nominee may be, it seems unlikely that he can get his own numbers up very much.
And this is where the president’s decision to not stay focused on the economy in his term is really a kick in the pants. In that dozen states, you have once prosperous places that have experienced major busts driven by a continually poor real estate market further retarded by extremely poor job growth (Colorado, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina) or states that were already struggling economically and have seen hopes for a brighter future dashed in the non-recovery recovery of the past three years (Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).
Only Virginia is an economic success story, thanks in large part from federal outlays that support good incomes for residents in the northern part of the commonwealth and a large military presence across the Old Dominion. That, combined with the same business hospitality seen across the South, has made Virginia a rare swing-state success story. Most of the good economic news in the country has been in states down South or in the Midwest or Appalachia – thanks in part to an ongoing energy boom – where Obama cannot benefit.
Obama spent most of his first two years in office banging away at a health care law that proved to be an unpopular distraction for an economically anxious electorate. In his third year, Obama has been stymied by the historic Republican gains in the House. Despite his promise of a “hard pivot” to jobs, Obama has spent most of his time in 2011 in three pursuits: getting a jump on swing-state campaigning, raising money and engaging in the kind of grinding, small-bore budget battles that generally profit no one involved.
The overarching Obama miscalculation seems to have been that he needed to burn his political capital to get something big done with Democratic supermajorities in the Congress. The first miscalculation was that the legislation would be popular. It is not. The second miscalculation was on how many seats his party would lose in the midterms.
Had Obama lost the same number as Ronald Reagan did in 1982 (26) or even Bill Clinton did in 1994 (54), the Democratic plan might have worked better. That’s certainly the range Team Obama was thinking about as the president and his crew mostly stayed out of the fight as incumbent Democrats sent out distress signals.
But with a 63-seat shellacking, Obama was not able to pivot to anything except a battle over debt, deficits and spending. Even if Obama had found it in himself to moderate after midterms as Reagan and Clinton had done he was faced with the most Republican house since the 1920s.
Obama’s first bad bet was prematurely pursuing the health care law, which may yet be struck down by the Supreme Court. That resulted in the 2010 landslide, making it harder for Obama to reassume his 2008 centrist pose for his re-election campaign. Clinton paid a price for his attempt to overhaul healthcare, but Obama’s decision to try again at exactly the wrong political moment looks increasingly like one of the great blunders in American electoral history.
Obama won all 12 of the swing states in 2008, but how many of them will he win again?
He has structural advantages and history on his side in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (though all three states skewed heavily Republican statewide in 2010). Polls and electoral trends suggest the president is unlikely to prevail in Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina.
That leaves Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia as the swingingest swing states and Obama trailing in electoral votes 245 to 242 with 51 up for grabs. And there, team Obama will be counting on the most expensive, aggressive and negative re-election campaign ever waged.
And that’s where there’s real trouble in the poll for Obama in this poll.
Since 2008, swing state voters have become 9 percent less Democratic. When Obama won the swing states by 8 points, Democrats boasted an 11-point party identification edge. Now it’s down to 2-points. The huge advantage was the result of a huge registration drive among young and minority voters by the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party and labor unions. But it was also the natural result of four unhappy years for the GOP. The Iraq war and the Panic of 2008 left many moderates feeling frustrated with the party that had been in power for eight years.
Those folks, believing Obama was a sensible moderate, flocked to the blue banner. Having found that Obama was more of a doctrinaire liberal than they had assumed (health care, again) and now having heard the president engaging in an endless loop of partisan attacks, they have drifted away.
The president’s promise is that the base will be ready to roll by Election Day (hence all of the raw, red meat he has been serving up) combined with a high-tech, very expensive grassroots organization will compensate for the disaffection of the moderates.
But there, the poll has bad news for Obama too. Democratic enthusiasm, despite the president having devoted most of the fall to baiting his base with attacks on the red team and the plutocratic “1 Percent,” trails Republican enthusiasm in swing states 61 percent to 47 percent.
This sets up a scenario in which Obama spends more and more time trying to whip up the dwindling number of Democrats, further annoying moderate independents who are desperate for Washington to be less of a eye-popping failure. With Republicans shunning the most conservative contenders in their race, Obama finds himself with a narrower electoral map and narrower strategic options.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Two more liberal Women....
Joy Behar and Rosie....and they're calling Newt a Joke...they are both disgracing the female gender.....
Send Obama a Bill With the Keystone Pipeline...
Repubicans need to send him a bill with the Keystone Pipeline attached to it...and then let Obama Veto It!...I dare him to Veto It!
Here He Goes Again...Making Excuses and Blaming Bush!
Here he goes again...blaming it all on BUSH!!!...Even the African American population knows that's not true....what a Joke this guy is...
Friday, December 9, 2011
Obama....All Rhetoric...and on the Wrong Side of History!
More evidence that Obama is all rhetoric and has no facts behind his "logic"...He's got to go in 2012!!!....from today's Heritage Foundation Morning Call-
Whitewashing History, Obama Style
If U.S. history is a painting on giant canvas, President Barack Obama's speech this week in Osawatomie, Kansas, is a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. The President's pretense is that, no, it's not Obamanomics that has caused persistent unemployment, stunted growth and record deficits--it's supply side economics!
Talk about audacity.
The President's speech was a naked portrayal of his vision of America--one where inequality runs rampant, where the American dream is nearly dead, where the rich oppress the poor, where education is undervalued. As Charles Krauthammer observes this morning in The Washington Post, "That's the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years."
Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President's portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work and his absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that has failed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior.
But in President Obama's mind, it is others who offer ideas that don't work, not him. He points to "a certain crowd in Washington" that argues for tax cuts and reduced regulations, calling it "a simple theory" that "fits well on a bumper sticker" but "has never worked."
Correction, Mr. President. It has worked--time and time again throughout history. The trouble is, Mr. Obama has never tried it, and the Keynesian economic policies he enacted fell flat on their face, just as they have throughout history.
It started with a massive $787 billion stimulus bill that White House economists predicted would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. It was Keynesian economics at its finest, based on the premise that government spending would spark demand and put Americans back to work.
It didn't. Some 13.3 million Americans remain out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 10 percent throughout Obama's presidency, and economic growth has been stuck on slow. In fact, today America is witnessing the longest stretch of such high unemployment in the postwar era. Meanwhile, job creation has hit a record low, as Heritage's James Sherk explains:
Fewer existing businesses are expanding, while fewer entrepreneurs are starting new businesses. In the first quarter of 2011, the number of workers hired in new business establishments fell to just 660,000, 27 percent fewer than when the recession began. This is the lowest number of workers hired at new businesses that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded--lower even than the worst points of the recession.
Yet despite these numbers -- and the fact that President Obama had near-free rein to enact the Keynesian economic policies he saw fit -- the President is now demagoguing the one economic policy he hasn't tried -- supply-side economics -- while calling for more government spending all as America's debt is deepening. He would do better to study history and get a grasp of how cutting taxes and freeing the market has worked when employed by both Democrats and Republicans.
Lowering tax rates, thereby allowing people to keep and invest more of the money that is rightfully theirs, has proven good for the economy time and time again. In the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s, tax rate reductions resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. And despite the President's claim that cutting taxes only helps the rich, when tax rates were lowered in those decades, higher-income Americans paid an even greater share of the tax burden because they had fewer reasons to hide, shelter, and under-report income. But if taxes are increased -- as President Obama continues to threaten -- the price of working, saving, investing, and taking risks goes up, too.
History bears this out. Daniel Mitchell writes that in the 1920s, under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the top tax rate was reduced from 73 percent to 25 percent. The result? The economy expanded, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, with annual economic growth averaging more than 6 percent. Under President Kennedy, the top rate dropped from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965. The result? Between 1961 and 1968, the economy expanded by more than 42 percent, with average annual growth of more than 5 percent. Under President Reagan, the top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988, leading to incredible economic expansion and average growth of nearly 4 percent. Finally, in the six quarters following the 2003 tax cuts, the GDP's growth rate shot up to 4.1 percent from 1.7 percent before.
But the President doesn't have to take The Heritage Foundation's word for it. He can heed the words of President Kennedy in his 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
Unfortunately, President Obama does not appear open to advice, nor does he seem cognizant of history--be it that of 10, 20, 40, or 90 years ago, or even his experience of the last three years. Instead, he is damning the torpedoes and continuing to pursue a liberal, progressive agenda that has proven to be a failure. As they have for the past three years, Americans will pay the price.
Whitewashing History, Obama Style
If U.S. history is a painting on giant canvas, President Barack Obama's speech this week in Osawatomie, Kansas, is a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. The President's pretense is that, no, it's not Obamanomics that has caused persistent unemployment, stunted growth and record deficits--it's supply side economics!
Talk about audacity.
The President's speech was a naked portrayal of his vision of America--one where inequality runs rampant, where the American dream is nearly dead, where the rich oppress the poor, where education is undervalued. As Charles Krauthammer observes this morning in The Washington Post, "That's the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years."
Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President's portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work and his absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that has failed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior.
But in President Obama's mind, it is others who offer ideas that don't work, not him. He points to "a certain crowd in Washington" that argues for tax cuts and reduced regulations, calling it "a simple theory" that "fits well on a bumper sticker" but "has never worked."
Correction, Mr. President. It has worked--time and time again throughout history. The trouble is, Mr. Obama has never tried it, and the Keynesian economic policies he enacted fell flat on their face, just as they have throughout history.
It started with a massive $787 billion stimulus bill that White House economists predicted would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. It was Keynesian economics at its finest, based on the premise that government spending would spark demand and put Americans back to work.
It didn't. Some 13.3 million Americans remain out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 10 percent throughout Obama's presidency, and economic growth has been stuck on slow. In fact, today America is witnessing the longest stretch of such high unemployment in the postwar era. Meanwhile, job creation has hit a record low, as Heritage's James Sherk explains:
Fewer existing businesses are expanding, while fewer entrepreneurs are starting new businesses. In the first quarter of 2011, the number of workers hired in new business establishments fell to just 660,000, 27 percent fewer than when the recession began. This is the lowest number of workers hired at new businesses that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded--lower even than the worst points of the recession.
Yet despite these numbers -- and the fact that President Obama had near-free rein to enact the Keynesian economic policies he saw fit -- the President is now demagoguing the one economic policy he hasn't tried -- supply-side economics -- while calling for more government spending all as America's debt is deepening. He would do better to study history and get a grasp of how cutting taxes and freeing the market has worked when employed by both Democrats and Republicans.
Lowering tax rates, thereby allowing people to keep and invest more of the money that is rightfully theirs, has proven good for the economy time and time again. In the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s, tax rate reductions resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. And despite the President's claim that cutting taxes only helps the rich, when tax rates were lowered in those decades, higher-income Americans paid an even greater share of the tax burden because they had fewer reasons to hide, shelter, and under-report income. But if taxes are increased -- as President Obama continues to threaten -- the price of working, saving, investing, and taking risks goes up, too.
History bears this out. Daniel Mitchell writes that in the 1920s, under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the top tax rate was reduced from 73 percent to 25 percent. The result? The economy expanded, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, with annual economic growth averaging more than 6 percent. Under President Kennedy, the top rate dropped from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965. The result? Between 1961 and 1968, the economy expanded by more than 42 percent, with average annual growth of more than 5 percent. Under President Reagan, the top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988, leading to incredible economic expansion and average growth of nearly 4 percent. Finally, in the six quarters following the 2003 tax cuts, the GDP's growth rate shot up to 4.1 percent from 1.7 percent before.
But the President doesn't have to take The Heritage Foundation's word for it. He can heed the words of President Kennedy in his 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
Unfortunately, President Obama does not appear open to advice, nor does he seem cognizant of history--be it that of 10, 20, 40, or 90 years ago, or even his experience of the last three years. Instead, he is damning the torpedoes and continuing to pursue a liberal, progressive agenda that has proven to be a failure. As they have for the past three years, Americans will pay the price.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Obama....Why He Can't Be Reelected
More Reasons why Obama is downright dangerous for America and can't be reelected again..
From today's Heritage Foudation Morning Call-
The Last Incarnation of Barack Obama
If there was any doubt where President Barack Obama's ideological heart lies, yesterday he let it be known loud and clear in a wide-ranging speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. President Obama is at his core a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who sees the federal government as the answer to all of America's problems. And he is charging full steam ahead on this far-left course toward Election Day 2012, despite the total failure of his big-government policies and an American people who have flatly rejected the message he is trying to sell.
True to form, President Obama yesterday did what he does best: He delivered a flowery speech and flexed his rhetorical muscles. It's a talent that won him the presidency, but unfortunately it hasn't won the future for the American people. And that's because the President's underlying philosophy is terribly flawed. After three years of a massive expansion of government, the enactment of Obamacare, hundreds of billions of dollars in failed stimulus spending, government ownership of General Motors, a Big Labor/pro-unionization onslaught, threats of even higher taxation, the promulgation of more unnecessary regulations, and a total failure to confront the entitlement challenge, the verdict is in on President Obama's record and the soundness of his statist, progressive philosophy. Deficits are soaring, the economy is stagnant, 13.3 million Americans are out of work, and job growth is flat. Not surprisingly, the President’s speech did not touch on those facts.
Instead of confronting the reality of America under his watch, President Obama hearkened back to the days of Bull Moose progressive Theodore Roosevelt, citing him as his model of good governance, quoting his 1910 "New Nationalism" speech and calling for "fairness" in America--along with more infrastructure spending, more federal education programs, more regulations, and higher taxation on job creators to redistribute wealth and pay for his big government programs. And in order to raise the temperature of his rhetoric--and inflame the passions of his audience--the President fell back to his class warfare ways, demonizing the haves in order to win over the have-nots while painting a picture of an America where "unfairness" reigns and opportunity cannot be found.
Matthew Spalding, vice president of The Heritage Foundation's B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, explains why President Obama's reliance on class warfare and his perverted view of "fairness" is so contrary to what America is really about:
There are no class distinctions in America. That's why Steve Jobs could start an adopted child in a broken home, start Apple in a garage and become a billionaire eight times over. The real distinction here is caused by the rise of a new governing class of experts, bureaucrats and political elites who insist on ruling us to enforce "fairness" rather than letting us govern ourselves under the rule of law.
Indeed, the new fairness inevitably leads to bureaucratic favoritism, inequalities based on special interests and undue political influence. The real class warfare, as Paul Ryan argued in his recent speech at The Heritage Foundation, is caused by "a class of governing elites, exploiting the politics of division to pick winners and losers in our economy and determine our destinies for us."
Ironically, the President's conception of America--that it is a land of no opportunity--stands in stark contrast to his own personal story, which he even trumpeted in his speech. Barack Obama came from meager beginnings and now sits in the Oval Office. There are countless stories of other Americans who have risen and found success on their own merit in this fertile land. But speaking to America's rugged individualism and the notion of achieving success without the helping hand of the government would not serve President Obama's progressive agenda. In his world, the government is the giver of all things, the defender of the middle class, and the architect of prosperity. Likewise, success is not something to be championed but to be demagogued in the name of the expansion of the state.
Over the past three years, we have seen the President articulate many ideas and cloak himself in many different philosophies. Of late, he has even called himself a tax-cutter and posed as a deficit hawk, all while calling for massive amounts of new spending. But with yesterday's speech, he has emerged in his truest incarnation--a hard-line progressive to the core. The speech fits perfectly with reports that the Obama 2012 campaign has come to the realization that it will lose white blue-collar voters by large margins and is concentrating instead on cobbling together a coalition of culture elites and racial minorities. The abandonment of the middle class--or, rather, the fact that the middle class has abandoned him--puts in context this latest incarnation of the President as he prepares to run next year.
This is not the way to lead America to prosperity, to stand the economy on its feet, or to put the millions of unemployed Americans back to work. Rather than make government bigger and more intrusive, now is the time to make it smaller and more responsible so that entrepreneurs can achieve what Washington cannot manufacture: new jobs, new ideas, and a better America for future generations. But that America is quite different from the one President Obama envisions.
From today's Heritage Foudation Morning Call-
The Last Incarnation of Barack Obama
If there was any doubt where President Barack Obama's ideological heart lies, yesterday he let it be known loud and clear in a wide-ranging speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. President Obama is at his core a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who sees the federal government as the answer to all of America's problems. And he is charging full steam ahead on this far-left course toward Election Day 2012, despite the total failure of his big-government policies and an American people who have flatly rejected the message he is trying to sell.
True to form, President Obama yesterday did what he does best: He delivered a flowery speech and flexed his rhetorical muscles. It's a talent that won him the presidency, but unfortunately it hasn't won the future for the American people. And that's because the President's underlying philosophy is terribly flawed. After three years of a massive expansion of government, the enactment of Obamacare, hundreds of billions of dollars in failed stimulus spending, government ownership of General Motors, a Big Labor/pro-unionization onslaught, threats of even higher taxation, the promulgation of more unnecessary regulations, and a total failure to confront the entitlement challenge, the verdict is in on President Obama's record and the soundness of his statist, progressive philosophy. Deficits are soaring, the economy is stagnant, 13.3 million Americans are out of work, and job growth is flat. Not surprisingly, the President’s speech did not touch on those facts.
Instead of confronting the reality of America under his watch, President Obama hearkened back to the days of Bull Moose progressive Theodore Roosevelt, citing him as his model of good governance, quoting his 1910 "New Nationalism" speech and calling for "fairness" in America--along with more infrastructure spending, more federal education programs, more regulations, and higher taxation on job creators to redistribute wealth and pay for his big government programs. And in order to raise the temperature of his rhetoric--and inflame the passions of his audience--the President fell back to his class warfare ways, demonizing the haves in order to win over the have-nots while painting a picture of an America where "unfairness" reigns and opportunity cannot be found.
Matthew Spalding, vice president of The Heritage Foundation's B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, explains why President Obama's reliance on class warfare and his perverted view of "fairness" is so contrary to what America is really about:
There are no class distinctions in America. That's why Steve Jobs could start an adopted child in a broken home, start Apple in a garage and become a billionaire eight times over. The real distinction here is caused by the rise of a new governing class of experts, bureaucrats and political elites who insist on ruling us to enforce "fairness" rather than letting us govern ourselves under the rule of law.
Indeed, the new fairness inevitably leads to bureaucratic favoritism, inequalities based on special interests and undue political influence. The real class warfare, as Paul Ryan argued in his recent speech at The Heritage Foundation, is caused by "a class of governing elites, exploiting the politics of division to pick winners and losers in our economy and determine our destinies for us."
Ironically, the President's conception of America--that it is a land of no opportunity--stands in stark contrast to his own personal story, which he even trumpeted in his speech. Barack Obama came from meager beginnings and now sits in the Oval Office. There are countless stories of other Americans who have risen and found success on their own merit in this fertile land. But speaking to America's rugged individualism and the notion of achieving success without the helping hand of the government would not serve President Obama's progressive agenda. In his world, the government is the giver of all things, the defender of the middle class, and the architect of prosperity. Likewise, success is not something to be championed but to be demagogued in the name of the expansion of the state.
Over the past three years, we have seen the President articulate many ideas and cloak himself in many different philosophies. Of late, he has even called himself a tax-cutter and posed as a deficit hawk, all while calling for massive amounts of new spending. But with yesterday's speech, he has emerged in his truest incarnation--a hard-line progressive to the core. The speech fits perfectly with reports that the Obama 2012 campaign has come to the realization that it will lose white blue-collar voters by large margins and is concentrating instead on cobbling together a coalition of culture elites and racial minorities. The abandonment of the middle class--or, rather, the fact that the middle class has abandoned him--puts in context this latest incarnation of the President as he prepares to run next year.
This is not the way to lead America to prosperity, to stand the economy on its feet, or to put the millions of unemployed Americans back to work. Rather than make government bigger and more intrusive, now is the time to make it smaller and more responsible so that entrepreneurs can achieve what Washington cannot manufacture: new jobs, new ideas, and a better America for future generations. But that America is quite different from the one President Obama envisions.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Obama Lying to the American People Again..while Geitner is planning to Bail Out Europe with Your Tax Dollars....
Here's Obama and Tax Cheat Timothy Geitner in essence committing the United States to Bail Out Europe against the will of the American People and trying to keep it all quiet...and in fact twisting the facts and lying to the American Public about what is happening.....It's been a clear message to Obama...NO MORE BAILOUTS!, but he doesn't listen...he thinks he knows better.
IF he were to get reelected we would again see this country's debt rise tremendously and we would end up like Greece....He's a dangerous person..he's not straight with the American People and he has to go in Nov 2012....
Two Audiences, Two Messages for White House on Euro Bailout; Obama, His Presidency Stalled, Invokes TR’s Activism
Geithner Seeks to Reassure Europeans, But Not Anger American Voters
"[The European credit downgrade warning was] prompted by our belief that systemic stresses in the euro zone have risen in recent weeks to the extent that they now put downward pressure on the credit standing of the euro zone as a whole."
-- Statement from Standard and Poor’s Ratings Services explaining its newly negative outlook for the government debt of 15 nations, including Germany, France, Holland and Austria.
The French and Germans are trying to drag the drowning southern European nations back to the boat and are asking Britain and the U.S. to jump in and help them pull.
But as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tours the continents in a bid to express confidence in the ability of debt-drenched Europeans to save themselves and to restate American promises of support, the political perils for him and his boss, President Obama, are very real.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is pushing for a new version of the 19-year-old European Union that would give the central government in Brussels more power over the finances of member nations. There are 27 nations in the EU – essentially all of Europe except Switzerland and Finland, who didn’t want in, and the Balkan countries, which couldn’t get in. There are 17 countries that agreed to give up their currencies to join the euro and 10 EU member countries that refused, including Britain, Sweden and much of Eastern Europe.
Merkel is in huge political trouble at home because Germans, who, along with the Dutch, have seen their currency status trashed since joining the euro in 1999 as the Greeks and other spendthrift nations with weak economies have failed. Merkel’s offer to voters is that the Germans and industrious northern peoples would have substantial control over the continents finances – she argues that it can be fixed, but only if the Germans can spank their southern neighbors for fiscal indiscipline.
This new era of Teutonic control appeals to Germans, but perhaps not as much as doing what Brits did off the bat: tell the poorer countries and their funny money to sod off. But Merkel is also feeling the pressure from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country is in a multi-generational economic malaise and much closer to the debt abyss. He can’t stay afloat without Germany and Germany can’t get the fiscal controls it wants without his assistance. Plus, she knows that Germany can only stay solvent for so long if all its neighbors slide back to Second World status.
It was once thought that the Europeans might be able to muddle through in the way that Americans have been doing on debt, but with a weak currency, a much smaller economy and no real central bank or unified fiscal control, that has proven impossible. Europe doesn’t have a currency problem so much as it has an economic problem. With dire forecasts for growth and without the military/geopolitical standing to bluff its way through currency scares, they’re in for hard times no matter what.
What Merkel and Sarkozy are now pitching is for Britain and the rest of the euro refusniks to join in a new treaty that gives the Brussels government greater fiscal control of member state finances with an eye on expanding the number of nations keeping the currency buoyant. That sounds incredibly foolish to Brits who are just now busy congratulating themselves for not going into the euro in the first place.
That would leave the 17 euro nations, or whichever of them agree to cede budgetary control to Brussels – essentially leaving every German and Dutch worker with a half dozen Greek, Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese debtors on their backs. The trends line is increasingly looking like a checkerboard continents with currency and treaty confusion even worse than before the original treaty. It’s got a Hapsburg kind of vibe.
But as awful as that sounds, not even that outcome is possible unless the Chinese, the U.S. and other nations with the ability to conjure money agree to finance the European reorganization. Consider Merkel and Sarkozy like borrowers looking for another loan at the local bank just ahead of a bankruptcy declaration. Only another loan can prevent failure and a total loss, so a Power Point is assembled and promises of lessons learned and new policies to be implemented are made.
Europe is America’s most important trading partner and our banks are heavily entangled with those of our cultural parents, so the Obama administration is direly worried about the fallout over here if there is a sudden meltdown over there. With the American economy stalled the administration believes that propping up Europe is essential to another round of recession here. As Vice President Joe Biden famously said, once “we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”
The Federal Reserve has already obliged Europeans by keeping the spigot of cheap dollars open for Europe for another year, essentially allowing Europeans to swap their bad currency for our greenbacks at a deeply discounted rate. This cheered investors until Standard & Poor’s reminded everyone on Monday that Europe was truly hosed, it was just a matter of how soon and how badly.
The bailout package Europe is now seeking would rely on the International Monetary Fund, of which the U.S. is the most important part. So even if Obama does not actually present Sarkozy and Merkel with a giant check on behalf of U.S. taxpayers, he will be putting his country on the hook and increasing the long-term contagion risk. This is like a bailout version of Libya in which he will applaud the leadership of other countries while simultaneously making the whole thing possible and paying the most. It would be like the U.S. co-signing a loan with the 17 euro countries for more cash from China, but knowing full well that the euros can’t make the payments.
This is a good political blame-deflection strategy for Obama, but it tends to leave Europeans and panicky investors confused. So Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is back in Europe to calm nerves and provide assurances that the U.S. will foot the bill that Obama can’t offer for domestic consumption ahead of an election in which voters are bailout averse and not exactly great fans of European interdependency, or Europe for that matter.
At a moment when the whole European experiment dangles on the thin cord of public confidence in international unity in debt, Geithner’s job is to let everyone know that Uncle Sam is on board, but to say it softly and complexly enough so that American voters don’t hear it.
IF he were to get reelected we would again see this country's debt rise tremendously and we would end up like Greece....He's a dangerous person..he's not straight with the American People and he has to go in Nov 2012....
Two Audiences, Two Messages for White House on Euro Bailout; Obama, His Presidency Stalled, Invokes TR’s Activism
Geithner Seeks to Reassure Europeans, But Not Anger American Voters
"[The European credit downgrade warning was] prompted by our belief that systemic stresses in the euro zone have risen in recent weeks to the extent that they now put downward pressure on the credit standing of the euro zone as a whole."
-- Statement from Standard and Poor’s Ratings Services explaining its newly negative outlook for the government debt of 15 nations, including Germany, France, Holland and Austria.
The French and Germans are trying to drag the drowning southern European nations back to the boat and are asking Britain and the U.S. to jump in and help them pull.
But as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tours the continents in a bid to express confidence in the ability of debt-drenched Europeans to save themselves and to restate American promises of support, the political perils for him and his boss, President Obama, are very real.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is pushing for a new version of the 19-year-old European Union that would give the central government in Brussels more power over the finances of member nations. There are 27 nations in the EU – essentially all of Europe except Switzerland and Finland, who didn’t want in, and the Balkan countries, which couldn’t get in. There are 17 countries that agreed to give up their currencies to join the euro and 10 EU member countries that refused, including Britain, Sweden and much of Eastern Europe.
Merkel is in huge political trouble at home because Germans, who, along with the Dutch, have seen their currency status trashed since joining the euro in 1999 as the Greeks and other spendthrift nations with weak economies have failed. Merkel’s offer to voters is that the Germans and industrious northern peoples would have substantial control over the continents finances – she argues that it can be fixed, but only if the Germans can spank their southern neighbors for fiscal indiscipline.
This new era of Teutonic control appeals to Germans, but perhaps not as much as doing what Brits did off the bat: tell the poorer countries and their funny money to sod off. But Merkel is also feeling the pressure from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country is in a multi-generational economic malaise and much closer to the debt abyss. He can’t stay afloat without Germany and Germany can’t get the fiscal controls it wants without his assistance. Plus, she knows that Germany can only stay solvent for so long if all its neighbors slide back to Second World status.
It was once thought that the Europeans might be able to muddle through in the way that Americans have been doing on debt, but with a weak currency, a much smaller economy and no real central bank or unified fiscal control, that has proven impossible. Europe doesn’t have a currency problem so much as it has an economic problem. With dire forecasts for growth and without the military/geopolitical standing to bluff its way through currency scares, they’re in for hard times no matter what.
What Merkel and Sarkozy are now pitching is for Britain and the rest of the euro refusniks to join in a new treaty that gives the Brussels government greater fiscal control of member state finances with an eye on expanding the number of nations keeping the currency buoyant. That sounds incredibly foolish to Brits who are just now busy congratulating themselves for not going into the euro in the first place.
That would leave the 17 euro nations, or whichever of them agree to cede budgetary control to Brussels – essentially leaving every German and Dutch worker with a half dozen Greek, Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese debtors on their backs. The trends line is increasingly looking like a checkerboard continents with currency and treaty confusion even worse than before the original treaty. It’s got a Hapsburg kind of vibe.
But as awful as that sounds, not even that outcome is possible unless the Chinese, the U.S. and other nations with the ability to conjure money agree to finance the European reorganization. Consider Merkel and Sarkozy like borrowers looking for another loan at the local bank just ahead of a bankruptcy declaration. Only another loan can prevent failure and a total loss, so a Power Point is assembled and promises of lessons learned and new policies to be implemented are made.
Europe is America’s most important trading partner and our banks are heavily entangled with those of our cultural parents, so the Obama administration is direly worried about the fallout over here if there is a sudden meltdown over there. With the American economy stalled the administration believes that propping up Europe is essential to another round of recession here. As Vice President Joe Biden famously said, once “we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”
The Federal Reserve has already obliged Europeans by keeping the spigot of cheap dollars open for Europe for another year, essentially allowing Europeans to swap their bad currency for our greenbacks at a deeply discounted rate. This cheered investors until Standard & Poor’s reminded everyone on Monday that Europe was truly hosed, it was just a matter of how soon and how badly.
The bailout package Europe is now seeking would rely on the International Monetary Fund, of which the U.S. is the most important part. So even if Obama does not actually present Sarkozy and Merkel with a giant check on behalf of U.S. taxpayers, he will be putting his country on the hook and increasing the long-term contagion risk. This is like a bailout version of Libya in which he will applaud the leadership of other countries while simultaneously making the whole thing possible and paying the most. It would be like the U.S. co-signing a loan with the 17 euro countries for more cash from China, but knowing full well that the euros can’t make the payments.
This is a good political blame-deflection strategy for Obama, but it tends to leave Europeans and panicky investors confused. So Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is back in Europe to calm nerves and provide assurances that the U.S. will foot the bill that Obama can’t offer for domestic consumption ahead of an election in which voters are bailout averse and not exactly great fans of European interdependency, or Europe for that matter.
At a moment when the whole European experiment dangles on the thin cord of public confidence in international unity in debt, Geithner’s job is to let everyone know that Uncle Sam is on board, but to say it softly and complexly enough so that American voters don’t hear it.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Princess Pelosi...At It Again....
Pelosi and ethics....what a joke...with what she, Reid and Obama have done in the past three years they should all be expelled from office...
Pelosi: I’ll reveal information on Gingrich 'when the time is right'
By Alicia M. Cohn - 12/05/11 02:44 PM ET
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding back some information on Republican Newt Gingrich that could detract from his presidential campaign, according to a report published Monday.
“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."
Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House, worked with Pelosi in Congress from 1987 to 1999. Pelosi also served on the ethics committee that investigated Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations in the late ’90s.
Gingrich reacted to Pelosi's comments by thanking her for an "early Christmas gift."
He also said Pelosi would be violating House rules and abusing the ethics process if she disclosed anything from the ethics investigation.
"That is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House," Gingrich said in New York following a meeting with Donald Trump. "She's now prepared to totally abuse the ethics process."
Releasing the material would show the "tainted ethics process the House was engaged in," Gingrich said.
The ethics investigation of Gingrich took place when Republicans controlled the House. Gringrich resigned from the House in 1998.
Responding to Gingrich's comments, a spokesman for Pelosi said the former Speaker was "clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.”
A spokesman for the House Ethics Committee declined to comment on "current rules in the context of allegations concerning past conduct, or hypothetical future conduct governed by past rules."
Gingrich filmed an ad with then-House Speaker Pelosi in 2008 to urge action on climate change, which haunted him early in his presidential bid this year. Gingrich called the ad “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years” last month.
Republicans in Congress have been slow to rally around Gingrich’s rise to front-runner status in the polls, with former GOP colleague Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) stating publicly over the weekend he is not “inclined to be a supporter” of Gingrich due to that past experience.
But Democrats such as the soon-to-retire Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) have suggested Gingrich as the GOP nominee would benefit the Democratic Party.
"He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater," Frank said last week. Goldwater is credited with reviving Republican conservatism in the ’60s.
Pelosi told Talking Points Memo that Frank “spoke for a lot” of Democrats. “I like Barney Frank’s quote the best, where he said ‘I never thought I’d live such a good life that I would see Newt Gingrich be the nominee of the Republican party,’ ” she said.
And Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who also served in Congress with Gingrich and now holds a position of power as assistant minority leader in the House, charged Gingrich on Monday with lacking the temperament to be president.
“He tends to fly off the handle. He will say almost anything in order to get a charge. I’m sure that he’s not serious when he says a lot of these things,” Clyburn said on MSNBC.
It's Amazing that Nancy Pelosi would even mention the word "ethics" with her track record...and that's not to mention all the insider trading it appears she has been involved in while she was in Congress.... She was going to clean out the swamp alright, but first she would have had to look in the mirrow...
Gingrich fires back at Pelosi over threat
By Justin Sink - 12/05/11 02:50 PM ET
Newt Gingrich said that a threat from ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to disclose information she learned while serving on an ethics committee investigating him during his time as Speaker of the House would "totally abuse the ethics process" and violate rules of the House of Representatives.
"I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift," Gingrich said at a press conference in Manhattan Monday.
Gingrich denounced the threat from Pelosi, who is now the minority leader in the House, as "a fundamental violation of the rules of the House," and said that if Pelosi were to disclose details of the investigation, it would expose the "tainted ethics process the House was engaged in." He also called for the House to condemn Pelosi if she were to reveal anything from the ethics probe.
Pelosi told Talking Points Memo that she would reveal damaging material about Gingrich "when the time is right."
“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."
But responding to Gingrich's comments, a spokesman for Pelosi said the former Speaker was "clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.”
Pelosi served on the ethics committee that sanctioned Gingrich for violating tax law and lying to an investigative panel when he claimed tax-exempt status for a college course he ran for political purposes. Gingrich agreed to a $300,000 fine and admitted that he submitted inaccurate statements to the committee, but maintained Monday that the majority of the charges "were repudiated as false."
Gingrich said that Pelosi's suggestion that she would reveal information from that investigation underscored that the ethics charges were politically motivated.
"It tells you how capriciously political that committee was," Gingrich said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelosi: I’ll reveal information on Gingrich 'when the time is right'
By Alicia M. Cohn - 12/05/11 02:44 PM ET
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding back some information on Republican Newt Gingrich that could detract from his presidential campaign, according to a report published Monday.
“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."
Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House, worked with Pelosi in Congress from 1987 to 1999. Pelosi also served on the ethics committee that investigated Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations in the late ’90s.
Gingrich reacted to Pelosi's comments by thanking her for an "early Christmas gift."
He also said Pelosi would be violating House rules and abusing the ethics process if she disclosed anything from the ethics investigation.
"That is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House," Gingrich said in New York following a meeting with Donald Trump. "She's now prepared to totally abuse the ethics process."
Releasing the material would show the "tainted ethics process the House was engaged in," Gingrich said.
The ethics investigation of Gingrich took place when Republicans controlled the House. Gringrich resigned from the House in 1998.
Responding to Gingrich's comments, a spokesman for Pelosi said the former Speaker was "clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.”
A spokesman for the House Ethics Committee declined to comment on "current rules in the context of allegations concerning past conduct, or hypothetical future conduct governed by past rules."
Gingrich filmed an ad with then-House Speaker Pelosi in 2008 to urge action on climate change, which haunted him early in his presidential bid this year. Gingrich called the ad “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years” last month.
Republicans in Congress have been slow to rally around Gingrich’s rise to front-runner status in the polls, with former GOP colleague Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) stating publicly over the weekend he is not “inclined to be a supporter” of Gingrich due to that past experience.
But Democrats such as the soon-to-retire Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) have suggested Gingrich as the GOP nominee would benefit the Democratic Party.
"He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater," Frank said last week. Goldwater is credited with reviving Republican conservatism in the ’60s.
Pelosi told Talking Points Memo that Frank “spoke for a lot” of Democrats. “I like Barney Frank’s quote the best, where he said ‘I never thought I’d live such a good life that I would see Newt Gingrich be the nominee of the Republican party,’ ” she said.
And Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who also served in Congress with Gingrich and now holds a position of power as assistant minority leader in the House, charged Gingrich on Monday with lacking the temperament to be president.
“He tends to fly off the handle. He will say almost anything in order to get a charge. I’m sure that he’s not serious when he says a lot of these things,” Clyburn said on MSNBC.
It's Amazing that Nancy Pelosi would even mention the word "ethics" with her track record...and that's not to mention all the insider trading it appears she has been involved in while she was in Congress.... She was going to clean out the swamp alright, but first she would have had to look in the mirrow...
Gingrich fires back at Pelosi over threat
By Justin Sink - 12/05/11 02:50 PM ET
Newt Gingrich said that a threat from ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to disclose information she learned while serving on an ethics committee investigating him during his time as Speaker of the House would "totally abuse the ethics process" and violate rules of the House of Representatives.
"I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift," Gingrich said at a press conference in Manhattan Monday.
Gingrich denounced the threat from Pelosi, who is now the minority leader in the House, as "a fundamental violation of the rules of the House," and said that if Pelosi were to disclose details of the investigation, it would expose the "tainted ethics process the House was engaged in." He also called for the House to condemn Pelosi if she were to reveal anything from the ethics probe.
Pelosi told Talking Points Memo that she would reveal damaging material about Gingrich "when the time is right."
“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."
But responding to Gingrich's comments, a spokesman for Pelosi said the former Speaker was "clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.”
Pelosi served on the ethics committee that sanctioned Gingrich for violating tax law and lying to an investigative panel when he claimed tax-exempt status for a college course he ran for political purposes. Gingrich agreed to a $300,000 fine and admitted that he submitted inaccurate statements to the committee, but maintained Monday that the majority of the charges "were repudiated as false."
Gingrich said that Pelosi's suggestion that she would reveal information from that investigation underscored that the ethics charges were politically motivated.
"It tells you how capriciously political that committee was," Gingrich said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Obama EVER Work???...
Does This Guy EVER Work????...he's spent the last month traveling around the world just trying to avoid any and all leadership with the Super Committee and Congress...and yea he got plenty of golf time during his travels....NOW he's off again...and much of it's on our dime....and in the meantime the issues of payroll tax holiday extention, unemployment benefit extensions and the doctor fix is in the balance....but would he get involved?...of course not he wouldn't want to be interpreted as a leader....this guy has got to GO in Nov 2012....
It must be nice being President... Obama to jet off to Hawaii for SEVENTEEN DAY Christmas vacation
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 10:14 PM on 3rd December 2011
While most Americans are lucky to get a few weeks of holiday every year, it seems the country’s leader gets a little more freedom in the matter.
President Barack Obama has announced his Christmas vacation to Hawaii – for a staggering 17-day trip.
Obama, who visited the island just two weeks ago for an economic summit, will head to Honolulu on Saturday December 17 until Monday January 2.
Taking it easy: President Obama, pictured playing golf, has announced he will take off more than two weeks to visit Hawaii with his wife and daughters
The president, who was raised in Hawaii until he was six, will be joined by his wife Michelle and their daughters, Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10.
The White House travel office announced the president has no public events scheduled for the trip.
More...Obama, the Christmas crooner! Barack sings with Santa and Michelle duets with Kermit, as hundreds join First Family to light up the National Tree
The President's family covers the cost of a private beach front residence in Kailua, Oahu, for their vacation - a ‘Winter White House’ that costs up to $3,500 a day, or $75,000 a month.
But the local and federal taxpayers help pay the bill for travel and security.
Home for Christmas: President Barack Obama, pictured at the White House Tribal Nations Conference on Friday, lived in Honolulu, Hawaii until the age of six
Last year the trip cost more than $1 million,according to the Hawaii Reporter.
Obama announced the trip during a campaign fundraiser on Oahu's Leeward Coast during his stay on the island last month.
THE HEFTY HOLIDAY BILL
Last year the Obama's Christmas trip to Hawaii cost more than $1 million.
He covered the cost of his family's accommodation, but the rest was covered by the taxpayers.
The bill to house Secret Service agents and Navy Seals in beach front accommodation stretched to $16,800.
A further hotel bill of $134,400 covered 24 White House staff staying in the Moana Hotel at a rate of $400 a day.
The estimate, by the Hawaii Reporter, also included $250,000 for local police overtime, $1 million for the president's own round trip flight to Hawaii on Air Force One, and $10,000 for a local ambulance to accompany the presidential motorcade.
‘It is great to be home, great to feel that Aloha spirit,’ he said.
‘And Michelle and the girls will be back shortly for Christmas vacation, as we do every year. We'll see if Washington gets its business done, so I can get here as well. But that's always a challenge.’
It follows an 11-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, earlier this year, which is also believed to have cost the U.S. taxpayer millions.
Next week, the president will be saving a few cents by hosting a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Obama will speak with Harper at the White House about economic competitiveness, security and key global issues.
Harper has urged Obama to support an oil pipeline from western Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
But the Obama administration said last month it was delaying a decision on the project until it can study new potential routes that would avoid environmentally sensitive areas in the Midwest. The decision is expected to be delayed until 2013.
It must be nice being President... Obama to jet off to Hawaii for SEVENTEEN DAY Christmas vacation
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 10:14 PM on 3rd December 2011
While most Americans are lucky to get a few weeks of holiday every year, it seems the country’s leader gets a little more freedom in the matter.
President Barack Obama has announced his Christmas vacation to Hawaii – for a staggering 17-day trip.
Obama, who visited the island just two weeks ago for an economic summit, will head to Honolulu on Saturday December 17 until Monday January 2.
Taking it easy: President Obama, pictured playing golf, has announced he will take off more than two weeks to visit Hawaii with his wife and daughters
The president, who was raised in Hawaii until he was six, will be joined by his wife Michelle and their daughters, Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10.
The White House travel office announced the president has no public events scheduled for the trip.
More...Obama, the Christmas crooner! Barack sings with Santa and Michelle duets with Kermit, as hundreds join First Family to light up the National Tree
The President's family covers the cost of a private beach front residence in Kailua, Oahu, for their vacation - a ‘Winter White House’ that costs up to $3,500 a day, or $75,000 a month.
But the local and federal taxpayers help pay the bill for travel and security.
Home for Christmas: President Barack Obama, pictured at the White House Tribal Nations Conference on Friday, lived in Honolulu, Hawaii until the age of six
Last year the trip cost more than $1 million,according to the Hawaii Reporter.
Obama announced the trip during a campaign fundraiser on Oahu's Leeward Coast during his stay on the island last month.
THE HEFTY HOLIDAY BILL
Last year the Obama's Christmas trip to Hawaii cost more than $1 million.
He covered the cost of his family's accommodation, but the rest was covered by the taxpayers.
The bill to house Secret Service agents and Navy Seals in beach front accommodation stretched to $16,800.
A further hotel bill of $134,400 covered 24 White House staff staying in the Moana Hotel at a rate of $400 a day.
The estimate, by the Hawaii Reporter, also included $250,000 for local police overtime, $1 million for the president's own round trip flight to Hawaii on Air Force One, and $10,000 for a local ambulance to accompany the presidential motorcade.
‘It is great to be home, great to feel that Aloha spirit,’ he said.
‘And Michelle and the girls will be back shortly for Christmas vacation, as we do every year. We'll see if Washington gets its business done, so I can get here as well. But that's always a challenge.’
It follows an 11-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, earlier this year, which is also believed to have cost the U.S. taxpayer millions.
Next week, the president will be saving a few cents by hosting a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Obama will speak with Harper at the White House about economic competitiveness, security and key global issues.
Harper has urged Obama to support an oil pipeline from western Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
But the Obama administration said last month it was delaying a decision on the project until it can study new potential routes that would avoid environmentally sensitive areas in the Midwest. The decision is expected to be delayed until 2013.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
Another Liberal Media Outlet takes It on the Chin...
For the several years I have looked at Politico it's gotten more and liberal and one sided in it's reporting. I find myself going to that site less and less...
December 2, 2011
Under assault for liberal bias, Politico’s traffic dives
Published: Updated: 12:24 PM 12/02/2011 By Josh Peterson
Internet traffic and Web search measurement tools from several sources indicate that despite massive promotion efforts on MSNBC and in other venues, Politico.com is rapidly losing readers, especially outside of Washington, D.C.
Measurements of U.S. Web traffic provided to The Daily Caller by Compete, Inc. indicate that the number of total monthly visits to Politico.com dropped by 31.8 percent during the 18-month period that ended on October 31.
During that same period, and perhaps not coincidentally, Politico has come under sustained criticism from many observers, including Fox News Channel anchors and several prominent radio hosts, for exhibiting liberal bias in its news stories.
Other third-party traffic measurements also indicate a recent traffic decline for Politico.
Yet a glowing review of the news outlet published Wednesday by the American Journalism Review, a project of the University of Maryland Foundation, claimed it “receives nearly 60 million pageviews per month from between 8 million and 11 million unique visitors.”
Jodi Enda, the article’s author, wrote that she relied on Politico’s “internal tracking” for those numbers.
Enda, a freelancing former Philadelphia Inquirer national correspondent who has also been published in the liberal American Prospect, Mother Jones and the Huffington Post, told The Daily Caller in a phone conversation that her “researcher” fact-checked the numbers. Enda did not, however, name that researcher.
Ads by GoogleAfterward, Politico confirmed to TheDC during a follow-up conversation that Enda contacted the publication to verify the numbers it had given her.
Enda also did not say whether she or anyone else verified Politico’s self-reported Web traffic numbers against other, independent measurements.
“Tracking numbers are all over the lot for online publications, so we used Politico’s internal numbers and attributed the information accordingly,” she emailed The Daily Caller Thursday, in response to questions about her article.
Statistics provided to TheDC by Compete — one of many independent traffic arbiters — also show that from October 2009 through October 2011, total monthly visits to Politico.com dropped by more than 11.5 percent. And the average number of times each of Politico’s readers actually visited the website declined by 24.7 percent during the same two-year period.
While Compete indicates that the number of “unique” visitors to Politico.com increased by 17.4 percent during the same period, the raw number of unique visitors it reported for Politico in October 2011 was just 2.96 million — a number far lower than similar measurements provided to The Daily Caller by measurement services run by Nielsen, Inc., and comScore.
Lincoln Merrihew, Compete’s Managing Director of Business Insights, told TheDC that there could be two explanations for why Politico’s readers are returning to the site less often than they used to.
“So what you can say is that [either] the site is so much better, and therefore people are able to get all the news they need in fewer visits,” said Merrihew, “or it’s become much worse, and more confusing, therefore people are getting frustrated and visiting less.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)