The Editors October 14, 2011 8:00 P.M.
First CLASS, What Next?
In a Friday bad-news dump that was a whopper even by its own standards, the Obama administration added to the announcement of a near-record annual deficit and an escalation of undeclared war in Uganda the news that the CLASS Act, an ill-conceived adjunct of the Affordable Care Act, is no more. The upshot is this: Obamacare just got a whole lot more expensive than advertised, and there is reason to believe that its Democratic architects have long known this would happen.
The Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act was the brainchild of the late senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and it was supposed to be a kind of Social Security that provided long-term care for the elderly. It figured heavily into the Democrats’ dubious accounting of the cost of the Affordable Care Act, and at the time of passage was expected to account for $70 billion out of a total $143 billion in “deficit reduction” claimed in the bill.
But that number was a lie twice over. The revenue created by CLASS—more recently projected to be not $70, but $86 billion, as the CBO’s ten-year budget window has moved forward since passage—comes in the form of insurance premiums paid to the government, which eventually would have been disbursed to cover care, not reduce the deficit. Yet Democrats designed CLASS to collect premiums for five years before paying out benefits, which made it look like it was running surpluses within the CBO’s ten-year budget window.
That would have been bad enough, but it gets worse. You see, the CLASS model was unworkable from the word “go,” coming as it did with all the features you’d expect to see in a health-care “death spiral.” The program was voluntary, meaning that those more likely to require its benefits would be more likely to enroll, and the healthier individuals required to offset the actuarial risk would stay away. This adverse-selection problem would mean higher premiums, and higher premiums would mean more adverse selection. As a result, CLASS was projected—by the government’s own chief Medicare and Medicaid actuary—to begin paying out more in benefits than it took in in premiums just ten years after it got off the ground.
This was not a secret. To anybody who had bothered to do the math, it was a simple reality. But reality is not the strong suit of the Obama administration, and so it has spent the last year and a half charging the Department of Health and Human Services with the impossible: figuring out a way to make CLASS actuarially sound over a 75-year horizon while maintaining the minimum benefits of the program prescribed by law. When HHS downsized CLASS’s chief actuary last month, we might have had a hunch as to how this exercise had turned out. But it wasn’t until today that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made it official, telling Congress in a letter that “despite our best analytical efforts,” no implement was found that could cut the Gordian Knot. As Sebelius’s deputy Kathy Greenlee (under)stated it: “We found some tension between those two objectives. The things we could do to achieve actuarial soundness take us too far from the law.”
In other words, the United States Congress passed, and the president of the United States signed, a piece of politically convenient legislation that was essentially—that is, mathematically, logically—unworkable, and were either too foolish to realize it, or too cynical to care.
But even as we marvel at the perfidy of our leaders, conservatives have something to cheer in this failure. This is the first major component of Obamacare to collapse under its own weight, but by no means is it likely to be the last. The law is replete with nonsensical economic assumptions and shameless gimmicks. Democrats may have hoped these would not start to become clear until after the 2012 election, but we now already have a good idea of what the world will look like under Obamacare: waivers for the politically connected, rising premiums for the rest of us, and massive spending programs that can’t survive their own assumptions. The fact that much — even all — of this was was predicted by conservative opponents of the law should give its supporters cause to look back at what else was portended. Be sure that there is more to come, with far more harmful consequences, unless the bill is repealed.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Obamacare Starts to Unravel....
Oct 14, 5:50 PM EDT By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR Associated Press
Obama pulls plug on part of health overhaul law
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration Friday pulled the plug on a major program in the president's signature health overhaul law - a long-term care insurance plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency.
Targeted by congressional Republicans for repeal, the program became the first casualty in the political and policy wars over the health care law. It had been expected to launch in 2013.
"This is a victory for the American taxpayer and future generations," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., spearheading opposition in the Senate. "The administration is finally admitting (the long-term care plan) is unsustainable and cannot be implemented."
Proponents, including many groups that fought to pass the health care law, have vowed a vigorous effort to rescue the program, insisting that Congress gave the administration broad authority to make changes. Long-term care includes not only nursing homes, but such services as home health aides for disabled people.
Known as CLASS, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program was a longstanding priority of the late Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
Although sponsored by the government, it was supposed to function as a self-sustaining voluntary insurance plan, open to working adults regardless of age or health. Workers would pay an affordable monthly premium during their careers, and could collect a modest daily cash benefit of at least $50 if they became disabled later in life. The money could go for services at home, or to help with nursing home bills.
But a central design flaw dogged CLASS. Unless large numbers of healthy people willingly sign up during their working years, soaring premiums driven by the needs of disabled beneficiaries would destabilize it, eventually requiring a taxpayer bailout.
After months insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, finally admitted Friday she doesn't see how.
"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.
The law required the administration to certify that CLASS would remain financially solvent for 75 years before it could be put into place.
But officials said they discovered they could not make CLASS both affordable and financially solvent while keeping it a voluntary program open to virtually all workers, as the law also required.
Monthly premiums would have ranged from $235 to $391, even as high as $3,000 under some scenarios, the administration said. At those prices, healthy people were unlikely to sign up. Suggested changes aimed at discouraging enrollment by people in poor health could have opened the program to court challenges, officials said.
"If healthy purchasers are not attracted ... then premiums will increase, which will make it even more unattractive to purchasers who could also obtain policies in the private market," Kathy Greenlee, the lead official on CLASS, said in a memo to Sebelius. That "would cause the program to quickly collapse."
That's the same conclusion a top government expert reached in 2009. Nearly a year before the health care law passed, Richard Foster, head of long-range economic forecasts for Medicare warned administration and congressional officials that CLASS would be unworkable. His warnings were disregarded, as Obama declared his support for adding the long-term care plan to his health care bill.
The demise of CLASS immediately touched off speculation about its impact on the federal budget. Although no premiums are likely to be collected, the program still counts as reducing the federal deficit by about $80 billion over the next ten years. That's because of a rule that would have required workers to pay in for at least five years before they could collect any benefits.
"The CLASS Act was a budget gimmick that might enhance the numbers on a Washington bureaucrat's spreadsheet but was destined to fail in the real world," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Administration officials said Obama's next budget would reflect the decision not to go forward. Even without CLASS premiums, they said the health care law will still reduce the deficit by more than $120 billion over 10 years.
Kennedy's original idea was to give families some financial breathing room. Most families cannot afford to hire a home health aide for a frail elder, let alone pay nursing home bills. Care is usually provided by family members, often a spouse who may also have health problems.
"We're disappointed that (Sebelius) has prematurely stated she does not see a path forward," AARP, the seniors' lobby, said in a statement. "The need for long-term care will only continue to grow."
Sebelius said the administration wants to work with Congress and supporters of the program to find a solution. But in a polarized political climate, it appears unlikely that CLASS can be salvaged. Congressional Republicans remain committed to its repeal.
Obama pulls plug on part of health overhaul law
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration Friday pulled the plug on a major program in the president's signature health overhaul law - a long-term care insurance plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency.
Targeted by congressional Republicans for repeal, the program became the first casualty in the political and policy wars over the health care law. It had been expected to launch in 2013.
"This is a victory for the American taxpayer and future generations," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., spearheading opposition in the Senate. "The administration is finally admitting (the long-term care plan) is unsustainable and cannot be implemented."
Proponents, including many groups that fought to pass the health care law, have vowed a vigorous effort to rescue the program, insisting that Congress gave the administration broad authority to make changes. Long-term care includes not only nursing homes, but such services as home health aides for disabled people.
Known as CLASS, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program was a longstanding priority of the late Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
Although sponsored by the government, it was supposed to function as a self-sustaining voluntary insurance plan, open to working adults regardless of age or health. Workers would pay an affordable monthly premium during their careers, and could collect a modest daily cash benefit of at least $50 if they became disabled later in life. The money could go for services at home, or to help with nursing home bills.
But a central design flaw dogged CLASS. Unless large numbers of healthy people willingly sign up during their working years, soaring premiums driven by the needs of disabled beneficiaries would destabilize it, eventually requiring a taxpayer bailout.
After months insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, finally admitted Friday she doesn't see how.
"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.
The law required the administration to certify that CLASS would remain financially solvent for 75 years before it could be put into place.
But officials said they discovered they could not make CLASS both affordable and financially solvent while keeping it a voluntary program open to virtually all workers, as the law also required.
Monthly premiums would have ranged from $235 to $391, even as high as $3,000 under some scenarios, the administration said. At those prices, healthy people were unlikely to sign up. Suggested changes aimed at discouraging enrollment by people in poor health could have opened the program to court challenges, officials said.
"If healthy purchasers are not attracted ... then premiums will increase, which will make it even more unattractive to purchasers who could also obtain policies in the private market," Kathy Greenlee, the lead official on CLASS, said in a memo to Sebelius. That "would cause the program to quickly collapse."
That's the same conclusion a top government expert reached in 2009. Nearly a year before the health care law passed, Richard Foster, head of long-range economic forecasts for Medicare warned administration and congressional officials that CLASS would be unworkable. His warnings were disregarded, as Obama declared his support for adding the long-term care plan to his health care bill.
The demise of CLASS immediately touched off speculation about its impact on the federal budget. Although no premiums are likely to be collected, the program still counts as reducing the federal deficit by about $80 billion over the next ten years. That's because of a rule that would have required workers to pay in for at least five years before they could collect any benefits.
"The CLASS Act was a budget gimmick that might enhance the numbers on a Washington bureaucrat's spreadsheet but was destined to fail in the real world," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Administration officials said Obama's next budget would reflect the decision not to go forward. Even without CLASS premiums, they said the health care law will still reduce the deficit by more than $120 billion over 10 years.
Kennedy's original idea was to give families some financial breathing room. Most families cannot afford to hire a home health aide for a frail elder, let alone pay nursing home bills. Care is usually provided by family members, often a spouse who may also have health problems.
"We're disappointed that (Sebelius) has prematurely stated she does not see a path forward," AARP, the seniors' lobby, said in a statement. "The need for long-term care will only continue to grow."
Sebelius said the administration wants to work with Congress and supporters of the program to find a solution. But in a polarized political climate, it appears unlikely that CLASS can be salvaged. Congressional Republicans remain committed to its repeal.
JESSE JACKSON JR IS MORE NUTS THAN HIS FATHER!!!!
Jesse Jackson Jr is more nuts than his father.....He needs to go to some socialist nation....He's certainly NOT American!
Rep. Jesse Jackson Calls on Government to Hire All Unemployed Americans for $40,000 Each
Published October 14, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments
Text Size
AP
April 14: Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., flanked by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md., left, and Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., addresses a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has offered his own $804 billion jobs plan that calls on the federal government to hire the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans for jobs paying roughly $40,000 each, and bail out all the states and cities facing budget crises.
In an interview with the Daily Caller on Wednesday, the Illinois Democrat applauded President Obama for directing his staff to greenlight job-creating initiatives without congressional approval after his $447 billion jobs bill was defeated in the Senate this week.
“Now we’re making some progress,” Jackson said, comparing the legislative gridlock in Congress to the states that seceded from the union during the Civil War.
"We've seen Congress is in rebellion," he said, "determined to wreck or ruin at all costs."
Jackson said the government’s direct hiring of the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans would cost $600 billion.
“It could be a five-year program,” he said. “For another $104 billion, we bail out all of the states. For another $100 billion, we bail out all of the cities.”
“We put people to work cleaning up communities. We put people to work through a civilian conservation corps, through a Works Progress Administration because the hour demands it,” he said.
“And as more people work, they pay taxes, they pay taxes into the 4th quarter, they buy wares, they buy homes, they meet their obligations and our economy begins to work its way out of this protracted recession,” he continued. “That’s the only way out of this crisis. And I hope the president begins to continue to exercise extraordinary constitutional means based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past.”
But not everyone is convinced that Jackson's plan would work. Even a fellow Democrat has criticized it.
“In Rep. Jackson’s entire congressional career, he has never introduced a single jobs bill,” Debbie Halvorson, who is challenging Jackson in the Democratic primary, said in a written statement. “Now, he’s calling on the president to suspend the Constitution? As a representative of the people, you don’t give up when you hit a roadblock and throw the Constitution out the window – you keep working to get something done."
Rep. Jesse Jackson Calls on Government to Hire All Unemployed Americans for $40,000 Each
Published October 14, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments
Text Size
AP
April 14: Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., flanked by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md., left, and Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., addresses a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has offered his own $804 billion jobs plan that calls on the federal government to hire the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans for jobs paying roughly $40,000 each, and bail out all the states and cities facing budget crises.
In an interview with the Daily Caller on Wednesday, the Illinois Democrat applauded President Obama for directing his staff to greenlight job-creating initiatives without congressional approval after his $447 billion jobs bill was defeated in the Senate this week.
“Now we’re making some progress,” Jackson said, comparing the legislative gridlock in Congress to the states that seceded from the union during the Civil War.
"We've seen Congress is in rebellion," he said, "determined to wreck or ruin at all costs."
Jackson said the government’s direct hiring of the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans would cost $600 billion.
“It could be a five-year program,” he said. “For another $104 billion, we bail out all of the states. For another $100 billion, we bail out all of the cities.”
“We put people to work cleaning up communities. We put people to work through a civilian conservation corps, through a Works Progress Administration because the hour demands it,” he said.
“And as more people work, they pay taxes, they pay taxes into the 4th quarter, they buy wares, they buy homes, they meet their obligations and our economy begins to work its way out of this protracted recession,” he continued. “That’s the only way out of this crisis. And I hope the president begins to continue to exercise extraordinary constitutional means based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past.”
But not everyone is convinced that Jackson's plan would work. Even a fellow Democrat has criticized it.
“In Rep. Jackson’s entire congressional career, he has never introduced a single jobs bill,” Debbie Halvorson, who is challenging Jackson in the Democratic primary, said in a written statement. “Now, he’s calling on the president to suspend the Constitution? As a representative of the people, you don’t give up when you hit a roadblock and throw the Constitution out the window – you keep working to get something done."
Pelosi and Obama's Buddies from "Occupy"
This is who Obama and Pelosi and the Democrats are aligning with....most appear to belong in a padded room...
More Reasons for Obamacare to be Repealed...
More reasons for Obamacare to be repealed...All Obama has done since he's been in office is make bad situations worse...He has to go in November 2012!
Why Obamacare Might Cost You a Job
Back in February 2010, when Congress was still debating the Obamacare legislation, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proclaimed to America that the law "will create 400,000 jobs almost immediately." But according to a new report by Heritage's James Sherk, Obamacare will have the opposite effect, pricing many unskilled workers out of full-time employment due to the law's requirement that employers offer health benefits to full-time employees.
According to Sherk, the minimum cost of employing full-time workers under Obamacare amounts to an average of $27,500, more than what many unskilled employees produce. He explains in his paper, "Obamacare Will Price Less Skilled Workers Out of Full-Time Jobs" why increased costs will lead employers to shift to employing part-time workers:
After paying the new health premiums, the minimum wage, payroll taxes, and unemployment insurance taxes, hiring a full-time worker will cost employers at least $10.03 per hour. Full-time workers with family health plans will cost $13.75 per hour.
Employers who hire workers with productivity below these rates will lose money. Businesses employing less skilled workers will probably respond by dumping their employees onto the federally subsidized health care exchanges and replacing full-time positions with part-time jobs.
Fewer full-time jobs in favor of more part-time positions is not what America needs, particularly as it struggles with a stagnant economy, 9.1 percent unemployment, and 14 million people out of work. But just when the United States needs businesses to expand, grow, and invest, Obamacare is piling on the costs and regulations--making it more difficult for businesses to create new jobs.
Under the law, businesses with more than 50 workers must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty, thereby reducing the amount of capital they have to invest in expanding and hiring new workers. That requirement also has the effect of incentivizing businesses with fewer than 50 employees to maintain their size to avoid the costs. And then there's the uncertainty that Obamacare has brought about--businesses don't know what their future costs will be under the legislation, making it difficult for them to plan for the future.
America might already be seeing the job-killing effects of the President's signature law. Sherk writes that following Obamacare's passage, economic growth in America changed course:
Initially, the economy appeared on track for a steady recovery. The economy went from losing 841,000 jobs in January 2009--the recession's low point--to gaining 229,000 jobs in April 2010...
Within two months of Obamacare's passing, the recovery stalled... In May 2010, the job situation stopped improving. Job creation dropped to just 48,000 net private sector jobs, and private-sector hiring took a new course. From May 2010 onward, private job growth improved by only 6,500 jobs per month--less than one-tenth the previous rate.
Though correlation doesn't prove causation, the economy's slowdown following the passage of Obamacare, when considered alongside complaints from business owners about the law's effects on new hiring, should cause alarm for anyone who cares about unemployment in America. Heritage's Nina Owcharenko explains why the law is the wrong prescription for turning the economy around:
Obamacare is perhaps the most damaging of the Administration's policies that are impeding the country's recovery. At a time when there should be a focus on cutting spending, reducing regulation, and lowering taxes, Obamacare does the complete opposite. It spends more, imposes costly new mandates and regulations, and raises taxes on individuals and businesses. This is no way to get the economy up and running again.
Unfortunately, Obamacare will make an already bad economic picture worse. Unskilled workers are struggling to find employment, and the President's health care law will make finding full-time jobs even more difficult. If President Obama truly wants to reduce unemployment and help businesses grow, he should admit that Obamacare was a mistake and work with Congress to repeal it.
Why Obamacare Might Cost You a Job
Back in February 2010, when Congress was still debating the Obamacare legislation, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proclaimed to America that the law "will create 400,000 jobs almost immediately." But according to a new report by Heritage's James Sherk, Obamacare will have the opposite effect, pricing many unskilled workers out of full-time employment due to the law's requirement that employers offer health benefits to full-time employees.
According to Sherk, the minimum cost of employing full-time workers under Obamacare amounts to an average of $27,500, more than what many unskilled employees produce. He explains in his paper, "Obamacare Will Price Less Skilled Workers Out of Full-Time Jobs" why increased costs will lead employers to shift to employing part-time workers:
After paying the new health premiums, the minimum wage, payroll taxes, and unemployment insurance taxes, hiring a full-time worker will cost employers at least $10.03 per hour. Full-time workers with family health plans will cost $13.75 per hour.
Employers who hire workers with productivity below these rates will lose money. Businesses employing less skilled workers will probably respond by dumping their employees onto the federally subsidized health care exchanges and replacing full-time positions with part-time jobs.
Fewer full-time jobs in favor of more part-time positions is not what America needs, particularly as it struggles with a stagnant economy, 9.1 percent unemployment, and 14 million people out of work. But just when the United States needs businesses to expand, grow, and invest, Obamacare is piling on the costs and regulations--making it more difficult for businesses to create new jobs.
Under the law, businesses with more than 50 workers must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty, thereby reducing the amount of capital they have to invest in expanding and hiring new workers. That requirement also has the effect of incentivizing businesses with fewer than 50 employees to maintain their size to avoid the costs. And then there's the uncertainty that Obamacare has brought about--businesses don't know what their future costs will be under the legislation, making it difficult for them to plan for the future.
America might already be seeing the job-killing effects of the President's signature law. Sherk writes that following Obamacare's passage, economic growth in America changed course:
Initially, the economy appeared on track for a steady recovery. The economy went from losing 841,000 jobs in January 2009--the recession's low point--to gaining 229,000 jobs in April 2010...
Within two months of Obamacare's passing, the recovery stalled... In May 2010, the job situation stopped improving. Job creation dropped to just 48,000 net private sector jobs, and private-sector hiring took a new course. From May 2010 onward, private job growth improved by only 6,500 jobs per month--less than one-tenth the previous rate.
Though correlation doesn't prove causation, the economy's slowdown following the passage of Obamacare, when considered alongside complaints from business owners about the law's effects on new hiring, should cause alarm for anyone who cares about unemployment in America. Heritage's Nina Owcharenko explains why the law is the wrong prescription for turning the economy around:
Obamacare is perhaps the most damaging of the Administration's policies that are impeding the country's recovery. At a time when there should be a focus on cutting spending, reducing regulation, and lowering taxes, Obamacare does the complete opposite. It spends more, imposes costly new mandates and regulations, and raises taxes on individuals and businesses. This is no way to get the economy up and running again.
Unfortunately, Obamacare will make an already bad economic picture worse. Unskilled workers are struggling to find employment, and the President's health care law will make finding full-time jobs even more difficult. If President Obama truly wants to reduce unemployment and help businesses grow, he should admit that Obamacare was a mistake and work with Congress to repeal it.
The Obama Supported "Occupy" Movement...
This is the demonstration that Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats are supporting...if these folks are any representation of those protesting, it's a waste...
Sirius-XM‘s ’Opie’ Confronted With Alinsky-Like Tactics At Occupy Wall Street
Posted on October 14, 2011 at 6:31am by Mike Opelka Print »Email »
Radio shock jocks Greg "Opie" Hughes, left, and Anthony Cumia, right, leave CBS Radio studios on 57th Street with fans after finishing their first morning show for a one block walk to the XM satellite radio studios while broadcasting live on XM, Wednesday, April 26, 2006, in New York. (AP Photo/ Louis Lanzano)
Gregg “Opie” Hughes (one half of the popular radio team of Opie & Anthony) visited the Occupy Wall Street protest in lower Manhattan earlier this week and expected to find something he could support, instead he was driven out of the area by a gang of protesters using the classic tactics of Saul Alinsky.
An an exclusive interview with The Blaze, Opie makes no bones about being slightly more liberal than his outspoken, conservative, radio partner Anthony Cumia. On Tuesday, he spent almost three hours in Zucotti Park, shooting videos for his “Opie’s Eye” YouTube channel. He stated to us and repeated it several times on the radio that he believed he would find common ground with the protesters. However, he left the park calling them “filthy hippies.”
The Sirius XM host regularly posts videos of the unusual people he sees in New York City, and the park filled with protesters appeared to be ripe with possibilities. The video posted below features a few of the colorful characters Opie encountered: (Content warning – strong language)
At the very end of the clip you may have noticed two women reacting to being recorded. Opie told us that he stopped recording at that moment, but the confrontation continued and, in fact, escalated.
Here is how that clash was described on the Opie and Anthony radio show the next morning: (Again – strong content warning – this is uncensored audio from satellite radio)
As you heard, Opie was confronted and surrounded by more than two dozen of the protesters, chanting “Pervert, pervert, pervert!“ This is classic ”Alinsky” – In fact, it is right out of Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” – he taught his followers to:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Once the target is identified, you freeze it with an accusation so heinous that it must be defended or refuted before anything else can be addressed. The quickest way to run off a nosy photographer is to accuse him of being a pervert. If two dozen or more people start chanting it, the mob mentality can easily take over and trump the truth. Classic Alinsky.
This is just another piece of evidence pointing to the fact that the “Occupy” protests are not spontaneous (as is constantly being trumpeted by supporters on the Left), but rather a manufactured, planned action with paid, trained leaders embedded inside.
Last weekend The Blaze reported on a connection between the White House and organizers from a far Left political group, the Working Families Party, as well as WFP’s recruitment, training and paying of the protesters. Chicago’s protesters have recently been joined in their marches by Congressional Rep Jan Schakowsky and SEIU’s Stephen Lerner. And more legitimizing of the action came this week as former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have made separate, public declarations of support for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
With embedded leaders now in place inside the group, and public support coming from a former President who has a higher approval rating than the current one, it would be wise for everyone who did not take this movement seriously to give it another look.
What was pitched to the country as a spontaneous protest against Wall Street and the financial system, one that would spread across the country, has been shown here on The Blaze to be a well-planned action with trained and paid organizers inside the group. Occupy Wall Street ties to groups like the Working Families Party, Code Pink, unions like SEIU, and of course the deep pockets of George Soros have also been exposed. And now we see the tried-and-true tactics of Saul Alinsky being used to drive away anyone who might be deemed unsupportive of the mission.
Sirius-XM‘s ’Opie’ Confronted With Alinsky-Like Tactics At Occupy Wall Street
Posted on October 14, 2011 at 6:31am by Mike Opelka Print »Email »
Radio shock jocks Greg "Opie" Hughes, left, and Anthony Cumia, right, leave CBS Radio studios on 57th Street with fans after finishing their first morning show for a one block walk to the XM satellite radio studios while broadcasting live on XM, Wednesday, April 26, 2006, in New York. (AP Photo/ Louis Lanzano)
Gregg “Opie” Hughes (one half of the popular radio team of Opie & Anthony) visited the Occupy Wall Street protest in lower Manhattan earlier this week and expected to find something he could support, instead he was driven out of the area by a gang of protesters using the classic tactics of Saul Alinsky.
An an exclusive interview with The Blaze, Opie makes no bones about being slightly more liberal than his outspoken, conservative, radio partner Anthony Cumia. On Tuesday, he spent almost three hours in Zucotti Park, shooting videos for his “Opie’s Eye” YouTube channel. He stated to us and repeated it several times on the radio that he believed he would find common ground with the protesters. However, he left the park calling them “filthy hippies.”
The Sirius XM host regularly posts videos of the unusual people he sees in New York City, and the park filled with protesters appeared to be ripe with possibilities. The video posted below features a few of the colorful characters Opie encountered: (Content warning – strong language)
At the very end of the clip you may have noticed two women reacting to being recorded. Opie told us that he stopped recording at that moment, but the confrontation continued and, in fact, escalated.
Here is how that clash was described on the Opie and Anthony radio show the next morning: (Again – strong content warning – this is uncensored audio from satellite radio)
As you heard, Opie was confronted and surrounded by more than two dozen of the protesters, chanting “Pervert, pervert, pervert!“ This is classic ”Alinsky” – In fact, it is right out of Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” – he taught his followers to:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Once the target is identified, you freeze it with an accusation so heinous that it must be defended or refuted before anything else can be addressed. The quickest way to run off a nosy photographer is to accuse him of being a pervert. If two dozen or more people start chanting it, the mob mentality can easily take over and trump the truth. Classic Alinsky.
This is just another piece of evidence pointing to the fact that the “Occupy” protests are not spontaneous (as is constantly being trumpeted by supporters on the Left), but rather a manufactured, planned action with paid, trained leaders embedded inside.
Last weekend The Blaze reported on a connection between the White House and organizers from a far Left political group, the Working Families Party, as well as WFP’s recruitment, training and paying of the protesters. Chicago’s protesters have recently been joined in their marches by Congressional Rep Jan Schakowsky and SEIU’s Stephen Lerner. And more legitimizing of the action came this week as former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have made separate, public declarations of support for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
With embedded leaders now in place inside the group, and public support coming from a former President who has a higher approval rating than the current one, it would be wise for everyone who did not take this movement seriously to give it another look.
What was pitched to the country as a spontaneous protest against Wall Street and the financial system, one that would spread across the country, has been shown here on The Blaze to be a well-planned action with trained and paid organizers inside the group. Occupy Wall Street ties to groups like the Working Families Party, Code Pink, unions like SEIU, and of course the deep pockets of George Soros have also been exposed. And now we see the tried-and-true tactics of Saul Alinsky being used to drive away anyone who might be deemed unsupportive of the mission.
Obama To Soldier: Give Me More Umbrella... Obama -What an Arrogant Asshole
Obama To Soldier: Give Me More Umbrella: Hoping to stay dry during a ceremony outside of the White House to welcome South Korean President Lee Myung-bak on Thursday, President Obama asks for more umbrella coverage.
Obama Has Put America in Great Danger...
Obama doesn't have a clue....and while he's spewing his rhetoric around the nation he's putting us all in great danger. We need a President that is committed to protecting us, not one that's willing to lie to the public day after day and spend his time campaigning....He's the partisan...He's the one causing NOTHING to get done.
He's got to go in 2012!
He's got to go in 2012!
The Obama Strategy Laid Out for all to See....Destructive as it Is....
Charles is usually right and he's right here...he clearly outlines what Obama's strategy is to get reelected...it's not pretty and it's not constructive for the United States, but I don't guess he gives a damn....He's not about fixing America's problems...he's not about what's best for America...he's all about Saul Alinski's community organizing, revolution prompting, socialist leaning policies...
Obama is DESTRUCTIVE for America...He MUST GO In November 2012!!!!!
Charles Krauthammer October 14, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Scapegoat Strategy
Obama now blames people instead of events.
What do you do if you can’t run on your record — on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth, and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?
Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn’t noticed that you’ve been in charge of it for nearly three years.
But above all: Find villains.
President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming America’s dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt, and various acts of God.
Didn’t work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obama’s base lusts for above all.
Hence Obama’s new strategy: Don’t whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Whom? The rich — and their Republican protectors — for wrecking America.
In Obama’s telling, it’s the refusal of the rich to “pay their fair share” that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don’t pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.
It’s crude. It’s Manichaean. And the Left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it’s ridiculous. Obama’s most coveted tax hike — an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making over $200,000) — would have reduced last year’s deficit from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day’s federal spending. You could collect Obama’s favorite tax loophole — depreciation for corporate jets — for 100 years and it wouldn’t cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology, and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.
After three years, Obama’s self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.
Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.
Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China’s currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war — a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.
Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5 a month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees — except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It’s perfectly transparent.
Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank — after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.
Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.
These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.
Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.
And then what? Haven’t gotten that far.
No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles — and its failures — on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.
From the Senate to the streets, it’s working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Obama is DESTRUCTIVE for America...He MUST GO In November 2012!!!!!
Charles Krauthammer October 14, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Scapegoat Strategy
Obama now blames people instead of events.
What do you do if you can’t run on your record — on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth, and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?
Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn’t noticed that you’ve been in charge of it for nearly three years.
But above all: Find villains.
President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming America’s dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt, and various acts of God.
Didn’t work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obama’s base lusts for above all.
Hence Obama’s new strategy: Don’t whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Whom? The rich — and their Republican protectors — for wrecking America.
In Obama’s telling, it’s the refusal of the rich to “pay their fair share” that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don’t pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.
It’s crude. It’s Manichaean. And the Left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it’s ridiculous. Obama’s most coveted tax hike — an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making over $200,000) — would have reduced last year’s deficit from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day’s federal spending. You could collect Obama’s favorite tax loophole — depreciation for corporate jets — for 100 years and it wouldn’t cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology, and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.
After three years, Obama’s self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.
Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.
Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China’s currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war — a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.
Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5 a month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees — except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It’s perfectly transparent.
Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank — after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.
Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.
These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.
Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.
And then what? Haven’t gotten that far.
No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles — and its failures — on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.
From the Senate to the streets, it’s working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
More Verbal Fact Manipulation by Obama....
More Verbal Fact Manipulation by Obama....well the "Jobs Saved and Jobs Created" terms that Obama created to try to decieve the public about what he was doing to create jobs didn't work....so now he's going to an even more vague terminology....It is "Jobs Supported"...
New Obama metric: “Jobs supported”
posted at 2:45 pm on October 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Old and busted: Jobs “saved or created.” New hotness: Jobs “supported.” In attempting to advance the argument for Barack Obama’s new jobs stimulus plan, the White House has decided to create a new term that has, er, even less meaning than their previous measure:
The American Jobs Act Will Support Nearly 400,000 Education Jobs—Preventing Layoffs and Allowing Thousands More to Be Hired or Rehired: The President’s plan will more than offset projected layoffs, providing support for nearly 400,000 education jobs—enough for states to avoid harmful layoffs and rehire tens of thousands of teachers who lost their jobs over the past three years.
How exactly did the White House come up with its new metric? Chuck Blahous gives us a detailed analysis of exactly how they crafted this measure to be, well, unmeasurable:
To start the process of estimating educator jobs at risk, the Administration refers to a June, 2011 paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a left-of-center think tank). This paper quantifies recent and projected shortfalls in state budgets.
The Administration then makes various assumptions about how the projected shortfalls would be filled. In effect, they assume first that shortfalls would be filled by a combination of tax increases and spending reductions, and then that spending cuts would be applied proportionally across all categories including education. As the Administration materials state, “These spending reduction numbers were then converted into estimates of educator jobs at risk based on estimates of average teacher compensation by state. These calculations implied that, if spending reductions had their full negative impact on education staffing, up to 280,000 educator jobs across the country would be at risk in the 2011-2012 school year.”
The Administration then points to $30 billion in spending contained in the proposed American Jobs Act. The purpose of this spending, as specified in the bill text, is to “prevent teacher layoffs and support the creation of additional jobs in public early childhood, elementary, and secondary education in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years.”
Does this give readers a sense of deja vu? The block grants in Porkulus also assumed that states would simply lay off teachers and first responders as a result of large-scale budget deficits in the throes of the Great Recession. That’s where jobs “saved and created” originated; Obama and his team meant public-sector employees in states and local governments. Only those organizations employ a lot more people than just teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; most states have vast bureaucracies that ended up getting “saved” thanks to the infusion of cash that allowed legislatures to put off tough decisions on the size and nature of government during the economic crisis.
Well, the acute economic crisis is over. What’s the excuse for procrastination now? Instead of having the states take responsibility for tough budget decisions, Obama wants to let states like Illinois and California off the hook by forcing other states to subsidize their bad budgeting decisions. Why? Take a look at the recent history of the Electoral College for one reason, and the fact that most of these bureaucrats belong to public-employee unions like SEIU and AFCSME for another reason. That’s what Obama is “supporting.” Let’s recall the extensive reporting in 2009 that showed that jobs “saved or created” were a myth, even in the public sector:
•New Hampshire
•Florida and Georgia
•Ohio
•Wisconsin
•New Jersey
•Virginia
•Texas
•Illinois
•Colorado
•Washington
•Massachusetts
•Arkansas
•Connecticut
•Michigan
•California (San Diego)
•New York
At the time, I called these “Porkulus fables,” and it looks like jobs “supported” will be the newest addition to the Obama pantheon of mythical creatures. Blahous explains why:
First, the initial assumption made is that in the absence of these federal appropriations, states would make no effort to prioritize education spending relative to across-the-board budget cuts. Federal funding is to be credited with “supporting” any “job at risk” that is not lost, without accounting for displacement effects. In the real world, however, the presence or absence of external funding for a particular spending priority will have enormous spillover effects upon the tough decisions states and localities must otherwise make to operate within existing budget constraints.
Second, this foundational assumption clashes with empirical results like those shown in Figure 4 of the Administration paper – in which local education employment is seen to plummet virtually at the precise moment that the 2009 Recovery Act’s funds are reportedly supporting education job retention. Advocates will naturally say that “without the funds, the employment decline would have been much worse.” This could well be true to a significant extent, but just as with the “jobs created or saved” claims this is essentially being assumed rather than demonstrated.
Third, there are some conspicuous gaps in the chain of reasoning. The basic logic is that teacher layoffs are driven by state budget shortfalls; funding provided to states/localities under the jobs bill would therefore prevent future layoffs and allow rehires of those previously let go. But the Administration’s state-by-state projections of education jobs “supported” doesn’t fully comport with this representation. For example, the original CBPP paper shows no shortfalls for either Montana or North Dakota in any of fiscal years 2009-13. Yet the Administration document shows a (small) number of jobs “supported” in each of those states under their proposals. This makes little sense if state budgeting shortfalls are indeed the source of all of the education “jobs at risk.”
The biggest problem is that even if numbers of “jobs at risk” were correct, this would tell us nothing about the desirability of the Administration’s proposed policy response. The figures presented effectively describe a set of assumptions about state budgets; they carry no hard information about the efficacy of the AJA. And so we are left with a number that draws no clear connection between the policy advocated and the results claimed. By this same standard, virtually any advocate could reasonably claim that an opposing approach to funding education at the state level would “support nearly 400,000 jobs” – almost irrespective of the specific policy. For evaluating the relative merit of policy alternatives, this is not illuminating.
The cost per job supported comes in right at $75,000 per job, too — which sounds like about the average compensation level for public-sector employees when counting overhead. This presumes that the program has no overhead costs of its own, and I suspect it will resemble the “saved or created” metric in that the only proof of the jobs being “supported” will be the fact that the money got spent. As the series of Porkulus fables proved, that assumption failed badly with “saved or created,” and there’s no reason to believe it will work any better with “jobs supported.”
New Obama metric: “Jobs supported”
posted at 2:45 pm on October 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Old and busted: Jobs “saved or created.” New hotness: Jobs “supported.” In attempting to advance the argument for Barack Obama’s new jobs stimulus plan, the White House has decided to create a new term that has, er, even less meaning than their previous measure:
The American Jobs Act Will Support Nearly 400,000 Education Jobs—Preventing Layoffs and Allowing Thousands More to Be Hired or Rehired: The President’s plan will more than offset projected layoffs, providing support for nearly 400,000 education jobs—enough for states to avoid harmful layoffs and rehire tens of thousands of teachers who lost their jobs over the past three years.
How exactly did the White House come up with its new metric? Chuck Blahous gives us a detailed analysis of exactly how they crafted this measure to be, well, unmeasurable:
To start the process of estimating educator jobs at risk, the Administration refers to a June, 2011 paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (a left-of-center think tank). This paper quantifies recent and projected shortfalls in state budgets.
The Administration then makes various assumptions about how the projected shortfalls would be filled. In effect, they assume first that shortfalls would be filled by a combination of tax increases and spending reductions, and then that spending cuts would be applied proportionally across all categories including education. As the Administration materials state, “These spending reduction numbers were then converted into estimates of educator jobs at risk based on estimates of average teacher compensation by state. These calculations implied that, if spending reductions had their full negative impact on education staffing, up to 280,000 educator jobs across the country would be at risk in the 2011-2012 school year.”
The Administration then points to $30 billion in spending contained in the proposed American Jobs Act. The purpose of this spending, as specified in the bill text, is to “prevent teacher layoffs and support the creation of additional jobs in public early childhood, elementary, and secondary education in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years.”
Does this give readers a sense of deja vu? The block grants in Porkulus also assumed that states would simply lay off teachers and first responders as a result of large-scale budget deficits in the throes of the Great Recession. That’s where jobs “saved and created” originated; Obama and his team meant public-sector employees in states and local governments. Only those organizations employ a lot more people than just teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; most states have vast bureaucracies that ended up getting “saved” thanks to the infusion of cash that allowed legislatures to put off tough decisions on the size and nature of government during the economic crisis.
Well, the acute economic crisis is over. What’s the excuse for procrastination now? Instead of having the states take responsibility for tough budget decisions, Obama wants to let states like Illinois and California off the hook by forcing other states to subsidize their bad budgeting decisions. Why? Take a look at the recent history of the Electoral College for one reason, and the fact that most of these bureaucrats belong to public-employee unions like SEIU and AFCSME for another reason. That’s what Obama is “supporting.” Let’s recall the extensive reporting in 2009 that showed that jobs “saved or created” were a myth, even in the public sector:
•New Hampshire
•Florida and Georgia
•Ohio
•Wisconsin
•New Jersey
•Virginia
•Texas
•Illinois
•Colorado
•Washington
•Massachusetts
•Arkansas
•Connecticut
•Michigan
•California (San Diego)
•New York
At the time, I called these “Porkulus fables,” and it looks like jobs “supported” will be the newest addition to the Obama pantheon of mythical creatures. Blahous explains why:
First, the initial assumption made is that in the absence of these federal appropriations, states would make no effort to prioritize education spending relative to across-the-board budget cuts. Federal funding is to be credited with “supporting” any “job at risk” that is not lost, without accounting for displacement effects. In the real world, however, the presence or absence of external funding for a particular spending priority will have enormous spillover effects upon the tough decisions states and localities must otherwise make to operate within existing budget constraints.
Second, this foundational assumption clashes with empirical results like those shown in Figure 4 of the Administration paper – in which local education employment is seen to plummet virtually at the precise moment that the 2009 Recovery Act’s funds are reportedly supporting education job retention. Advocates will naturally say that “without the funds, the employment decline would have been much worse.” This could well be true to a significant extent, but just as with the “jobs created or saved” claims this is essentially being assumed rather than demonstrated.
Third, there are some conspicuous gaps in the chain of reasoning. The basic logic is that teacher layoffs are driven by state budget shortfalls; funding provided to states/localities under the jobs bill would therefore prevent future layoffs and allow rehires of those previously let go. But the Administration’s state-by-state projections of education jobs “supported” doesn’t fully comport with this representation. For example, the original CBPP paper shows no shortfalls for either Montana or North Dakota in any of fiscal years 2009-13. Yet the Administration document shows a (small) number of jobs “supported” in each of those states under their proposals. This makes little sense if state budgeting shortfalls are indeed the source of all of the education “jobs at risk.”
The biggest problem is that even if numbers of “jobs at risk” were correct, this would tell us nothing about the desirability of the Administration’s proposed policy response. The figures presented effectively describe a set of assumptions about state budgets; they carry no hard information about the efficacy of the AJA. And so we are left with a number that draws no clear connection between the policy advocated and the results claimed. By this same standard, virtually any advocate could reasonably claim that an opposing approach to funding education at the state level would “support nearly 400,000 jobs” – almost irrespective of the specific policy. For evaluating the relative merit of policy alternatives, this is not illuminating.
The cost per job supported comes in right at $75,000 per job, too — which sounds like about the average compensation level for public-sector employees when counting overhead. This presumes that the program has no overhead costs of its own, and I suspect it will resemble the “saved or created” metric in that the only proof of the jobs being “supported” will be the fact that the money got spent. As the series of Porkulus fables proved, that assumption failed badly with “saved or created,” and there’s no reason to believe it will work any better with “jobs supported.”
Let the "Occupy" protesters live in their FILTH!
I would let these folks live in their filth and I would film it for all to see. I do have a problem with allowing them to break the rules of the park and there is something to allowing a PRIVATE park maintain that park and enforce their rules, but why clean this area and make it any more comfortable for these protesters....
I can't wait until the rains come and the cold comes...we'll see what determination these mindless protesters have then....
NYC official: Protest cleanup is being postponed
Oct 14, 7:12 AM (ET)
By KAREN MATTHEWS
NEW YORK (AP) - The cleanup of a plaza in lower Manhattan where protesters have been camped out for a month was postponed early Friday, sending cheers up from a crowd that had feared the effort was merely a pretext to evict them.
Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway said the owners of the private park, Brookfield Office Properties, had put off the cleaning. Supporters of the protesters had started streaming into the park in the morning darkness before the planned cleaning, forming a crowd of several hundred chanting people.
"I'll believe it when we're able to stay here," said protester Peter Hogness, 56, a union employee from Brooklyn. "One thing we have learned from this is that we need to rely on ourselves and not on promises from elected officials."
But protester Nick Gulotta, 23, was jubilant.
(AP) Lucas Brinson, 21, from Davis, Calif, takes on the role of a human microphone, relaying information...
Full Image
He originally held up a sign referring to Mayor Michael Bloomberg that said: "Bloomberg Don't Evict Occupy Wall Street." People cheered and clapped him on the back when he scratched out the "don't" and replaced it with "didn't."
"It shows when people work together, you really can make a difference and make justice happen," Gulotta said.
A confrontation between police and protesters, who had vowed to stay put through civil disobedience, had been feared. Boisterous cheers floated up from the crowds as the announcement of the postponement circulated, and protesters began polling each other on whether to make an immediate march to Wall Street, a few blocks away.
"Late last night, we received notice from the owners of Zuccotti Park - Brookfield Properties - that they are postponing their scheduled cleaning of the park, and for the time being withdrawing their request from earlier in the week for police assistance during their cleaning operation," the deputy mayor's statement said.
The New York Police Department had said it would make arrests if Brookfield requested it and laws were broken. The deputy mayor's statement Friday said Brookfield believes it can work out an arrangement with the protesters that "will ensure the park remains clean, safe, available for public use," it said.
(AP) Ashley Andres, 19, from Lancaster, Pa., sweeps around Zuccotti Park's "Occupy Wall Street"...
Full Image
Brookfield, a publicly traded real estate firm, had planned to power-wash the plaza section by section over 12 hours and allow the protesters back - but without much of the equipment they needed to sleep and camp there. The company called the conditions at the park unsanitary and unsafe.
The company's rules, which haven't been enforced, have been this all along: No tarps, no sleeping bags, no storing personal property on the ground. The park is privately owned but is required to be open to the public 24 hours per day.
In a last-ditch bid to stay, protesters had mopped and picked up garbage. While moving out mattresses and camping supplies, organizers were mixed on how they would respond when police arrived.
Many protesters said the only way they would leave is by force. Organizers sent out a mass email Thursday asking supporters to "defend the occupation from eviction."
Nicole Carty, a 23-year-old from Atlanta, had hoped the group's cleaning effort would stave off any confrontation. It wasn't clear early Friday whether that had anything to do with the company's decision to postpone the cleanup.
(AP) Workgroups at Zuccotti Park's "Occupy Wall Street" encampment collect trash on Thursday, Oct. 13,...
Full Image
"We tell them, 'Hey the park is clean, there's no need for you to be here,'" she said. "If they insist on coming in, we will continue to occupy the space."
The demand that protesters clear out had set up a potential turning point in a movement that began Sept. 17 with a small group of activists and has swelled to include several thousand people at times, from many walks of life. Occupy Wall Street has inspired similar demonstrations across the country and become an issue in the Republican presidential primary race.
The protesters' demands are wide-ranging, but they are united in blaming Wall Street and corporate interests for the economic pain they say all but the wealthiest Americans have endured since the financial meltdown.
A spokesman for Bloomberg, whose girlfriend is a member of Brookfield's board of directors, had said Thursday that Brookfield had requested the city's assistance in maintaining the park.
"We will continue to defend and guarantee their free speech rights, but those rights do not include the ability to infringe on the rights of others," Bloomberg spokesman Marc La Vorgna said, "which is why the rules governing the park will be enforced."
(AP) In this Oct. 5, 2011 file photo, a coalition of students and their supporters from New York...
Full Image
Protesters have had some run-ins with police, but mass arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge and an incident in which some protesters were pepper-sprayed seemed to energize their movement.
Bill de Blasio, the city's public advocate, had expressed concern over the city's actions as he inspected the park Thursday afternoon and listened to protesters' complaints.
"This has been a very peaceful movement by the people," he said. "I'm concerned about this new set of policies. At the very least, the city should slow down."
And attorneys from the New York City chapter of the National Lawyers Guild - who are representing an Occupy Wall Street sanitation working group - wrote a letter to Brookfield saying the company's request to get police to help implement its cleanup plan threatened "fundamental constitutional rights."
The protest has led sympathetic groups in other cities to stage their own local rallies and demonstrations: Occupy Boston, Occupy Cincinnati, Occupy Houston, Occupy Los Angeles, Occupy Philadelphia, Occupy Providence, Occupy Salt Lake and Occupy Seattle, among them.
The situation was tense near Colorado's state Capitol, where hundreds of Occupy Denver protesters were told to clear out or risk arrest. Dozens of police in riot gear moved into the park, declaring it closed and removing dozens of tents, but no clashes were reported early Friday.
Occupy Seattle protesters running a live video feed from their corporate power protest at Seattle's Westlake Park said police started making arrests Thursday. Police confirmed that 10 people were arrested. City law bans camping in parks.
Several protests are planned this weekend across the U.S. and Canada, and European activists are also organizing.
---
Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister, Tom McElroy, Cara Anna, Deepti Hajela, Colleen Long, Cristian Salazar, Verena Dobnik, and Meghan Barr contributed to this report.
I can't wait until the rains come and the cold comes...we'll see what determination these mindless protesters have then....
NYC official: Protest cleanup is being postponed
Oct 14, 7:12 AM (ET)
By KAREN MATTHEWS
NEW YORK (AP) - The cleanup of a plaza in lower Manhattan where protesters have been camped out for a month was postponed early Friday, sending cheers up from a crowd that had feared the effort was merely a pretext to evict them.
Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway said the owners of the private park, Brookfield Office Properties, had put off the cleaning. Supporters of the protesters had started streaming into the park in the morning darkness before the planned cleaning, forming a crowd of several hundred chanting people.
"I'll believe it when we're able to stay here," said protester Peter Hogness, 56, a union employee from Brooklyn. "One thing we have learned from this is that we need to rely on ourselves and not on promises from elected officials."
But protester Nick Gulotta, 23, was jubilant.
(AP) Lucas Brinson, 21, from Davis, Calif, takes on the role of a human microphone, relaying information...
Full Image
He originally held up a sign referring to Mayor Michael Bloomberg that said: "Bloomberg Don't Evict Occupy Wall Street." People cheered and clapped him on the back when he scratched out the "don't" and replaced it with "didn't."
"It shows when people work together, you really can make a difference and make justice happen," Gulotta said.
A confrontation between police and protesters, who had vowed to stay put through civil disobedience, had been feared. Boisterous cheers floated up from the crowds as the announcement of the postponement circulated, and protesters began polling each other on whether to make an immediate march to Wall Street, a few blocks away.
"Late last night, we received notice from the owners of Zuccotti Park - Brookfield Properties - that they are postponing their scheduled cleaning of the park, and for the time being withdrawing their request from earlier in the week for police assistance during their cleaning operation," the deputy mayor's statement said.
The New York Police Department had said it would make arrests if Brookfield requested it and laws were broken. The deputy mayor's statement Friday said Brookfield believes it can work out an arrangement with the protesters that "will ensure the park remains clean, safe, available for public use," it said.
(AP) Ashley Andres, 19, from Lancaster, Pa., sweeps around Zuccotti Park's "Occupy Wall Street"...
Full Image
Brookfield, a publicly traded real estate firm, had planned to power-wash the plaza section by section over 12 hours and allow the protesters back - but without much of the equipment they needed to sleep and camp there. The company called the conditions at the park unsanitary and unsafe.
The company's rules, which haven't been enforced, have been this all along: No tarps, no sleeping bags, no storing personal property on the ground. The park is privately owned but is required to be open to the public 24 hours per day.
In a last-ditch bid to stay, protesters had mopped and picked up garbage. While moving out mattresses and camping supplies, organizers were mixed on how they would respond when police arrived.
Many protesters said the only way they would leave is by force. Organizers sent out a mass email Thursday asking supporters to "defend the occupation from eviction."
Nicole Carty, a 23-year-old from Atlanta, had hoped the group's cleaning effort would stave off any confrontation. It wasn't clear early Friday whether that had anything to do with the company's decision to postpone the cleanup.
(AP) Workgroups at Zuccotti Park's "Occupy Wall Street" encampment collect trash on Thursday, Oct. 13,...
Full Image
"We tell them, 'Hey the park is clean, there's no need for you to be here,'" she said. "If they insist on coming in, we will continue to occupy the space."
The demand that protesters clear out had set up a potential turning point in a movement that began Sept. 17 with a small group of activists and has swelled to include several thousand people at times, from many walks of life. Occupy Wall Street has inspired similar demonstrations across the country and become an issue in the Republican presidential primary race.
The protesters' demands are wide-ranging, but they are united in blaming Wall Street and corporate interests for the economic pain they say all but the wealthiest Americans have endured since the financial meltdown.
A spokesman for Bloomberg, whose girlfriend is a member of Brookfield's board of directors, had said Thursday that Brookfield had requested the city's assistance in maintaining the park.
"We will continue to defend and guarantee their free speech rights, but those rights do not include the ability to infringe on the rights of others," Bloomberg spokesman Marc La Vorgna said, "which is why the rules governing the park will be enforced."
(AP) In this Oct. 5, 2011 file photo, a coalition of students and their supporters from New York...
Full Image
Protesters have had some run-ins with police, but mass arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge and an incident in which some protesters were pepper-sprayed seemed to energize their movement.
Bill de Blasio, the city's public advocate, had expressed concern over the city's actions as he inspected the park Thursday afternoon and listened to protesters' complaints.
"This has been a very peaceful movement by the people," he said. "I'm concerned about this new set of policies. At the very least, the city should slow down."
And attorneys from the New York City chapter of the National Lawyers Guild - who are representing an Occupy Wall Street sanitation working group - wrote a letter to Brookfield saying the company's request to get police to help implement its cleanup plan threatened "fundamental constitutional rights."
The protest has led sympathetic groups in other cities to stage their own local rallies and demonstrations: Occupy Boston, Occupy Cincinnati, Occupy Houston, Occupy Los Angeles, Occupy Philadelphia, Occupy Providence, Occupy Salt Lake and Occupy Seattle, among them.
The situation was tense near Colorado's state Capitol, where hundreds of Occupy Denver protesters were told to clear out or risk arrest. Dozens of police in riot gear moved into the park, declaring it closed and removing dozens of tents, but no clashes were reported early Friday.
Occupy Seattle protesters running a live video feed from their corporate power protest at Seattle's Westlake Park said police started making arrests Thursday. Police confirmed that 10 people were arrested. City law bans camping in parks.
Several protests are planned this weekend across the U.S. and Canada, and European activists are also organizing.
---
Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister, Tom McElroy, Cara Anna, Deepti Hajela, Colleen Long, Cristian Salazar, Verena Dobnik, and Meghan Barr contributed to this report.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Boehner Calls Out Obama
I am pleased that Boehner had the guts to correct and call out Obama for his lies about the Republicans having no ideas on jobs....I just don't think he needs to be so respectful...Obama hasn't earned any respect!
Boehner 'Respectfully Challenges' Obama on Jobs Plan During Phone Call
Published October 13, 2011 NewsCore
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner "respectfully challenged" Barack Obama during a phone call Thursday over statements the president made about the existence of a GOP plan to address the jobs crisis.
Obama had called Boehner to congratulate him for passing three trade agreements but, according to Politico, ended up getting pulled up by the speaker for saying earlier Thursday that he had not seen a Republican jobs plan.
"I haven't yet seen" a GOP plan that would create jobs in the near term, Obama said at a press conference, adding, "And so, eventually, I'm hoping that they actually put forward some proposals that indicate that they feel that sense of urgency about people -- needing to put people back to work right now."
In an unusual move, Boehner's office released a detailed account of their subsequent 10-minute conversation.
"I want to make sure you have all the facts," Boehner reportedly told Obama, reminding him that the House GOP had released a jobs plan in May and talked to the administration about it "on numerous occasions."
"The speaker told the president that when he sent his jobs plan to the Hill, Republicans pledged to give it consideration, and have done so," the release stated. "The president was reminded of a memo written by GOP leaders outlining the specific areas where they believe common ground can be found.
"The speaker also noted that a number of the president's ideas have already been acted on in the House, including a veterans hiring bill, trade agreements, and a three percent withholding bill approved by the Ways & Means Committee today that will be considered on the House floor this month."
The tense conversation is being seen as the latest sign of continued frosty relations between the pair as both sides of politics grapple with selling their solution to the nation's economic woes.
Here's the Politico Article on the same topic and from it it is obvious that this arrogant, stubborn, incompetent President is really not willing to work with Congress and Republicans on Jobs....He's only interested in ideas IF they are his....See what's highlighted in RED below -
Barack Obama calls John Boehner, gets earful
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN 10/13/11 6:23 PM EDT
President Barack Obama called House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Thursday to congratulate him for passing three trade agreements — but ended up getting an earful on the jobs debate.
According to an unusually detailed account released by the speaker’s office, Boehner “respectfully challenged” the president for saying Thursday that he has not yet seen a jobs plan from Republicans.
“I want to make sure you have all the facts,” Boehner told Obama, the account of the 10-minute call said.
It is the latest sign of continued frosty relations between the speaker and the president, who have struggled to form a working partnership, particularly after the collapse of negotiations in July for a “grand bargain” on deficit reduction. By providing a rare readout of the call, Boehner’s office is trying to highlight that Obama is ignoring attempts by House Republicans to address the jobs crisis.
At a press conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Obama said he is prepared to work with Republicans but added that “I haven’t yet seen” a GOP plan that would create jobs in the near term.
“And so, eventually, I’m hoping that they actually put forward some proposals that indicate that they feel that sense of urgency about people — needing to put people back to work right now,” Obama said.
The speaker, who last spoke with the president three weeks ago, reminded Obama that the House GOP released a jobs plan in May and that his leadership team has spoken with Obama and his staff about the plan “on numerous occasions.”
“The speaker told the president that when he sent his jobs plan to the Hill, Republicans pledged to give it consideration, and have done so,” the release stated. “The president was reminded of a memo written by GOP leaders outlining the specific areas where they believe common ground can be found. The Speaker also noted that a number of the president’s ideas have already been acted on in the House, including a veterans hiring bill, trade agreements, and a three percent withholding bill approved by the Ways & Means Committee today that will be considered on the House floor this month.”
Josh Earnest, deputy White House press secretary, declined to comment on the details of the conversation.
“The president has been very clear that he is willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to pass measures to create jobs and get our economy moving,” Earnest said in a statement. “As independent economists have said, the American Jobs Act is the only plan that will create jobs and help the economy now.”
Obama’s jobs bill stalled in the Senate this week when it could not attract enough support to advance. The House has not voted on his bill.
Jake Sherman contributed to this report.
Boehner 'Respectfully Challenges' Obama on Jobs Plan During Phone Call
Published October 13, 2011 NewsCore
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner "respectfully challenged" Barack Obama during a phone call Thursday over statements the president made about the existence of a GOP plan to address the jobs crisis.
Obama had called Boehner to congratulate him for passing three trade agreements but, according to Politico, ended up getting pulled up by the speaker for saying earlier Thursday that he had not seen a Republican jobs plan.
"I haven't yet seen" a GOP plan that would create jobs in the near term, Obama said at a press conference, adding, "And so, eventually, I'm hoping that they actually put forward some proposals that indicate that they feel that sense of urgency about people -- needing to put people back to work right now."
In an unusual move, Boehner's office released a detailed account of their subsequent 10-minute conversation.
"I want to make sure you have all the facts," Boehner reportedly told Obama, reminding him that the House GOP had released a jobs plan in May and talked to the administration about it "on numerous occasions."
"The speaker told the president that when he sent his jobs plan to the Hill, Republicans pledged to give it consideration, and have done so," the release stated. "The president was reminded of a memo written by GOP leaders outlining the specific areas where they believe common ground can be found.
"The speaker also noted that a number of the president's ideas have already been acted on in the House, including a veterans hiring bill, trade agreements, and a three percent withholding bill approved by the Ways & Means Committee today that will be considered on the House floor this month."
The tense conversation is being seen as the latest sign of continued frosty relations between the pair as both sides of politics grapple with selling their solution to the nation's economic woes.
Here's the Politico Article on the same topic and from it it is obvious that this arrogant, stubborn, incompetent President is really not willing to work with Congress and Republicans on Jobs....He's only interested in ideas IF they are his....See what's highlighted in RED below -
Barack Obama calls John Boehner, gets earful
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN 10/13/11 6:23 PM EDT
President Barack Obama called House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Thursday to congratulate him for passing three trade agreements — but ended up getting an earful on the jobs debate.
According to an unusually detailed account released by the speaker’s office, Boehner “respectfully challenged” the president for saying Thursday that he has not yet seen a jobs plan from Republicans.
“I want to make sure you have all the facts,” Boehner told Obama, the account of the 10-minute call said.
It is the latest sign of continued frosty relations between the speaker and the president, who have struggled to form a working partnership, particularly after the collapse of negotiations in July for a “grand bargain” on deficit reduction. By providing a rare readout of the call, Boehner’s office is trying to highlight that Obama is ignoring attempts by House Republicans to address the jobs crisis.
At a press conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, Obama said he is prepared to work with Republicans but added that “I haven’t yet seen” a GOP plan that would create jobs in the near term.
“And so, eventually, I’m hoping that they actually put forward some proposals that indicate that they feel that sense of urgency about people — needing to put people back to work right now,” Obama said.
The speaker, who last spoke with the president three weeks ago, reminded Obama that the House GOP released a jobs plan in May and that his leadership team has spoken with Obama and his staff about the plan “on numerous occasions.”
“The speaker told the president that when he sent his jobs plan to the Hill, Republicans pledged to give it consideration, and have done so,” the release stated. “The president was reminded of a memo written by GOP leaders outlining the specific areas where they believe common ground can be found. The Speaker also noted that a number of the president’s ideas have already been acted on in the House, including a veterans hiring bill, trade agreements, and a three percent withholding bill approved by the Ways & Means Committee today that will be considered on the House floor this month.”
Josh Earnest, deputy White House press secretary, declined to comment on the details of the conversation.
“The president has been very clear that he is willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to pass measures to create jobs and get our economy moving,” Earnest said in a statement. “As independent economists have said, the American Jobs Act is the only plan that will create jobs and help the economy now.”
Obama’s jobs bill stalled in the Senate this week when it could not attract enough support to advance. The House has not voted on his bill.
Jake Sherman contributed to this report.
Clinton Goes OFF the Obama Reservation...He Says Do NOT Raise Taxes on Anyone Right Now!
Bill Clinton goes off the Obama reservation by clearly saying that we should NOT raise taxes on ANYONE at ANY INCOME LEVEL right now because there is no growth in the economy.....Yet Obama wants to pay for his lousy JOB BILL by raising taxes on wealthy Americans....Look at the 8:35 area of this video...
PS...I hate David Letterman and refuse to watch him...
PS...I hate David Letterman and refuse to watch him...
Republicans offer yet another Jobs Plan...
Here is another jobs plan offered by the republicans, but you watch Obama will continue to say that the Republicans do not have a plan and have offered nothing to resolve the jobs problem. It will fall on deft ears because it isn't what Obama wants to hear. Even though this plan will actually work!
Senate Republicans Offer Their Own Jobs Bill
Published October 13, 2011 | Associated Press
Senate Republicans introduced legislation Thursday aimed at creating jobs by overhauling the nation's tax laws, cutting business rules and boosting offshore oil exploration.
The GOP bill is called the "Jobs Through Growth Act" and doesn't include a single item in President Obama's jobs legislation, which Senate Republicans killed in a Tuesday night vote.
"They believe that government and spending creates jobs," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "We believe business and growth creates jobs."
The GOP plan calls for repealing Obama's health care law and passing a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
"This is a pro-growth proposal to create the environment for jobs," said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. "And that's as opposed to the short-term, sweetener approach of the Obama administration that simply hasn't worked."
One idea that could win bipartisan support is a proposal to permit U.S. companies to bring home $1.4 trillion in overseas profits that are kept offshore because of high corporate tax rates. And lawmakers in both parties support revamping the tax code by getting rid of deductions and using the revenue to lower rates on individuals and businesses.
But most of the other elements of the plan, including repealing last year's financial overhaul measure and a complete moratorium on new regulations, are nonstarters with the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate.
Obama wants to spend money on public works, cut payroll taxes for individuals and businesses and help local governments avoid laying off public workers.
Senate Republicans Offer Their Own Jobs Bill
Published October 13, 2011 | Associated Press
Senate Republicans introduced legislation Thursday aimed at creating jobs by overhauling the nation's tax laws, cutting business rules and boosting offshore oil exploration.
The GOP bill is called the "Jobs Through Growth Act" and doesn't include a single item in President Obama's jobs legislation, which Senate Republicans killed in a Tuesday night vote.
"They believe that government and spending creates jobs," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "We believe business and growth creates jobs."
The GOP plan calls for repealing Obama's health care law and passing a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
"This is a pro-growth proposal to create the environment for jobs," said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. "And that's as opposed to the short-term, sweetener approach of the Obama administration that simply hasn't worked."
One idea that could win bipartisan support is a proposal to permit U.S. companies to bring home $1.4 trillion in overseas profits that are kept offshore because of high corporate tax rates. And lawmakers in both parties support revamping the tax code by getting rid of deductions and using the revenue to lower rates on individuals and businesses.
But most of the other elements of the plan, including repealing last year's financial overhaul measure and a complete moratorium on new regulations, are nonstarters with the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate.
Obama wants to spend money on public works, cut payroll taxes for individuals and businesses and help local governments avoid laying off public workers.
My Latest Letter To Obama....
My Latest Letter to Obama....After I saw the Obama news conference with the South Korean President I couldn't stand it any more....I have to access the White House website and send Obama another email....This guy has GOT to be defeated in November of 2012!
Mr. Obama you are the most arrogant, incompetent, pathetic excuse for the President I have ever seen in my 61 years. The American People have simply "turned you off"...it's nothing but the same old, same old...you are out there spewing rhetoric on your Jobs Bill which is just more of the same, stimulus, raising revenue permanently through tax increases while offering the same old temporary, non effective solutions for mostly union and government job growth. All it guarantees is more money for you and Democrats to spend in the years to come...It will not SAVE YOUR JOB!
You still do NOT understand that the engine to get this economy back on track is the private sector. And God knows you've gone everything in your power (paralizing the energy sector.. demonizing the banks, big oil, insurance companies etc..over regulating business...ruining the health care industry, playing favorites with the regulatory agencies...NRLB, EPA, etc) to create an environment that will ensure that doesn't happen. It's no wonder that America has simply given up on you!
And now you and your Democrat cohorts are putting your support behind the "Occupy" movement. Instead of acting like a leader and attempting to calm this violent, law breaking movement you and your goons think it's OK. If these folks were really intelligent and understood what's going on they would be on the White House lawn protesting.
Let's go on to your boy, Eric Holder. Aside from being a racist, it's apparent now that he has lied to Congress. His DOJ is as corrupt as any I've ever known, yet you still support him. That certainly says a lot about your character as a leader! But I guess that just your upbringing in Corrupt Chicago Goon Politics.
Now we have the Iran issue...caused to a great extent by your foreign policies to try to be-friend Iran rather than treat them as what they are, an enemy. And will anything happen in retaliation??? Most Americans know that your do NOT have the guts to do what is needed...you haven't had the guts to make bold decisions in the last 2 1/2 years you have been in power.
AND finally I have to mention your arrogant efforts to try to govern AROUND the Congress!..Do you now understand the Constitution OR do you think that you are a totalitarian dictator? You sir a DISGRACE to America...
I will do everything in my power to elect ANYONE BUT you in November of 2012...America cannot take another 4 Years of Barack Hussein Obama!
Mr. Obama you are the most arrogant, incompetent, pathetic excuse for the President I have ever seen in my 61 years. The American People have simply "turned you off"...it's nothing but the same old, same old...you are out there spewing rhetoric on your Jobs Bill which is just more of the same, stimulus, raising revenue permanently through tax increases while offering the same old temporary, non effective solutions for mostly union and government job growth. All it guarantees is more money for you and Democrats to spend in the years to come...It will not SAVE YOUR JOB!
You still do NOT understand that the engine to get this economy back on track is the private sector. And God knows you've gone everything in your power (paralizing the energy sector.. demonizing the banks, big oil, insurance companies etc..over regulating business...ruining the health care industry, playing favorites with the regulatory agencies...NRLB, EPA, etc) to create an environment that will ensure that doesn't happen. It's no wonder that America has simply given up on you!
And now you and your Democrat cohorts are putting your support behind the "Occupy" movement. Instead of acting like a leader and attempting to calm this violent, law breaking movement you and your goons think it's OK. If these folks were really intelligent and understood what's going on they would be on the White House lawn protesting.
Let's go on to your boy, Eric Holder. Aside from being a racist, it's apparent now that he has lied to Congress. His DOJ is as corrupt as any I've ever known, yet you still support him. That certainly says a lot about your character as a leader! But I guess that just your upbringing in Corrupt Chicago Goon Politics.
Now we have the Iran issue...caused to a great extent by your foreign policies to try to be-friend Iran rather than treat them as what they are, an enemy. And will anything happen in retaliation??? Most Americans know that your do NOT have the guts to do what is needed...you haven't had the guts to make bold decisions in the last 2 1/2 years you have been in power.
AND finally I have to mention your arrogant efforts to try to govern AROUND the Congress!..Do you now understand the Constitution OR do you think that you are a totalitarian dictator? You sir a DISGRACE to America...
I will do everything in my power to elect ANYONE BUT you in November of 2012...America cannot take another 4 Years of Barack Hussein Obama!
Who Do These Politicians Think They Are....
Who Does President Obama and Jesse Jackson Jr. think they are...This is NOT a totalitarian government....Obama is NOT a the "Ruler" of America...This is a Republic with specific rules that are outlines in the Constitution...This Jesse Jackson Jr. guy needs to go home and certainly doesn't deserve to be in the House......He needs to be impeached!!!
The Democrats Did NOT create jobs when they had total control of the congress and the White House....What is now an emergency when the Democrats lost control of the House....
This is dangerous talk and Jesse Jackson Jr is a dangerous person if he believes that...
The Democrats Did NOT create jobs when they had total control of the congress and the White House....What is now an emergency when the Democrats lost control of the House....
This is dangerous talk and Jesse Jackson Jr is a dangerous person if he believes that...
What Would You Expect from Barack HUSSEIN Obama?
What would you expect from a President Barack Hussein Obama that if not a Muslim himself, he's certainly a Muslim leaning person....Let's not make the same mistake again and let this incompetent Muslim (or Muslim leaning) President get a chance at another 4 years!
Barack Obama,
during his Cairo speech, said:
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America 's story."
AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were those
Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims
first landed? Funny, I thought they were
Native American Indians.
Were those
Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving
day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and
Native American Indians.
Can you
show me one Muslim signature on the United
States Constitution?
Declaration
of Independence ?
Bill of
Rights?
Didn't
think so.
Did
Muslims fight for this country's freedom from
England ? No.
Did
Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the
slaves in America ? No, they did
not. In fact, Muslims to this day are
still the largest traffickers in human
slavery.. Your own half brother, a devout
Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even
though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black
Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot
of what the Muslim world really thinks of your
family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr.
Obama?
Barack Obama,
during his Cairo speech, said:
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America 's story."
AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr. Obama:
Were those
Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims
first landed? Funny, I thought they were
Native American Indians.
Were those
Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving
day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and
Native American Indians.
Can you
show me one Muslim signature on the United
States Constitution?
Declaration
of Independence ?
Bill of
Rights?
Didn't
think so.
Did
Muslims fight for this country's freedom from
England ? No.
Did
Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the
slaves in America ? No, they did
not. In fact, Muslims to this day are
still the largest traffickers in human
slavery.. Your own half brother, a devout
Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even
though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black
Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot
of what the Muslim world really thinks of your
family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr.
Obama?
Where were
Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this
country? Not present.
There are
no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or
helping to advance the cause of Civil
Rights.
Where were
Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage
era? Again, not present. In fact,
devout Muslims demand that women are subservient
to men in the Islamic culture. So much so,
that often they are beaten for not wearing the
'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a
direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights,
aren't they?
Where were
Muslims during World War II? They were
aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim
grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler,
reviewed the troops and accepted support from
the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Finally,
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th,
2001? If they weren't flying planes into
the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field
in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on
our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle
East . No one can dispute the pictures
shown from all parts of the Muslim world
celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other
cable news networks that day. Strangely,
the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent
over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June
4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To
many Americans, their silence has meant approval
for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr.
Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here
in America ..
Oh, I'm sorry, I
forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.
They were Muslim.
And now we can
add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American
soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a
doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be
counseling soldiers returning from battle in
Iraq and Afghanistan ..
That, Mr. Obama
is the "Muslim heritage" in America
EVERY AMERICAN
MUST READ THIS !!
Be sure to
SEND IT TO ALL .
Muslim Heritage, my ass.
Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this
country? Not present.
There are
no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or
helping to advance the cause of Civil
Rights.
Where were
Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage
era? Again, not present. In fact,
devout Muslims demand that women are subservient
to men in the Islamic culture. So much so,
that often they are beaten for not wearing the
'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a
direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights,
aren't they?
Where were
Muslims during World War II? They were
aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim
grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler,
reviewed the troops and accepted support from
the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Finally,
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th,
2001? If they weren't flying planes into
the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field
in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on
our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle
East . No one can dispute the pictures
shown from all parts of the Muslim world
celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other
cable news networks that day. Strangely,
the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent
over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June
4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To
many Americans, their silence has meant approval
for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr.
Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here
in America ..
Oh, I'm sorry, I
forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.
They were Muslim.
And now we can
add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American
soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a
doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be
counseling soldiers returning from battle in
Iraq and Afghanistan ..
That, Mr. Obama
is the "Muslim heritage" in America
EVERY AMERICAN
MUST READ THIS !!
Be sure to
SEND IT TO ALL .
Muslim Heritage, my ass.
Obama ....It's all Political...It's all focused on TRYING to shift Blame away from his failed policies....
Obama doesn't get the message because he really knows his Job Bill will not pass, but he wants to try to blame Republicans for it's failure...He thinks that can shift the unemployment problem America faces from his watch to the Republicans...BUT what he doesn't understand is that the American People are not stupid...they know that more of the same failed stimulus and policies that haven't worked in the past 2 1/2 years will not work now. In fact it will only make matters worse.
This is just the act of a desperate President trying to find ANYTHING to distract attention away from him and his failed policies.
Jobs Plan Fails, but Obama Doesn't Get the Message
When President Barack Obama began his Midwest "jobs tour" in August, he set out to campaign for the passage of a yet-to-be-released plan to turn around the country's stagnant economy. But after the details of that plan emerged--more stimulus spending and higher taxes--and when the Democrat-controlled Senate put the measure up for a vote this week, the President's plan was defeated. Even members of the President's own party opposed more taxing and spending as a way of pulling America out of its unemployment ditch.
Take Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), for example. The Hill reports that he opposes raising taxes on ordinary income during a time of recession and that the federal government should encourage people to invest in the economy instead of raising their income taxes. In Webb's own words:
I strongly believe that the way to bring good jobs back is to improve our economy in the private sector, and that means more capital investment. Winston Churchill once said something to the effect that you can't tax your way out of an economic downturn any more than you can pick up a bucket if you're standing in it.
Others from the left, too, staked out opposition to the bill. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) took issue with the new spending the President proposed. "The bottom line here is that I don't believe the potential in this act for creating jobs justifies adding another $500 billion to our almost $15 trillion national debt."
There's good reason to stand against the President's plan. For one thing, it is hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on more of the same "stimulus" that has left America with virtually zero job growth and continued economic stagnation. And it's paid for with a massive tax increase on job creators--the very people who would be investing their money to expand businesses and put more Americans back to work.
The President proposed permanently raising taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with most of the burden falling on families and businesses earning more than $250,000 per year, all in the name of "fairness." In a new paper, Heritage's Curtis Dubay explains that the supposed "fairness" of the new rule is anything but fair:
To President Obama, it is 'fair' to raise taxes on families and businesses earning more than $250,000 a year by raising their income tax rates and limiting their deductions. That must also mean he believes that they currently pay too little in taxes.
Yet the data show the highest-earning families and businesses already pay the lion's share of the federal income tax burden. According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of income earners--those earning more than $380,000 in 2008--paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income. The top 10 percent ($114,000 and above) earned 45 percent of income and paid 70 percent of all taxes. At the same time, the bottom 50 percent of income earners--those earning less than $33,000--earned 13 percent of all income and paid less than 3 percent of federal income taxes.
Then there was Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) plan to impose a millionaire tax--a 5.6 percent surtax on incomes of married filers earning over $1 million starting on January 1, 2013, pushing the average top U.S. income rate to 55 percent, higher than all but two of the 30 most economically developed countries in the world. Dubay explains how the tax would negatively impact job creation:
Taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year are investors and businesses that are directly responsible for creating jobs. Investors provide the capital to existing businesses and startups so they can expand and add new workers. Raising their taxes would deprive them of resources they could invest in promising businesses that are looking to add employees. Raising their tax rate would deter them from taking the risk to invest.
It's this philosophy of soaking the rich to pay for more wasteful government spending that has ginned up opposition to the President's jobs plan. The White House, though, isn't getting the message, and it's totally glazing over the bipartisan opposition. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer laid the blame squarely on Republicans and wrote, "We can't take 'no' for an answer." The President, too, lashed out at the GOP, painting them as a minority that "got together as a group and blocked this jobs bill from passing the Senate." The New York Times got in on the act, too, lambasting the right for its opposition, without acknowledging opposition on the left.
Instead of playing the blame game, the President should take a step back and understand why Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle oppose his plan. Raising taxes to pay for stimulus spending that has proven to be a failure simply will not get the economy back on track.
This is just the act of a desperate President trying to find ANYTHING to distract attention away from him and his failed policies.
Jobs Plan Fails, but Obama Doesn't Get the Message
When President Barack Obama began his Midwest "jobs tour" in August, he set out to campaign for the passage of a yet-to-be-released plan to turn around the country's stagnant economy. But after the details of that plan emerged--more stimulus spending and higher taxes--and when the Democrat-controlled Senate put the measure up for a vote this week, the President's plan was defeated. Even members of the President's own party opposed more taxing and spending as a way of pulling America out of its unemployment ditch.
Take Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), for example. The Hill reports that he opposes raising taxes on ordinary income during a time of recession and that the federal government should encourage people to invest in the economy instead of raising their income taxes. In Webb's own words:
I strongly believe that the way to bring good jobs back is to improve our economy in the private sector, and that means more capital investment. Winston Churchill once said something to the effect that you can't tax your way out of an economic downturn any more than you can pick up a bucket if you're standing in it.
Others from the left, too, staked out opposition to the bill. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) took issue with the new spending the President proposed. "The bottom line here is that I don't believe the potential in this act for creating jobs justifies adding another $500 billion to our almost $15 trillion national debt."
There's good reason to stand against the President's plan. For one thing, it is hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on more of the same "stimulus" that has left America with virtually zero job growth and continued economic stagnation. And it's paid for with a massive tax increase on job creators--the very people who would be investing their money to expand businesses and put more Americans back to work.
The President proposed permanently raising taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with most of the burden falling on families and businesses earning more than $250,000 per year, all in the name of "fairness." In a new paper, Heritage's Curtis Dubay explains that the supposed "fairness" of the new rule is anything but fair:
To President Obama, it is 'fair' to raise taxes on families and businesses earning more than $250,000 a year by raising their income tax rates and limiting their deductions. That must also mean he believes that they currently pay too little in taxes.
Yet the data show the highest-earning families and businesses already pay the lion's share of the federal income tax burden. According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of income earners--those earning more than $380,000 in 2008--paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income. The top 10 percent ($114,000 and above) earned 45 percent of income and paid 70 percent of all taxes. At the same time, the bottom 50 percent of income earners--those earning less than $33,000--earned 13 percent of all income and paid less than 3 percent of federal income taxes.
Then there was Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) plan to impose a millionaire tax--a 5.6 percent surtax on incomes of married filers earning over $1 million starting on January 1, 2013, pushing the average top U.S. income rate to 55 percent, higher than all but two of the 30 most economically developed countries in the world. Dubay explains how the tax would negatively impact job creation:
Taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year are investors and businesses that are directly responsible for creating jobs. Investors provide the capital to existing businesses and startups so they can expand and add new workers. Raising their taxes would deprive them of resources they could invest in promising businesses that are looking to add employees. Raising their tax rate would deter them from taking the risk to invest.
It's this philosophy of soaking the rich to pay for more wasteful government spending that has ginned up opposition to the President's jobs plan. The White House, though, isn't getting the message, and it's totally glazing over the bipartisan opposition. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer laid the blame squarely on Republicans and wrote, "We can't take 'no' for an answer." The President, too, lashed out at the GOP, painting them as a minority that "got together as a group and blocked this jobs bill from passing the Senate." The New York Times got in on the act, too, lambasting the right for its opposition, without acknowledging opposition on the left.
Instead of playing the blame game, the President should take a step back and understand why Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle oppose his plan. Raising taxes to pay for stimulus spending that has proven to be a failure simply will not get the economy back on track.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Barack Obama...Community Organizer....On the Side of the Protesters....That's Disgusting!
It would make sense that Barack Obama, the ultimate community organizer, would be on the side of the "Occupy" protesters...Obama is just pathetic as is his whole Administration....
Obama's Buddy, Buffet is just another Tax Cheat...
Looks like another one of Obama's Buddies (Hypocritical Warren Buffet) is also a Tax Cheat....
Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes
Obama’s favorite billionaire isn’t quite ready to practice what he preaches.
by John Hayward 08/31/2011 106
Warren Buffett, President Obama’s pet billionaire, spends a great deal of time calling for tax increases on wealthy people. He began a recent New York Times op-ed, entitled “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” as follows:
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
That’s right, serfs: anything your benevolent “leaders” in Washington allow you to keep is a “blessing” that has been “showered” upon you. All money rightfully belongs to the State. It’s about time you spotted owls got with the program.
Funny thing is, it turns out Buffett was being… shall we say… disingenuous when he claimed his “leaders” never got around to asking for his “shared sacrifice.” His company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying its federal tax bill for nearly a decade.
How much of the State’s rightful money has this hypocrite been clutching in a white-knuckled death grip? Oh, only about a billion dollars or so. Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government tallies up the bill:
Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty. Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.
According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”
He added, “The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”
On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back. All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance.
Warren Buffet is no different from the other liars and frauds orbiting Barack Obama. His hypocrisy just runs billions of dollars deeper. When it comes to “shared sacrifice,” you do the sacrificing, and they do the sharing.
Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes
Obama’s favorite billionaire isn’t quite ready to practice what he preaches.
by John Hayward 08/31/2011 106
Warren Buffett, President Obama’s pet billionaire, spends a great deal of time calling for tax increases on wealthy people. He began a recent New York Times op-ed, entitled “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” as follows:
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
That’s right, serfs: anything your benevolent “leaders” in Washington allow you to keep is a “blessing” that has been “showered” upon you. All money rightfully belongs to the State. It’s about time you spotted owls got with the program.
Funny thing is, it turns out Buffett was being… shall we say… disingenuous when he claimed his “leaders” never got around to asking for his “shared sacrifice.” His company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying its federal tax bill for nearly a decade.
How much of the State’s rightful money has this hypocrite been clutching in a white-knuckled death grip? Oh, only about a billion dollars or so. Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government tallies up the bill:
Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway’s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty. Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.
According to page 56 of the company report, “At December 31, 2010… net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million”, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, “Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company’s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities. They have to be recorded in the company’s financial statements.”
He added, “The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”
On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back. All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance.
Warren Buffet is no different from the other liars and frauds orbiting Barack Obama. His hypocrisy just runs billions of dollars deeper. When it comes to “shared sacrifice,” you do the sacrificing, and they do the sharing.
Obama's not Fighting for his Jobs Bill...he's Fighting to TRY to get a Campaign Strategy with NO RECORD!!!!
Despite Senate Defeat, Obama Says He'll Keep Fighting for Jobs Bill
Published October 12, 2011 Associated Press
A day after Senate Republicans blocked action on his much-touted jobs bill, President Obama said he isn't taking no for an answer.
Obama said Wednesday that he will keep rallying public support and pushing Congress to vote on the $447 billion jobs plan that he says independent economists have said would help grow the economy and create nearly 2 million jobs next year.
Senate Republicans defeated the jobs bill on Tuesday. But Obama said the story won't end there.
My note here:....AP says "Republicans" defeated the jobs bill WHEN IN FACT it was defeated in a bipartisan vote...It was NOT just the Republicans that defeated this bill...had the bill passed with just one Republican vote you know Obama would be shouting that his bill was passed by a bipartisan vote.... The hypocrisy here is just amazing....the STATE-RUN media is just disgusting....
"Now a lot of folks in Washington and the media will look at last night's vote and say, `Well, that's it. Let's move on to the next fight.' But I've got news for them: Not this time. Not with so many Americans out of work," he said. "Not with so many folks in your communities hurting. We will not take no for an answer." It was his first public comments on the bill's defeat.
"We will keep organizing and we will keep pressuring and we will keep voting until this Congress finally meets its responsibilities and actually does something to put people back to work and improve the economy," said Obama, who spoke at an event organized by the White House recognizing Latino contributions to American history.
Obama turned his speech into a pitch for the jobs bill. Besides citing the independent analysis that it would create nearly 2 million jobs, Obama said 35 million Hispanics would benefit from the combination of tax breaks and direct government spending in his plan.
"But apparently, none of this matters to Republicans in the Senate," Obama said. He said the GOP minority had rejected jobs for teachers, police, construction workers and veterans.
Obama's plan combines Social Security payroll tax cuts for workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270 billion with $175 billion in new federal spending on roads, school repairs and other infrastructure. The package also includes unemployment assistance and aid to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers.
The plan would be paid for with a 5.6 percent surcharge on income exceeding $1 million, expected to raise about $450 billion over a decade.
Obama urged his audience, assembled at the Interior Department, to press lawmakers -- anyway they can -- to act. Obama himself has spent the past five weeks campaigning across the country, including in the districts of some of his top Republican antagonists in Congress, in an attempt to build public support for the bill.
"Remind members of Congress who they work for. Remind them what's at stake here," Obama said. "Too many in this country are hurting for us to stand by and do nothing."
Published October 12, 2011 Associated Press
A day after Senate Republicans blocked action on his much-touted jobs bill, President Obama said he isn't taking no for an answer.
Obama said Wednesday that he will keep rallying public support and pushing Congress to vote on the $447 billion jobs plan that he says independent economists have said would help grow the economy and create nearly 2 million jobs next year.
Senate Republicans defeated the jobs bill on Tuesday. But Obama said the story won't end there.
My note here:....AP says "Republicans" defeated the jobs bill WHEN IN FACT it was defeated in a bipartisan vote...It was NOT just the Republicans that defeated this bill...had the bill passed with just one Republican vote you know Obama would be shouting that his bill was passed by a bipartisan vote.... The hypocrisy here is just amazing....the STATE-RUN media is just disgusting....
"Now a lot of folks in Washington and the media will look at last night's vote and say, `Well, that's it. Let's move on to the next fight.' But I've got news for them: Not this time. Not with so many Americans out of work," he said. "Not with so many folks in your communities hurting. We will not take no for an answer." It was his first public comments on the bill's defeat.
"We will keep organizing and we will keep pressuring and we will keep voting until this Congress finally meets its responsibilities and actually does something to put people back to work and improve the economy," said Obama, who spoke at an event organized by the White House recognizing Latino contributions to American history.
Obama turned his speech into a pitch for the jobs bill. Besides citing the independent analysis that it would create nearly 2 million jobs, Obama said 35 million Hispanics would benefit from the combination of tax breaks and direct government spending in his plan.
"But apparently, none of this matters to Republicans in the Senate," Obama said. He said the GOP minority had rejected jobs for teachers, police, construction workers and veterans.
Obama's plan combines Social Security payroll tax cuts for workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270 billion with $175 billion in new federal spending on roads, school repairs and other infrastructure. The package also includes unemployment assistance and aid to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers.
The plan would be paid for with a 5.6 percent surcharge on income exceeding $1 million, expected to raise about $450 billion over a decade.
Obama urged his audience, assembled at the Interior Department, to press lawmakers -- anyway they can -- to act. Obama himself has spent the past five weeks campaigning across the country, including in the districts of some of his top Republican antagonists in Congress, in an attempt to build public support for the bill.
"Remind members of Congress who they work for. Remind them what's at stake here," Obama said. "Too many in this country are hurting for us to stand by and do nothing."
Obama is Delusional!!!
Obama doesn't get it ...no one gives you success....success is earned....and Oh Barack...Steve Jobs dropped out of college...he succeeded because he worked very, very hard....Government didn't make him successful....Obama is just delusional!
And I am sick and tired of hearing about fairness....Life isn't Fair Barack...What's Fair is Obama being voted OUT OF OFFICE in November 2012!
And I am sick and tired of hearing about fairness....Life isn't Fair Barack...What's Fair is Obama being voted OUT OF OFFICE in November 2012!
Obama - The "Apoligizer for America in Chief"....
In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor.
Apologies Not Accepted
Posted 10/11/2011 06:29 PM ET
Leadership: Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?
The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.
Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.
It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.
One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.
Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.
A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"
The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.
Listen to the Podcast
Subscribe through iTunesWhatever Tokyo's motive, Obama's motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started.
While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our nuclear arsenal, we envision a world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us. We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy.
Obama...Too Weak to Deal With Iran!
And you watch...Obama is still too weak to take real action against Iran...He will not make the situation any better, only worse....Obama has got to go in November of 2012 for the good of the economy...for the good of national security...
From today's Heritage Foundation's Morning Call -
Obama's Failure to Confront the Iranian Threat
Yesterday, America learned that Iran conspired to launch a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C., with a planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador and bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies. U.S. authorities disrupted the plot and have brought charges against the men who planned to carry out the attack, but the audacity of Iran's actions highlights a disturbing truth: The Obama Administration has done far too little to deter state-sponsored terrorism, and it has utterly failed to confront the Iranian threat.
Not one month ago, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City and delivered a speech rife with hatred of the United States, September 11 conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust denials. His diatribe at the U.N. has become an annual ritual, but as we learned yesterday, this year's performance occurred all while Ahmadinejad's government was seeking to attack the United States--a fact that President Barack Obama was made aware of in June of this year.
It is being reported that following the charges against Iran, the Obama Administration is seeking to use the development as leverage to "unite the world" against Iran, with Vice President Biden saying, "That's the surest way to be able to get results." Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that the plot "crosses a line that Iran needs to be held to account for." Iran, however, crossed the line long ago, be it the country's rogue pursuit of nuclear weapons, its calls for the eradication of Israel, its support of terrorism, its meddling in Iraq, or its interference with the movement toward democracy in the Middle East. Even without yesterday's charges, the Obama Administration has had plenty of reason to take the lead on confronting the Iranian threat, but it has utterly failed to do so.
On June 28, 2011, the White House released its "new" National Strategy for Counterterrorism. The 19-page document makes exactly one reference to Iran. The subject of state-sponsored terrorism is virtually ignored. In August, The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force criticized the Administration for failing to address the threat:
The President's strategy pays insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism, which will increasingly be a major force to be reckoned with. Iran is one of the most prominent and aggressive state sponsors of terror and its proteges--both Hamas and Hezbollah--represent potentially grave threats. In addition, transnational criminal cartels in Mexico are increasingly taking on the character of terrorist networks.
Now we see that those criticisms are well-founded, and the threat of Iran launching a terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland very nearly became a deadly reality. The Heritage task force wrote that it's a threat that can't be ignored:
The iron triangle of state-sponsored terrorism--Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah--is potentially as significant a threat to U.S. interests as a reconstituted al-Qaeda. Iran remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Breaking the triangle apart can only be accomplished by bringing freedom to the people under the tyranny of the leadership in Tehran--change that has to come from within the country.
The Obama Administration, to date, has pursued the Obama Doctrine--a foreign policy that calls for the United States to engage with its enemies instead of confronting the threat of state-sponsored terrorism head on. It's an attitude and a posture that has been pervasive in President Obama's rhetoric--abjuring American exceptionalism, passing on the opportunity to speak loudly to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East, failing to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's ruthless regime, offering weak support to Israel and failing to condemn those who threaten the country's very existence, and presenting a face of international accommodation and ambivalence. Obama's strategy invites aggression and leaves the American people less secure as a result.
The Administration must finally change direction. Heritage's James Carafano writes that it should take strong measures to respond to Iran's actions, including conducting a proportional military response against suitable, feasible, and acceptable targets (in many ways the situation is similar to military operations conducted against al Qaeda in Pakistan). It should impose and enforce the strongest sanctions, target public diplomacy to expose the regime's human rights abuses, reduce Iran's meddling in Iraq, and rescind and rewrite its counterterrorism strategy.
The time for flowery speeches and benevolent engagement with America's avowed enemies is over. President Obama must wake up to the fact that Iran and countries like it pose a very real threat to America, its friends, and its allies, and it must take proactive action to protect itself from those who seek to do it harm.
From today's Heritage Foundation's Morning Call -
Obama's Failure to Confront the Iranian Threat
Yesterday, America learned that Iran conspired to launch a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C., with a planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador and bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies. U.S. authorities disrupted the plot and have brought charges against the men who planned to carry out the attack, but the audacity of Iran's actions highlights a disturbing truth: The Obama Administration has done far too little to deter state-sponsored terrorism, and it has utterly failed to confront the Iranian threat.
Not one month ago, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City and delivered a speech rife with hatred of the United States, September 11 conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust denials. His diatribe at the U.N. has become an annual ritual, but as we learned yesterday, this year's performance occurred all while Ahmadinejad's government was seeking to attack the United States--a fact that President Barack Obama was made aware of in June of this year.
It is being reported that following the charges against Iran, the Obama Administration is seeking to use the development as leverage to "unite the world" against Iran, with Vice President Biden saying, "That's the surest way to be able to get results." Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that the plot "crosses a line that Iran needs to be held to account for." Iran, however, crossed the line long ago, be it the country's rogue pursuit of nuclear weapons, its calls for the eradication of Israel, its support of terrorism, its meddling in Iraq, or its interference with the movement toward democracy in the Middle East. Even without yesterday's charges, the Obama Administration has had plenty of reason to take the lead on confronting the Iranian threat, but it has utterly failed to do so.
On June 28, 2011, the White House released its "new" National Strategy for Counterterrorism. The 19-page document makes exactly one reference to Iran. The subject of state-sponsored terrorism is virtually ignored. In August, The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force criticized the Administration for failing to address the threat:
The President's strategy pays insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism, which will increasingly be a major force to be reckoned with. Iran is one of the most prominent and aggressive state sponsors of terror and its proteges--both Hamas and Hezbollah--represent potentially grave threats. In addition, transnational criminal cartels in Mexico are increasingly taking on the character of terrorist networks.
Now we see that those criticisms are well-founded, and the threat of Iran launching a terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland very nearly became a deadly reality. The Heritage task force wrote that it's a threat that can't be ignored:
The iron triangle of state-sponsored terrorism--Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah--is potentially as significant a threat to U.S. interests as a reconstituted al-Qaeda. Iran remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Breaking the triangle apart can only be accomplished by bringing freedom to the people under the tyranny of the leadership in Tehran--change that has to come from within the country.
The Obama Administration, to date, has pursued the Obama Doctrine--a foreign policy that calls for the United States to engage with its enemies instead of confronting the threat of state-sponsored terrorism head on. It's an attitude and a posture that has been pervasive in President Obama's rhetoric--abjuring American exceptionalism, passing on the opportunity to speak loudly to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East, failing to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's ruthless regime, offering weak support to Israel and failing to condemn those who threaten the country's very existence, and presenting a face of international accommodation and ambivalence. Obama's strategy invites aggression and leaves the American people less secure as a result.
The Administration must finally change direction. Heritage's James Carafano writes that it should take strong measures to respond to Iran's actions, including conducting a proportional military response against suitable, feasible, and acceptable targets (in many ways the situation is similar to military operations conducted against al Qaeda in Pakistan). It should impose and enforce the strongest sanctions, target public diplomacy to expose the regime's human rights abuses, reduce Iran's meddling in Iraq, and rescind and rewrite its counterterrorism strategy.
The time for flowery speeches and benevolent engagement with America's avowed enemies is over. President Obama must wake up to the fact that Iran and countries like it pose a very real threat to America, its friends, and its allies, and it must take proactive action to protect itself from those who seek to do it harm.
Democrats Cause Obama's Job Bill to fail in the Democrat Controlled Senate...Obama as always LIES to the American People....
It's amazing that Obama's bill fails in the Democrat Controlled Senate AND he blames the republicans????? How about blaming this own party that he couldn't get to support this lame bill....Again he just lies to the American People...anyone not following this closely might think that the Republicans actually caused this to fail....they certainly helped and should have helped, but it was the Democrats that caused the bill to fail!!!
Obama to push Congress on parts of jobs plan: Geithner
By Andy Sullivan and Laura Macinnis
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:48pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate defeated President Barack Obama's job-creation package on Tuesday in a sign that Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring before the 2012 elections.
The $447 billion package of tax cuts and new spending failed by a vote of 50 to 48, short of the 60 votes it needed to advance in the 100-member Senate. Voting was expected to continue for several hours but would not affect the outcome.
Obama, campaigning in Florida, said the vote was not the end of the fight for the measure. In a statement after the vote, Obama accused Republicans of obstruction and said he would work with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make sure that individual proposals in the bill would get a vote as soon as possible.
"Ultimately, the American people won't take 'no' for an answer. It's time for Congress to meet their responsibility, put their party politics aside and take action on jobs right now."
Obama had barnstormed around the country to pressure his Republican opponents to back his top legislative priority, but he did not pick up a single Republican vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Two Democrats, facing re-election in conservative states, also voted against the measure.
Obama said earlier on Tuesday he would try to pass components of the bill individually.
Though Obama's top legislative priority is now dead in Congress, it is certain to have a long afterlife on the campaign trail.
Obama's 2012 re-election chances depend on his ability to spur the sluggish economic recovery and revive the nearly stagnant job market.
The U.S. unemployment rate has been above 9 percent since May and almost 45 percent of the 14 million jobless Americans have been out of work for six months or more.
Even Wall Street is feeling the pinch, with a report from the New York State Comptroller showing that banker bonuses are likely to drop for the second year in a row.
Among the elements of the bill which might be salvaged are a payroll tax cut which Obama wants to extend to avoid imposing an effective tax increase at a time when wages have not been rising much. Obama's bill would also extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, another area that could yield bipartisan support.
Other elements, such as increased highway spending and aid for cash-strapped states, aren't likely to pick up Republican support.
POLITICAL FOOTBALL
Democrats say that Republicans are more interested in defeating Obama than helping the country recover from the deepest recession since the 1930s.
"Republicans think if the economy improves it might help President Obama. So they root for the economy to fail, and oppose every effort to improve it," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said before the vote.
Republicans, who have lined up behind a job-creation agenda centered around relaxing business regulations, say Obama's jobs bill is essentially a warmed-over version of his 2009 stimulus.
That effort helped to ease the impact of the worst recession since the 1930s, but Republicans point out that it did not keep unemployment below 8 percent as the White House had promised.
"Everyone who votes for this second stimulus will have to answer a simple but important question: why on Earth would you support an approach that we already know won't work?" said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Obama's so-called Jobs Council, under the chairmanship of GE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt, earlier delivered a report in which they proposed steps to foster U.S. innovation and make the country more attractive to foreign investment.
(Additional reporting by Alister Bull, Matt Spetalnick, Tom Ferraro, Caren Bohan and Lucia Mutikani in Washington and Laura MacInnis in Pittsburgh; editing by Bill Schomberg and Sandra Maler)
Obama to push Congress on parts of jobs plan: Geithner
By Andy Sullivan and Laura Macinnis
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:48pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate defeated President Barack Obama's job-creation package on Tuesday in a sign that Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring before the 2012 elections.
The $447 billion package of tax cuts and new spending failed by a vote of 50 to 48, short of the 60 votes it needed to advance in the 100-member Senate. Voting was expected to continue for several hours but would not affect the outcome.
Obama, campaigning in Florida, said the vote was not the end of the fight for the measure. In a statement after the vote, Obama accused Republicans of obstruction and said he would work with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make sure that individual proposals in the bill would get a vote as soon as possible.
"Ultimately, the American people won't take 'no' for an answer. It's time for Congress to meet their responsibility, put their party politics aside and take action on jobs right now."
Obama had barnstormed around the country to pressure his Republican opponents to back his top legislative priority, but he did not pick up a single Republican vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Two Democrats, facing re-election in conservative states, also voted against the measure.
Obama said earlier on Tuesday he would try to pass components of the bill individually.
Though Obama's top legislative priority is now dead in Congress, it is certain to have a long afterlife on the campaign trail.
Obama's 2012 re-election chances depend on his ability to spur the sluggish economic recovery and revive the nearly stagnant job market.
The U.S. unemployment rate has been above 9 percent since May and almost 45 percent of the 14 million jobless Americans have been out of work for six months or more.
Even Wall Street is feeling the pinch, with a report from the New York State Comptroller showing that banker bonuses are likely to drop for the second year in a row.
Among the elements of the bill which might be salvaged are a payroll tax cut which Obama wants to extend to avoid imposing an effective tax increase at a time when wages have not been rising much. Obama's bill would also extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, another area that could yield bipartisan support.
Other elements, such as increased highway spending and aid for cash-strapped states, aren't likely to pick up Republican support.
POLITICAL FOOTBALL
Democrats say that Republicans are more interested in defeating Obama than helping the country recover from the deepest recession since the 1930s.
"Republicans think if the economy improves it might help President Obama. So they root for the economy to fail, and oppose every effort to improve it," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said before the vote.
Republicans, who have lined up behind a job-creation agenda centered around relaxing business regulations, say Obama's jobs bill is essentially a warmed-over version of his 2009 stimulus.
That effort helped to ease the impact of the worst recession since the 1930s, but Republicans point out that it did not keep unemployment below 8 percent as the White House had promised.
"Everyone who votes for this second stimulus will have to answer a simple but important question: why on Earth would you support an approach that we already know won't work?" said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Obama's so-called Jobs Council, under the chairmanship of GE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt, earlier delivered a report in which they proposed steps to foster U.S. innovation and make the country more attractive to foreign investment.
(Additional reporting by Alister Bull, Matt Spetalnick, Tom Ferraro, Caren Bohan and Lucia Mutikani in Washington and Laura MacInnis in Pittsburgh; editing by Bill Schomberg and Sandra Maler)
Pictures are worth 1,000 Words....Obama isn't what he was....America has Realized he's a Failure!
CANDIDATE OBAMA's Crowd in Pittsburgh -
PRESIDENT OBAMA's "crowd" in Pittsburgh yesterday -
THE CAMERA EYE: OBAMA PITTSBURGH, PA 2008 VS. 2011
Wed Oct 12 2011 08:23:29 ET
Enthusiasm Gap?
Photos show crowds for candidate Obama, October 27, 2008 vs. candidate Obama, October 11, 2011
PRESIDENT OBAMA's "crowd" in Pittsburgh yesterday -
THE CAMERA EYE: OBAMA PITTSBURGH, PA 2008 VS. 2011
Wed Oct 12 2011 08:23:29 ET
Enthusiasm Gap?
Photos show crowds for candidate Obama, October 27, 2008 vs. candidate Obama, October 11, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Barack Obama - the "divider in chief"...the "excuse maker in chief"...and Certainly NOT a Good President....
Barack Obama's Days are numbered as President of the Unites States....the November election of 2012 is coming and Obama will NOT be reelected...the American Public sees right through him....
Obama...The Democrats Run from Him
Even the Democrats KNOW that Obama is poison to them....
....Democrats wary of their unpopular president
By Thomas Ferraro | Reuters – 10 hrs ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four years ago, Senator Claire McCaskill was one of Barack Obama's biggest boosters in his presidential campaign. But when he recently visited her state of Missouri, she did not have time to join him.
Many of McCaskill's fellow Democrats in Congress may also decide they are too busy to be with Obama, whose approval rating of about 40 percent as the economy struggles threatens to be a drag on their own reelection chances next year.
"You may see a number of Democrats say 'Sorry, I have a scheduling conflict,'" said a senior Democratic lawmaker.
Democrats face a big decision about whether to stand by their man in the November 2012 elections.
Many, particularly those in difficult campaigns like McCaskill, are tempted to keep their distance.
But others figure they can survive any anti-Obama backlash in their predominantly Democratic states. And they want to help their party's top star and fundraiser defeat whoever the Republicans throw at him.
More importantly, Democrats believe their best shot at retaining the Senate and taking back the House of Representatives is to help Obama rally and win a second term.
"If the president does well, we will do well," said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.
"I don't know what others will do but I say we need to run as a team," said Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, facing a tough reelection race in Ohio. "Let's look ahead."
House Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia said: "The question is how vigorously we embrace him in terms of going the extra mile to get our people to knock on doors."
"I think we will. But the passionate idealism that we were gripped with when he was first elected has dissipated a little bit."
Some Democrats believe Obama has lost so much of his "hope and change" magic that they intend to stay away. That is particularly true if they are from a traditionally Republican or swing state, like West Virginia, hard hit by the weak economy that dogs Obama.
"In West Virginia, politics is not a team sport -- meaning hang on and do the best for yourself," said the state's first-term Democratic senator, Joe Manchin.
WILL DEMOCRATS DUCK OBAMA?
Unpopular presidents traditionally hurt their party in Congress. Voter discontent with Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994 and with Republican President George W. Bush in 2006 were key to their parties losing control of the House and Senate those years.
It's too early to know how many Democrats will duck Obama in 2012. But it could be at least a few dozen, analysts say.
The number may rise or fall in line with how his approval rating, now at 42 percent, and the U.S. jobless rate, at 9.1 percent, move between now and Election Day.
A top Democratic aide, noting polls show most voters like Obama even though they do not approve of his job performance, said: "If his approval rating tops 50 percent and the economy improves, a lot of Democrats will want to be seen with the president."
But congressional Democrats are upset, even angry, with Obama right now.
They complain he has not consulted them, he moved toward the political right after Republicans won the House in the 2010 election and often has not distinguished between them and Republicans in blasting an even more unpopular Congress.
"There's a lot of resentment," one Democratic lawmaker said. "We are the ones who have put our necks on the line for him."
Ethan Siegal of The Washington Exchange, a private firm that tracks Washington for institutional investors, downplays tension between Obama and congressional Democrats.
"A political party is like a family. Some days you get along. Some days you don't. But you're still family," Siegal said. "The challenge for Obama is to gin up Democrats and get them to really want to go out there and campaign for him."
Back on Capitol Hill, Democrat McGovern said: "Every time I look at the Republican alternatives, my enthusiasm for Obama gets stronger and stronger and stronger. God Almighty, the Republicans are awful."
To the relief of Democrats, Obama recently got feistier. He took on Republicans with a populist $447 billion jobs package that he wants to fund largely with tax hikes on the rich.
Liberal Democrats want to see if he keeps fighting.
Dozens of Democrats, primarily House moderates, kept their distance from Obama in the 2010 election dominated by a near double-digit jobless rate. But most lost anyway in a Republican tidal wave aided by the Tea Party movement.
There are now about two dozen moderate Democrats left in the House. Most are expected to stay away from Obama next year. Currently, a half dozen or so of what will be 33 Senate Democratic nominees are likely to campaign without Obama.
McCaskill was an early backer of Obama in 2008. Yet with her state seen as leaning Republican, she stayed in Washington when Obama made a campaign visit to Missouri on October 4.
Republicans ran an ad mocking McCaskill for declining to join the president. The spot showed her endorsing him with the words "Our economy needs Barack Obama as president."
McCaskill said she could not go back to Missouri because of a scheduling conflict and dismissed criticism as unfounded.
"People making a big deal of this is silly," McCaskill said. "They don't know me very well if they think I'm going to run away from the president. I'm not."
One of her Democratic colleagues sounded skeptical.
"If Obama's approval rating was at 70 percent, she would have been there in a heartbeat," the lawmaker said.
(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
..
....Democrats wary of their unpopular president
By Thomas Ferraro | Reuters – 10 hrs ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four years ago, Senator Claire McCaskill was one of Barack Obama's biggest boosters in his presidential campaign. But when he recently visited her state of Missouri, she did not have time to join him.
Many of McCaskill's fellow Democrats in Congress may also decide they are too busy to be with Obama, whose approval rating of about 40 percent as the economy struggles threatens to be a drag on their own reelection chances next year.
"You may see a number of Democrats say 'Sorry, I have a scheduling conflict,'" said a senior Democratic lawmaker.
Democrats face a big decision about whether to stand by their man in the November 2012 elections.
Many, particularly those in difficult campaigns like McCaskill, are tempted to keep their distance.
But others figure they can survive any anti-Obama backlash in their predominantly Democratic states. And they want to help their party's top star and fundraiser defeat whoever the Republicans throw at him.
More importantly, Democrats believe their best shot at retaining the Senate and taking back the House of Representatives is to help Obama rally and win a second term.
"If the president does well, we will do well," said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.
"I don't know what others will do but I say we need to run as a team," said Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, facing a tough reelection race in Ohio. "Let's look ahead."
House Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia said: "The question is how vigorously we embrace him in terms of going the extra mile to get our people to knock on doors."
"I think we will. But the passionate idealism that we were gripped with when he was first elected has dissipated a little bit."
Some Democrats believe Obama has lost so much of his "hope and change" magic that they intend to stay away. That is particularly true if they are from a traditionally Republican or swing state, like West Virginia, hard hit by the weak economy that dogs Obama.
"In West Virginia, politics is not a team sport -- meaning hang on and do the best for yourself," said the state's first-term Democratic senator, Joe Manchin.
WILL DEMOCRATS DUCK OBAMA?
Unpopular presidents traditionally hurt their party in Congress. Voter discontent with Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994 and with Republican President George W. Bush in 2006 were key to their parties losing control of the House and Senate those years.
It's too early to know how many Democrats will duck Obama in 2012. But it could be at least a few dozen, analysts say.
The number may rise or fall in line with how his approval rating, now at 42 percent, and the U.S. jobless rate, at 9.1 percent, move between now and Election Day.
A top Democratic aide, noting polls show most voters like Obama even though they do not approve of his job performance, said: "If his approval rating tops 50 percent and the economy improves, a lot of Democrats will want to be seen with the president."
But congressional Democrats are upset, even angry, with Obama right now.
They complain he has not consulted them, he moved toward the political right after Republicans won the House in the 2010 election and often has not distinguished between them and Republicans in blasting an even more unpopular Congress.
"There's a lot of resentment," one Democratic lawmaker said. "We are the ones who have put our necks on the line for him."
Ethan Siegal of The Washington Exchange, a private firm that tracks Washington for institutional investors, downplays tension between Obama and congressional Democrats.
"A political party is like a family. Some days you get along. Some days you don't. But you're still family," Siegal said. "The challenge for Obama is to gin up Democrats and get them to really want to go out there and campaign for him."
Back on Capitol Hill, Democrat McGovern said: "Every time I look at the Republican alternatives, my enthusiasm for Obama gets stronger and stronger and stronger. God Almighty, the Republicans are awful."
To the relief of Democrats, Obama recently got feistier. He took on Republicans with a populist $447 billion jobs package that he wants to fund largely with tax hikes on the rich.
Liberal Democrats want to see if he keeps fighting.
Dozens of Democrats, primarily House moderates, kept their distance from Obama in the 2010 election dominated by a near double-digit jobless rate. But most lost anyway in a Republican tidal wave aided by the Tea Party movement.
There are now about two dozen moderate Democrats left in the House. Most are expected to stay away from Obama next year. Currently, a half dozen or so of what will be 33 Senate Democratic nominees are likely to campaign without Obama.
McCaskill was an early backer of Obama in 2008. Yet with her state seen as leaning Republican, she stayed in Washington when Obama made a campaign visit to Missouri on October 4.
Republicans ran an ad mocking McCaskill for declining to join the president. The spot showed her endorsing him with the words "Our economy needs Barack Obama as president."
McCaskill said she could not go back to Missouri because of a scheduling conflict and dismissed criticism as unfounded.
"People making a big deal of this is silly," McCaskill said. "They don't know me very well if they think I'm going to run away from the president. I'm not."
One of her Democratic colleagues sounded skeptical.
"If Obama's approval rating was at 70 percent, she would have been there in a heartbeat," the lawmaker said.
(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
..
More Hypocisy From Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democrats....
Schultz Doesn't accept federal lobbyist and political aciton committee contributions.....BUT SHE DOES!!!
Debbie Wasserman Schultz not fully un-PAC-ed
By ANNA PALMER | 10/10/11 11:28 PM EDT
As chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz follows President Barack Obama’s fundraising rules, so she doesn’t accept federal lobbyist and political action committee campaign contributions.
But her old leadership PAC, Democrats Win Seats, isn’t turning K Street away.
The PAC, a major generator of campaign cash for House Democrats, is holding an inside-the-Beltway fundraiser later this month co-hosted by nearly a half-dozen lobbyists — the kind of event the White House rule is meant to curb.
And though Wasserman Schultz stepped down as chairwoman of the PAC earlier this year, some ties remain. Stephen Bittel, a longtime Democratic supporter, who spoke on behalf of Wasserman Schultz’s candidacy to lead the DNC, has taken over as chairman. Her father, Lawrence Wasserman, is still listed as the group’s treasurer on Federal Election Commission reports. And the political action committee continues to use her initials — DWS — to raise money.
Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman, Jonathan Beeton, wrote in an email that the Florida lawmaker has not had “any involvement with the PAC since becoming DNC chair.” Beeton also wrote that DWS PAC is looking for a new treasurer to replace Lawrence Wasserman.
Wasserman Schultz’s arrangement is perfectly legal but reveals a division in Democratic circles: Obama and the DNC might turn down K Street cash, but their fellow Democrats in Congress go right ahead and take it.
And there’s good reason. Reelection committees and leadership PACs are largely funded by corporate and lobbyist contributions.
For example, Wasserman Schultz has received about $3.8 million in donations from political action committees since entering the House in 2005 — just over half of all the money her campaign has taken in. And lobbyists have contributed about $223,000 to her campaigns, according to OpenSecrets.org. Her DWS PAC has received about $870,000 from PACs since 2006, FEC records show.
In May, DWS PAC raised $102,000 from corporate PACs and lobbying groups like the Wine and Spirit Wholesalers of America, Pfizer, National Venture Capital Association and the New Democrat Coalition PAC. Nearly $80,000 of those contributions came on or before May 4, when Wasserman Schultz officially terminated her involvement with the PAC.
Since then, DWS PAC has been largely dormant — raising just $2,000 in August, from Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America.
But rather than shutter the PAC completely, Miami-based developer Bittel, who has long supported Wasserman Schultz, is now acting as chairman of the committee, according to Beeton.
In addition to serving as chairman and founder of real estate firm Terranova Corp. and president of Petroleum Realty Investment Partners, a venture firm investing in gas stations and convenience stores, he has been an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee since 2009.
Bittel did not respond to several requests for comment. However, he has long been a big Democratic donor and a booster organizing fundraising. Bittel has contributed nearly $165,000 to Democratic candidates, lawmakers and party committees, according to FEC records.
He contributed $3,100 to Wasserman Schultz’s reelection committee.
He has also put his political weight behind her. In his role as DNC at-large member and National Jewish Democratic Council vice chairman of development, Bittel delivered one of the nominating speeches on behalf of Wasserman Schultz, saying “I have seen her passion, her commitment, her tireless work. I have gotten her phone calls, her texts and her emails at all hours of the day and night.”
According to Beeton, Bittel is “a supporter of the congresswoman and knew that the PAC would be dissolved when she became chair and offered to take it over.”
The website, which listed Wasserman Schultz as honorary chairwoman and featured a photo of the Florida lawmaker, now opens to a contribution link.
Now, under Bittel’s direction, several Wasserman Schultz allies are stepping up to keep DWS PAC on the fundraising map.
“We love Debbie, and we understand why she had to walk away from this PAC,” Democratic lobbyist John Michael Gonzalez said. “People forget that a lot of us are former Democratic staffers, and we know how important it is that our members and candidates get the resources they need.”
Gonzalez is one of several lobbyists listed as co-hosts of an Oct. 25 fundraiser at Charlie Palmer Steak looking to draw $5,000 from PAC co-hosts and $2,500 from individual co-hosts. Other downtowners on the invitation include Elmendorf Ryan’s Stacey Alexander, former Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck’s Gina Mahoney and Ogilvy Government Relations’ Gordon Taylor.
While Wasserman Schultz is not listed on the invitation, several lawmakers, who previously received contributions from the committee are expected to attend, including Democratic Reps. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Karen Bass of California, Bruce Braley of Iowa, Ted Deutch of Florida and Adam Smith of Washington.
Gonzalez said of the effort: “None of us want to see this PAC, which has been incredibly successful, go by the wayside, especially in a year where we have the Republican majority in the House on the defense.”
Abby Phillip contributed to this report.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz not fully un-PAC-ed
By ANNA PALMER | 10/10/11 11:28 PM EDT
As chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz follows President Barack Obama’s fundraising rules, so she doesn’t accept federal lobbyist and political action committee campaign contributions.
But her old leadership PAC, Democrats Win Seats, isn’t turning K Street away.
The PAC, a major generator of campaign cash for House Democrats, is holding an inside-the-Beltway fundraiser later this month co-hosted by nearly a half-dozen lobbyists — the kind of event the White House rule is meant to curb.
And though Wasserman Schultz stepped down as chairwoman of the PAC earlier this year, some ties remain. Stephen Bittel, a longtime Democratic supporter, who spoke on behalf of Wasserman Schultz’s candidacy to lead the DNC, has taken over as chairman. Her father, Lawrence Wasserman, is still listed as the group’s treasurer on Federal Election Commission reports. And the political action committee continues to use her initials — DWS — to raise money.
Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman, Jonathan Beeton, wrote in an email that the Florida lawmaker has not had “any involvement with the PAC since becoming DNC chair.” Beeton also wrote that DWS PAC is looking for a new treasurer to replace Lawrence Wasserman.
Wasserman Schultz’s arrangement is perfectly legal but reveals a division in Democratic circles: Obama and the DNC might turn down K Street cash, but their fellow Democrats in Congress go right ahead and take it.
And there’s good reason. Reelection committees and leadership PACs are largely funded by corporate and lobbyist contributions.
For example, Wasserman Schultz has received about $3.8 million in donations from political action committees since entering the House in 2005 — just over half of all the money her campaign has taken in. And lobbyists have contributed about $223,000 to her campaigns, according to OpenSecrets.org. Her DWS PAC has received about $870,000 from PACs since 2006, FEC records show.
In May, DWS PAC raised $102,000 from corporate PACs and lobbying groups like the Wine and Spirit Wholesalers of America, Pfizer, National Venture Capital Association and the New Democrat Coalition PAC. Nearly $80,000 of those contributions came on or before May 4, when Wasserman Schultz officially terminated her involvement with the PAC.
Since then, DWS PAC has been largely dormant — raising just $2,000 in August, from Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America.
But rather than shutter the PAC completely, Miami-based developer Bittel, who has long supported Wasserman Schultz, is now acting as chairman of the committee, according to Beeton.
In addition to serving as chairman and founder of real estate firm Terranova Corp. and president of Petroleum Realty Investment Partners, a venture firm investing in gas stations and convenience stores, he has been an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee since 2009.
Bittel did not respond to several requests for comment. However, he has long been a big Democratic donor and a booster organizing fundraising. Bittel has contributed nearly $165,000 to Democratic candidates, lawmakers and party committees, according to FEC records.
He contributed $3,100 to Wasserman Schultz’s reelection committee.
He has also put his political weight behind her. In his role as DNC at-large member and National Jewish Democratic Council vice chairman of development, Bittel delivered one of the nominating speeches on behalf of Wasserman Schultz, saying “I have seen her passion, her commitment, her tireless work. I have gotten her phone calls, her texts and her emails at all hours of the day and night.”
According to Beeton, Bittel is “a supporter of the congresswoman and knew that the PAC would be dissolved when she became chair and offered to take it over.”
The website, which listed Wasserman Schultz as honorary chairwoman and featured a photo of the Florida lawmaker, now opens to a contribution link.
Now, under Bittel’s direction, several Wasserman Schultz allies are stepping up to keep DWS PAC on the fundraising map.
“We love Debbie, and we understand why she had to walk away from this PAC,” Democratic lobbyist John Michael Gonzalez said. “People forget that a lot of us are former Democratic staffers, and we know how important it is that our members and candidates get the resources they need.”
Gonzalez is one of several lobbyists listed as co-hosts of an Oct. 25 fundraiser at Charlie Palmer Steak looking to draw $5,000 from PAC co-hosts and $2,500 from individual co-hosts. Other downtowners on the invitation include Elmendorf Ryan’s Stacey Alexander, former Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck’s Gina Mahoney and Ogilvy Government Relations’ Gordon Taylor.
While Wasserman Schultz is not listed on the invitation, several lawmakers, who previously received contributions from the committee are expected to attend, including Democratic Reps. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Karen Bass of California, Bruce Braley of Iowa, Ted Deutch of Florida and Adam Smith of Washington.
Gonzalez said of the effort: “None of us want to see this PAC, which has been incredibly successful, go by the wayside, especially in a year where we have the Republican majority in the House on the defense.”
Abby Phillip contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)