Friday, July 20, 2012
More Good News for Romney...
Pro-Obama online merchandise sales plummet, compared to ’08 election
Published: 1:23 AM 07/20/2012 By Caroline May
In a dramatic shift from then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 election effort to this election cycle, anti-Obama CafePress merchandise sales are outpacing pro-Obama sales.
During first six months of 2008, 86 percent of Obama-related sales at CafePress were pro-Obama — just 14 percent were anti-Obama.
Over the first six months of 2012, 45 percent of Obama merchandise sales have been pro-Obama, 55 percent have been anti-Obama, according to CafePress totals.
By comparison, presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney‘s merchandise ratio has fared better.
Over the same 2012 time frame, 95 percent of Romney gear purchases have been pro-Romney — just 5 percent have been anti-Romney.
CafePress is an online custom merchandise shop that tracks its election-themed sales via an “Election Meter.” The company believes that such political sales can act as a barometer for electoral success.
“We believe that how people spend money on political merchandise is a leading indicator of how they will ultimately vote,” Marc Cowlin, director of marketing for CafePress, told The Daily Caller. “At CafePress we track the spending on candidate related gear and report our trends through The Meter, which are often in line with polls and voting results.”
The most recent Gallup poll has Obama and Romney in a dead heat, with each receiving 46 percent of the vote.
Follow Caroline on Twitter
Charles Makes Sense Again....
July 19, 2012 8:00 P.M.
Did the State Make You Great?
Obama sees the ever-growing state as the ultimate expression of the collective.
By Charles Krauthammer
“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
— Barack Obama, Roanoke, Va., July 13
And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.
To say all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.
Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.
Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he conceived and built the Mac and the iPad.
Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work, and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.
The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives.
More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.
The argument between Left and Right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation; about geometrically expanding entitlements; about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.
What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges, but Julia’s world, an Obama-campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It’s a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all-giving government of bottomless pockets and “Queen for a Day” magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she’s on her own is at her gravesite.
Julia’s world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She’s married to the provider state.
Or to put it slightly differently, the “Life of Julia” represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.
Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.
Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, and hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Did the State Make You Great?
Obama sees the ever-growing state as the ultimate expression of the collective.
By Charles Krauthammer
“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
— Barack Obama, Roanoke, Va., July 13
And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.
To say all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.
Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.
Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he conceived and built the Mac and the iPad.
Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work, and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.
The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives.
More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.
The argument between Left and Right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation; about geometrically expanding entitlements; about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.
What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges, but Julia’s world, an Obama-campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It’s a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all-giving government of bottomless pockets and “Queen for a Day” magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she’s on her own is at her gravesite.
Julia’s world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She’s married to the provider state.
Or to put it slightly differently, the “Life of Julia” represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.
Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.
Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, and hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
This is a Very Representative Story in America!!!!...Obama's True Beliefs have Finally been Revealed
Who Else, Mr President
John Kass July 18, 2012
When President Barack Obama hauled off and slapped American small-business owners in the mouth the other day, I wanted to dream of my father.
But I didn't have to close my eyes to see my dad. I could do it with my eyes open.
All I had to do was think of the driveway of our home, and my dad's car gone before dawn, that old white Chrysler with a push-button transmission. It always started, but there was a hole in the floor and his feet got wet in the rain. So he patched it with concrete mix and kept on driving it to the little supermarket he ran with my Uncle George.
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at an election campaign rally in Roanoke, Virginia
Ads by Google
He'd return home long after dark, physically and mentally exhausted, take a plate of food, talk with us for a few minutes, then flop in that big chair in front of the TV. Even before his cigarette was out, he'd begin to snore.
The next day he'd wake up and do it again. Day after day, decade after decade. Weekdays and weekends, no vacations, no time to see our games, no money for extras, not even forMcDonald's. My dad and Uncle George, and my mom and my late Aunt Mary, killing themselves in their small supermarket on the South Side of Chicago.
There was no federal bailout money for us. No Republican corporate welfare. No Democratic handouts. No bipartisan lobbyists working the angles. No Tony Rezkos. No offshore accounts. No Obama bucks.
Just two immigrant brothers and their families risking everything, balancing on the economic high wire, building a business in America. They sacrificed, paid their bills, counted pennies to pay rent and purchase health care and food and not much else. And for their troubles they were muscled by the politicos, by the city inspectors and the chiselers and the weasels, all those smiling extortionists who held the government hammer over all of our heads.
I thought about this after I heard what Obama told a campaign crowd the other day, speaking about business owners and why they were successful.
"You didn't get there on your own," Obama said. "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
If you've got a business, you didn't build that? Somebody else made that happen?
Somebody else, Mr. President? Who, exactly? Government?
One of my earliest memories as a boy at the store was that of the government men coming from City Hall. One was tall and beefy. The other was wiry. They wanted steaks.
We didn't eat red steaks at home or yellow bananas. We took home the brown bananas and the brown steaks because we couldn't sell them. But the government men liked the big, red steaks, the fat rib-eyes two to a shrink-wrapped package. You could put 20 or so in a shopping bag.
"Thanks, Greek," they'd say.
That was government.
We didn't go to movies or out to restaurants. Everything went into the business. Uncle George and dad never bought what they could not afford. The store employed people, and the workers fed their families and educated their children and put them through college. They were good people, all of them. We worked together and worked hard, but none worked harder than the bosses.
It's the same story with so many other businesses in America, immigrants and native-born. The entrepreneurs risk everything, their homes, their children's college funds, their hearts, all for a chance at the dream: independence, and a small business of their own.
Most often, they fail and fall to the ground without a government parachute. But some get up and start again.
When I was grown and gone from home, my parents finally managed to save a little money. After all those years of hard work and denying themselves things, they had enough to buy a place in Florida and a fishing boat in retirement. Dad died only a few years later. You wouldn't call them rich. But Obama might.
Obama's changed. Gone is that young knight drawing the sword from the stone, selling Hopium to the adoring media, preaching an end to the broken politics of the past. These days, he wears a new presidential persona: the multimillionaire with the Chicago clout, playing the class warrior, fighting for that second term.
And he offers an American dream much different from my father's. Open your eyes and you can see it too. He stands there at the front of the mob, in his shirt sleeves, swinging that government hammer, exhorting the crowd to use its votes and take what it wants.
Copyright © 2012, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-on-small-business-owners-20120718,0,5614318.premiumvideo
The REAL Big Government, Liberal, Socialist/Marxist Obama Comes Out FINALLY.....
Obama Tells Entrepreneurs "You Didn't Build" Your Business
That sound you hear is silence—as millions of small business owners and entrepreneurs were left speechless this weekend from President Obama's latest insult.
The slap in the face to hard-working Americans conveyed Obama's belief that it takes a village—a heavily subsidized village—to create that venture you're profiting from:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Obama pushed his policy goals of infrastructure (aka stimulus) spending and "government research" as part of a collectivist utopia "doing things together." It's simply stunning that he would tell Americans, "If you've got a business—you didn't build that."
After all, could individuals be resourceful and hard-working enough to create whole new enterprises? Obama said:
Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.
It is this view of successful businesses—essentially, "You owe us"—that drives Obama's continued attacks on the country's job creators in the form of tax hikes and regulations.
It's a tough time to be a business owner and entrepreneur in America. Surveys show small business owners are struggling, and they are not expanding or hiring because of tax and regulatory uncertainty. Federal agencies, from Health and Human Services to the Environmental Protection Agency, are regulating them to death. And just last week, President Obama announced his latest economic plan was to hit job creators with a tax increase.
The President's plan to raise taxes on earnings above $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) would hit 1.2 million small-business employers who pay their taxes through the individual income tax, known as flow-through businesses. These businesses that are creating jobs earn almost all—91 percent—of the income earned by flow-through employer-businesses.
The new tax increase could be equivalent to one employee per small business. According to calculations by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, the average American with $250,000 or more in income can expect an average $24,888 tax increase next year under Obama's proposed policies. That $24,888 figure is often enough for a salary. So the President could be putting about 1.2 million jobs—perhaps even more—at risk with this tax hike.
Hitting private job creators while advocating more stimulus spending and government jobs. That's the President's plan for the economy.
Meanwhile, businesses large and small suffer from the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. This has long made the U.S. an uncompetitive place for new investment and has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations, meaning fewer jobs and lower wages for all Americans.
If the U.S. is to see economic recovery, we must encourage entrepreneurship. Stopping the biggest tax increase in American history, Taxmageddon, would be a good place to start. It's a $494 billion tax hike set to hit on January 1, when a number of tax policies expire and just a few of Obamacare's new taxes kick in. Businesses are already hesitating on hiring decisions because of the impending effects of these taxes.
Democratic leaders are demanding tax hikes, however, and threatening to allow Taxmageddon for the sake of politics—despite warnings that it would send the U.S. back into recession.
Real recovery will take even more than saving job creators from punishing taxes and regulations. It requires leadership that appreciates and values the long hours that America's business builders put in and the personal sacrifices they make for their dreams. It will take leaders who say, "If you've got a business—you built that. And we want more of that in America."
The Truth About Outsourcing.....
Let's Be Honest About Outsourcing
Both candidates in the presidential race have been accusing the other of "outsourcing." It's one of those words that is loaded with negative meaning, implying that the perpetrator is un-American. But does America have an outsourcing problem?
What is popularly referred to as "outsourcing" is the practice of offshoring business functions, including building facilities and employing workers in other countries. Liberals often argue that "sending jobs overseas" is harming America's economy.
They are missing two important truths: The reality of jobs in America, and the ways to bring even more jobs to the home front.
Jobs in America
The U.S. actually leads the world in manufacturing. Yes, you read that correctly. We produce 21 percent of global manufactured products, while China comes after at 15 percent. According ot the National Association of Manufacturers, "manufacturing supports an estimated 17 million jobs in the U.S.—about one in six private sector jobs."
Big manufacturers are building new plants here. BMW is adding 300 new jobs to its South Carolina plant this year, and Airbus recently announced it will employ 1,000 at a new plant in Alabama. (Both South Carolina and Alabama are right-to-work states, meaning that workers aren't forced to join unions.)
Multinational corporations still employ more Americans. U.S.-based multinational corporations employ 22.9 million Americans—more than twice as many people as they employ in China, Mexico, and all other countries combined.
There is no "giant sucking sound" of jobs and money fleeing the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the total value of foreign investment in the United States exceeds the value of U.S. investments in other countries by more than $4 trillion. Foreign-owned multinational corporations employ 5.5 million people in the United States.
"Insourced" businesses are a tremendous boon for the U.S. economy. "Insourced" jobs—jobs brought to America by foreign-based companies—account for nearly 5 percent of private-sector employment. These businesses buy more than $1.8 trillion in goods and services from local suppliers and small businesses in the areas where they locate.
How to Boost American Jobs Even More
With an 8.2 percent unemployment rate, America still needs more jobs. There are many steps policymakers could take that would make locating—or relocating—in the U.S. more attractive to businesses.
A quick look at the Index of Economic Freedom, produced by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, reveals America's competitive disadvantages.
Hong Kong, ranked No. 1 in the Index, has an economy that has been growing at 7 percent. That's astounding. In contrast, U.S. GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012 was a paltry 1.9 percent.
There are several reasons why Hong Kong is No. 1 and America is No. 10. Hong Kong's top corporate tax rate is only 16.5 percent, compared to the U.S. rate of 35 percent. Hong Kong's trade regime is one of the world's most competitive and efficient, with a zero tariff rate. And its regulatory environment is "highly supportive of business efficiency."
Meanwhile, in the U.S., runaway regulations growing by the day make doing business vastly more expensive and difficult. The government is holding back the economy through regulation and its nonstop deficit spending, as Heritage's Bryan Riley explains:
Excessive federal spending and the resulting budget deficit continue to be a problem. Foreign investors spent more than $400 billion on U.S. Treasury securities in 2011. This is another way to say that the government borrowed more than $400 billion from foreign investors. Those dollars could have been invested otherwise in the private sector of the U.S. economy or spent on U.S. exports.
While concern about outsourcing is misplaced, there are many ways the U.S. could attract even more jobs than it already does. Increasing our own economic freedom would spur growth in the economy, bringing greater prosperity and new enterprises to our shores.
More Good News for Romney....
Poll shows Romney edging past Obama nationally
Published July 19, 2012 FoxNews.com
Despite the glut of tough ads against him, Mitt Romney has edged past President Obama in a new national poll that reflects dimming views about the state of the economy.
The New York Times/CBS News poll released Thursday shows Romney with a 45-43 percent lead. That's within the poll's margin of error but marks the first time Romney has held any lead in the survey since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee.
The results suggest economic attitudes might have a lot to do with the changing dynamic. The poll showed 55 percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, while 39 percent approve.
In a separate Quinnipiac University poll out Thursday looking at just the battleground state of Virginia, the two candidates were dead even -- with 44 percent each. That, too, marks an improvement for Romney who trailed Obama in the state by 8 points in a March Quinnipiac poll.
The Virginia poll of 1,673 registered voters was taken July 10-16 and had a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. The Times/CBS poll of 982 registered voters was taken July 11-16.
Both polls were taken amid attacks from Democrats about Romney's refusal to release more than two years' worth of tax returns, but also attacks from Republicans about Obama's gaffe last week in which he told business owners, "you didn't build that
Published July 19, 2012 FoxNews.com
Despite the glut of tough ads against him, Mitt Romney has edged past President Obama in a new national poll that reflects dimming views about the state of the economy.
The New York Times/CBS News poll released Thursday shows Romney with a 45-43 percent lead. That's within the poll's margin of error but marks the first time Romney has held any lead in the survey since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee.
The results suggest economic attitudes might have a lot to do with the changing dynamic. The poll showed 55 percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, while 39 percent approve.
In a separate Quinnipiac University poll out Thursday looking at just the battleground state of Virginia, the two candidates were dead even -- with 44 percent each. That, too, marks an improvement for Romney who trailed Obama in the state by 8 points in a March Quinnipiac poll.
The Virginia poll of 1,673 registered voters was taken July 10-16 and had a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points. The Times/CBS poll of 982 registered voters was taken July 11-16.
Both polls were taken amid attacks from Democrats about Romney's refusal to release more than two years' worth of tax returns, but also attacks from Republicans about Obama's gaffe last week in which he told business owners, "you didn't build that
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


