Our # 1 talks about Michelle Obama and her role in the coming election. She appears to be just a clueless as her husband is and represent an easy target with her high spending ways. #2 sets the record straight about Occupy Oakland. It was called a police riot by the people on Joe Scarborough’s show on MSNBC. It appears the protesters were are fault according to some left wing sources. #3 looks at what happens when you include the entire world to the size of the one percenters who live in America. Article #4 talks about the education bubble. #5 goes over the looks at the MSM and finds the Washington Post may be the most biased rag in America.
1. Michelle Obama’s role in the coming election
….Now she’s back on the campaign trail, and for some reason is returning to the same hardball politics. The other day, she thundered, “WILL WE BE A COUNTRY THAT TELLS FOLKS WHO’VE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT BUT ARE STRUGGLING TO GET BY, ‘TOUGH LUCK, YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN’? Is that who we are?”
GIVEN THAT THE FEDERAL BUDGET HAS INCREASED BY $2 TRILLION IN JUST A DECADE, ENTITLEMENTS ARE AT RECORD LEVELS, AND THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOW RUNNING $1.5 TRILLION ANNUAL DEFICITS, IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT ANY GOVERNMENT HAS TOLD ANYONE “TOUGH LUCK.” And it is even harder to suggest that nine months of a Republican-controlled House — voted in as part of the largest midterm correction since 1938 — has had much effect on the Obama employment agenda of nearly three years, the majority of which time Obama controlled both houses of Congress and borrowed nearly $5 trillion in sending unemployment over 9 percent.
And when Ms. Obama charges, “Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Who are we?” one wonders, why, then, in the past three years of hard times, did she insist on vacationing, in iconic fashion, at Vail, Martha’s Vineyard, and Costa del Sol, the tony haunts of “the few at the top”? In these rough times, surely a smaller staff, less travel, and budgetary economies would have enhanced her populist message of some at the top enjoying perks at the expense of others.
In short, even if she does not revert to 2008 style and restart her lamentations about life in her country being unfair, I THINK IT A MISTAKE FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO PUT THE FIRST LADY OUT, IN HIGHLY PARTISAN FASHION, ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL TO ATTACK HER HUSBAND’S POLITICAL RIVALS. And, I think, the public unease with it will soon prove the point.
Obama is trying anything and everything he can to separate himself from his record. Running as an outsider who is trying to put people first and will protect the poor just isn’t very credible with Michelle Obama’s spending and his raising money with fat cats in Hollywood, New York and anywhere else he can find money.
2. Occupy Oakland: The Protesters started it
As reported on Thursday by Newsbusters' Mark Finkelstein, Joe Scarborough and some members of his MSNBC Morning Joe crew shot their mouths off about what MIKE BARNICLE DESCRIBED AS A "POLICE RIOT" AT THE OCCUPY OAKLAND PROTESTS BEFORE WAITING FOR ALL THE FACTS. And now it appears that the Morning Joe folks have shot themselves in the foot as well since REPORTS FROM THE SCENE SHOW THAT IT WAS THE POLICE WHO WERE CLEARLY PROVOKED BY THE OCCUPY OAKLAND DEMONSTRATORS.
So were these reports from the usual "rightwing" suspects? Nope. The REPORTS CONFIRMING THE PROVOCATIONS FROM THE DEMONSTRATORS CAME FROM THE LEFTWING MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE AND WERE SUPPORTED BY THE VERY LIBERAL SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. Here is the initial report from the scene by James West of Mother Jones:
I’ve left the rest for you to read. It isn’t pretty. It appears the left has a difficult time with the peaceful part of any protest.
3. Who are the one percenters?
…The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have aimed their message at the income disparity between the 1% richest Americans and the rest of the country. BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU EXPAND THAT AND LOOK AT THE 1% RICHEST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD? Some really interesting numbers emerge. If there were a global Occupy Wall Street protest, people as well off as Linda Frakes might actually be the target.
In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, AMONG THE RICHEST NATIONS ON EARTH. HOW MUCH DO YOU NEED TO EARN TO BE AMONG THE TOP 1% OF THE WORLD?
That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOP 0.1% REQUIRES AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $70,000….
This is a new and interesting way to look at what is going on. It appears most of the protesters across America are really in the top 1% worldwide. Does this mean we should raise their taxes and possible have the third world “Eat” them?
4. The Education Bubble
It’s officially a crisis. STUDENT LOAN DEBT HAS HIT THE $1 TRILLION MARK, exceeding Americans’ total credit card indebtedness. Unemployed graduates with huge loan balances are camping out in “Occupy” camps -- the Hoovervilles of our age -- around the nation. And President Obama, perhaps afraid those camps will be dubbed “Obamavilles,” as indeed they have already been by some, has unveiled a new proposal that promises to help graduates who are drowning in debt.
Unfortunately, “promises” is the correct word. THOUGH UNVEILED WITH MUCH FANFARE, THE OBAMA PROPOSAL DOESN’T REALLY DO MUCH. First, as the Chronicle of Higher Education pointed out in an article characterizing it as mostly political, “The benefit is available only to current students. Those jobless college graduates who are protesting on Wall Street and at similar events elsewhere won’t qualify.”
Second, even for those who do qualify, THE BENEFIT DOESN’T AMOUNT TO MUCH. Daniel Indiviglio of The Atlantic Monthly calculated that the president’s plan will save the average grad less than $10 a month. (Even those with $100K in debt will save only $28.50 a month). You can make that sound like more -- and the White House tried -- by touting total savings over the life of the loan, but this isn’t going to rescue anyone who’s financially underwater. It’s a beer and a slice a month, more or less.
At best, it’s a band-aid solution. The real problem is that we’ve been running a higher education bubble, one that -- like the real-estate bubble -- has been pumped up by cheap government money. SINCE 1999, STUDENT LOAN DEBT HAS INCREASED BY 511%, WHILE DISPOSABLE INCOME HAS INCREASED BY ONLY 73%....
The left first creates or facilitates the problem and then they want to come in on their white horse to solve the problem. The irony is that they are much better at creating problems than solving them and their solutions normally cost a lot of money and don’t work.
5. Washington Post Holds To the Party (Democratic) Line
BARACK OBAMA HAS MADE A BIG WHOOP-DE-DOO ABOUT NOT TAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS. But he’s raised lots and lots of money from those with lobbyist connections, as the Examiner’s Tim Carney reported in a piece logged in at the web yesterday, October 27, at 5:06pm. CARNEY’S LEAD: “PRESIDENT OBAMA DOESN'T TAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS -- UNLESS YOU COUNT THE OWNERS AND CEOS OF LOBBYING FIRMS, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENTS FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, OR MANAGING DIRECTORS FOR PUBLIC POLICY.” And his article goes on to provide chapter and verse.
ERIC LICHTBLAU WROTE A SIMILAR STORY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, His lead: "Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.” The web version of Lichtblau’s story is dated October 27, but it seems it appeared in the October 28 print edition of the Times.
IN CONTRAST, THE OCTOBER 28 EDITION OF THE WASHINGTON POST MISSED THIS STORY ALTOGETHER. It has a page A3 story headlined in the print edition “Romney leads the Republican pack in donations from lobbyists” and in the web version “Lobbyists play key role in 2012 fundraising” by reporters Dan Eggen and T. W. Farnam. The lead: “K Street is playing an increasingly central role in the 2012 presidential race, as hundreds of lobbyists representing some of the world’s largest corporations and trade groups POUR MONEY INTO REPUBLICAN COFFERS.”
The real tragedy is that many leftists actual believe that it is only the Republicans who are getting money from lobbyists.