What’s New Today
Story #1 tells of Obama telling successful people that they weren’t successful on their own and that means they should pay us all back. #2 talks about the panic in the Obama camp. #3 is a CNN expose on the lies Obama is telling us about Romney and Bain. #4 tries to make sense out of the bad polling going on by many pollsters holding Obama up above Romney. How could they be so wrong so many times? #5 looks at the possibilities of a Republican senator from Hawaii. #6 looks at what America would look like without Republicans. It isn’t pretty. #7 wonders why even smart people can be so stupid.
Is this fair? The richest 1% -- so reviled by Obama and his Occupy Wall Street allies -- pay 40% of all federal income taxes and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax.
“Note to president Obama: The vast majority of business owners can claim more credit for building their respective businesses than you can claim credit for killing Osama bin Laden, yet they’re not constantly crowing about it.” Peter Kirsanow
Obama says if he were Romney he'd make same argument on the economy that it is bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRid8tlXeY&feature=player_embedded
The "Kennedy Health Care Bill" was written into the new health care reform initiative ensuring that that congress will be 100% exempt ! So, this great new health care plan that is good for you and me... is not good enough for Obama, his family or congress...?
1. Obama’s Speech in Roanoke VA.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — 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. 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. (Applause.)
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.
Obama is a fool. Mentioning that people are successful because someone helped to create this unbelievable American System even has he tries to tear it down is just plain stupid. And people invested in roads and infrastructure because people want roads and running water and electricity. Business gets to use them and gets to pay a huge share of the cost of maintaining them. Government didn’t create the internet so that companies could make money off the internet. It was created so that U.S. Department of Defense researchers could share information with one another and with other researchers. The more I hear from Barack Obama the more concerned I am about our country.
2.Obama in a panic?
Why has the Obama team been publicly wailing about losing out to Mitt Romney in the money race? Why would the president accuse his opponent of not merely being wrong or unqualified but criminal? After all, the polls are tied, so why so much worry in Obamaland?
Like a mystery novel, the answer is in front of our noses: The candidates are still tied in the polls. Let’s go step by step with the most logical explanation of the Obama campaign’s conduct.
The Obama team knew months ago that the economy would not sufficiently improve before Election Day to justify his reelection. Its polling showed simply blaming President George W. Bush wouldn’t be sufficient. The president and his political hacks concluded that it was too late and too risky to adopt a whole new second-term agenda. (It would risk offending either the base or centrists and reveal his first-term agenda to have been entirely inadequate.) So what to do?
Extend the Republican primary by running ads hitting Romney and encouraging Democrats to vote against Romney in Michigan and elsewhere. Then, before Romney could fully get his bearings, unload a barrage of negative attacks, scare mongering and thinly disguised oppo attacks through the mainstream media, taking advantage of many political reporters’ relative ignorance about the private equity field and their inclination to accept whole-hog President Obama’s version of “facts.”
The extent of that effort is only now becoming clear. The AP reports: “President Barack Obama’s campaign has spent nearly $100 million on television commercials in selected battleground states so far, unleashing a sustained early barrage designed to create lasting, negative impressions of Republican Mitt Romney before he and his allies ramp up for the fall.” Think of it like the Confederacy’s artillery barrage on the third day of Gettysburg before Pickett’s charge — you have to in essence disable the other side before the charge begins or its curtains.
Virtually all of the ads were viciously negative, and judging from the number of Pinocchios they’ve racked up, continually and materially false…
Obama’s team knows they are in deep trouble. Most of the polls that show a tie or Obama slightly ahead over sample Democrats. Today Romney is most likely 5% ahead and with 5% undecided, that number will grow. The Democrats are panicking because they should.
3. The Obama Campaign’s Lies
A CNN investigation finds that Romney left Bain in February 1999. This comes from 4 Bain Partners two of which are Democrats who have contributed to Obama’s campaign.
4. Pew’s Polls
… Starting in 1992, EVERY Pew poll appears to lean to one direction — always towards the Democrat, and by an average of more than 5 percentage points. Worse this is a reflection of the “final” poll which even the Democratic firm, Public Policy Polling, usually gets right.
October 1988 — Bush 50 Dukakis 42; Actual Result Bush +7.6 (Call this one spot on.)
Late October 1992 — Clinton 44 Bush 34; Actual Result :Clinton +5.5 (Skew against Republican candidate +5.5)
November 1996 — Clinton +51 Dole 32; Actual Result Clinton +8.5 (Skew against Republican candidate +10.5)
November 2000 — Gore 45; Bush 41 (Skew against Republican Candidate +3.5)
November 2004 — Kerry 46; Bush 45 (Skew against Republican Candidate +3.4)
November 2008 — Obama 50 McCain 39 (Skew against Republican + 3.8)
After being wrong in the same direction so consistently, wouldn’t you think that Pew might attempt to adjust their sampling techniques to adjust their techniques to avoid under-sampling Republican voters? Keep in mind the polls I have highlighted are the last polls in the race. I find it interesting that not one of their poll statisticians came out and said, ‘Boss, these results look whacked out because the electorate is going to be more than 24 percent Republican, and self-identified Democrats aren’t going to outpace Republicans by 9 percentage points.’ The Democrats couldn’t even reach that margin in 2008 .
. . and you wonder why so many people think Obama is going to win. Didn’t Einstein once say the definition of insanity was “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. So I ask are the people at Pew insane or just biased?...
Always look at the demographics. It the pollster puts them in you will find the over poll Democrats.
5. Could Hawaii elect a Republican Senator?
Hawaii hasn't had a Republican senator since the 1970s. In fact, Hawaii is so liberal that in 2002 it re-elected a deceased representative to Congress, Patsy Mink, rather than vote for the Republican opponent. If you think a pulse is optional to participate in the political process only in Chicago, you are wrong….
…Sure, this is all subtle stuff, but there are conservative positions buried here. And as vague as all her positions are, remember that we are talking about a two-term. Republican governor of Hawaii, who won re-election in 2006 with 63% of the vote. So Lingle might know the right approach to take with Hawaii's voters. The fact that any Republican has won not one election, but two in Hawaii is quite an accomplishment….
6. What would the country look like without Republicans?
"I believe that if we're successful in this election," President Obama told campaign donors in Minnesota last month, "that the fever may break, because there's a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that."
Apparently Obama believes that if he wins this November, Republicans on Capitol Hill will all begin to act like Chief Justice John Roberts by betraying their conservative beliefs and signing on to Obama's unprecedented expansion of the federal welfare state. But what would America look like if the Republican "fever" did break?
We already know. It would look a lot like the state of California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been governor since 1996. Democrats have also enjoyed complete control of the state legislature since 1997. And they have governed exactly the way you'd expect Democrats to govern.
Spending has more than doubled, from $45.4 billion in 1996 to more than $92.5 billion today. Income, sales and car taxes have all been hiked. As a result, California has the most progressive income tax system in the nation, with seven income tax brackets, and the second-highest top marginal rate.
Even with all those tax hikes, California's 2012 budget is still $15.7 billion in the red. So what does Gov. Jerry Brown want to do? Raise taxes again, of course. He has proposed a ballot initiative that would: 1) raise sales taxes on everyone and 2) raise incomes taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year (like Obama has proposed to do nationally). But even this $8.5 billion tax hike would still leave the state $7.5 billion short. Where will California get that money? Who knows?
And that is not the only spending binge California Democrats haven't paid for. Just this month, the state legislature approved a $2.6 billion bond sale in order to fund construction on a scaled-back $68.4 billion high-speed rail project that will supposedly connect San Francisco and Los Angeles.
If California begins construction on the train before this December 31 (a big if), Obama has agreed to give the state $3.5 billion in federal money to help. But that still leaves a $62.3 billion hole. Where does California plan to get that money? Who knows?
With all of this unfunded government spending, Keynesian-Democratic thinking would predict that California's economy should be booming.
At 10.8 percent, California has the third-highest unemployment rate in the country. There are fewer private-sector jobs in the state today, 11.9 million, then there were in 2000, 12.2 million…
California is the worst case, but all you have to do is to look at the three states that went for Obama by over 7 million votes: California, New York, and Illinois. None of them is doing well. In fact if you look at the states with higher unemployment than the national average (there are 16 of them) Democrats outnumber the Republicans by 10% in voter registration. In fact 44% of the states with Democrats outnumbering the Republicans have greater than average unemployment (including the 3 states I mentioned) while 18 percent of states with Republican majorities in voter registration have unemployment above the national average. Liberal solutions don’t work.
7. Even Smart People can be Stupid
George Orwell is often credited with writing, "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." As it happens, Orwell didn't pen those words. That much-used aphorism merely paraphrases a pithy but somewhat less glib observation he made in a 1945 essay titled, "Notes on Nationalism." Still, it nicely captures a proclivity peculiar to the luminaries of academia, the "news" media and progressive think tanks: a willingness to believe things that no ordinary person would be foolish enough to credit. A textbook case of this phenomenon can be found in a recent column published in the New Republic by Jonathan Gruber.
Gruber is a Professor of Economics at MIT and has been dubbed, by Avik Roy and others, "the intellectual father of Obamacare." Thus, it will come as no shock that he spends a good deal of his time defending the health care "reform" law. What does surprise is that Gruber, who is a first class economist and a genuine intellectual, continues to write astonishingly stupid things about the dangerous and destructive creature he sired. In his TNR piece, for example, he advises us, "[W]e know that the ACA will increase jobs in the medical sector in the short run, above and beyond any partial offsets from new excise taxes on that sector."
Assuming that Gruber isn't employing the majestic plural in that sentence, it begs the question: Who's "we"? He can't be including anyone actually working in health care. Those of us who labor in those vineyards know that his brainchild is actually killing medical sector jobs by the thousands. All across the nation, hospitals are slashing payrolls in preparation for the $155 billion in payment cuts to which industry lobbyists agreed in a 2009 Faustian bargain on Obamacare. The largest expense in any hospital's budget is labor, so they are reluctantly resorting to reductions in force (RIF) to balance the books.
In February, for example, officials at Jackson Memorial in Miami said the hospital would RIF more than 1,000 workers. Such layoffs have a profoundly negative effect on local economies, where hospitals often rank among the largest employers. Nonetheless, the list of casualties grows. RIFs have recently been announced at Pennsylvania's Crozer-Keystone Health System, New York's Sheehan Health Network, Tennessee's Erlanger Health System, Oregon's Silverton Health, Maryland's Adventist HealthCare, Arizona's Yuma Regional Medical Center, California's Queen of the Valley Medical Center, ad infinitum….
My observation has been that to the left the word facts means something entirely different than it does to you and me. To them it means what they wish or hope was the case rather than what actually is.