Frodo Baggins, John Roberts, The Rolling Stones, John Marshall, Marbury, And The Return of ‘Tax And Spend Liberal’, Part II

Many on the right continue to be furious at Chief Justice John Roberts. They propose many theories for why the Chief Justice “betrayed” them. We think the Chief Justice gave Republicans/conservatives several long term constitutional gifts as well as very important and immediate political riches. But the attacks on the Chief Justice persist. We think there are some very plausible explanations for why the Chief Justice did what he did and the word “brilliant” is part of the answer.

* * * * * *

Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed By Barack Obama On HellCare Because He’s Gay? When John Roberts was nominated we remember behind the scenes attempts to destroy Roberts and the subsequent public attempts to block his nomination by sniffing his briefs and perfuming Roberts with lavender scents:

“Ever since President Bush announced his selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., as his Supreme Court nominee, speculation over whether Judge Roberts might be gay has run rampant throughout the blogosphere. See, e.g., Althouse, Law Dork, and Wonkette. UTR readers have also flooded A3G’s inbox with emails citing the following “evidence” that Judge Roberts is gay:

1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice — in other words, prime marriage material — Judge Roberts didn’t get married until the relatively late age of 41.

2. With all due respect to the perfectly attractive Mrs. Jane Sullivan Roberts, some UTR readers — not A3G — have commented that the #5 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary could have “married someone hotter.” According to a UTR correspondent who used to work at Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts’s former law firm, “many of the older [Hogan] attys are married to good-looking 20-somethings after having dumped their first wives.”

3. Judge and Mrs. Roberts have adopted rather than biological children. (The “theory” behind this fact, it seems, is that we therefore have no “proof” of the consummation of the Roberts’ marriage.)

4. Judge Roberts has associated with gay people in the past:

(a) As everyone knows by now, he did pro bono work on behalf of gay rights activists, helping out colleagues in their preparation of court filings and oral argument in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

(b) While Judge Roberts was at Harvard, his pre-law advisor was William LaPiana, a law professor at New York Law School and an openly gay man.

(c) One UTR reader commented that “Roberts has had at least one gay (male) clerk while sitting on the D.C. Cir. I suspect at least one other clerk as well.”

[snip]

5. Finally, in terms of evidence of gayness, let’s not leave out the notorious plaid pants.

So there’s certainly some grist for the “Judge Roberts is gay” rumor mill in the nominee’s past (even if much of it is of dubious value). And now, tomorrow’s edition of New York Times will throw more fuel on the fire, in the form of this rather interesting article about Judge Roberts’s time at Harvard and what it was like to be a campus conservative there during the 1970’s.

There are two noteworthy aspects of this article from the “John Roberts Is Gay” point of view. First, check out the provocative third paragraph — surprisingly high placement, essentially part of the lede — of Janny Scott’s piece:

“Conservatives were like the queers on campus,” said Eric Rofes, a classmate of Judge Roberts who later became an organizer on gay issues. “People made fun of them. They mocked them and saw them as jokers or losers. I don’t think in the moment many people realized this was the start of an ascending movement. People felt it was like the last cry of the 1950’s.”

Second, directly to the left of the foregoing paragraph in the online version of the article is a photograph (courtesy Don Scherer) showing Judge Roberts hanging out on Martha’s Vineyard with two handsome male friends, Don Scherer and Richard Lazarus. Call Article Three Groupie crazy — you wouldn’t be the first — but the picture strikes her as pretty “gay-looking.”

[snip]

John Roberts is gay! Look at those smiling buff friends snuggled next to the next Supreme Court Justice on Martha’s Vinyard displaying the groumet meal they just made, and THEY will tell you. Now let’s hope Roberts is actually confirmed before he’s outed like a certain New Jersey Governor! Some legacy for Christian hero W. — seating the first GAY Supreme Court Justice!* This is SO GREAT!

The hope for change at the Supreme Court from some “leaders” of the left always had the barely submerged notion that Roberts could be forced out if the truth ever came out. Is anyone surprised that in big time politics such slime and smear is contemplated by those that publicly purport to be “gay friendly” liberals?

Professor Althouse, at the time made the case that the New York Times sought to portray John Roberts as a gay man. The Times will editorialize about gay rights but if necessary even the very gay staff at the Times will gay-bait.

Is there any doubt that Barack Obama would gay-bait to save himself? Anyone with doubts about narcissist Obama trashing those who stand in his way were also likely surprised by the latest Tom Cruise divorce. In the past Barack Obama has gay-bashed in order to save his political skin. In order to save himself now Barack Obama would trash the Chief Justice on being gay whether or not it is true.

We certainly hope that no one is so naive as to think that if the Obama health scam had been struck down by the Supreme Court that Obama’s henchmen would restrict themselves to arcane and barely understood Constitutional arguments about the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Tax Power. Obama’s political history is one we have discussed many times before and it is ugly. The go to sources for Barack Obama’s campaigns are always the trash dumpster of sex, scandal, innuendo, and planted stories.

The trash dumpster, including adoption records, was about to be dumped on Chief Justice Roberts head. Whatever had to be done would be done.

Obama was in a lose/lose situation. The priority for Obama, as usual, was himself. Obama did not want to suffer a personal loss even if he took whatever is left of the Dimocratic Party with him on his “victory”.

Obama did understand that a “victory” in the high court would provide more propulsive power to the opposition. But Obama also knew that despite all the brave talk from his campaign a ruling of “unconstitutional” would have finished off his presidency and ruined him personally as a loser.

This does not mean that Obama would have gone quietly into the darkness if the Supreme Court red-stamped “unconstitutional” on the health scam. The Barack Obama henchmen would have gone nuclear against the Supreme Court.

Why would Obama go nuclear even if he lost everything in a ruling throwing out ObamaCare? Perhaps firebombing Roberts and the court might might might salvage his miniscule reelection chances. Perhaps by nuking the court and Roberts vengeance would be served. The left would join Obama in the destruction of Roberts and the court at least in fear of what Roberts has planned for the next term of the court.

As head of the Judicial Branch of the tripartite government John Roberts had his own calculations to make.

John Roberts could simply have led the court in a 5-4 majority striking down the Obamination root, trunk, and branches. The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause would both be eviscerated and the tax power ruled not germane. After such a wonderful ruling Roberts would then have to hunker down and prepare for attacks on himself personally and the Supreme Court institutionally.

A 5-4 ruling against ObamaCare could be followed by more 5-4 rulings to complete the Roberts agenda (described in Part I). But that would come at a great price politically. And what would happen if Obama won reelection by a sustained attack on the court in a fear and smear campaign?

Now, some label Roberts a “coward” for not going forward with a succession of mighty blows against the empire of liberal jurisprudence and legislation. Some charge Roberts is dishonest with an even more intellectually dishonest opinion written to twist history and find a way to declare the Obamination constitutional. Roberts is damned for not storming the barricades and leading the charge. Roberts is [falsely] hated for augmenting the Tax Power. And how dare he look at politics when his role is supposed to only be on the law and the law only, charge his critics.

Rubbish. Let’s look at what happened. Roberts found a better way. How do we know? Recent leaks from the Supreme Court, hostile to Roberts, actually impress us with Roberts’ ability to make some really good lemonade for conservatives.

Republicans/conservatives have been particularly incensed that Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the conservatives then at the last minute “switched” sides. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s called “bargaining”. It’s what Supreme Court justices do. Roberts wanted to destroy ObamaCare but he also wanted to preserve the integrity of the court in the public’s eyes. But how to get liberals and conservatives of the court on the same page? How to get sharply divided liberals and conservatives to vote 6-3 or 7-2 on the outcome? Roberts came up with a daring, dare we say “brilliant” plan:

“Five justices saw the Medicaid expansion as either constitutional as written (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) or salvageable by making it voluntary on the part of the states (Kagan, Roberts and Breyer).

Lawyers who track the court closely say it’s unclear exactly what the outcome would have been if Kagan had voted with Ginsburg and Sotomayor. It’s possible those three might have been able to drive the result, rendering the Medicaid part of the law entirely constitutional. However, if Roberts (or Breyer) was unwilling to endorse such a result, he could have crossed over and voted with the dissenters to make a five-vote majority to strike down the expansion entirely and maybe even the whole law. [snip]

Fourth, and related to the above, Kagan’s vote may have been a strategic concession to save the whole law and/or the Medicaid expansion, rather than see it all struck down. Very possible, though I doubt she’d admit it at the moment.

Some liberals and conservatives believe Kagan signed onto the Roberts-Breyer Medicaid position to avoid a defection by Roberts (or, less likely, Breyer) that could have struck down the Medicaid expansion entirely. [snip]

That was kind of a compromise that saved ‘Obamacare,‘” Fitton said of Kagan’s vote on Medicaid. “One easily could have found that you could not craft a legislative remedy from the bench. …They could have thrown out all of Obamacare.”

“That would be quite a horse trade if Kagan and Roberts did that secretly,” said Outterson, when asked what he thought of the theory.”

May we remind everyone that Kagan was Obama’s Solicitor General. Roberts managed to get Kagan to vote against Obama on the Medicaid expansion in order to “save” ObamaCare”. Roberts managed to get a 7-2 vote:

“Kagan voted for portions of Chief Justice John Roberts’s controlling opinion declaring unconstitutional a major provision in President Barack Obama’s health care law, namely the Medicaid expansion.

While Roberts has been denounced by conservatives as an ideological heretic and turncoat for siding with liberals to uphold the individual mandate in the law, Kagan’s conclusion that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive toward the states has triggered no similar wave of condemnation of her by liberals.

The absence of public outrage toward Kagan is particularly notable since she wasn’t parting company just with her liberal ideological counterparts, but with the president who appointed her to the court and with the administration she served as Solicitor General immediately prior to taking the bench.

Who knew that the Solicitor General thought the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional?” said Kevin Outterson, a law professor at Boston University who filed an amicus brief urging the court to preserve the Medicaid provisions as written.

Asked how likely he thought it was prior to Thursday’s ruling that Kagan would wind up taking such a stance, Outterson said: “Never in my wildest nightmares.”

Chief Justice John Roberts managed to acquire a 7-2 majority opinion against Medicaid expansion and the vote of an Obama appointee/ former Obama Solicitor General and there are calls from Republicans/conservatives to impeach him???

Let’s tote the score so far. On the Commerce Clause Roberts gets his way whether ObamaCare is constitutional or unconstitutional. Ditto on the Necessary and Proper Clause (which was the ultimate “trump” card as far as leftist legal commentators). Medicaid expansion crippled although an unconstitutional ruling would have removed it altogether and immediately. But do not doubt that Medicaid expansion is a central component of ObamaCare and without it the entire scheme falls.

Meanwhile, as John Roberts well knows, the battle over the Obama monstrosity is not yet over in the courts or the high court:

“More legal challenges to ACA on way

The Supreme Court lawsuit isn’t the end of the legal challenges to the health care law — and the next ones just might help Republicans keep pushing their favorite political hot buttons.

The next wave of lawsuits likely wouldn’t put the whole law at stake, as the challenge to the individual mandate could have. But they’re going after pieces of the law that happen to be red meat for many conservative voters — like the law’s contraception mandate and a new Medicare panel that Republicans call a “rationing board.”

And one possible legal challenge, which would try to block the feds from offering subsidies in a federal health insurance exchange, is meant to exploit a loophole in the law. But it could also be a good “messaging hit” — allowing them to attack the subsidies they see as a budget-busting new entitlement. [snip]

“These legal actions could be used as PR initiatives to show the massive overreach of Obamacare,” he said. “In certain places, it could move independents to a varying degree.”

The suits could get additional attention as they move toward the oral argument stages — if they make it that far. And they’ll help the Republicans keep up the broader narrative they hope to push in November: The law has so many problems that it deserves an all-out assault.

“It presents the picture that this law has a lot of problems with it and has to be adapted and changed,” said Republican strategist John Feehery. “This law isn’t getting any more popular.”

The contraception requirement which pits Obama regulators against the Catholic Church (urging civil disobedience) is a 23 state series of lawsuits already in the courts. These cases do not bode well for ObamaCare if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion on the individual mandate is any clue:

“Other provisions of the Constitution also check congressional overreaching,” Ginsburg wrote. “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”

The “Exchange subsidies” are also going to be under attack. “Opponents of the law say that the administration can’t open the federal exchanges to tax subsidies through the regulatory process if it wasn’t in the law in the first place.” It’s a complex case[s] but sure to affect businesses until the entire law is repealed.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is also under legal assault. This is the “rationing” board on Medicare that we have railed against for years. Physician-owned hospitals are in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging ObamaCare. This is the Appeals panel that demanded the attorney general write to them and acknowledge that the courts do indeed rule on the constitutionality of laws after Obama demanded the Court uphold his “duly passed” law. The ban on “physician-owned hospitals participating in Medicare violates the doctors’ equal protection rights” say the plaintiffs. This is another case that is complex but the ramifications on the ObamaCare scheme are deadly.

Chief Justice John Roberts knew the legal fight would continue. But even smarter smarts from Roberts was that by effectively destroying the Medicaid expansion on a 7-2 vote means the states now come into play. A majority of states won’t ObamaCare:

“The Republican governors’ message was clear on a morning Republican National Committee conference call, when Jindal and McDonnell stressed their continued defiance of the Affordable Care Act and said they will resist implementing the state-based health insurance exchanges for which the law calls.

“Here in Louisiana, look, we refused to set up the exchange. We’re not going to start implementing Obamacare,” Jindal said. “We have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we are not implementing the exchanges, we don’t think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana.”

The response from GOP governors was similar elsewhere.”

On the afternoon of the Obama HellCare decision we wrote of the Roberts decision: “This Roberts decision reminds us of the brilliant Marbury decision which cemented judicial review.” Our comment came as Slate published an article which did not mention Marbury, as we did, but which saw the brilliance behind the decision and declared that Republicans/conservatives will one day cheer:

Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.”

Subsequently others noticed the Marbury quality of the decision and the hand of a Chief Justice like John Marshall. Writers from the center right/right that we respect saw what we did and were impressed with Chief Justice John Roberts’ ability to have his cake and eat it too.

The smart Jay Cost saw the Marbury Marshall influence in the John Roberts craft-work:

“The Case for John Roberts

Many conservatives are feeling betrayed by the chief justice’s vote to uphold Obamacare. But there’s a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts’s decision is largely a victory for conservatives. [snip]

It’s worth remembering that there are so many people who will be made worse off by the bill – seniors who lose their Medicare Advantage, employees who get dropped from their employers’ plans, families who will see their premiums increase, businesses that have to endure the employer mandate, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the whole thing – that it is far from difficult to forge a broad political coalition to kill off the bill. [snip]

By explicitly and unequivocally limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause as well as the feds’ ability to coerce the states, he has done major damage to the century-long leftist project to do away with constitutionally limited government.

Not only that, Roberts has forced the advocates of big government to grin and bear it! He gave Obama and the liberals a nominal victory while undercutting their long-term agenda, which reminds me of Marbury v. Madison. Yes, Chief Justice John Marshall sided with President Thomas Jefferson on the narrow specifics of that case, but he also dealt the Jeffersonian view of the Court a fatal blow. And more importantly, Marshall’s political craftiness set the stage for further Federalist victories, despite the political power of the Jeffersonians at the ballot box. Without Marbury v. Madison, there would have been no McCullough v. Maryland, no Fletcher v. Peck, no Gibbons v. Ogden.

Roberts has perhaps accomplished something similar here. This country is hopelessly split along ideological lines, and it seems impossible for either side to gain any lasting advantage over the other. But maybe Roberts has managed to do precisely that. By nominally endorsing an overwhelmingly unpopular bill that is in major trouble anyway, he has created the political space needed to strike directly at the heart of liberal legal theory without inflaming the Democrats [snip].

Well, just maybe Chief Justice John Roberts showed the way yesterday. It’s all about taking opportunities as they present themselves, not over-reaching, and playing the long game. Just as Marshall advanced the Federalist agenda by forcing Jefferson to endorse a decision that was inimical to his long-term interests, maybe Roberts just did the same thing to Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats.

And while he did not eliminate Obamacare for us, isn’t it fair of him to ask why we can’t do that for ourselves, in November? He’s given us a huge constitutional victory, why can’t we respond with an equally large electoral victory in five months? It is unreasonable to expect the Court to solve all our problems, isn’t it?

Jay Cost followed up with a second smart piece on the hated Obamination, “Don’t Bet on Obamacare”:

“If Republicans win in November, Obamacare is finished. Surely, our sophist in chief knows that.

But even if President Obama manages to squeak out a victory in four months, the debate over Obamacare will not be over. In fact, I believe that Obamacare in its current form is doomed, regardless of who emerges victorious on November 6.

I have two reasons for this conclusion.

First, the bill is built on far too many questionable assumptions. If any one of them fails to hold, the entire thing could fall apart. [snip]

Second, the bill is nothing like Social Security and Medicare, which seem to be the political template the Democrats believed they followed. The political genius of these programs was that they were designed to benefit everybody. Indeed, this is why FDR stuck with a social insurance model for Social Security, despite the fact that its design was clunky. He understood, correctly, that it would inoculate the program from future political blowback.”

The equally smart Sean Trende also hears mystic chords of Marbury played by John Roberts:

“The Chief Justice’s Gambit

In 1803, the chief justice of the United States had a problem. His hated cousin, Thomas Jefferson, had won the last presidential election. But the outgoing Federalists opted not to go gentle into that good night. The one branch of government they controlled was the judiciary, and they meant to keep it. They had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which allowed for several new judicial appointments.

President Adams did a remarkable job filling the appointments and getting them hastily confirmed. The so-called “Midnight Judges” by and large received their commissions. But not all of them did. Incoming President Jefferson then instructed his secretary of state not to deliver the remaining ones.

Unsurprisingly, litigation ensued. One of those who was to receive a commission, William Marbury, filed a petition directly in the Supreme Court under a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He requested a writ ordering the secretary of state to deliver his commission.

But Chief Justice John Marshall was a staunch Federalist. The republic was young, the court’s legitimacy fragile, and the ability of the nation to endure the peaceful transfer of power between parties uncertain. It was also unclear how Marshall’s ordering the newly installed Jeffersonian Republican secretary of state to do something would go over.

So the chief justice did something very clever. He found that Marbury was entitled to his commission, bestowing legitimacy on those Midnight Judges who had received theirs. But he didn’t stop there — to Marbury’s detriment. He then ruled that the Constitution only gave the court so-called “original jurisdiction” over a small number of cases. The provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 bestowing the court with original jurisdiction over writs of the type Marbury sought was therefore unconstitutional.

Jefferson had won, nominally. Madison didn’t have to deliver the commission, Marbury didn’t refile in the lower courts, and he never became a justice of the peace. But history remembers the case as a huge, perhaps decisive, blow against those Jeffersonians who viewed the Constitution as nothing more than a glorified Articles of Confederation.

In depriving the court of original jurisdiction, Marshall had installed the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. Jefferson hated the idea of what has become known as judicial review. But having won, he was powerless to act against Marshall. Over the course of his term, Marshall would use that power to increase vastly the powers of the federal government, and to diminish those of the states.”

Many Americans assume that the Supreme Court always ruled on the constitutionality of laws passed by congress. But that is not so. It was not always thus. It was John Marshall who wrote the decision in 1803 that established judicial review. It was John Marshall that placed the Supreme Court in the important position it is today. It was John Marshall in the Marbury decision that made the Supreme Court the court we know today.

Trende is too polite to say it but we will as a public service: Marshall’s decision was a load of crap. In that too, he shares something with the crapola decision written by John Roberts. But that there is a huge degree of intellectual dishonesty and some lack of logic in the final outcome does not diminish the brilliance of neither Marshall nor Roberts. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will always have to swim and live in political waters and it is somewhat churlish to notice when the Chief Justice is all wet.

Trende was surprised by the ruling, as we were, but not shocked:

“But I think if you scratch the surface here, Roberts embarked upon a gambit much like Marshall did 200 years ago. [snip]

But Roberts is only a few years further into his chief justice-ship than Marshall was at the time of the Marbury decision. His tenure is likely to be equally as lengthy, if not more so. I think the forest for him is quite a bit different than the trees that people are focusing on. Consider:

1. The law still has a good chance of not being implemented.
[snip]

If Mitt Romney wins the November election, it is highly likely that Republicans will win the Senate as well. Right now, Romney probably has no worse than a 50-50 chance of being elected. I honestly don’t think in the long run this changes things that much. The next jobs report will have a much greater impact on Obama’s re-election bid over the long haul than this decision.

If Republicans win the Senate and presidency, the law is doomed. They will use reconciliation to repeal it, or to gut it. In fact, since the court essentially allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, there’s a chance that the bill would no longer reduce the deficit if a large state like Texas opted out. This makes the use of reconciliation much easier.”

Well we now know the results of today jobs report: More people went on disability than got jobs in June.




Like us, Trende proposes that this is a substantial victory for Republicans/conservatives:

“Doctrinally, The Federalist Society got everything it wanted.

But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.

Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress’ commerce powers. Right now, liberals are seemingly too busy celebrating their win, and conservatives bemoaning their loss, to realize the significance of this. [snip]

The most important aspect of the ruling, however, comes with respect to the spending clause. Seven justices just agreed to real limits on Congress’ ability to attach strings to legislation. This is significant. Until today, these limits were hypothetical, and it was believed that Congress could, for example, remove all Medicaid funding as a punishment for a state’s refusal to comply with the Medicaid expansion. [snip]

3. The chief justice has built up some political capital.

Barack Obama was forced to go on television and praise the court’s ruling. In so doing, he validated — at least implicitly — one of the most pro-state’s rights decisions in recent times.

Roberts has basically done what John Marshall did…. [snip]

4. This matters in the long run — a lot.

This is not the last battle to be fought on the Roberts Court. It might not even be the most significant. In the next term, for example, the court is being asked to reconsider its affirmative action jurisprudence. There are almost certainly five votes to overturn court rulings from a decade ago upholding some forms of affirmative action.

Following that, the court will face a variety of tough decisions. There are probably five votes to uproot the entire campaign finance system, a decision that would make Citizens United look like small fry. And there are probably five votes to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. [snip]

But Roberts has something of an ace up his sleeve now. Accusations of hyper-partisanship are much harder to make against him, and he has more freedom to move on these issues.” [snip]

In so doing, he actually made significant progress for judicial conservatives while ruling against conservative policy. And he might still see that policy repealed if Republicans win in the fall.”

In a few years, possibly a very few months or weeks Chief Justice John Roberts will be seen to have written a very brilliant decision. No trash dumpster can hurt him now. He can fulfill the items on his agenda for the next several decades. Meanwhile, he has given Republicans/conservatives a mighty arsenal with which to fight the battle.



Part III soon: The Return Of “Tax And Spend Liberal”.

Share

334 thoughts on “Frodo Baggins, John Roberts, The Rolling Stones, John Marshall, Marbury, And The Return of ‘Tax And Spend Liberal’, Part II

  1. Admin, as you may know, there is a tactic in negotiations called The Japanes No. It draws its essence from the customs and usages of Japanese society which discourage a clear rejection of an unsatisfactory proposal. Instead of saying no that proposal, they say yes, but then attach certain conditions to that proposal which lead the side who proposed it initially–conditions like–yes, of course we can accept your honorable proposal PROVIDED you give us your first born child and everything you own in return. How does that relate to what Roberts did?

    Simple. He knew that if he did what everyone expected him to do and side with the conservative faction, Obamacare would be struck down. In that case, Obama would blame the Supreme Court, the Republicans and could energize his troops. Indeed, why else would Obama agree to have this case heard by the Supreme Court before the election, and risk the possibility that it would be voted down, unless he wanted it to be voted down. My supposition is he did, and it would have been part of his campaign.

    In other words, if Roberts struck down the law, it would give Obama the high moral ground, and would remove the albatross around the neck of every democrat–and the spectre of 2010.

    Instead of allowing himself to be trapped, he did what no one, lease of all me, expected–he gave the a Japanese no. By upholding the law, he stripped Obama of a vital campaign argument–campaigns are always about unmet needs, and suddenly this one was met, and moved to a lower rung on Maselow’s hierarchy. And at the same time, he stuck him with a condition which made the act politically toxic, even though it was constitutionally permissable.

    But even there, he provided a justification for upholding the act, which was so twisted in its logic, that it is unlikely to stand in the future. But between now and the election, it is the law of the land. And there is nothing Obama can do about it.

  2. Not sure why those people in the articles posted are knocking Robert’s wife, she looks like a nice looking woman, and from what I’ve read, both are very devoted parents. I always have so much admiration for anyone who choses to adopt and raise on of God’s children as their own.

  3. that being said, I still think Roberts was bullied and a coward for changing his vote the way he did.

    Can’t wait until Sheriffs all across this country try to go arrest people who refuse to buy insurance and refuse to pay the tax for NOT buying it. I imagine many many local authorities will refuse to let their citizens be arrest for this nonsense.

  4. Wbboei, Roberts reminds us of those little old ladies in that comedy/horror that invite homeless men into their house and then serve them tea – laced with arsenic:

  5. I normally do like Joe Walsh, not sure why he even went there, and hope he gets his message back on track..he’s a good rep and hopefully he gets reelected.

    as for Tammy Duckworth, if she is so worried and a proponent of heroism, wonder if she will speak out against OTurd jailing Colonel Terry Lakin who refused deployed (after already serving 2 times ) because he stated he swore to “uphold the Consitution” and so wanted to make sure OTurd was born in this country. Will Ms. Duckworth go with patriotism when it applies to military members and vet who openly question the consitutionalaty of OTurd. Somehow I doubt that.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/06/rep-walsh-faces-campaign-backlash-over-comments-on-double-amputee-rival/

  6. “In that statement, Walsh said: “Of course Tammy Duckworth is a hero. I have called her a hero hundreds of times in the past four months. … However, unlike most veterans I have had the honor to meet since my election to Congress, who rarely if ever talk about their service or the combat they’ve seen, that is darn near all of what Tammy Duckworth talks about. Her service demands our thanks and respect, but not our vote.”

    ok, I guess that clears it up.

  7. Talk about chutzpah…

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-americans-are-penalized-by-so-called-individual-mandate-not-taxed/article/2501503?custom_click=rss

    “President Obama, confronted with the issue of the Supreme Court upholding his health care law by declaring the individual mandate a tax, contradicted the court by saying that the individual mandate “penalize[s]” Americans rather than taxes them.

    “You have to take responsibility, and if you don’t, you’re going to be penalized for it, and that’s the right thing to do,” Obama told WDTN-NBC while defending the individual mandate. He also denied that the court’s ruling means that he has raised taxes through Obamacare. “I have consistently kept my promise not to raise taxes on people [making] under $250,000 a year.””

    He obviously has no idea that the IRS will come arrest you for not paying $2100 per year for not buying what the govt forces you to buy.

  8. Scary numbers.

    http://news.investors.com/article/617233/201207060945/disability-climbs-faster-than-jobs-under-obama.htm
    “More workers joined the federal government’s disability program in June than got new jobs, according to two new government reports, a clear indicator of how bleak the nation’s jobs picture is after three full years of economic recovery.

    The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration.

  9. Best one sentence description of Obamacare, from BAR:

    “It bears no resemblance to world-class healthcare systems, “expanding the healthcare compact only for those who are destitute, while turning everyone else into profit-centers for corporations.”

  10. Fking Liar. I remember he even pledged on paper that he was going to take public funds… until he lied about that too.

    ““I’ve been outspent before,” specifically citing “that last campaign I ran in 2008.” “


  11. SHV
    July 6th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
    Best one sentence description of Obamacare, from BAR:
    ————————–
    Who is BAR?

  12. From BreitBARt. This is why the Romney campaign should refuse to debate on mainstream media or cable. Only on public television. That is the only way big media will ever come to understand that prevarication has its price.
    ——————————————————————–
    Thursday, on CNN’s morning show “Starting Point,” Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt first said President Barack Obama thought the individual mandate was a “penalty” even though the Supreme Court said it was a tax. When asked if Obama disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare, LaBolt then said, “that’s right. He’s said that it’s a penalty.”

    Then, LaBolt lied and said the Obama administration never even argued the individual mandate could be a tax during oral arguments even though Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, argued that, “this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.”

    Mitt Romney’s campaign pounced on LaBolt’s comments in which he said Obama thought Obamacare was unconstitutional.

    “In a curious development, President Obama apparently disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling upholding his health care law,” Romney Campaign Spokesperson Amanda Henneberg immediately said in an e-mail statement. “It’s too bad he doesn’t also see that Obamacare is bad policy and bad law.”

    At a campaign event in Ohio on Thursday, Obama said Obamacare was “here to stay.”

    Anyone who cares about the constitution would, at this point, would wonder if Obama thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional but should be implemented anyway.

    The mainstream media, which would have taken a Republican president to task for the same thing, appeared disinterested.

    Compare how the mainstream media ignored LaBolt’s comments to how they saturated their coverage around Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom’s comments on Monday. Fehrnstrom said that Romney essentially thought the individual mandate was a penalty and not a tax on MSNBC.

    The mainstream media pounced on this statement, flooding the zone with coverage and stories, because Fehrnstrom’s comments partly helped shield President Obama from having to defend Obamacare as a tax, which is the only reason the law was held to be within the bounds of the Constitution.

    So when Obama’s campaign spokesman said something similarly — if not more — damaging to the Obama campaign, the mainstream media, if they were truly honest referees, would have covered it as intensely as they covered Fehrnstrom’s comments.

    Fat chance.

    Politico, which had at least four stories on the day Fehrnstrom made his comments, at least had one story on LaBolt’s comments, but the story was curiously titled, “Health Care Reform: Obama Camp: What’s Mitt Romney’s Plan?”

    Yep, that is the headline the Politico editors got from the interview.

    Other mainstream media organizations acted as if LaBolt never appeared on television.

    The Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog? No coverage.

    The New York Times, which immediately wrote about Fehrnstrom’s comments, and their campaign blog, “The Caucus”? Nothing to see here.

    MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” which gives off the false air of impartiality, did not mention LaBolt’s comments.

    CNN’s programming, including “The Situation Room,” seemed to have forgotten LaBolt made the comments at all even though they were made on their network.

    And the list goes on.

    Once again, the mainstream media devours comments that help Obama and completely ignores comments that hurt him.

    Obama has not spoken publicly about whether he thinks the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty and the mainstream media is in no hurry to ask him a question they know will hurt Obama no matter how he answers it.

  13. No wonder no one is watching CNN or for tht matter, nothing other then FOX. It takes too much energy to track and keep track of the lies. The news is being gotten on the internet NOW, where we get the opportunity to SEE IT ALL, JUDGE FOR OURSELVES. A novel ideal in a Free Country, don’t you think !!!!

  14. Best one sentence description of Obamacare, from BAR:

    “It bears no resemblance to world-class healthcare systems, “expanding the healthcare compact only for those who are destitute, while turning everyone else into profit-centers for corporations.”

    ==================

    And expanding Medicaid for the destitute, just got made optional for the states by the SC. So the only part of Obamacare that pretended to be really helpful, wasn’t. You can’t depend on Obama….

  15. Found this interesting:

    In the Southern District of New York: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against GM For Channel Stuffing. GM may have been unloading excessive inventory on dealers, a practice known as “channel stuffing,” in order to create the false impression that GM was recovering and sales and revenues were rising

    It looks like General Motors will be throwing everything in but the kitchen sink to help fluff its second quarter earnings numbers. Taxpayers continue to help with the cause as President Obama campaigns on the “success” of GM following the manipulated bankruptcy process that cost taxpayers $50 billion and another $45 billion of tax credits gifted to GM to help protect powerful UAW interests. We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.

    The discovery of the pick-up in government fleet purchases at the taxpayers’ expense comes just weeks before GM announces its second quarter earnings. Overall fleet sales (which are typically less profitable than retail sales) at Government Motors rose a full 36% for the month, helping to drive decent sales improvements year over year….

    The upcoming earnings announcement by GM is, politically, the most important to date. The pressure is on Government Motors to appear financially strong as this may be the last earnings report before November elections and sets the stage for how “successful” GM is. One of GM’s past tricks to help fudge earnings numbers has been to stuff truck inventory channels.

  16. This is where Obama will lose unless he gets this up, he is finished without a doubt.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/june_2012/31_give_obama_positive_marks_on_handling_economic_issues

    The economy has been the most important issue to voters for years, but ratings for the president’s performance in that area are at their lowest level since last November. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows just 31% of Likely Voters believe President Obama is doing a good or excellent job handling economic issues, including 12% who say he is doing an excellent job. Forty-eight percent (48%) believe Obama is doing a poor job in this area.

    …………………….

    You cannot win an election with economic ratings like that in the toilet.

  17. http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/07/gop-voter-edge-grows-in-iowa-128158.html

    GOP voter edge grows in Iowa

    Republicans continue to hold an edge in Iowa voter registration, according to the latest figures from the secretary of state’s office.

    From the Des Moines Register report:

    619,452 Iowa voters are now registered Republican, compared to 598,074 Democrats. Both parties, however, are outnumbered by No Party voters, at 655,457.

    Democrats held a lead in registrations for several years beginning in mid-2006, but fell behind Republicans earlier this spring.

    In an e-mailed statement, Iowa Democratic Party spokesman Michael Hunt said additional Republican registrations in June were probably related to the unusually large number of contested GOP races in the June 5 primary election, rather than a new and specific preference for Republican policies over Democratic ones.

    At the end of October 2008, just before Barack Obama won Iowa by 10 points, Democrats had an edge of 106,000 voters. In 2004, when George W. Bush won the state narrowly, the GOP had a 4.400 voter advantage.

    The trendline is positive for Iowa Republicans. Since April, in a key swing state that the most recent NBC News/Marist Poll reported was a presidential dead heat, the registration gap between the parties has grown from 4,000 voters to more than 21,000.

    ………………..

    Interesting Democrats have had a swing of about -150,000 to the GOP, This race obviously falls to indiea and in that Obama is toast in Iowa, it will fall back to the GOP this fall.

  18. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/trouble-brewing-for-obama-camp-in-ohio-128151.html

    Trouble brewing for Obama camp in Ohio? Scandal….whats new.

    The Obama campaign’s state director for Ohio has stepped down as a Democratic Party county chair amid a probe of improper payments to a fundraiser, the Columbus Dispatch reports.

    Obama state director Greg Schultz resigned as Franklin County chair on Thursday. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted and the county board of elections are investigating. From the Dispatch:

    Party officials said members of Obama’s campaign have pressured Schultz to step down because they were concerned about his connection to fundraiser Melissa Barnhart.

    Schultz hired Barnhart to be the party’s fundraiser shortly after he was named party chairman in 2011. At about the same time, he started approving payments to Barnhart for undocumented work, reported in a series of stories by The Dispatch.

    Those payments totaled $20,500. Barnhart said the money was for work done on Columbus City Council races years ago and that three party officials could vouch for her. Those officials did not do so when asked by The Dispatch.

  19. Uh oh looks like someone was rigging Rangel’s election…This gets messier.

    The disputed primary election between Rep. Charlie Rangel and second-place finisher state Sen. Adriano Espaillat is getting even messier.

    According to a New York Daily News report, the deputy chief clerk for Manhattan’s Board of Elections held a meeting in Harlem with key Rangel campaign operatives and local leaders supporting Rangel three days before the June 26 primary.

    But there were clear signs of foul play in this race before the first vote was cast.

    The News has learned that on Saturday morning, June 23, Timothy Gay, the deputy chief clerk for Manhattan’s Board of Elections — and the person currently supervising the count of the votes in the Manhattan part of the 13th Congressional District — held a meeting in Harlem with key Rangel campaign operatives, and with district leaders supporting Rangel.

    Asked about the meeting, Gay said he attended at the request of state Assemblyman Keith Wright, the Manhattan Democratic chairman, to provide “district leaders with lists of their Democratic inspectors assigned to their specific districts” and to “discuss election matters in general.”

    So why did candidate Rangel’s campaign staffers attend, while no Democratic district leaders who supported Espaillat were invited?

    Gay said he was “fairly certain” that only Democratic district leaders were in the room, and he hastened to add that he attended “on my own free time.”

    Traditionally, district leaders are the ones who get to name the poll workers that the board will hire for their districts on Election Day.

    Yet a half-dozen district leaders who supported Espaillat told me this week that the Board of Elections rejected virtually all the people they recommended as poll workers.

    The 13th District contest was already hurtling toward a contentious outcome. But this latest revelation will only heighten suspicion among Rangel’s opponents that the fix was in, further muddying what’s likely to be the last race of the veteran New York congressman’s storied career.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/07/rangel-race-gets-messier-128179.html

    ………………………………

    this looks dodgier and dodgier for Rangel. This is very serious, looks like absolute collusion between Rangels team and the election chief clerk. An absolute disgrace if this has happened.

  20. Obama’s ‘billion dollar campaign’ getting increasingly desperate for cash

    Posted by Jeff Emanuel (Diary)

    Friday, July 6th at 9:30PM EDT
    15 Comments

    In 2008, the Obama campaign raised and spent more money than has ever been spent in a presidential election, coming up with the “parallel public financing” crock* to cover for reneging on an agreement with John McCain to take real public financing once they realized just how much money they could raise, both at home and abroad.

    The 2012 edition of Obama for America was supposed to be a billion dollar machine that would steamroll any Republican opponent without breaking a sweat. Unfortunately for the incumbent, a funny thing happened on the way to that fundraising total: despite holding over 160 fundraisers – more than the previous five presidents combined –, the money just hasn’t been there for the Democrat’s campaign (perhaps because so few people have money for their own expenses these days?).

    The campaign’s desperation is palpable, as can be seen in the latest email (sent Friday, July 6), which invokes every bogeyman the Obama team can think of in an effort to shake some spare change out of their email recipients’ sofa cushions:

    Jeff –

    Romney and the Republicans announced yesterday that they brought in more than $100 million in June.

    For context, that’s about what we raised in April and May combined.

    We’re still tallying our own numbers, but his means their gap is getting wider, and if it continues at this pace, it could cost us the election.

    If everyone who’s been waiting to give pitches in $3 or more today, we can start reversing this trend in just a few hours.

    Please do your part — make a donation of $3 or more right now.

    One hundred million is alarming enough, but it doesn’t even include the millions pouring into pro-Romney super PACs — or the fact that, unlike four years ago, it’s perfectly legal for the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Karl Rove, and anonymous billionaires to funnel unlimited money into attacking President Obama in critical battleground states.

    I’m proud of the way we build this organization. Through the primaries, more than three-quarters of our donations were from people giving less than $1,000. Meanwhile, in that same period, Mitt Romney’s campaign raised three-quarters of its money from people giving $1,000 or more.

    If we don’t take this seriously now, we risk finding ourselves at a point where there is too much ground to make up.

    We need to do something about it. Today.

    Please donate $3 or more:

    https://donate.barackobama.com/Close-the-Gap

    More to come.

    Messina

    Jim Messina
    Campaign Manager
    Obama for America

    Consider this line again: “If we don’t take this seriously now, we risk finding ourselves at a point where there is too much ground to make up.” If that’s not pure, sweet desperation from the “billion dollar campaign” and the architects of the “parallel public financing” system, then I’m not sure what to call it.

    Keep giving, folks. The other side, which has wielded campaign dollars and governmental power like sledgehammers for four years now, is incredibly scared. The Democrats can invoke as many bogeymen as they’d like; the $4 million in small donations from 47,000 individual donors that the Romney campaign received in the 24 hour period immediately following the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision make up just one example of the truth behind the Republican candidate’s funding. That fact scares the Axelrod–Messina–Obama campaign machine as much as anything they’ve seen from the GOP this election season.

    * Lest we forget, this was a campaign that was narcissistic enough to invent the “office of the president-elect” in an effort to sound official during the awkward three months between the 2008 election and Obama’s 2009 swearing-in (during which period Obama was still a junior senator from Illinois, and George Bush still president).

  21. So what happened to the $1 billion he was going to get, Romney looks like he is going to steamroll Obama into the mud.

  22. The other thing i have noticed is, notice how most dem polling outfits seem to have just stopped polling around now, must be money and also they dont want the numbers out in the public eye, seems to be quiet, PPP who shill like hell are doing polls on fav cities and gay marriage……..

  23. “Weekly Address: “As long as I have the privilege of being your President, your voice will be heard in the White House””

    Yea, of course businesses believe you Junior. Even Bush wasn’t stupid enough to use EOs to get rid of policies Congress passed, or used EOs to make policy that Congress rejected.

    Its all a sham, and anyone who invests in this country does so at their own risk while OTurd is the president.

  24. Justice has many venues.

    For example, there is the justice of the courtroom, if the courtroom works the way it is supposed to. Unfortunately, as we saw with Teddy Kennedy the justice of the courtroom never materializes, because the superwealthy have better odds of beating the rap than those of modest means.

    Then again, there is the justice of the back alley. The problem with this kind of justice is it is inclined to hang the wrong man for the wrong reasons. No film has captured this fact more dramatically than The Oxbow incident.

    Finally, there is the justice of the world stage where someone reaches the pinnacle of power, and becomes in some ways the toast of the town, only to come crashing back to earth like a meteor–down, down, down to where they started. This phenomenon is aluded to by the phrase be nice to the people on the way up because you will meet them again on the way down. And then, the phone stops ringing.

    What to do with George Soros, the Godfather of Obama, sworn enemy of the American middle class, and the Architect of American demise. Like the devil he can assume various disguises. You cannot read the books he has written without feeling some admiration for the intellect. Intellect, wedded to an evil mind however, is hardly a virtue. On the contrary it is merely a greater evil.

    Soros has evaded the justice of the courtroom for the financial crimes he has committed in crashing markets, i.e. the British pound in ’92 and the Asian crisis of ’97.

    Soros has evaded the justice of the back alley for the crimes he committed for the Nazis in the closing days of World War II, which caused him to flee Europe after the war. Now he has enough money and bodyguards to evade that fate.

    Soros has evaded the justice of the world stage by spreading enough money around to charities, politicians and newspapers to present a false personana to the country. While doing this, however, he continues to promote America’s demise.

    At some point, he will die through natural causes. But that does not end the problem. The reason is he has offspring, and the devil’s offspring are continuing his evil works.

    How does the world rid itself of this bubonic plague. That is the question the nations of the world need to be thinking about.

  25. Obama: Most People “Would Acknowledge That I’ve Tried Real Hard” . . . .
    ————————————
    To lower my golf handicap, but like everything else I have touched it has turned to shit.

    Seriously however, to whom is he referring? Is there any sentient being who after watching the 100 plus rounds of golf, the lavish vacations, the long cocktail lines, and his preference for campaigning over governing, really believes he has tried “real hard”.

    Perhaps he is tring to convince himself of something that even he knows is not true.

    But even if that were true (which it is not) is that a defense for his abject failure to govern? It is a convincing rationale to re-elect him? Or is a pathetic whimper of a paranoid who has run out of people to blame and is now making a plea for clemency?

    It tell you a lot about his degenerationg state of mind, for him to say I have tried, rather than I have succeeded.

  26. The Messiah is starting to sound more and more Nixonian. Soon they will not have me to kick around . . . I am not a crook . . .Most people would acknowledge I have tried real hard, etc.

    I rather suspect that when he gets his ass kicked in Novemeber we will hear some variation of the Checkers speech. My Portuguese water dog loves me, etc.

  27. Guess Mr. MeMeMe’s fans are also sick of seeing his skinny @ss.
    So much for his wanting to look ‘cool’ again.
    ——

    CNN) – President Barack Obama faces a daily wave of criticism on a number of issues. The latest attack?

    “People have been commenting I need to gain some weight,” Obama quipped Friday at a campaign stop in Poland, Ohio.

    After a woman from the audience cheered, “Yeah!” the president paused.

    “Who said that?” he asked, laughing with surprise. “Yeah?”

    “Well, you’ll be happy to know that I’ve been eating,” he continued. “And in between the eating, we’ve been talking a little about the politics.”

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/06/hitting-the-pavement-obama-puts-on-the-pounds/

  28. tim
    July 7th, 2012 at 9:25 am
    RNC’s latest ad using OTurd’s line “We’re moving in the right direction”


    ———————
    Out of touch, out of time, and out of money. His burn rate has been very high, which is why he is always trying to use taxpayer money. More needs to be made of that unsavory fact. Much more. And that is why he is desperate. When a sociopath becomes desperate, the word takes on a whole new meaning. Act out is right around the corner.

  29. Negative Job Growth Updates
    http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/69015/negative-job-growth/#more-69015

    After almost four years of Obama policies, the number of Americans unemployed or not in the labor force has ballooned to 4,817,000. That is the horrific increase and the statistics do not tell the story of mothers and fathers depressed because they cannot find work and feed their families. These are not mere numbers. Oh, and the ones hardest hit? African Americans and Latinos.

    It is one thing to endure the inane verbal gymnastics and contortions of Obama cheerleaders who insist Obama’s economic policies are working, but it is outrageous that the mainstream media continues to probe the feces looking for flecks of gold. Shit is shit folks, and the latest numbers on unemployment are truly shitty.

    We can all agree that our population continues to grow. We have not lost millions to war or pestilence. Okay? And BLS data bear this out–Civilian non-institutional population grew from last June, where the number stood at 239,489,000, to 243,155,000 in June of 2012, which means 3,666,000 new folks in that group.

    How about the number employed? In June 2011 there were 139,385,00. That number increased to 142,415,000 for June 2012, which sounds dandy until you put it into perspective with what was going on in 2009 (more about that in a bit). The number of people unemployed in June 2012 stands at 12,749,000.

    The really bad news is that the number of people NOT in the labor force continues to grow. There were 86,080,000 in June 2011. Today? It has jumped to 87,992,000. That’s an increase of 1,912,000. Obama apologists like LOLA828 insist that this is just old people retiring. That is complete nonsense. Population continues to grow in the United States. As population grows the number of folks who are eligible to work continues to grow.

    So let’s go back and look at where things stood at the end of the first year of Barack Obama’s Presidency.

    Here is Obama’s baseline.

    2009– 235,801,000 Civilian non-institutional population
    139,877,000 Employed
    14,265,000 Unemployed
    81,659,000 Not in the Labor Force

    How many more people are there in the potential labor force? America has added 7,354,000 souls in the last 3 and one-half years.

    How many more people are employed? Only 2,538,000.

    Now look at the change in the combined number of Unemployed and “Not in the Labor Force.” In 2009 that number was 95,924,000. Today? 100,741,000.

    The number no longer in the labor force is truly shocking. We have seen a surge of SIX MILLION THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND (6,333,000) men and women who are no longer in the labor force. That is the only way Obama can pretend that unemployment is holding steady.

    Here is the critical number for measuring where we stand. I will put this in caps–THERE ARE FOUR MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND (4,817,000) AMERICANS WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED OR NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE AFTER THREE PLUS YEARS OF OBAMA POLICIES.

    Let’s summarize:
    Civilian non-institutional population

    2009– 235,801,000
    2012–243,155,000
    Net increase of 7,354,000

    Employed:

    2009–139,877,000 2012–142,415,000
    Net increase of 2,538,000

    Unemployed

    2009–14,265,000 2012–12,749,000
    Net decrease of 1,516,000

    Not in the Labor Force

    2009–81,659,000
    2012–87,992,000
    Net increase of 6,333,000

    When job growth does not keep pace with population growth, the only way you can hold the unemployment level steady is by shoving folks into the “NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE” category.

    Let Obama run on that. His plan is to push Americans out of the job market. If you are comfortable with that kind of economy then Obama is your boy

  30. wbboei, thanks for writing about all the historical references when posting about OTurd, my nephew is a huge history buff and reads this blog, and he mentioned to me several times how much he learns from your posts.

  31. Obama: “I’ve tried real hard”
    (apologies for posting such bullcrap this early in the morning)


  32. The other thing i have noticed is, notice how most dem polling outfits seem to have just stopped polling around now, must be money and also they dont want the numbers out in the public eye, seems to be quiet, PPP who shill like hell are doing polls on fav cities and gay marriage……..

    ———————
    Very interesting. I would love to see the internals of the campaign. I suspect there are more states in play now than people realize. So no one is surprised, the first and second quarters are always bad, and the economy improves in the third and fourth quarters. But whether the growth is real or seasonal is determined not by comparing the current quarter not to the preceding one, but to the same quarter last year. That is not an insignificant point. On the contrary, it is one that the Republicans need to start driving home now. Otherwise, come late October, Obama will claim that a recovery is happening and mainstream media will promote that illusion going into the election.

  33. California is in such a mess.

    http://news.yahoo.com/californias-biggest-community-college-fights-survive-031300133.html

    California’s biggest community college fights to survive

    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California’s largest community college, the City College of San Francisco, will be forced to close next year if it fails to address a raft of longstanding problems that the school blames on state budget cuts.

    The two-year college that serves 90,000 students risks becoming the first in California to lose its accreditation since 2006, triggering funding cuts that could shutter the school.

    The threatened loss of accreditation for the school, which would occur in June 2013, comes as California’s heralded system of public universities and colleges groans under the pressure of reduced government funding and curtailed school budgets.

    The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges this week notified the 77-year-old City College that it must prove its worthiness to continue operating.

    In a letter to the college’s interim chancellor, Commission President Barbara Beno said an accreditation team in March found the school had failed to react to funding cuts and had reached “a financial breaking point.”

    The commission cited a lack of administrators as one chief concern and also criticized the college for insufficient assessments of student learning and achievement.

    “The task really is to step up the quality of what they do,” Beno told Reuters on Friday.

    By March, she said the college must submit a plan for closing the school, in the event the commission decides to strip it of accreditation. At the same time, it must prove it has met performance standards.

    “It’s a severe verdict, which essentially puts the burden on City College to make substantial financial and structural changes in a very abbreviated period of time,” said college spokesman Larry Kamer. “The task is quite formidable.”

    But, he added, “City College is not closing. We are not going to let that happen.”

    Interim Chancellor Pamila Fisher announced Friday that she would put together a committee of faculty, staff and students to implement the accreditation commission’s recommendations.

    The commission is authorized to operate by the U.S. Department of Education and oversees institutions in the West. It evaluates community and junior colleges every six years. In 2006, evaluators made eight recommendations for City College, none of which the school adequately addressed, Beno said.

    ‘OVERTAXED’ ADMINISTRATORS

    This year’s evaluation of City College of San Francisco criticized it for having too few administrators. The evaluator’s report describes the college’s 39 administrators as “overtaxed” and insufficient in number to support the college’s more than 1,800 faculty members.

    English teacher Alisa Messer, head of the local union representing faculty, said the lack of administrators was proof of the college’s commitment to students.

    “The real problem is the state’s de-funding of public education and its disinvestment in our community-college system,” she said. “There’s no question that everyone is going to work to keep the college open.”

    The college had suffered five years of funding cuts, Messer said, including $17 million last year alone.

    City College began operating in San Francisco with about 1,100 students in 1935. It has nine primary campuses, nearly 200 neighborhood sites and offers vocational training in nursing, culinary arts and aircraft mechanics.

  34. tim
    July 7th, 2012 at 11:14 am
    ———————-
    Thank you Tim. I am always impressed with your analysis. You should encourage your newphew to try blogging here too. We would like to hear from him.

  35. This smells like a weekend dump.
    The tax man cometh to police you on health care
    …Under the law, the IRS will provide tax breaks and incentives to help pay for health insurance and impose penalties on some people who don’t buy coverage and on some businesses that don’t offer it to employees.
    The changes will require new regulations, forms and publications, new computer programs and a big new outreach program to explain it all to taxpayers and tax professionals. Businesses that don’t claim an exemption will have to prove they offer health insurance to employees.
    The health care law “includes the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years,” according to the Treasury inspector general who oversees the IRS. The agency will have to hire thousands of workers to manage it, requiring significant budget increases that already are being targeted by congressional Republicans determined to dismantle the president’s signature initiative.

    “Knowing the complexity of the health law, there’s no question that the IRS is going to struggle with this…
    http://apnews.myway.com//article/20120707/D9VS2E3O0.html

  36. wbboei
    July 7th, 2012 at 11:34 am

    lol, actually I have been trying for a while, but I think he may be just conformatable reading this blog instead of blogging here, he’s a big Ron Paul supporter, you know, I have to give Ron Paul a lot of credit for getting so many younger people interested and more imporantantly understanding limited govt, and liberty and the foundations of the US Constitution, and oh yes, the Federal Reserve.
    Sometimes I post speeches by a member of the UK Independence party, Nigel Farage, I have to give full credit to my nephew, he is so much more well versed in economic knowledge than I was at his age, or frankly even am now.

  37. tim
    July 7th, 2012 at 11:58 am
    wbboei
    July 7th, 2012 at 11:34 am
    ——————————
    Tim–I am very much in the Ron Paul camp in terms of my thinking. My history is in his wing of the party, where he is much admired. His most important contribution has been to direct young people who are smarter than their counterparts to realize that there are solutions to the problems of this nation, and those solutions are to be found not in the communist manifesto, the South African Constitution or the obama cult, but in the enduring principles of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. What Edmund Burke said of the French Revolution and the Rabble of Paris holds true today: the French are so taken up with the rights of man that they have totally forgotten his nature. The American Constitution is based on an understanding of both and that is why it is superior to all others, Justice Ginzberg’s unfortunate statements to the contrary nothwithstanding.

  38. 68 billion for a rail thing and yet they are going bust, who the hell is running the shop, the muppets.

  39. tim
    July 6th, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    OTurd sure has the anti-midas touch, this poor restaruant owner dies hours after meeting OTurd.
    &&&&&

    Maybe he found Obama’s real birth certificate (from Kenya) in the kitchen and was going to go public with it…

  40. Iowahawk has a funny based on the Higgs-Boson discovery of this week. Just a small taste here:

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/07/dnc-scientists-disprove-existence-of-roberts-taxon.html

    WASHINGTON DC – Jubilant scientists at the DNC’s High Speed Word Collider (HSWC) announced today they have conclusively disproven the existence of Roberts’ Taxon, the theoretical radioactive Facton particle that some had worried would lead to the implosion of the entire Universal Health Care System.

    “I think it’s time to pop the champagne corks,” said HSWC Director David Plouffe. “Then blaze some choom.”

    The landmark experiment in Quantum Rhetoric began early this week after legal particle cosmologist John Roberts published a paper in the Quarterly Journal of Tortured Logic that solved the long-debated Pelosi’s Paradox in Universal Health Care Theory.

    “Pelosi’s Paradox states that in order to find out what is in a health care bill, it would have to be passed,” explained physicist Steven Hawking. “But in order to be a law it would have to be constitutional, which means someone would have to know what was in it, which would mean it couldn’t have been a bill in the first place. Think of Schroedinger’s Cat, except with a lobotomy.”

    To solve the paradox, Roberts proposed the existence of the Taxon – an ephemeral, mysterious facton particle that in theory would allow the Universal Health System to be constitutional, without directly observing what was in it. DNC scientists at first cheered Roberts’ findings, but it soon came apparent that it opened an even deadlier dilemma.

    If Roberts’ Taxon were really to exist, and was woven throughout the Health-Government-Time continuum, the merest realization of it would create a giant black hole in Gallup Space and cause free healthcare reality to collapse upon itself,” said Plouffe.

    In order to disprove the Taxon, scientists at the HSWC devised a test experiment in their enormous CarneyLab bullshit accelerator. This test involved speeding a small mass of Facton – theoretically containing Roberts’ Taxon – and smashing it at near-light speed against a flaming super-dense ionized clod of purified bullshit.

    More at link.

  41. This tells you all you need to know how frightened they are.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/still-no-health-care-in-weekly-address-128243.html

    Still no mention of Obamacare in Dems weekly address.

    The Obama administration won a historic victory at the Supreme Court just nine days ago, when the justices upheld the constitutionality of the president’s signature domestic legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

    It tells you at least a little about the politics of health care that in the two weekly presidential addresses since then, “Obamacare” has not made an appearance.

    Today’s address focused on the passage of legislation to block an increase in student loan rates. Last week — in the immediate wake of the ACA ruling — Obama’s topic was the Colorado wildfires.

    Obama has talked about health care in campaign appearances, but he’s not exactly using the full power of the presidential microphone to herald the accomplishment.

  42. Most of the hard Left can be traced back to the French Revolution. Judge Bork makes this point brilliantly in the book he wrote a few years back.

  43. I guess they will just keep printing money… and the people who will suffer the most, those on fixed incomes, like seniors, their SS checks will not be able to keep up with the massive infaltion coming our way, their healthcare choices will be cut, rationed, the money they live on will not be enough to cover everthing. And the time to solve these problems is shortening at a massive rate.
    The can will be too heavy to kick in addition to the road running out of space.
    At least a growing economy give some time to resolve this, but who the hell in their right minds will invest and grow business in America when OTurd has made them their #1 enemy.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/paul-brodsky-central-banks-are-nearing-inflate-or-die-stage

  44. OTurd sure has the anti-midas touch, this poor restaruant owner dies hours after meeting OTurd.
    &&&&&
    ——————


  45. tim
    July 7th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
    I guess they will just keep printing money… and the people who will suffer the most, those on fixed incomes, like seniors, their SS checks will not be able to keep up with the massive infaltion coming our way, their healthcare choices will be cut, rationed, the money they live on will not be enough to cover everthing. And the time to solve these problems is shortening at a massive rate.
    The can will be too heavy to kick in addition to the road running out of space.
    At least a growing economy give some time to resolve this, but who the hell in their right minds will invest and grow business in America when OTurd has made them their #1 enemy
    ————————-
    They will inflate, and they will sell off public lands. This will destroy our soverignty. It should be resisted at all cost. At all cost. This is part of the Soros Plan. The name for it is creative destruction.

  46. wbbeoi, yep.

    I found this link on one of the ZH’s comments, so I went and checked it out and found this following comment, which sadly I think is the truth. The fed cannot “stimulate” anymore, even if they have negative rates, instead of letting the economy grow at full speed in 2009 after the crash of 2008, Barry and his minions did everything possible to impede and hurt businesses who went into hiding mode, never to return. It didn’t have to be this way. Its like putting a 100 weight(ObamaCare, cap-n-trade, new union rules) on a runner who has broken his leg and then being surprised by that runner cannot walk fast, let alone run. The comment from that blog:

    “what your experiencing is the failure of gov to prevent the eventual depression caused by bad economic policy. The global coming depression, will remove 40-70% of total wealth. Since usa interest rates have been negative for a few years, no one can realistically say deflation is not occurring on a global scale. We pretended deflation had not hit the us, but thats no longer a fiction thats plausible. The pain required to jump start growth is what your seeing in the piigs. Unfortunately not letting the 1920 depression to hit and reacting the same means we’re in for an fdr extended depression, and likely ww3.”

    comment from this blog:
    http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/fed-having-trouble-stimulating-growth-or-inflation-multipliers-and-velocities-are-stalling/

  47. Krauthammer sees the statement by the Romney advisor that Obama care is not a tax as a fumble. It was. However, a fumble does not decide the game, especially if you manage to recover the ball. I think he has. For one thing, Romney has contradicted the advisor and that alone should be enough. But far more important than what Romney says on the subject is what the Supreme Court held. They held that Obama care is a tax as a matter of law, and that was the sole basis on which it was held constitutional. So lets move on, with respect to that issue, and consider the implications to the pocketbook of average Americans. Let the American people understand what Obamacare is really about:
    ——————————————
    SHV
    July 6th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
    Best one sentence description of Obamacare, from BAR:

    “It bears no resemblance to world-class healthcare systems, “expanding the healthcare compact only for those who are destitute, while turning everyone else into profit-centers for corporations.”

  48. Darrell Issa : We also must end the DOJ practice of shutting down websites w/o due process or judicial oversight.

  49. Unfortunately not letting the 1920 depression to hit and reacting the same means we’re in for an fdr extended depression, and likely ww3.”
    —————————————————
    Justice Holmes: “God is the majority vote of the nation with the most guns.” I think it would be a mistake for Holder and others to think they can take them away from us.

  50. What is their bloody obsession with trains and bridges……must be a donor with a no bid contract no doubt.

  51. moonpluto, I think infrastructe spending is a good thing, however more times than not OTurd and his congress minions back many or most no bid contracts on these projects, they all howl when no bid contracts are done with defense contractors, yet seem to have no issues when it comes to infrastrute contracts.
    Also, the monies in the 800 billion stimulus bill most of that “infrastructure” money didn’t really go to infrastrute i.e. “shovel ready” jobs, most went to fill holes of pensions of unions.
    (and now it comes out that many union leaders use their member’s dues and pensions to buy massive hotels, land, etc), no doubt so Trumpka can live like a king, while pretending to be for the little guy.

  52. “For one thing, Romney has contradicted the advisor and that alone should be enough. But far more important than what Romney says on the subject is what the Supreme Court held.”
    ***********
    Maybe a “fumble” in the present political reality of bullshit vs bullshit but what Romney said is totally logical. IRRC, he said that he agreed with the SCOTUS minority that the mandate is a penalty and unconstitutional but the majority said it was a tax and that is the end of the discussion.

    It seems that political discussion and certainly political fund raising is based on the “latest outrage” bullet points that, when traced back to a primary source, is found to be quite often, distorted. What is not distorted is that the economy is relentlessly eroding and the current political dialog of: “Republicans are racists” vs “Obama is a ”
    mooslim commie” isn’t likely to lead to a different path.

  53. It seems that political discussion and certainly political fund raising is based on the “latest outrage” bullet points that, when traced back to a primary source, is found to be quite often, distorted.

    ======================

    Definitely! “Where there’s smoke, there’s usually strawberry Jello.”

  54. What is their bloody obsession with trains and bridges……must be a donor with a no bid contract no doubt.
    ————————
    Lets hope this goes right to the song, and does not bring up the repulsive advertisement which precedes it.


  55. Maybe a “fumble” in the present political reality of bullshit vs bullshit but what Romney said is totally logical. IRRC, he said that he agreed with the SCOTUS minority that the mandate is a penalty and unconstitutional but the majority said it was a tax and that is the end of the discussion.
    ————————————–
    To put a finer point on this, the problem with his explanation is it puts the entire onus on the Supreme Court. How much better it would have been if he had said Mr. Obama argued before the Supreme Court that it was a tax and they agreed with him. By acknowledging that point, he would have shown the blatant hiprocacy of Obama bots now running around blaming the whole damned thing on Roberts.

    The Romney campaign must “recognize that we’re in a campaign mode where simple, tough, declarative sentences are required. This is not a campaign to be won on nuance, but to be won on making sharp distinctions with the failure of the Obama administration economically, the loss of jobs and the pain that Americans across the country are feeling.”

  56. In other words, Romney should have said I never believed that Obamacare was a tax, therefore I agreed with the dissent. But Mr. Obama not only believed it was a tax, despite what he says now. How do I know? I know because his own solicitor general made that very argument before the Supreme Court. Therefore, when he disagrees with them now, he is really disagreeing with himself. And then they could have shown the Hillary video from the debates talking about which Obama are we dealing with. That point should have been driven home.

  57. This is fine and well. But what evidence is there that the dims are even educationable on the economy? Precious little.
    —————————-
    The Latest Jobs Drought
    In April-June, an average monthly gain of only 75,000..
    Article Video Comments (61) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».
    smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.1EmailPrintSave ↓ More .
    .
    smaller Larger
    The June jobs report was poor again with 80,000 net new workers added to payrolls. The mediocre job growth has now stretched to three months, with gains in April, May and June averaging an anemic 75,000. That’s down from the more than 200,000 jobs created monthly in the first quarter. The trajectory most Americans see is downward.

    Related Video

    Heritage Foundation policy analyst James Sherk on why job growth has slowed in recent months. Photo: Associated Press
    .
    .
    The unemployment rate remained steady at 8.2%, mainly because the labor force participation rate of 63.8% continues to be near a 40-year low.

    An alternative measure of unemployment that takes into account workers who have given up looking for jobs or who can’t find full-time work increased a tic to 14.9%. Other than white-collar business services and hiring for part-time workers, nearly every other industry was flat or negative in June.

    In a statement on the June report, President Obama’s chief economist Alan Krueger said “it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” Normally, we’d agree, but this economy is far from normal. With 41 months of 8% unemployment or higher, Congress’s Joint Economic Committee confirms that this is the weakest growth and employment at this stage of a recovery since World War II.

    Mr. Obama asserted again Friday that the problem is that Congress won’t pass his jobs plan. The first stimulus was supposed to produce growth that would by now have the jobless rate under 6%. So now we are supposed to believe that Stimulus II will do the trick.

    If there is a silver lining in the jobs report, it is that we might see more Democrats in Congress break with the White House and acknowledge that falling off the January 2013 tax cliff could have damaging consequences. Calling off all the planned tax hikes on employers and investors would be the best way to get employment back on a faster upward trajectory.

    A version of this article appeared July 7, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Latest Jobs Drought

  58. well well well

    PO$ OTurd attacks Hillary in 2008, and Hillary’s plan was not her plan from the 90s’. The man is a pathetic PO$. Absolutely disgusting.


  59. “That point should have been driven home.”
    *********
    Hopefully they will after Labor Day. Playing audio snips from Donald Verrilli’s oral argument in an ad should do the trick.

  60. The rate of 8%+ (official) and 14% (U6) numbers for employment is here to stay.

    There is only so much revenue an economy can generate, now that there are all these extra taxes burdens, that money that could be used for investments has been siphoned to the Federal govt and will not be used to grow the economy.

    So, as the ankle weight around the economy has been made more permanent and larger, the economy will never gain the level of jobs to get back to the better times period.

  61. Ooops. My mistake. There are some rumblings in the senate.

    http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-democrats-fear-the-tax-cliff/393EBCEE-522A-47B8-9FCB-5E9195CD31E8.html?mod=wsj_article_tboright#!393EBCEE-522A-47B8-9FCB-5E9195CD31E8

    My response?

    The German military policeman to the French policeman who has just told him about a plot to kill Hitler, and is nonplussed that the German policeman is unmoved by the revealation:

    “When the war was going well, the generals were all in favor of Hitler and his policies. Now that it is going badly they are looking to save their own skins.”

    (Note: the analogy here of Obama to Hitler is not accidental).

  62. Cannot express my anger into words.
    So they execute a woman for an allegation of adultery, yet these pieces of $hit of “men” have 10s of wives?!? go after young boys…. and yet…

    where is CAIR to defend or not defend this Shariah Law?? Where the hell are they to condemn this $hit???

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/07/us-afghanistan-taliban-woman-idUSBRE8660C320120707

    “A man Afghan officials say is a member of the Taliban shot dead a woman accused of adultery in front of a crowd near Kabul, a video obtained by Reuters showed, a sign that the austere Islamist group dictates law even near the Afghan capital.

    In the three-minute video, a turban-clad man approaches a woman kneeling in the dirt and shoots her five times at close range with an automatic rifle, to cheers of jubilation from the 150 or so men watching in a village in Parwan province.

    “Allah warns us not to get close to adultery because it’s the wrong way,” another man says as the shooter gets closer to the woman. “It is the order of Allah that she be executed”.”

  63. one thing that is not reported much, of the 80K jobs created, 1/3 are temps. If and when ObamaCare is fully implemented, there will be more and more temps, because the 50 employee threshold doesn’t apply if its temp workers.

  64. one thing that is not reported much, of the 80K jobs created, 1/3 are temps
    ————————————–
    I saw that too.

    I am afraid that what we are seeing now is merely the leading edge of a deeper trough–that will suck under half the country. One half of the country.

    What the other half needs to worry about is the Indian saying that you cannot have small oaises of wealth amid vast deserts of poverty without engendering storms that will consume those oases in time.

    Meanwhile we have a flake for president. But rest easy. He is betting on America. The structural change was inevitable. The rough landing was not. If we had gotten Hillary millions of Americans would have had a soft landing.

    Therein lies the tragedy.

  65. wbboei what these economic illerates in the WH and many in congress don’t get, do they think this country’s military power and might is not tied to our economic power?
    In the early 20th century, the British were the most powerful military and economy in the world, then they went into massive debt, couldn’t get out of it, then the US dollar replace the UK sterling, and then our military became more powerful than the UK’s.
    Being the most powerful economy and military are tied together, and its not a given guarantee just because its been that way in the past.

    What happens when the US hits the 20 trillion dollar mark? who’s going to bail us out? there is no way that money can be paid back, the only thing that results is a lower standard of living for the middle class for years to come.

    Hillary understood this, even Mccain understood this… Romney absolutely gets this.

  66. I don’t have time to dig into either quote, but I have my doubts about the antecedent of ‘it’ in various statements about whether ‘it’ is a tax or not. Was the original statement talking about the penalty (which is not a ‘massive ____ increase on the people’) -or about the premiums (which are a massive amount, but perhaps not a tax at all).

    Remember in the 90s when Bill and Hillary were POTUS and were accused of ‘renting’ the Lincoln Bedroom to donors? Hillary was quoted as saying “I don’t see anything wrong with it.” But wasn’t her ‘it’ referring to their actual policy about the bedroom, probably denying the ‘rental’ accusation? Out of context, she was quoted as though ‘it’ meant she was admitting to the ‘rental’ charge.

  67. Being the most powerful economy and military are tied together, and its not a given guarantee just because its been that way in the past.

    ======================

    Or it might be the other way around. Maybe if we spent less on bombs to drop overseas, we’d have more good stuff in the US.

  68. Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013

    By John Kartch

    Published July 05, 2012

    FoxNews.com

    June 28, 2012: Supporters of President Barack Obama’s health care law celebrate outside the Supreme Court in Washington. (AP)

    While the individual mandate tax gets most of the attention, the ObamaCare law actually contains 20 new or higher taxes on the American people. These taxes are gradually phased in over the years 2010 (with its 10 percent “tanning tax”) to 2018 (when the tax on comprehensive health insurance plans kicks in.)

    Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force:

    1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax

    This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.

    These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

    2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax

    This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income.

    The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

    3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap

    The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.

    The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

    The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.

    For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.

    4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income

    Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

    And, last but not least…

    5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase

    This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.

    As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.

    John Kartch is director of communications at Americans for Tax Reform. Follow him on Twitter @JohnKartch.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/05/five-major-obamacare-taxes-that-will-hit-your-wallet-in-2013/#ixzz1zyaxnr5N

  69. one tax that is not medically related that will severely hurt is the home sales tax, starting in 2015 (funny how its right before the 2016 election), there will be a 3.8% tax on any sale of a home in America.

    Not one Dem a$$hole read this crap of a bill. Not one.

  70. * I guess I should call it redistrubtion, since its taking money from one set of people and give it to another.

  71. the home sales tax, starting in 2015 (funny how its right before the 2016 election)

    ================

    Why do you think it is timed that way? It would hurt the party in power (unless they change it before 2015). Maybe they want it to make the projection spreadsheet look good now.

  72. Its wealth distribution posed as a “affordable” “healthcare” law.

    ===============

    I assume your ‘its’ means the whole Obamacare law, ie mostly the premiums. But have you noticed which direction it’s shifting the wealth? From the middle class patients to the elite insurance executives, isn’t it?

  73. “one tax that is not medically related that will severely hurt is the home sales tax, starting in 2015 (funny how its right before the 2016 election), there will be a 3.8% tax on any sale of a home in America.”
    *********
    I did some research on this a few months ago (who can you trust these days for accurate info?????), with that being said, this is the best that I can tell what is going on without paying a tax atty.

    “(This provision begins on page 33 of the reconciliation bill that was passed and signed into law.) And it does say the tax falls on “net gain … attributable to the disposition of property.” That would include the sale of a home. But the bill also says the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is “taken into account in computing taxable income” under the existing tax code. And the fact is, the first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already. (That exclusion doesn’t apply to vacation homes or rental properties.)

    The Joint Committee on Taxation, the group of nonpartisan tax experts that Congress relies on to analyze tax proposals, underscores this in a footnote on page 135 of its report on the bill. The note states: “Gross income does not include … excluded gain from the sale of a principal residence.”

    And just to be sure, we checked with William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the nonprofit, pro-business Tax Foundation. “Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill,” Ahern told us, “but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple).”

  74. This comes from a post on FB and there was no author given:

    10 Reasons to Dislike Romney

    A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being “likable” or that he doesn’t “relate” well to people. We struggled to understand why…he is after all..drop dead handsome, has a beautiful wife…..isn’t that enough to ensure popularity for most Americans?

    So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten list to explain this unlikablility.

    Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney

    1. Successful, self-made businessman. (Dad didn’t give him a hand-out; he and Ann had to make it on their own)

    2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been FAITHFUL to her.

    3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)

    4. Can’t speak in a fake southern black preacher voice when necessary.

    5. Puts his dog on the car as opposed to eating dogs.

    6. Has pots of money (made it all himself) and since nobody else in this country has any desire to have pots of money….we don’t like him!!!

    7. Has a family of great boys….none of them are in drug rehab.

    8. Doesn’t smoke (even in secret), drink alcohol, or do drugs (not even in college)

    9. Represents an America of “yesterday”, where people believed in God, went to Church, didn’t screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS! (We can’t relate to such an anachronism)

    10. Oh yes…..he’s a MORMON. That horrible religion that teaches it’s members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, honest, upright and MORAL!

    And one more point…..pundits say because of his wealth, he can’t relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that’s because he made that money ALL BY HIMSELF…..as opposed to marrying it (as in John Kerry) or inheriting it from Dad (as in Jack, Robert & Ted Kennedy.) We didn’t understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you un-relatable to Americans. Strange.

    I want to add a couple more small points that probably is not appreciated by most people. His life history is out there and easily accessed for everyone to read. He has NOT spent millions to hide his past and close his files. There are many who know him from his past and can readily respond to his history. His Social Security Card and other identification papers are easily accessed and authenticated. You can find people who have been his life long friends and not one of them belongs to a Socialist or Communist party. All this is in stark contrast to what we now have in the White House and yet, the left would have you believe we have nothing in common with Mitt Romney?

  75. SHV
    July 7th, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Thanks for that info… I tried to check the heritage org for that info and even Cato… the only thing they seemed to be saying is the percentage of tax I posted… but as you stated who the heck really knows?

    HHS still has to write the actual regualtions for the law, the law itself is so vague, they could write any regulations they want. They already have 13000 pages written ready to throw at the american people.

  76. It turns my stomach to see Obama invoke the traditions of this country, the way he does in an election year. He hates this country, therefore he must also hate its traditions. That much is axiomatic. When he praised our traditons, it is the closest thing any of us will ever see, this side of the grave, to the devil quoting scripture. Four more years of Obama? Abandon hope all ye who enter.

  77. Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney

    1. Successful, self-made businessman. (Dad didn’t give him a hand-out; he and Ann had to make it on their own)

    ==================

    Really now????

  78. “This comes from a post on FB and there was no author given:”

    LOL, wanna bet its AxelTurd who is the author?

  79. Here is page 2 of a July 4 piece by Roger L Simon. This is good Roger L Simon, as opposed to bad Roger Simon (no middle initial) who is one of the evil bastards who infest that sewer called Politico. I always understood that sewer to be the internet arm of WashPo. However, the other day someone described them as the subsidiary of MSNBC. I think that is wrong. They are just as depraved as MSNBC but they are more subtle about it. As a result more ignorant people get sucked in. At one time, we had a list of the jurnolisters and Politico is well represented. The little prick who started the juronlister conspiracy, Ezra Kline, now works for WashPo. If you think of it as one organization, and ignore these arbitrary legal boundaries, you will not be wrong. In terms of content, it is a distinction without a difference.

    The leader of our faction is a man who seems reasonably intelligent but conventional in the extreme, a moderate man in immoderate times, an undramatic man in an epoch that it is wildly theatrical in its implications, an era that calls for a Reagan or, better yet, a Washington.

    But, as the cliché goes, you go to war with the army you have. We can take heart from the fact that it is not the leaders who are so important, but the people themselves. We are in a very real sense the army. It is our job to propel our leaders forward, to give them confidence.

    Moreover, expecting leaders to be perfect in this internet era of total information is close to absurd. We all make mistakes and, fortunately or unfortunately, they are all reported almost instantly. We have to learn to shrug them off and move on, at least those that don’t rise to a significant level of importance. We should always remember this is a cataclysmic war being fought with the puniest of sound bites. Washington never had to deal with that.

    AdvertisementWe also all have to remember to “keep our eye on the prize” and not on each other. Those who want to protect American exceptionalism are perforce an unruly lot because they are protecting something inherently unruly. We are fighting for the ability to disagree, but we should holster some of those disagreements until election day.

    The road between this Fourth of July and November 6 will be rocky, again in the extreme, perhaps terrifyingly so. In the worst economy since the Great Depression, it’s hard to believe roughly half our fellow citizens still favor the incumbent. But they do. Faced with that level of cognitive dissonance, the struggle ahead will be nothing short of titanic.

    So get out your firecrackers and let loose. Let’s hope this isn’t the last time. (But remember to play safe. We need you on the hustings, not in the emergency room.)

  80. UH.OH. Cat’s out of the bag…

    OTurd: ““If you’ve got health insurance, you’re not paying a tax. . . “”


  81. “Thanks for that info… I tried to check the heritage org for that info and even Cato… the only thing they seemed to be saying is the percentage of tax I posted”
    ********
    Everyone seems to start with an agenda and cherry picks “data” to support their conclusion (agenda).

    Obamacare, intentionally or otherwise, has a lot of characteristics of the 20+ year old Heritage foundation proposal, Heritage Foundation “Backgrounder #777 (The Heritage foundation, especially Stuart Butler, now try to say they really didn’t mean it, misunderstood, etc.)

    “HHS still has to write the actual regualtions for the law, the law itself is so vague, they could write any regulations they want. They already have 13000 pages written ready to throw at the america..”

    That is the real nightmare of Obamacare, regulatory control of American medicine by the Sec of HHS.

  82. I will repeat again, I’ll believe it when I see it…. they’re all supporting OTurd, doesn’t matter what.


  83. Big media must be made to pay for their bias. The Republicans must insist that the debates be held on public television, not on big media. Why feed the tumor? Cut off their income stream, and you will see a change in behavior. They have given the Republicans ample justification for this. We need a couple polls to back this up. If the polls check out then do it. Just do it. If the Republicans fail to seize this opportuntity it could cost them the election. Big media is constructing a totally false reality which sweeps in the ignorant. The Republicans should be crystal clear on this: we have every intention of debating, but in an impartial forum. They must make an issue of the bias of big media. They need to starve the beast. If they do that, then the heads of people like Phil Griffin will roll.
    ————————————————
    Media Refuses to Make Obama Pay Price For Lies

    by John Nolte7 Jul 2012, 6:00 AM PDT135post a comment

    Other than his rather bizarre wistful recalling of how great things were in Nixon’s America, yesterday in an off-teleprompter stump speech, President Barack Obama told two humongous whoppers. First, he distorted the Clinton years, as though those years in any way resembled, well, what the Obama years look like this very day. Secondly, he twisted his very first campaign, the most Chicago-style of Chicago-style campaigns, into some sort of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington struggle — when he ran unopposed.

    And what have we heard from a media currently obsessed with fact-checking? Not a peep, not a sound, not a word.

    Over the airwaves and on the stump, Obama is currently running around the country portraying his opponent Mitt Romney as an outsourcer. This is a proven lie.

    And what have we heard from a media currently obsessed with fact-checking? Not a peep, not a sound, not a word.

    Obama told students that a bill to freeze student loan interest rates would save them $1,000 a year when it will only save them $87.

    And what have we heard from a media currently obsessed with fact-checking? Not a peep, not a sound, not a word.

    Just a few weeks ago it was revealed that Obama told no fewer than three-dozen falsehoods in his autobiography.

    And what have we heard from a media currently obsessed with fact-checking? Not a peep, not a sound, not a word.

    We just learned that Obama lied about his relationship with a domestic terrorist.

    And what have we heard from a media currently obsessed with fact-checking? Not a peep, not a sound, not a word.

    We just learned that Obama lied about his membership in socialist New Party.

    And what have we heard from a media currently obsessed with fact-checking? Not a peep, not a sound, not a word.

    Sure, the media will defend itself by stating it reported on these falsehoods. But dutiful reporting and holding the President accountable are two entirely different things.

    As recently as yesterday, this President ran around the country brazenly spouting things that are objectively untrue and, as it has always done in the past, the corrupt media adamantly refuses to make Obama pay any kind of political price for misleading the American people and distorting what is known to be true.

    First off, the media knows Obama will have to lie — will have to portray himself and his past and his record and his opponent’s record as something it is not in order to win reelection.

    Secondly, as we’ve seen with Politico and Washington Post, the media sees its job as aiding and abetting and covering up this President’s lies.

    Back in November, Romney ran this ad and the media EXPLODED for an entire week claiming Romney had taken Obama out of context. The media didn’t just explode, it went insane over this and was obviously grabbing hold of the lamest of excuses to help Obama define Romney as dishonest.

    Meanwhile, Obama runs around the country a proven liar about his own biography, Romney’s record at Bain Capital, and his own record, and what do his Media Palace Guards do?

    They just keep guarding his palace.

    Good dog.

  84. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/maine-governor-calls-obamacares-irs-agents-the-new-gestapo/

    “Gov. Paul LePage used his weekly radio address to blast President Obama’s health care law and described the Internal Revenue Service as the “new Gestapo.”

    The IRS description was a reference to a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires most Americans to buy health insurance or pay an annual penalty when filing their tax returns. The provision, known more broadly as the individual mandate, was the subject of a multi-state lawsuit, but was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    LePage said the court decision has “made America less free.”

    “We the people have been told there is no choice,” he said. “You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo – the I.R.S.””

  85. Never attempt to fight an enemy on his own terms and his own turf.

    The corollary is never agree to a debate on nbc, abc or cnn, if you are a Republican.

    Public television is the ideal option for you and the American People.

    You ignore this advice at your peril.

  86. tim
    July 7th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
    I will repeat again, I’ll believe it when I see it…. they’re all supporting OTurd, doesn’t matter what.

    ————————-
    Yes, but consider the alternative:

    Learning from Obituaries….

    It seems that every couple of days New Orleans loses one of its treasured
    ENTREPRENEURS .

    Let�s get the players straight before we go on with this..

    LARMONDO “FLAIR” ALLEN
    His Companion: Kawanner Armstrong
    His Sons : Christian Allen
    Kwan Allen
    Larmondo Allen, Jr.

    His Daughters: Deidra Allen
    Larmenshell Allen
    Lamonshea Allen
    Larmomdriel Allen
    Larmerja Allen
    Korevell Allen

    AT AGE 25 – He had 9 Children.

    His Father: Burnell Thompson
    His Mother: Esther Allen
    His Stepfather: Bruce Gordy

    His Brothers: Burnell Thompson
    Edgar Thompson
    Wil Willis
    Danta Edwards
    Reshe Edwards
    Mattnell Allen
    Burnell Allen
    Lester Allen

    His Sisters: Shannail Craig
    Lekiksha Thompson
    Gwendolyn Carter
    Jessica Willis
    Katina Gordy

    Grandparents: Delors Allen
    J.C. Allen
    Anna Laura Thompson
    Will Thompson

    GOT THE ABOVE ALL STRAIGHT?
    ********************
    NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY

    He was 25 and had 3 sons and 6 daughters.
    NINE welfare recipients collecting $950 each….
    That equals $8,550 a month !!! Now add Food Stamps,
    Free medical, Free school lunches, and on and on

    Do the math…$102,000+ /year.

    Anyone out there, sittin’ on their butt while reading this e-mail, making
    A HUNDRED GRAND doing nothing?

    Now that, to me, is a real Entrepreneur.
    (ALSO, BECAUSE OF THEIR FATHERS DEATH, ALL OF THE KIDS WILL COLLECT
    SOCIAL SECURITY UNTIL THEY ARE 18)
    EVEN BETTER…IF “FLAIR’S”
    THIRTEEN BROTHERS & SISTERS
    FOLLOWED HIS ENTREPRENEURIAL
    STRATEGY–THAT’S AN ADDITIONAL
    $1.3 MILLION PER YEAR
    BUT WAIT…THERE’SMORE!
    IF ALL THIRTEEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS CAN
    DUPLICATE HIS FEAT OF 9 WELFARE STRATEGISTS
    THAT BREEDS 117 NEW RECIPIENTS COLLECTING $100,000/YR!!…OR AN ADDITIONAL
    $11,700,000PER YEAR…
    &THAT’S ONEDAMN FAMILY
    (And demands 100% the Taxes Paid by 1,000 avg. taxpayers)

    And THAT is why this once great country is
    BANKRUPT!!
    ANY QUESTIONS?

  87. Health care reform: 5 ways to kill ‘Obamacare’ without repealing

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78174.html

    Even if Romney can’t rely on a Republican-controlled Congress to pass a repeal bill, he could achieve a similar end, experts who have studied the law closely tell POLITICO. And although Romney’s health care advisers won’t say so on the record, they’re aware of the options and aren’t dismissing them.

    “The bottom line is, if Romney were to win, he can do a lot through administrative action to say this thing is not going to be implemented,” said James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who was a top health official in President George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget.

    Officially, the Romney campaign says it’s committed to a Day One strategy. But if that doesn’t work out, here are five other ways Romney could take on health care reform.

    1. Break the federal exchanges

    Under the law, the federal government is supposed to build health insurance exchanges for states that don’t create their own.

    But with Romney’s help, those states could defeat that effort, too, even if the law remains unchanged.

    A quirk in the language of the law — which the law’s supporters call a “drafting error” — could allow Romney to make it basically impossible for federally run exchanges to function. That’s because the law doesn’t explicitly give federal exchanges the ability to provide the same insurance subsidies that it will give to state-run exchanges. [snip]

    “Gov. Romney’s Day One plan includes an executive order instructing federal agencies to return maximum possible authority to the states. This will include as much flexibility as the law permits. He will then begin the work of fully repealing Obamacare and replacing it with common-sense reforms that will ensure Americans have access to the highest quality health care in the world,” campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said by email. [snip]

    Without a working exchange, Cannon reasons, the remaining insurance market will buckle under the weight of the health reform law’s rules, forcing Congress ultimately to repeal the law. [snip]

    2. Starve the federal exchanges [snip]

    But with Romney as president, House Republicans wouldn’t have to win passage of language that specifically defunds the federal exchanges. All they would have to do is block any language that explicitly funds them.
    [snip]

    Here, Republicans would be taking advantage of yet another quirk in the design of the Affordable Care Act. The law didn’t appropriate funding for the federal exchanges. So far, HHS has paid for the federal exchanges out of a $1 billion appropriation that’s meant to cover all of the federal government’s expenses for implementing health reform. That fund is expected to run out by the end of this year. [snip]

    3. Withdraw rules

    A new administration can’t just change existing rules that its predecessors have gotten into final form. That requires a full rulemaking process, and they have to prove they have a “rational” reason for the change.

    But rules that aren’t finalized can easily be tossed out or reworked. And many people close to the Obama administration expect that at least one major health reform rule won’t be proposed until after the November election — which means there won’t be time to finalize it before a change in administration.

    That’s the rule defining the essential health benefit package that must be covered by health insurance plans. [snip]

    4. Be very ‘flexible’

    The secretary of HHS is in charge of ultimately certifying whether states are enforcing provisions of the law or whether the federal government needs to use its backup enforcement powers.

    That means that a Romney HHS secretary could let states and employers get away with things an Obama secretary likely wouldn’t. That could include certifying state-based exchanges that don’t meet many of the law’s requirements, or giving broader latitude to companies that don’t want to update their insurance plans to meet the letter of the law.

    “The secretary of HHS in the law has incredible discretionary authority,” said Capretta. [snip]

    5. Do nothing

    If Romney’s really determined to block the law, he might not actually need to do anything too clever — he could do a lot by simply doing nothing at all.

    He could stop the writing of the remaining rules to implement the law, stop Medicare from moving ahead with programs to find new ways to pay providers, stop the IRS from enforcing the individual mandate and even stop Medicaid officials from facilitating the expansion of the program in the states that want it.

    This would land the Romney administration in court, of course. [snip]

    But the process of forcing the president to implement a law through the courts is a long one, especially if it requires separate lawsuits to enforce different pieces of the law. If public opposition to the Affordable Care Act remains strong, Romney may pay little price from choosing to fight these cases.

    For that reason, National Association of Insurance Commissioners consumer representative Tim Jost says that the fate of the law remains largely in the hands of the voters, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said.

    “I’m just assuming that if Obama isn’t reelected, the law will stay on the books but nothing really happens,” Jost said.

  88. ShortTermer
    July 7th, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    This comes from a post on FB and there was no author given:
    —————————-

    Excellent post.

    I am sick and tired of people complaining about how Romney is boring, not exciting, blah, blah. Nothing he has done so far in the campaign is ever praise-worthy for these people. Even conservatives like Crystal, Laura Ingraham and others are carping along those lines. Haven’t we had enough messiah-like, celebrity-like, would-like-to-have-a-beer-like guys before and what or how have they done? Elaine Chao had the perfect response to Laura yesterday on Bill O’Reilly — it is not about entertainment, it is not about exciting us. Serious matters require competence which is what we need and Romney seems to have that. Where did all this likeability and having a beer and blah, blah, celebrity light politicians stuff come from?

  89. Erickson @ Red State:

    A third party could have been successful in the United States this year, but it would have required a populist attack against Washington and spending. Done right, it would have resonated across Tea Party and Occupy circles. But it did not happen.

    As media ratings have declined and the talk within Beltway media circles of “serious” “adult” “third party” challenges has increased, Republican leaders in Washington who have more and more in common with the media that covers them and less and less in common with their constituents back home — hell, look at Indiana’s Senator who does not even live in Indiana anymore and consequently got thrown out much to the outrage of Beltway elites — have become less and less like the Party of Reagan and more and more like the Party of John Anderson.

    The problem for the GOP is that it is in danger of fracturing, not because it has moved so far right, but because it refuses to actually practice what it preaches.

    The Republican Party’s actual policy positions help small businesses and individuals. It is the party of the individual against the collective. But Republican leaders are not willing to actually fight for those values in the face of media criticism.

    In fact, the very types of people the media and more senior Republicans and Democrats alike are advocating are the very people who made the compromise decisions to get us to $16 trillion in debt. And, by the way, we spent ourselves there we didn’t tax ourselves there.

    This comes full circle.

    A Republican Party that has been unwilling to cut spending has now let go through Congress legislation to shut down lawful, legal businesses because cigarette industry lobbyists and a Senate Democrat wanted it done.

    We’re not ready for a third party and both this site and I will continue advocating for conservative Republicans, but if the GOP doesn’t finally get a clue, I won’t be surprised to see it implode. By the way, this year fewer and fewer Republican candidates are signing the tax pledge on the advice of Republican members of Congress. This is another warning sign that the Eric Cantor led Republican conference is going far afield from what those who vote Republican actually want.

    The GOP better get back to its pro-liberty roots quickly.

  90. admin
    July 7th, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Iowahawk has a funny based on the Higgs-Boson discovery of this week. Just a small taste here:
    —————

    ROFL!!

  91. I am sick and tired of people complaining about how Romney is boring, not exciting, blah, blah. Nothing he has done so far in the campaign is ever praise-worthy for these people. Even conservatives like Crystal, Laura Ingraham and others are carping along those lines. Haven’t we had enough messiah-like, celebrity-like, would-like-to-have-a-beer-like guys before and what or how have they done? Elaine Chao had the perfect response to Laura yesterday on Bill O’Reilly — it is not about entertainment, it is not about exciting us. Serious matters require competence which is what we need and Romney seems to have that. Where did all this likeability and having a beer and blah, blah, celebrity light politicians stuff come from?
    —————————–
    There is such a difference between how voters act and how they ought to act that anyone who forsakes what is for what ought to be will surely learn something that will ruin him. What drives voters anymore is not an understanding of the issues, or a mature appreciation for competence, but a vague sense of their own self interest, a compelling personal narrative, and a sense that the president is like them. That is what campaigns strive to address. It is far more than a Harvard buiness problem. Actually, it is that, but a good deal more.

  92. In fact, in the first few hours I first heard this SCOTUS decision, the machinations that went into this decision impressed me so much that I felt proud about how this country and its various institutions operate (and the good and capable people who operate them).

  93. pm317, well, I guess I felt the opposite, everyone in my family, who mostly are still registered dems. We all felt pure disgust at Roberts, who I continue to see as a coward, and disgust at the SCOTUS, the other 4 justices for not having any sense of what pain they will cause by upholding something even the British empire wouldn’t have been stupid enough to put into law 200+ years ago. In my opinion they treated the Consitution like, well frankly like garbage. And I will not be surprised if many Americans will be willing to stand on their principles and go to jail if need be when the indiv tax goes into effect, unless Romney gets in to stop all this.

  94. tim, it is a FUBAR and there are no easy solutions here. Easy would have been a magic wand aka SCOTUS erasing that stuff completely, but half the public would never be convinced of its many design flaws and would blame the SCOTUS. I always thought that if SCOTUS voted against, especially with a 5-4 ruling, Obama would have had a better chance of winning the election.

  95. pm317, ok, don’t laugh, first I had to look up what “fubar” meant.
    second, perhaps you may be right, but its still the wrong decision Consitutionaly, and I predict this will led to many arrests, heck I know many people who don’t have that health-insurance, have no plans in getting it or paying a fine for not buying it. OTurd may have had better chance with it being knocked out, but what if OTurd wins? the pain will be horrible for indivduals, businesses.

  96. moononpluto
    July 7th, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    This tells you all you need to know how frightened they are.
    Still no mention of Obamacare in Dems weekly address.
    &&&&&

    NY Times editorial a few days ago expressed frustrated bewilderment about why Obama wasn’t leveraging the SC decision on Obamacare by articulating all the good that was in the bill…

    1) Maybe because it is a Rube Fucking Goldberg of a bill, written by multiple teams of lobbyists. As Nasty Pelosi said, “We must pass this bill so we can know what is in it”.

    2 Maybe the thousands of pages in the bill were too much for Mr. Eighteen Holes to read:

    Obummer: “Just gimme the recap, the bullet points. I really don’t need to know what the actual law is. What am I, some ‘constitutional scholar’?”

    Axlegrease: “Actually, according to how we spun your ‘teaching position’, that’s what we claimed.”

    3) It’s only going to look worse and worse. Obummer got his pyrrhic “victory”, but only after it got snuck over the goal line as tax…Now go try selling THAT shit to the American public, who continue to see their insurance cost more with higher deductibles and less procedures covered. And that’s with 2014 still looming, when it really kicks in.

  97. I predict this will led to many arrests, heck I know many people who don’t have that health-insurance, have no plans in getting it or paying a fine for not buying it.

    ======================

    How many people get “arrested” for not paying their income tax? Or their penalty for non-filing their 1040? Those are legitimate large amounts, but sfaik what the IRS does is put a lien on people’s bank accounts or real estate.

  98. He was 25 and had 3 sons and 6 daughters.
    NINE welfare recipients collecting $950 each….
    That equals $8,550 a month !!!

    ====================

    Giving him free contraceptives would have cost us less.

  99. Republicans see everyday as the 4th of July; Democrats see everyday as April 15th. Ronald Reagan

    Re: Tim

    The IRS will deduct the ObamaTAXcare from people’s pay checks, there will be no choice but to pay, and no choice to refuse to pay.

  100. ShortTermer
    July 8th, 2012 at 12:19 am

    Well, there are ways around it, more deductions can be taken upfront, that way you owe money rather than waiting for a refund where that amount can be deducted. There are many ways around it, it just matters how many are willing to basically go to jail for it. And this is different from FICA, its going to be set up as a tax credit, not a payroll tax, that is the only way it could work, and those are usually taken into account when taxes for the entire year are due, not per paycheck like with FICA.

  101. In fact, in the first few hours I first heard this SCOTUS decision, the machinations that went into this decision impressed me so much that I felt proud about how this country and its various institutions operate (and the good and capable people who operate them).
    ———————–
    Waaaaaaaaaaaa. Did you read the dissent? It is only when you get to the political level that you see anything worth liking. The tax justification is poorly reasoned, i.e. the mandate is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for anti-injunction purposes? But from a political standpoint, it sets Obama up, provided Romney has the smarts and the cajones to take advantage of it. What we are seeing here is the art that conceals the art. Mitt don’t blow it.

  102. Giving him free contraceptives would have cost us less.
    ——————————————————
    It too late. Of course, in the Louisana parishes they bury them above ground. So maybe it is not too late.

  103. The Constitutional question which was not presented to the Court, but needs to be, is how do you rein in an out of control president. The imperial presidency is a clear and present danger to the notion of a republic. It is the imprimatur of a dictatorship. That is the question of our time–the question that needs to be asked and answered. It matters of foreign policy it has been, but in domestic areas when as now you get the wrong individual in the presidency, he can eviscerate the bill of rights. Frankly, that is what we are seeing now.

  104. For that reason, National Association of Insurance Commissioners consumer representative Tim Jost says that the fate of the law remains largely in the hands of the voters, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said.

    “I’m just assuming that if Obama isn’t reelected, the law will stay on the books but nothing really happens,” Jost said.
    —————————
    Kill Obama care.

    Go for single payer as Hillary proposed.

  105. NY Times editorial a few days ago expressed frustrated bewilderment about why Obama wasn’t leveraging the SC decision on Obamacare by articulating all the good that was in the bill
    ————————
    Well, that is the New York Times for you. Trust me. They have not read the bill. Ergo, they haven’t the foggiest idea what is in it. It they had read it then they would no longer be bewildered. And, presumalbly they would not write stupid editiorials. But that is their problem. It is always a case of first the verdict then the facts. Poor research, and most of the time, no research whatsoever. For example:
    ———————————–
    New York Times:
    Propelled by a torrent of blistering television advertisements, President Obama is successfully invoking Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital to raise questions about his commitment to the middle class,… “

    It’s exactly what you think.
    This is how the New York Times operates. They don’t do research, they don’t check facts. They start with a purely speculative article, actually printing the result they eventually hope to obtain, and then they follow up with self-referential articles, apparently hoping somebody else will do the actual work of reporting.
    Some of their friendly talking heads will take the allegations and run with them, without ever checking back to notice whether a foundation exists. Then the NYT will publish a “mounting questions about” article — still without any foundation.
    That’s how they trashed Dick Cheney’s reputation using the name of his former company, despite their utter failure to find any evidence that he had a corrupt relationship with that company after he left it.
    This technique forcibly came to my attention after the invasion of Iraq, when the New York Times published a pack of lies about a blogger that eventually became a founder of Pajamas Media. That’s when I, and perhaps others, began to take a closer look at the foundation for the New York Times articles. They didn’t stand up to our scrutiny, and we said so.
    Howell Raines and Jayson Blair were not aberrations, they were part of the business model.
    Like or Dislike: 11 0

    Log in to Reply
    raven | July 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    Yes, that’s how it works. It was the same way for the Plame story, Duke Rape Case, the McCain affair, Palin hit pieces, and countless others. Plant the fabulist seed (giving it incontrovertible NY Times authority) support it with follow-ups, wait for the rest of the MSM to repeat it, cite the multiple affirmations, and voila, we have a Narrative. Conversely, they ignore any counter-narrative stories — simply refuse to give them coverage or credence (e.g., Fast and Furious, Solyndra). The hope is to watch them shrink into non-stories, deprive them of any Narrative legs or power.

  106. “The IRS will deduct the ObamaTAXcare from people’s pay checks, there will be no choice but to pay, ”
    ********
    Apparently the clowns that wrote this crap forgot to include any enforcement for the IRS to collect the “mandate”. No civil or criminal penalty, no wadge attachment, etc.; the only recourse is withholding all or part of any refund that might be due.

  107. Excuse me, WTF.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-

    Executive Order — Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions

    EXECUTIVE ORDER

    – – – – – – –

    ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND
    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    ……………………………………

    He’s done another one on the sly.

  108. tim
    July 7th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    one tax that is not medically related that will severely hurt is the home sales tax, starting in 2015 (funny how its right before the 2016 election), there will be a 3.8% tax on any sale of a home in America.
    Not one Dem a$$hole read this crap of a bill. Not one.
    ***************

    I’m afraid I have to disagree with that. I’m sure the dems read the bill and know what’s in it. They just don’t care. In fact, they most likely agree with the home sales tax.

    Think about it – the dems agree with the capital gains tax, the death tax and just about every tax I can think of. They just love taxes. They love confiscating our hard earned money in any way they can!

  109. Go for single payer? And who would that single payer be – obama and his thugs?

    Give me a freakin break!

  110. moononpluto
    July 8th, 2012 at 5:18 am

    Excuse me, WTF.
    ————–

    There was news tidbit on CNN (I think, was watching it on travel) that said something about the FBI shutting down Internet for 65K people this Monday to address some malware issue (!?). The bozo reporters did not give any more information like who are these people, where are they, who gets affected, and so on.

  111. OTurd steals one election at a time, he did to Alice Palmer, he did it to his US senate opponent, when Hillary and Bill backed him, while he promised he wouldn’t run 2 years later; which he obviously broke.

    The man is a serial pathological liar. Take nothing he says with any value. And that goes for any business or any american ally. Take nothing he says with an ounce of truth or value.


  112. Tim, Anderson Cooper tried to defend Obama in that video. Drew Griffith did not let him. Still, it is amazing that these stories were aired then quickly buried and Obama was never forced to answer questions about his behavior and character before the cameras.

  113. Some in Big Media take notice of Obama’s negative campaign:

    http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-07-06/10-million-checks-131000-ads-this-aint-your-kinkos-campaign/

    Off the 68,443 ads that Obama has run on TV (local broadcast, national network & national cable) in the 30-day period ended July 2, 52,016 had an “anti-Romney message” — 76 percent of the total, according to New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which monitors campaign advertising.

    Obama’s negative ads have overtaken his positive ads. Since April 10, when Republican Rick Santorum’s exit essentially made Romney his party’s presumptive nominee, Obama has run 112,202 ads, of which 58,151 were anti-Romney and 54,051 positive.

    So Obama’s been running heavily negative lately.

    “Over the next four months, you’re going to see more money spent than you’ve ever seen before, more negative ads,” Obama told his audience today. “These guys are writing $10 million checks.” [snip]

    Either way, the president’s people are feeling a little outgunned lately. The Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee combined collected $100 million in June, they say — though reports will be filed later this month.

    “For context, that’s about what we raised in April and May combined,” Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, wrote today in an e-mail to supporters. “We’re still tallying our own numbers, but this means their gap is getting wider, and if it continues at this pace, it could cost us the election.”

    Still, it’s not like the Obama campaign is sitting this one out.

    The president’s re-election campaign — which hasn’t reported its June collections yet — accounted for more than half of the presidential campaign ads that aired on broadcast network television during the 30-day period ended July 2, – 68,443 ads, among 131,119 overall, according to CMAG.

    Obama’s ads ran three times as frequently as Romney’s (23,815) — though the effective gap was narrowed by super-PAC spending: with the work of Romney-allied committees, Restore Our Future (7,939 ads) and Americans for Prosperity (5,968 ads).

    And there is evidence that those attack ads from camp Obama have taken a toll on Romney’s favorability ratings in key states.

  114. Dan Balz takes note of Obama’s negative campaign while whitewashing his earlier campaigns and pretending Obama is anything but a dirty Chicago mud thug:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-then-and-now/2012/07/07/gJQA1A8RUW_story.html

    Obama then and now

    President Obama’s bus tour through Ohio and Pennsylvania late last week offered a striking look at the evolution of a president. In 2008, Obama used soaring rhetoric and personal biography to talk about binding together a red-blue nation. His message today is about the urgent need to defeat a stubborn opposition party in order to move the country forward.

    Four years ago, Obama used themes of hope and change to suggest that he could bring a new politics to Washington. He was open to the idea that, as he sometimes put it, the solutions to the country’s problems were somewhere between the rhetoric and visions of both parties. His goal, he said, was to help guide the country, through his leadership, to that imagined golden mean while sticking to his principles.

    Today, the battle-scarred president who has met almost uniform resistance from the Republicans sees the world differently, or so it seems from the way he talked in Ohio and Pennsylvania. At nearly every stop, he made it clear that he sees November in the starkest of terms and that there can be but one winner. He asked supporters to help deliver a victory in November that would carry a message that his vision is superior to that of the Republicans. [snip]

    That is a change from the way he talked as a candidate in 2008. His message then was not so much about either-or choices. That was not the message he delivered when he first appeared on the national stage at the 2004 Democratic convention, nor was it the message he offered the night he scored his breakthrough victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses that launched him toward the White House. He did not talk about elections as tiebreakers between two sides but of a country hungering for a new model for its politics. [snip]

    There was more to his message in 2008, certainly. He ran plenty of negative ads against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Republican nominee. He drew distinctions between his ideas and those of Republican Party. He ran hard against then-President George W. Bush, especially the war in Iraq, and promised a change in direction.

    But what resonated most was the aspirational side of his message. The country would meet its challenges only one way — together. Contrast that with the way he talked about the election as the sun was setting Thursday night in a park in Parma, Ohio. “There are two fundamentally different visions about how we move the country forward,” he said. “And the great thing about our democracy is you get to be the tiebreaker.” [snip]

    But at its core, Obama’s message has shifted. The urgency in his appeal is grounded in his conviction that this is an election about ideas and policies and political philosophies, that the country faces a crucial moment and a clear choice. The country is in a far different place than it was when he first ran for office, and he is in a far different battle. And he has decided how he will fight it between now and November.

  115. well him and Jarrett have been talking of shutting down or turning off Fox…..would surprise me if the SOB tried it.

  116. admin
    July 8th, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Yep, I noticed that too, the last straw for me watching the so-called “newstation” CNN was when the South Dakota “democratic” primaries were going on, and they[CNN] openly and repeatedly kept saying Hillary had dropped out… my wife and SIL were actually in SD campaigning for Hillary and I remember they were livid beyond words, I tried so many times to get thru to CNN’s HQ, lines were of course busy, I tried posting on their comment section, which of course looking back now, they filtered out any anti-OTurd comments.

    Fox I remember was the only station that said that the rumors that Hillary dropped out are false. So all those Hillary voters people in SD who relied on CNN and just said oh I guess she dropped out and then just didn’t go to poll, well what can I say, that was CNN’s goal.

    Hillary still beat OTurd handily, but at this point CNN(and others) are not biased, they are outright propoganda. Stalin would be so proud.

  117. But at its core, Obama’s message has shifted. The urgency in his appeal is grounded in his conviction that this is an election about ideas and policies and political philosophies, that the country faces a crucial moment and a clear choice. The country is in a far different place than it was when he first ran for office, and he is in a far different battle. And he has decided how he will fight it between now and November.
    —————
    Baltz is a rube. In 2008 he bought the sizzle not the steak. If he thinks 2008 positive campaign then he is delusional. If he thinks Obama (unlike Romney) is engaging in a negative campaign because “of his conviction that this election is about ideas” then he is dumber than a post. It is not the survival of Obama’s ideas that has him acting like a cat on a hot tin roof. It is his own survival and his hyperinflated ego that are at risk here. I will say it again: Baltz is a rube. We do not need this kind of defender of the Washington status quo explaining things to us. His explanations so colored by self interest that they lack any credibility. The Washington DC establishment is the only permanent enemy of the American People and it took a second depression to prove it. If things get worse, we are looking at a third party–just to get rid of people like Baltz. What Baltz and his fellow apologists need to do is look themselves in the mirror and say–
    Dan, you are an idiot. You were wrong in 2008 and you are wrong now.”

  118. tim, I’m noticing AFP now has sister org. a non profit foundation with similar name (AFPF – committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal govt to its Constitutional limits. )It has a facebook presence here: https://www.facebook.com/AFPFoundation
    FWIW to you only.

  119. holdthemaccountable
    July 8th, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Thanks! I had not heard of them, I’ll be sure to go read up on what they do, etc.

  120. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/the-thrill-of-bill-hill.html?_r=1&hp

    YOU see that smile of his, still popping up almost daily in the news, and it stops you. Melts you. There’s just more exuberance in it — more messy life — than in the You snap to attention when you spot her, too, not because she has his goofy radiance but because she’s such an improbable survivor — from Hillarycare to everywhere, a secretary of state as frequent-flying and industrious as any — and because after all these years, she remains an erratically coifed enigma, the conventional interpretation of any one chapter of her life not sufficing for the next. First she got so far and presumptuously ahead of herself, an upstart. Then she patiently did the work and recreated herself, a penitent. When she set her sights on the Oval Office, she seemed as intent as anybody had ever been. When she didn’t get there, she let go of the dream with uncommon grace.

    Or did she? Maybe the two of them are scheming afresh. You never really know. That’s the stormy, thrilling, unrivaled adventure of them.

    Without Bill and Hill, where would we be? Bored even sillier than we are. Bereft of genuinely juicy players. Consigned to the snooze button that is Mitt and the cold touch of no-drama Obama. That’s why we keep letting Billary back on center stage. Or, rather, yanking them there, by turning each of his demi-gaffes into a meta-story, by weaving fantasies in which she takes over for Joe Biden and he takes a train back to Delaware. They hold the spotlight. They add a dollop of mystery, a dose of madness and a crucial heartbeat to a strangely bloodless, mirthless presidential contest.

    The 2012 race is an exercise in extreme caution starring two exercisers more devoted than Bill usually managed to be. For all the stark differences in their ideologies and biographies, Romney and Obama are strikingly alike in their taut, tidy, temperate ways, each the perfect and photogenic patriarch of a perfect and photogenic brood. Together they foster a curious kind of longing for the Clintons, not just because the couple inhabited the White House during the last era of outsize prosperity and not just because they still had so much boomer vitality left when they left, bound for Chappaqua but not obscurity.

    They’re relished because they were (and are) such great characters, and such relatable ones. They wore their flab, their flaws and their bruises as conspicuously as their talents. Although insanely gifted, they’re also all too human, to crib the phrase that George Stephanopoulos aptly used as the title for his book about his Billary years.

    I WAS reminded of this by an advance peek at the mini-series “Political Animals,” a zippy television fiction to begin on the USA Network next weekend. It stars Sigourney Weaver as a former first lady who is excoriated by many feminists for standing by her philandering man; subsequently runs for the presidency herself; loses her party’s nomination to an ultrasmooth whippersnapper; is plucked to be his secretary of state; and, in that assignment, wrings a whole new amplitude of respect from Americans who still have questions about her life choices but not about her dedication to public service or her competence. Sound like anybody you know?

    Unlike Hill, Weaver’s character divorces her ex-president husband, but he still strides confidently across the cultural landscape, a libidinous Southern charmer whose effervescence is a constant rebuke to her stiffness and the laboriousness of her march toward popular affection. Just like Bill, he questions the competence of the man who defeats the former first lady in her presidential campaign. He also tells her, “Baby, I am the meat in the Big Mac of this party.” All others are condiments and sesame seeds.

    As I watched “Political Animals,” I thought: no wonder a scenarist fashioning a Washington roman à clef would summon the Clintons. They’re political animals — unpredictable, ferocious — to a degree that Obama and Romney really aren’t. Obama finds the muck of politics degrading, a necessary evil, and backslapping isn’t his thing. It’s an even more awkward fit for Mitt. Bill reveled in it all. Although few politicians have been as lacerated by the blood sport of their profession, he continued to play it with unalloyed zest. And to play it masterfully.

    To be fair, it’s not just the current candidates who want for a certain wildness. It’s the political culture, transformed by Twitter and the 24-minute news cycle into a constant patrol for — and vigil against — excited, off-script utterances. Remember the days when we talked only of message discipline? Recently a pollster I was speaking with extolled the virtues of language discipline. What’s next: syllable discipline? Wait, we already have that, in Romney’s “jobs, jobs, jobs” incantation and strategy. When he’s forced against his will onto other nouns, like penalty and tax, he stammers and flails.

    Obama’s background and arc make him compelling. His comportment often doesn’t. He eschews displays of emotion and endeavors to control even the past, rewriting his own, as the author David Maraniss recently made clear. He’d never be caught in the bedraggled states that Hill frequently is or let his thighs and stomach go the way Bill’s sometimes did. His clothes are unwrinkled. His appetites are firmly in check, and have been ever since that college transfer to Columbia, that resolve to get serious and that New York regimen of three miles a day and a once-a-week fast.

    His campaigns and administration are as orderly as his person. The suffix “-gate,” which flourished under Billary, is endangered under Obama, and the staffers and staff convulsions just aren’t the same. Clinton had Dick Morris and James Carville and Betsey Wright, whose profane fictional alter ego was played by Kathy Bates in “Primary Colors.” While that chronicle of the 1992 campaign could focus tightly on the Clinton camp, which had all the suds a soap opera needed, its nonfiction analogue from the 2008 campaign, “Game Change,” had to include candidates other than Obama to generate the requisite froth. And when HBO made a movie from it, the Obamas were edited out entirely. They weren’t the best story.

    The Clintons were always the best story. That’s not exactly a compliment. Americans suffered on account of the couple’s sloppiness, heedlessness, self-consumption and greed. From Whitewater through impeachment, Bill and Hill abetted distraction upon distraction, undermining their own agenda.

    But they had fire, and he had a sort of glee that redeemed and bought him forgiveness for his many infidelities — marital, political, ideological. There’s inexhaustibly riveting material in these two. There’s also a capacity for risk-taking, along with a gameness and a toughness, that Obama and Romney could learn from, and that the rest of us can’t help missing just a little.

    **********************

    check that … missing them a lot…

  121. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/IRS-Obamacare-proof-insurance/2012/07/07/id/444672

    The Tax Man Cometh to Police You on Obamacare
    Saturday, 07 Jul 2012 05:42 PM

    The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law will come home to roost for most taxpayers in about 2 1/2 years, when they’ll have to start providing proof on their tax returns that they have health insurance.

    That scenario puts the Internal Revenue Service at the center of the debate, renewing questions about whether the agency is capable of policing the healthcare decisions of millions of people in the United States while also collecting the taxes needed to run the federal government.

    Under the law, the IRS will provide tax breaks and incentives to help pay for health insurance and impose penalties on some people who don’t buy coverage and on some businesses that don’t offer it to employees.

    The changes will require new regulations, forms and publications, new computer programs and a big new outreach program to explain it all to taxpayers and tax professionals. Businesses that don’t claim an exemption will have to prove they offer health insurance to employees.

    The healthcare law “includes the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years,” according to the Treasury inspector general who oversees the IRS. The agency will have to hire thousands of workers to manage it, requiring significant budget increases that already are being targeted by congressional Republicans determined to dismantle the president’s signature initiative.

    “Knowing the complexity of the health law, there’s no question that the IRS is going to struggle with this,” said Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. “The IRS wants more resources. Well, we need to start digging down into what are they doing with the resources and personnel.”

    Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui said, “The overwhelming majority of funds used by the agency to implement the Affordable Care Act go to administer the premium tax credits, which will be a tax cut averaging about $4,000 for more than 20 million middle-class people and families.”

    The Supreme Court, in its 5-4 ruling, upheld the mandate that most Americans get health insurance. The majority said Congress has the power to enforce the mandate under its taxing authority. The decision labeled the penalties a tax, noting that they will be collected by the IRS.

    Those who don’t get qualified health insurance will be required to pay the penalty — or tax — starting for the 2014 tax year, unless they are exempt because of low income, religious beliefs, or because they are members of American Indian tribes.

    The penalty will be fully phased in by 2016, when it will be $695 for each uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater, up to $12,500. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 4 million people will pay the penalty that year.

    The law, however, severely limits the ability of the IRS to collect the penalties. There are no civil or criminal penalties for refusing to pay it and the IRS cannot seize bank accounts or dock wages to collect it. No interest accumulates for unpaid penalties.

    So how can the IRS enforce the mandate? Scary letters and threats to withhold tax refunds.

    The law allows the IRS to withhold tax refunds to collect the penalty, and most filers get refunds. This year, 77 percent of the 135 million individual income tax returns processed by the IRS qualified for a refund. The average refund: $2,707.

    For those who don’t qualify for a refund, a stern letter from the IRS can be effective, even if it doesn’t come with the threat of civil or criminal penalties, said Elizabeth Maresca, a former IRS trial attorney who supervises the Tax & Consumer Litigation Clinic at the Fordham University law school.

    “Most people pay because they’re scared, and I don’t think that’s going to change,” Maresca said.

    The IRS has not yet issued procedures for taxpayers to prove they have insurance. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, in a 2010 speech, said he envisioned a process similar to the one used by taxpayers to report interest or investment income.

    Under this scenario, an insurance company would send the taxpayer and the IRS forms each year verifying that the taxpayer has qualified insurance. Taxpayers would file the forms with the IRS along with their returns, and the IRS would check them to make sure they match the information supplied by the insurance companies.

    The IRS says it is well on its way to gearing up for the new law but has offered little information about its long-term budget and staffing needs, generating complaints from Republican lawmakers and concern from government watchdogs.

    The IRS is expected to spend $881 million on the law from 2010 through 2013, hiring more than 2,700 new workers and upgrading its computer systems. But the IRS has not made public information about its spending plans in the following years, when the bulk of the healthcare law takes effect.

    The lack of information makes it impossible to determine whether the IRS will have adequate workers to enforce the healthcare law, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration said in a report three weeks ago. The report, however, concluded that “appropriate plans had been developed to implement tax-related provisions” of the law.

    In 2010, House Ways and Means Committee Republicans issued a report saying the IRS may need as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees “to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans.”

    That assessment has been widely cited by opponents of the law. The IRS disputes the jobs number but hasn’t offered another one.

    “That is a made-up number with no basis in fact,” IRS spokesman Dean Patterson said in an email. “The 2012 budget calls for about 1,200 employees for the IRS to implement the (Affordable Care Act), and the vast majority of those employees are needed to build technology infrastructure to support payments like the new tax credits for individuals and small businesses.”

    Republicans on the House committee have accused the IRS of obscuring its cost of putting in place the healthcare law by absorbing it into in other parts of the agency’s budget. They cite a June report by the Government Accountability Office that said the IRS has not always accurately identified spending related to the new healthcare law.

    “The agency’s repeated lack of transparency to Congress and its failure to provide accountability to the American taxpayers raises fundamental concerns about implementation authorities vested to the IRS,” the top four Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee wrote in a June 27 letter to the IRS commissioner.

    The committee chairman, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., has scheduled a hearing on the tax implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling for Tuesday.

    *******************************

    this must be stopped…this will become such a colossal mess and extremely intrusive…the scenarios for confusion and mistakes…probably a lot of fraud…are limitless…just the temp worker scenario for starters…

    …and most importantly, it has nothing to do with the quality of health care or keeping the cost down…we are giving up so, so much for this strangulation…

  122. “OTurd steals one election at a time, he did to Alice Palmer”
    *******
    The story about the Alice Palmer affair was in a Chicago Newspaper (Sun Times), probably scrubbed from the net by now. The moral of that story was that there is no honor among thieves. IRRC Alice Palmer backed out on her promise not to run again and tried to get back on the ballot with a petition. Using the “tried and true” Chicago method of gathering signatures on a petition, they got some folks from the “community” and paid them to sit around a table and sign the petition. They screwed up by using an out of date voter registration list.

    The surprising thing to me about that election was that Obama’s campaign manager out thugged the establishment thugs and Obama was still allowed to be a player in the Illinois Consortium. Didn’t work out well for Blago.

  123. I have never read Obama’s book. Why waste the time. It is a cornucopia of lies. Furthermore, he is about as interesting to me as a block toilet is to a plumber. The reason the rube Baltz charaterizes Obama’s present fulminations as a fight for ideas is because it allow Baltz and the rest of his crowd to continue treating Obama like a hero, so they do not have to revise their initial assessment, and admit that they as much as the blacks were completely and totally bamboozled. It is absurd to fall back on this justification. If this were a war of ideas, then Obama would have kept the promises he made in 2008, whereas he has repudiated all of them by his actions, and attacked the constitution more aggressively than anyone before him. Freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, gun rights, search and seizure, speedy trial, cruel and unusual punishment, states rights–all of these sacred rights have been diminished under his regeancy. So, Dan, don’t don’t give me this horseshit that the reason he is going negative is because of a sense of conviction for certain ideas. The only conviction his has is to himself, and it is called survival.

  124. tim
    July 7th, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    AxelTurd: “Romney is running the most secretive campaign since Nixon.”

    yeah riiiight.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&:lol:
    actually there is nothing secret about Mitt.

  125. “There are two fundamentally different visions about how we move the country forward,” he said. “And the great thing about our democracy is you get to be the tiebreaker.” [snip]
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    SEE!! he doesn’t know that we are a Republic. 🙄

  126. It is interesting. Four years ago, we all used to tune in to the Sunday morning news recaps, and listen to the pundits intently.

    Now we could give a crap what they say.

    What is the difference?

    Most of us realize that the pundits are nothing more than shills for the Washington establishment, and to the degree they are that, they are the enemy of the American People.

    It would have been better for them if they had tried to be more subtle about it. But instead, they went full throttle to stifle the voice of the American People, and to act as nothing more than a mouthpiece of this corrupt adminstration.

    The obvious exception is FOX, and to a lesser degree CBS.

    As a result, they are no longer worth listening to.

  127. In the business world, I have seen big mergers fail, and when they fail thousands of people are left high and dry.

    What causes mergers to fail, typically, is the lack of a strategic fit, or the lack of a cultural fit. Often, the main cause is cultural, because it is more subjective and harder to assess on paper before the fact.

    It seems to me that Obamacare suffers from that same infirmity: it is fundamentally inconsistent with the cultural norms and expectations of this nation, which favor choice as opposed to compulsion. Moreover, the enforcement mechanism, the IRS, is widely regarded as the most odious entity in our culture.

  128. “It is interesting. Four years ago, we all used to tune in to the Sunday morning news recaps, and listen to the pundits intently.

    Now we could give a crap what they say.

    What is the difference?

    Most of us realize that the pundits are nothing more than shills for the Washington establishment, and to the degree they are that, they are the enemy of the American People.”

    Nailed it wbboei — I would guess most independent minded people now get their info online. I might add, not only are they shills for the DC establishment, they are ignorant shills.

  129. One of the Obama people, I cannot recall whom now, was impressed with China because the decisions made for that entire society were made not by the billions of Chinese but by three men in the Communist Party. Only three men. I am sure Obama subscribes to this view as well. That is an odious mindset. If we could be sure that those three men knew as much as individual Chinese do about what is good for them it would be one thing. But we know from history that is hardly ever the case, nor as a empirical matter can it possibly be. The closest thing we have in this country to a closed society of policy makers is not the Supreme Court, which is constrained by stare decisis. It is the Federal Reserve. And just look at what a mess they have made of things. It is like Lord Highchurch said: the idea of govermnent intervention in the market rests on the elementary non-sequitur of perfect government.

  130. I would guess most independent minded people now get their info online. I might add, not only are they shills for the DC establishment, they are ignorant shills
    ————————–
    Yes. And what makes them so bloody ignorant is they are more interested in supporting the agreed upon narrative than in finding the truth. It is the self serving narrative, which can evolve over time, but can never be repudiated, even when it is demonstrably wrong. And that narrative is driven by three factors: access; power; and privilege. For them, that is alpha omega.

  131. wbboei
    July 8th, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    you must be thinking of Ray Lahood.

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/05/obama_s_transportation_secretary_hails_chinese_infrastructure

    “Echoing the laments of pundits like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood argued Saturday that China outpaces the United States in building major transportation infrastructure like high-speed rail because of its authoritarian system and because the Chinese don’t have the Republican Party holding up progress.

    “The Chinese are more successful [in building infrastructure] because in their country, only three people make the decision. In our country, 3,000 people do, 3 million,” LaHood said in a short interview with The Cable on the sidelines of the 2012 Aspen Ideas Festival on June 30. “In a country where only three people make the decision, they can decide where to put their rail line, get the money, and do it. We don’t do it that way in America.””

    Well, at least later in the later he says our democracy is still the best, hm, sounds like a backhanded compliment.

  132. To me the only thing that will save our country is the internet. That is if they allow the internet to still be freedom of speech. Right now the internet is the only freewheeling news we have. The media follows the informtion on the internet. They react, they do not uncover. Since they are a few hours to days behind, fewer people need them for their information.

    We need to fight hard to keep the internet free.

  133. Fox reporting the dems working hard to take back the House of Reps, oh horror, Pelosi as Speaker again, oh goodie, what other crap are they going to shove down on America, cap n trade?

  134. tim
    July 8th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    wbboei
    July 8th, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    you must be thinking of Ray Lahood.
    ———————-
    Thankyou Tim. That is who it was. I was supposed to introduce him at a Republican event with about 10 other guests in Sun Valley years ago. The prick never showed up. He is from Peoria as I recall. His family is in the grocery business as I recall. He is part of the Illinois Combine.

  135. dems working hard to take back the House of Reps
    ———————–
    with the money Obama is not giving them. Every man for himself is the watchword.

  136. dems working hard to take back the House of Reps

    ……………………………

    Good luck with that, can’t see it happening this year.

  137. It is like Lord Highchurch said: the idea of govermnent intervention in the market rests on the elementary non-sequitur of perfect government.

    ======================

    1. Government does not need to be “perfect” in order to improve a situation by intervening in it (example food safety standards).

    2. If we contrast “perfect government” with the implied “perfect market”, then they have different standards of ‘perfection’. ‘Perfect government’ would mean it serves the purposes stated in the Constitution. ‘Perfect market’ would mean it serves the elite financiers.

  138. It seems to me that Obamacare suffers from that same infirmity: it is fundamentally inconsistent with the cultural norms and expectations of this nation, which favor choice as opposed to compulsion.

    ========================

    Yes. And when someone compares Obamacare to Hillary’s 2008 plan, they ignore all the different choices that Hillary’s plan offered: a public option, something like the Congress’s plan, etc etc.

  139. “And the great thing about our democracy is you get to be the tiebreaker.” [snip]
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    SEE!! he doesn’t know that we are a Republic.

    ===================

    Oh, Lord, are we back to THAT?! :eyeroll:

  140. Give me generals who win and adversaries who are stupid. Wasserman I know nothing Schutlz and Plouffe ryhmes with fluff and Bill too dumb to spit Burton and Ben not ready for prime time Labolt are, in fact, fall into the second category.
    ——————————————————-

    DNC Chair channels Obama’s ‘doing fine’: ‘Happy’ with private sector job growth

    Posted by Dan Spencer (Diary)

    Sunday, July 8th at 12:20PM EDT
    5 Comments

    During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz channeled President Obama’s infamous “the private sector is doing fine” comment, saying she is “happy” with job growth in the private sector:

    Fox News’ John Roberts: “So then is the suggestion that we should just do keep doing the same thing? There’s that old definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

    DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “What we should do – well, I’m pretty happy about 28 straight months of job growth in the private sector.”

    Roberts: “Are you happy about 80,000 jobs last month, 69,000 the month before that. Are you happy with those numbers?”

    Rep. Wasserman Schultz: “Like I’ve said and President Obama has said, we need to continue to improve and we need to do more and we need to work together.”

    You can watch Wasserman Schultz’s “happy” comment here.

    Wasserman Schultz’s “happy” version of Obama’s “doing fine” comment came just a day after Obama Adviser David Plouffe falsely claimed June’s terrible jobs report is “what everybody expected.”

    Both are attempts to resurrect Obama’s failed “doing fine” effort to shrug off the continuing failure to bring unemployment down to the levels used to sell Obama’s failed so-called stimulus.

    As you will recall, a month ago Obama had to clarify, but did not repudiate his “the private sector is doing fine” comment, within five hours of saying it.

    Obama’s “doing fine” comment created quite a hue and cry. The Romney campaign quickly launched a @ObamaDoingFine parody Twitter site. The RNC put up a YouTube video titled “Doing Fine,” showing headlines highlighting the lousy economy, Obama saying “the private sector is doing fine,” and asking how can President Obama fix our economy if he doesn’t understand what’s broken? And the Romney Campaign released its “Jolt” video using video clips of news broadcasts about the horrific May jobs report, Obama’s “doing fine” comment and asking if there has ever been a president so out of touch with the middle class?

    Obama has boxed himself into a corner by admitting we are not better off than we were four years ago and telling NBC, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” He and his Obamacrats will continue to try out outrageous sounding comments about the unemployment numbers until something actually resonates or the numbers finally significantly improve.

    Sponsored Content

  141. He and his Obamacrats will continue to try out outrageous sounding comments about the unemployment numbers until something actually resonates or the numbers finally significantly improve.
    ———————-
    Reality does not matter. They are on automatic pilot.

  142. They are pushing this guy O’Malley forward into the spotlight now. But it seems like he is something of a soiled dove.
    ——————————–

    Land developer controversy

    Major land developer Edward St. John was fined $55,000 by the Maryland Office of the State Prosecutor for making illegal contributions to the O’Malley campaign. The Washington Times reported later that the Governor’s administration had issued a press release touting a new $28 million highway interchange leading to one of St. John’s properties. Governor O’Malley’s spokesman said there was no “quid pro quo” and a spokesman for the County Executive noted that the project had been a county transportation priority since before both O’Malley and the Executive were elected.[22]

    [edit] The “MD4Bush” incident

    In early 2005 Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich fired an aide, Joseph Steffen, for spreading rumors of marital infidelity about O’Malley on the Internet. O’Malley and his wife had previously held a highly publicized press conference to deny the rumors and accuse Republicans of partisan politics. The discussions in which Steffen posted the rumors were initiated by an anonymous user going by the name “MD4Bush”, later revealed to be Maryland Democratic Party official Ryan O’Doherty.[23]

  143. The story about the Alice Palmer affair was in a Chicago Newspaper (Sun Times), probably scrubbed from the net by now.

    ====================

    Last time I checked, the story was still online as part of a big several part profile of Obama before the koolaid had taken hold, iirc in a bigger paper than the Sun Times. It’s linked from my old site 1950democrat.livejournal.com

    Your claim is the first I’ve heard of Palmer ’round-tabling’ signatures. One of the other candidates (Obama had ALL of them thrown off the ballot) did admit to the ’round table’ on his. But apparently the only problem with Palmer’s (other than not enough spares) was that she had collected them under the registration list current at the time of signing. Obama waited till Jan 1 when a new, purged, list became official, to run his challenge.

    Neither the big profile I cited, nor Lizza’s puff piece about the same time, supported any wrong-doing about Palmer’s signatures.

    (Typical Obama ploy. Don’t just stab his old, ‘beloved elder stateswoman’ mentor in the back, but attack her reputation also. Don’t just push in ahead of Hillary, but accuse her of raaacism.)

  144. Exactly, Tim. I just listened to FOX News Sunday and was amazed at the panelist comments. Fearfully, John McCain campaign here we come.

  145. What’s next: syllable discipline? Wait, we already have that, in Romney’s “jobs, jobs, jobs” incantation and strategy. When he’s forced against his will onto other nouns, like penalty and tax, he stammers and flails.

    =====================

    A worth-reading bit from a long frothy article.

  146. Oh, and the frothy NYT article endorses Maraniss’s debunk of Obama’s auto-biographies.

    That’s twice, frothy stopped clock has made its quota for today. 😉

    ===================

    [Obama] eschews displays of emotion and endeavors to control even the past, rewriting his own, as the author David Maraniss recently made clear.

  147. Tim, I supported Romney because I thought out of an incredibly poor GOP field, he was most electable. Unfortunstely, his campaign to date may actually be weaker than the anemic one McCain ran. Negative, dirty, Chicago style campaigns will take no
    prisoners and this gentleman like campaign being run by Romney is amazingly inadequate . He better butch up real fast if he hopes to compete. Given the economy, healthcare mandate still unpopular, weak foreign policy(Hillsry can do only do much), Romney should be 10% ahead, not tied or behind. I also just read on Drude that Putin
    is sending Russian bombers close to our airspace to test Obama’s response given
    his weak , bowing to dictators , alienating friends , foreign policy.

  148. the FBI shutting down Internet for 65K people this Monday to address some malware issue (!?). The bozo reporters did not give any more information like who are these people, where are they, who gets affected, and so on.

    ====================

    I saw more info on that (on a blog, naturally) and there’s a site you can go to to check and see if you’re affected. Search for ‘rogue DNS server’.

  149. “There are no quick fixes to the problems we face that were more than a decade in the making,” said Alan Krueger, chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers. “Employment is growing, but it is not growing fast enough given the jobs deficit caused by the deep recession.”
    ——————————–
    It makes a nice epitaph. The truth is we need 125,000 jobs per month just to stay even with increases in the labor force. We got 69,000 in May, and 80,000 in June. Therefore, this is not a case of not growing fast enough. It is a case of going deeper and deeper in the hole.

    It makes a nice epitaph. When job growth does not keep pace with growth in the labor market, the net effect is a deeper and deeper hole every month. And this dream act has merely exacerbated the problem. They say we need to add 125 K jobs per month just to stay even

  150. In fact, they most likely agree with the home sales tax.

    =================

    I think that’s already been debunked here. The tax is only on part of capital gains on sale of a second home or vacation home, or something like that. Not on ordinary home sales.

  151. In fact, they most likely agree with the home sales tax.

    =================

    I think that’s already been debunked here. The tax is only on part of capital gains on sale of a second home or vacation home, or something like that. Not on ordinary home sales.

  152. They start with a purely speculative article, actually printing the result they eventually hope to obtain

    =======================

    I think it was the NYT that printed an article about ‘too many pain pills’ ‘linked’ with bad outcomes. Juxtaposing facts to make it look like the pills were causing the outcomes. Only in the middle was an admission that there was not any indication of just how they might be linked.

    Common sense would say, that the worst cases would get the most pain relief, because they have the worst pain. Duh.

    Elsewhere it’s reported that the enforcers are getting a lot of money by finding (or inventing) violations by respectable drug companies on this issue.

  153. The truth is we need 125,000 jobs per month just to stay even with increases in the labor force.

    ===================

    Where are these increases coming from? Population growth? Maybe it would have been cheaper to give their unwed mothers contraceptives 20 years ago.

  154. You know I was a gingrich supporter. He would have taken the battle to Obama. But we have Romney. You go to war with the army you have.

  155. Wbboei, Newt might have been analogous to Roberts if you agree with the Adm.
    point of view on the ruling. Newt would have lost the election IMHO, but he would have
    done tremendous damage to Obama’s second term by exposing him for what he is in the debates. Newt is brilliant, but erratic. Nonetheless, he would be making significantly better arguments than Melba toast Mitt. With that said, he is disliked by too many for him to have beaten Barry, but it would have been fun. I also don’t think we would have seen Newt on a jet ski with Calista , a very Kerry like move by Romney.

  156. jbstonesfan
    July 8th, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Respectfully, I diagree, Romney is not Mccain, Mccain in 2008 was ruthless against Romney, in fact I remember Mccain and Huckabee sort of “ganged up” to get rid of Romney. However Mccain then in the general was practically campaigning for OTurd.

    Romney has been much more subtle. Romney doesn’t just have to battle OTurd, but the Obot media that protects him. He has some very good surrogates like Sununu who take on the LSM. Its still early. And so far Romney has been agile enough, he needs to stop listneing to the TV idiot pundits, all of who are in the tank for OTurd or the DC establishment (i.e. Billy Kristol).

    I remember in the 1980s, I voted for Carter, but I was one of of those Reagan Dems. The election actually didn’t turn, and massively, until a few weeks before November. And as we get closer to November, I think the LSM will get even more outragous in their protectiveness of OTurd. It won’t be bias it will be pure stalin-like propoganda, and these bozos will wonder, gee? why are our ratings going down?!?

  157. I accompanied my wife to the grocery store just now, she thinks I’m getting too addicted to my computer… LOL
    anways, I saw the lastest Time Magazine cover, it said “Robert Rules”, it was a side profile of cowardly Roberts, which no doubt he immediately sat for after his cowardly act.

    And again, I felt pure disgust at this coward, the vain man is nothing but a power hungry coward. Made the SCOTUS into a joke.

  158. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120708/NEWS09/307080024/Battling-for-every-Iowa-vote?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

    well, Mr. Clive, you should feel responsible! and if this Mr. OTurd gets in again, you Obots should hang your heads in shame for years to come.

    “Some of the once-euphoric Iowans who inspired the nation to embrace Barack Obama in 2008 are experiencing a deep-seated buyer’s remorse over their role in delivering the White House to a candidate they think has let them down.

    Take longtime Democrat Debbie Smith. Four years ago, she wore the Obama T-shirts, went to his rallies, made her first campaign contribution and caucused for the first time.

    “I wish to have my vote back,” said Smith, 51, a small business owner from Clive. “I feel completely responsible, and I feel like I need to tell people this.””

  159. ““We need to have a tax code where secretaries aren’t paying a lower tax rate than their bosses.””

    No worries, MSM is there to completely cover for him, by not covering the story.


  160. I am not as worried about Romney as some are.

    Conventional wisdom has it that the Obama people are defining him in very negative terms, Obama has a ten point lead in Ohio, and he is not inspirational.

    Perhaps. Perhaps.

    But the conventional wisdom is nothing more than the consensus arrived at in the coffee houses of Georgetown, by people who are keen on preserving their power and perks while Rome burns. Therefore, their narrative does not reflect reality. Meanwhile, the polls are false, are known to be false, and are mainly used to drive a headline.

    I would argue that this election is almost entirely about Obama, and the direction he is taking the country. Romney does not need to be inspirational, he needs to be seen as a safe alternative. The Republican elites picked him for that reason, and I find it more than ironic that FOX news who promoted him over all other candidates in the primary, now is raising questions about his willingness to fight.

  161. RIP Ernest Borgnine

    One of the few hollywood people who was not into the current bashing America-hollywood crowd, a WWII veteran and a great actor.

  162. Newt would have lost the election IMHO
    ————————–
    probably true. He would have frightened the horses. My concern at the time however was doing as much damage to Obama as humanly possible and castrating big media. The country is on a suicidal path and we must have a radical change in direction if we are to survive. Romney has a background in turning failing organizations around. That is more needed now than a lot of hollow rhetoric and false bravado.

  163. OTurd’s 20+ year mentor….married the OTurds, baptised their kids, sat in his pews.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/08/reverend-wright-knocks-obama-in-sunday-sermon/#ixzz204NAPiA7

    “Wright later went on to suggest that America’s elite universities infect African Americans with “white racist DNA.”

    “Take a baby born an African, as an African in the oven,” he said, using Malcolm X’s saying “just because a cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn’t make them biscuits” as a reference point for his riff.

    “Take that baby him or her away from the African mother, away from the African community, away from the African experience. . . and put them Africans at the breasts of Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago, those trinity schools, UCLA or U.C. Berkley. Turn them into biscuits then they’ll get that alien DNA all up inside their brain and they will turn on their own people in defense of the ones who are keeping their own people under oppression.”

    “There is white racist DNA running through the synapses of their under-brain tissue,” he continued.

    “They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.””

  164. The jokes write themselves.

    http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/07/08/man-who-introduced-obama-at-rally-stole-former-employers-trade-secrets/

    YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (CBS Cleveland/AP) — An Ohio man who says he once lost his job and introduced President Barack Obama at a rally on Friday had been accused of stealing trade secrets by a former boss.

    Court records show that Daniel Potkanowicz and a business partner in the Youngstown area were ordered to pay $500,000 to Clearview Window & Door after a judge ruled in 2009 that they had violated trade secrets.

    The Vindicator newspaper in Youngstown reports that the two partners have not paid back the money.

    Potkanowicz told the newspaper that he didn’t want to talk about his past.

    “That’s part of my life I really don’t want to go into,” Potkanowicz told The Vindicator. “I’m not really talking about that.”

    A call to his home wasn’t answered Saturday.

    Richard Albright, owner of Clearview, couldn’t believe Potkanowicz would be allowed to introduce the president.

    “I’m wondering who put him up there,” Albright told The Vindicator. “He was involved in a scandal, and he’s introducing the president.”

    Potkanowicz now works for Summer Garden Food Manufacturing, a company Obama toured on Friday. He says the president’s campaign selected him to speak after talking with management there.

  165. “He was involved in a scandal, and he’s introducing the president.”

    =====================

    Gingrich, Oliver North … it only works for Republicans?

  166. Ernest Borgnine. Not a pretty face. But a great Hollywood actor. He could play a mean nasty bully as he did in From Here To Eternity. He could play a sweet guy as in Marty. He could do comedy as in his hit (really stupid) popular TV show McHale’s Navy.

    Our fun fact about Borgnine is his one month marriage to the great supernova which was Ethel Merman. How those two ever got together is one of Higgs-Boson’s great mysteries. The disaster of that marriage is legendary. We won’t begin to describe that Hindenberg disaster because some of the details border on the scatological.

    Good-bye Ernest.

    Thanks for visiting every veterans hospital in America.

  167. Why Roberts caved in on Obamacare is discussed in this audio. Jacobsen agrees with my assessment that is was a bizarre decision in terms of its tortured logic. In fact, he twisted himself into a legal pretzel to achieve a particular result. We do not know for sure why Roberts did this. Was he simply trying to protect the Court, by declining to make the right call? If so, then why do we need a court? Or was there a personal reason? Or did he simply change his mind, and if so why? The disclosure of secret deliverations showing that the flipped suggests the possibility that he was motivated by improper influence. Someone in the inner sanctum wanted the world to know Also, it is noteworthy that the conservatives on the court wanted nothing to do with him and his opinion. His dishonor is made greater by the report that he took a congratulatory call from Obama, and that he posed for the cover of Time–if that is indeed true.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/

  168. Here is an assessment of Romney and what is probably going to happen in his camp. I do not know Howie personally, but I know of him. He went after a friend of mine on a booze cruise in Boston Harbor with strippers etc. My friend was contemptuous of him. Talked about him as a man who interviewed a man who married his dog, etc. I have read Howie from time to time, and think his political instincts are pretty good. He reminds me in some ways of John Kass in Chicago, someone who is willing to call out the corrupt big city machine, in this case the Kennedy Machine when it gets how shall I put it carried away. We need people like Howie to prevent the corruption from becoming too great, and we need him to help us read the tea leaves. He may have a wire into the Republican camp.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists//view.bg?&articleid=1061143790&format=&page=1&listingType=col#articleFull

  169. jbstonesfan
    July 8th, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    🙂

    1st, that spread was much higher a few weeks ago.
    2nd, those are registered voters not likely, which tends to be much more accurate
    3rd, this is a like a marathon, you only need to be within striking distance, it will all come down to the last few weeks, if he as 15 or 20 points behind would be very worrying, within a margin of error isn’t that big of deal, it will fluctuate either way for weeks.

  170. I had been getting the feeling that that Eric Fehrnstorm or whatever his name is, is suspect. May be he is a mole. Romney would do well to lose him as spokesman.

  171. I have rethought my position on all this. I agree with what jbstonesfan–Romeny should be 10 points ahead at this point, instead of in a dead heat.

    To cure that problem, Romney needs to do three (3) things–quickly: i) first,hire Karl Rove to be his strategist (as I have said here on two prior occasions), ii) second, replace his current campaign manager who should never have allowed the incompetent Fehrnstorm to go on CNN and MSNBC, and through careless statements put Mitt in a box, iii) third, draw a razor sharp contrast between himself and Obama which a 90 IQ voter can grasp.

    A grand strategy would begin with a recogition of Rommney’s inherent stengths and weaknessess.

    Romney’s strengths are: i) his background as a job creator, ii) his proven ability to save failing companies, iii) his sound moral character, iv) the broken promises of his opponent, v) the job killing policies of his opponent, v) more than enough money to get his message across.

    Romney’s weaknesses are: i) the apparent lack of a strategic plan, ii) incompetent staff, iii) a hostile media, iv) the cheating we will see from Obama, v) ground game.

    As Steve said, there is a lot of anxiety in the country. The election will be won by the candidate who does the best job of alleviating that anxiety. That should be the focus.
    .

  172. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/08/Obama-outsourcing-far-worse-than-Romney

    Obama’s Outsourcing Far Worse Than Romney’s

    by William Bigelow8 Jul 2012, 8:30 AM PDT50post a comment

    Who’s the worst outsourcer in today’s presidential race? It isn’t Mitt Romney – it’s Barack Obama.

    Obama’s second largest fundraiser is John Rogers, the CEO of investment giant Ariel Capital Management. He has raised more than $1.5 million for Obama’s reelection campaign. Bully for him, except for one thing: Ariel Capital Management owns a $48.6 million stake in Accenture, which just happens to be, according to the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals, the nation’s “best” outsourcer.

    And that’s not all for Rogers; he stated that he wants to intensify the trend that started with moving call centers and factories overseas to outsourcing “day-to-day activities” including pest control, landscaping, and secretarial functions. And Rogers isn’t ashamed one bit:

    “We’re making a very big bet right now on outsourcing. People have generally soured on the idea, and many companies are trading at discounts to their private-market values. But we don’t think that view accurately reflects the powerful secular growth we’re going to see as companies and individuals outsource more of their day-to-day activities.”

    Of course, Rogers isn’t just anyone; he and Obama were buddies in Chicago, and Rogers’ ex-wife Desiree left a $350,000 per year job at Allstate Insurance Company to serve as White House party planner.

    If Obama’s second largest fundraiser is outsourcing jobs by the bushel, you just know his biggest fundraiser has got to be cravenly doing the same thing, right?

    Right. Obama’s largest fundraiser, DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, who raised $2 million for the campaign and co-hosted a $10 million Hollywood fundraiser in May, has been trying to outsource jobs to China by expanding his company’s work there. Why, Jeffrey has even been investigated by the SEC for doing it.

    GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt was appointed by his good friend Barack to lead the White House Jobs Council. During Immelt’s reign at GE, GE rid itself of more than 34,000 American workers, while adding 25,000 foreign workers to its payroll. Additionally, in July 2011, GE fired 150 workers at its X-ray division in Wisconsin and moved the operation to China, hiring 65 new workers there.

    While Obama’s campaign released an ad boasting of green jobs it has created through energy loans it has given, they failed to mention a salient point: among the loans were three taxpayer-guaranteed loans to Spanish clean energy conglomerate Abengoa worth $2.78 billion to create 195 permanent jobs—more than $14 million per job—as well as a $529 million loan guarantee to Fisker Automotive, which manufactures $100,000 electric cars in Finland and is now virtually bankrupt.

    Now let’s talk auto industry. Obama’s Department of Energy gave nearly $6 billion in taxpayer-guaranteed loans to the Ford Motor Company, which is expanding its business outside the U.S. Obama gave General Motors $50 billion and GM started building cars in China and Mexico to save on labor; later, Obama gave GM $45 billion in tax breaks so GM did not have to pay a dime in income taxes after making a $7.6 billion profit.

    Now we get the picture. Obama criticizes Romney for outsourcing while being the king of outsourcers himself.

  173. This weekend I have been nursing a bad cold and decided to watch all five seasons of The Wire again. Funny how I kept thinking of the Baracko administration as I saw the back room deals and the bs that was passed on to the public from the police department and media.

    I missed this entire thread, a great thread Admin, and after seeing this, I finally understand how you think Roberts is brilliant:

    admin
    July 6th, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Roberts reminds us of those little old ladies in that comedy/horror that invite homeless men into their house and then serve them tea – laced with arsenic:

  174. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/economic-report-card-fail

    from the article:
    ““Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.”

    “A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank.”

    “Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened.””

  175. I wanted Hillary and my second choice would have been Trump.

    Mitt is much better than McCain, he practically fell asleep the second half of the campaign and wanted to be the nice old grandpa to Barry. Poor Sarah was on her own to deal with the media and I blame McCain for being weak.

    He was a war hero, but he was no election hero. He was way out of his element IM(less than)HO.

  176. Shadowfax
    July 8th, 2012 at 11:28 pm
    ————————–
    take a listen to Professor Jacobsen on the Roberts decision. Legally, it is very confused. Politically, it was brilliant. But is that what we want judges to be–political? Most of the conservative reaction has not been favorable. Certainly, the dissenters were not impressed with Roberts’s brilliance.

  177. Last November Ohio Voters voted down the Obamacare Mandate by a 2 to 1 margin. Any poll that shows Obama up by any margin in Ohio is just a push-poll. He won Ohio by 4 in 2008 under perfect political conditions. He won’t win Ohio in 2012 and it won’t be close under the present bad economy and resentment over the court healthcare decision.

  178. “That is the concern.”
    *********
    Pretty good description of what is going on and where we are headed and like so many other similar pieces, no “answers”. However, after reading that, I am beginning to think that Obama does deserve four more years so he will get “full credit” for the coming financial disaster.

  179. This gets back to my hunch–there was improper influence here. Something in his background. They were squeezing him and the public attacks on the court were an intentional distraction. And his colleagues know this, and this wound will never heel. Listen closely to this, and think about it. This is what makes the lawyers I have spoken to very uneasy. We rely on the court to be impartial, and bold when it needs to be. Wow. This is why I like cbs and despite Moonves, they dig and dig and find the truth. NBC, ABC and CNN are not capable of this. They are nothing but mouthpieces for Obama.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57468202/discord-at-supreme-court-is-deep-and-personal/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

  180. Tony Stark
    July 8th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
    *************

    I have always believed that
    **************

    wbboei
    July 8th, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    *********************

    I don’t think this was politically brillant. I don’t think I will live to see the day it is overturned. He stuck a fork in this brillant Republic. I will never forgive him and the Dems. Never.

  181. NBC, ABC and CNN are pathetic. And that goes for everyone who draws a paycheck from those corrupt entities.

  182. I am beginning to think that Obama does deserve four more years so he will get “full credit” for the coming financial disaster
    ———————–
    see 1:40 mark


  183. Tony Stark
    July 8th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
    Don’t be fooled. Obama still has more cash than Romney.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/08/Obama-Has-More-Cash-On-Hand-Than-Romney

    Mitt is a business man and I have a feeling he knows Obama is “bluffing” with his “oh poor broke me” campaign donation pleas. If he is so broke, how is he running non-stop all these campaign commercials this summer?

    Mitt knows that most of the country, with the exception of the “talking heads” that have to somehow fill their time, are not really paying attention right now.

    Think about it. The “war on women” is already yesterday’s news as is Obama’s revelation regarding gay marriage. None of these has worked to improve Obama’s numbers. Basically, none of these has “stuck” with the voting public.

    I had a discussion with a neighbor who was a supporter of Obama and she was telling me how sick she is of seeing him on our TV. Can’t get through any local news program without at least three Obama commercials.

    I think Mitt is playing the long game. Let Obama overexpose himself all summer and squander his money. Mitt is doing a good job of being visible without being overexposed. Mitt will start really spending his money and increase his commercial presence when it is going to count…in the fall.

    If Mitt is smart, he will agree to no more than two debates in October, both on PBS. He should state that since the economy is in the tank and cable is the thing most Americans have cut back, he wants the debates on PBS so most Americans will have access to view them.

    Just my humble opinion.

  184. VotingHillary
    July 9th, 2012 at 1:10 am
    —————–
    I agree. Two debates AND neither of them on NBC, ABC, CNN. Those media outlets will attack him regardless. So why empower them, why enrich them, why not make an issue of their bias so the public knows what the game is? In the immortal words of WC Fields “never give a sucker an even break”. Let them explain that one to their stockholders.

  185. So lets see his base go apoplectic…….

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/us-usa-obama-taxes-idUSBRE86805220120709

    Obama to seek one-year extension for some of Bush tax cuts

    President Barack Obama will call on Monday for a one-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year, according to a White House official, seeking to spare the economy the impact of taxes going up on January 1.

    Obama, a Democrat, will make the request in a statement at the White House, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Republicans in Congress, however, are unlikely to be swayed, as they have consistently argued that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone.

    Obama has made what he calls “tax fairness” a key feature of his campaign for re-election on November 6, repeatedly urging Congress to make the tax cuts permanent for families making less than $250,000 a year.

    The tax cuts enacted by Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, will expire on January 1 without congressional action, part of a so-called fiscal cliff that potentially could hit the U.S. economy alongside deep automatic spending cuts.

    Analysts warn the impact of rising taxes and lower federal spending could tip the economy back into recession.

    Representative Tom Price, a member of the House Republican leadership, said earlier on the “Fox News Sunday” program that the House would pass legislation before the end of July to preserve the Bush tax cuts for another year.

    Republicans control the House of Representatives and Obama’s fellow Democrats control the Senate.

    Representative Xavier Becerra, a member of the House Democratic leadership, said Democrats would not support any measure that did not address the nation’s fiscal challenges on a long-term basis.

    “Those are bills to nowhere,” Becerra said on “Fox News Sunday,” referring to the House Republicans’ legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts.

    ………………………………….

  186. wbboei
    July 9th, 2012 at 1:30 am
    VotingHillary
    July 9th, 2012 at 1:10 am
    —————–
    I agree. Two debates AND neither of them on NBC, ABC, CNN. Those media outlets will attack him regardless. So why empower them, why enrich them, why not make an issue of their bias so the public knows what the game is? In the immortal words of WC Fields “never give a sucker an even break”. Let them explain that one to their stockholders.

    Actually, my thought on PBS only is not just for the bias-factor, but also forcing Obama to admit this is the best forum for most Americans because the economy is so bad that cable is now a luxury for many in the country.

    If Obama refuses, well, then now who is the elitist and out of touch with the country?

    Although, I do have to remind that the PBS VP debate in 2008 was moderated by Gwen Ifell who had a book coming out about Obama in January of 2009. SNL did a great skit about that featuring Queen Latifah as the PBS moderator.

    http://dimewars.com/Video/Queen-Latifah-As-Gwen-Ifill-In-The-VP-Debates-Parody-On-SNL.aspx?bcmediaid=3af9694c-da97-4b4b-ae6b-9b9e710c5d48

  187. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304935/obama-s-goose-cooked-larry-kudlow

    Obama’s Goose Is Cooked
    He got another rubber chicken for jobs. Bring on Romney’s filet mignon.

    Obama needed a filet mignon in the June employment report. Instead he got a rubber chicken.

    Only 80,000 new jobs were created last month, way below Wall Street expectations. It’s the fourth consecutive monthly disappointment. For a few months last winter, jobs were rising at an average of 225,000 a month. But that has sloped way down to only 75,000. The unemployment rate continues at 8.2 percent, which is the forty-first straight month above 8 percent. The U6 unemployment rate, which includes discouraged workers, is just under 15 percent.

    As voters finalize their election impressions this summer, all of this is bad news for the Chicago incumbent.

    At a campaign stop in Ohio on Friday, Obama actually said we’re still “heading in the right direction.” Is he kidding? As a stagnant GDP drops below 2 percent, employment falters, retail sales decline, and the ISM index for manufacturing drops below 50 (signaling contraction)? No objective observer can deny that the economy is headed in the wrong direction.

    I don’t like playing the pessimist, but the numbers are the numbers. This is exactly what former Clinton advisers James Carville, Doug Schoen, and Stanley Greenberg have been warning Obama about. People just don’t believe the economy is getting better. So he’s gotta change his message.

    But what change? Taxing rich people won’t create jobs. Neither will bashing Bain Capital. Obama is surrounded by leftist campaign advisers. And it’s hard to see them shifting gears to something constructive like making a summer deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for a year, or heaven forbid backing off the 20-some-odd tax hikes embodied in Obamacare.

    In other words, Obama’s goose may already be cooked.

    The Joint Economic Committee (JEC), spearheaded by Texas congressman Kevin Brady, put out a report saying that the Obama recovery now ranks dead last in modern times. That’s a real milestone in the post-WWII era. It’s ten out of ten for both jobs and economic growth. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real GDP has expanded only 6.7 percent over the eleven-quarter recovery since the recession ended. The Reagan recovery at the same stage had increased by 17.6 percent. The Clinton recovery by 8.7 percent.

    As for jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the number of private-sector jobs has grown by only 4.1 percent since the cyclical low point. Reagan’s record was 10.7 percent.

    So much for Obamanomics. Didn’t work. Still isn’t working. As the JEC put it, spending stimulus, housing bailouts, auto bailouts, financial bailouts, cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, and $5 trillion in deficit spending left the Obama recovery dead last in modern times.

    Whatever happened to the great boom of the ’80s and ’90s, when the animal spirits were strong and the American economy wasn’t held hostage by Europe or China? In an odd twist, both Obama and his top economist Alan Krueger blame “problems built up over decades.” Does that mean they blame Clinton? Reagan?

    For nearly 25 years — during those bad old decades — the economy increased 3.3 percent annually. Unemployment dropped from 11 percent to 6 percent to 5 percent to below 4 percent. Obama would swoon for numbers like that. But those statistics come from the era when big government was over, when pro-market forces stopped the expansion of Leviathan, and when marginal tax rates were slashed to grow the economy.

    Now the question is, with Obama’s economic goose cooked, does Mitt Romney have what it takes to win the election and provide a pro-growth economic model that will restore prosperity at home and America’s number-one position around the world?

    Some powerful figures — including Rupert Murdoch, Jack Welch, and even my brothers and sisters at the Wall Street Journal editorial page — have taken shots at Romney in recent days. But I am more optimistic. In response to his critics on the day of the bad June jobs report, Romney talked about expanding energy resources, approving the Keystone pipeline, cutting taxes, and increasing trade with Latin America. He reaffirmed his intention to cut federal spending and eliminate programs.

    Basically, Romney is promising a return to free-market, supply-side policies on taxes, trade, regulation, and spending. Hopefully he will embrace a sound and stable dollar as well. I still believe Romney is the most underrated politician in America today, and that he’s the most conservative Republican standard-bearer since Ronald Reagan.

    In other words, he’s some real filet mignon.

  188. Hello, it’s Joe Wierzbicki here – Executive Director of The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama Committee.

    As we’ve been telling you, the purpose of our $250,000 Defeat Obama Telethon is to fund campaign efforts in 4 targeted swing states that Obama won in 2008, but that polls show a tight race in 2012. If we win these 4 states, and hand Obama a loss, it would represent a 100 Electoral Vote swing. If our swing state project is successful, it could be the determining factor that denies Barack Obama re-election.

    We have exciting poll numbers to share with you for these 4 targeted swing states – remember, in 2008 Barack Obama won each of these states. Here are the latest poll results in the 2012 campaign:

    WISCONSIN (Source: Rasmussen Poll)

    Romney: 47% – Obama: 44% [Romney leads by 3%]

    MICHIGAN (Source: We Ask America Poll)

    Romney: 45% – Obama: 43% [Romney leads by 2%]

    OHIO (Source: Real Clear Politics Poll Average)

    Romney: 43.6% – Obama: 46.2% [Obama leads by 2.6%]

    NEVADA (Source: Real Clear Politics Poll Average)

    Romney: 44.0% – Obama: 49.3% [Obama leads by 5.3%]

    As you can see, the race is within reach in each of these four critical states. That’s why it’s so important we reach our $250,000 Defeat Obama Telethon goal, so that we can launch campaign efforts to win each of these four states.

  189. I find it interesting that Roberts would flip late in the game, and then try to strongarm Kennedy into joining him–when Kennedy was the point man in trying to get him back on the reservation. He already had the 5 to 4 majority to prevail. Why then would he feel the need to “strong arm” Kennedy? The only plausible explanation I can think of was to give himself cover for his decision. Not only did Kennedy demur, he joined the conservatives, and all four of them refused to have agree with anything Roberts said. They left him to twist in the wind, with his flimsy legal argument. If I were a betting man, I would say that it is not unlikely that the Chicago boys got to him. Like I say, all the sturm and drang by Obama and his co-conspirators in congress was designed to make it appear that the pressure they applied was external, when in fact it was internal, and it is doubtful we will ever know what exactly it was. But now he has two problems. Half the court has no respect for him. And the next time the Chicago boys want something else from him they will know what buttons to push. That is my suspicion and abiding concern.

  190. Maybe we are being to . . . harsh. When you get past all the rhetoric, all that Obama and his fellow dims and their useless supporters want is your salary, your pension and your 401(k). They have plans for your money and those plans do not include you.

  191. Here is BO’s schedule for today:

    Obama Schedule || Monday, July 9, 2012 | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier
    10:45 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
    11:15 am || Meets with senior advisers
    2:00 pm || Participates in interviews with local TV anchors from New Orleans; Manchester, New Hampshire; Louisville, Kentucky; Miami; Raleigh, North Carolina; Davenport, Iowa; Milwaukee; and Las Vegas.
    4:15 pm || Attends a fundraiser; The Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Washington
    5:20 pm || Attends a second fundraiser; The Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Washington
    All times Eastern
    Live stream of Carney briefing at 12:30 pm
    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/07/08/obama-schedule-monday-july-9-2012/

    Let’s see what ABM90 turns up for the American people’s benefactor and workhorse….

  192. He’s doing another freebie from the Rose garden today on extending Bush’s tax cuts, so that seems a last minute then, wonder why the haste, must be because GOP about to announce their new bill.

    Great attention should be drawn to the fact that Bambi’s “successes” are by and large EXTENSIONS OF BUSH POLICIES:

    Kill Bin laden, keep GITMO open, extend “Bush tax cuts”.

    Whenever he diverges from the teleprompter, the public ignores.

  193. Leanora
July 8th, 2012 at 6:50 am
    tim July 8th, 2012 at 10:52 am
    Agreed, I oppose a complete single payer system.
    ======

    I’d just like to point out that the only countries in the world that have single payer are those that use the British NHS, i.e. nationalized health care.

    The French system, ranked best in the world, is not single-payer. Hillary’s “American Health Choices” program unveiled in 2007 was not single-payer either, but it did offer a “public option” which, over time, probably would have whittled down the field of insurers from the 1600 insurers today to perhaps a dozen, including the public option. It still would not be single payer even then.

    While not proning a single payer system myself, I would still like to know what your objections are to a single-payer system. The Brits think it’s great, coverage is universal and the quality of care is very high.

  194. Leanora: “Hillary is in favor of partnerships between governments and corporations to help force upon the world the Agenda 21 movement! Can this possibly be true?”
    ====

    Of course it can be true. Hillary is a big fan of partnering and networking, as is WJC.

    The question is, Does a “partnership” “force” something on the world? Aren’t you really just afraid of Agenda 21, so any way it comes about is forcing something on you?

    Anyway, Agenda 21 is not meant to be forced on anyone, no less the US. It is a series of objectives, suggestions, standards meant to bring third world countries into the 21st century. What Hillary is suggesting is that governments of foreign countries for whom Agenda 21 is intended partner with corporations to bring about these objectives. As Secretary of State, she has no power to suggest that the US do the same.

    So, not to worry, the US can remain in the 20th century, or the 19th if that is the century you prefer.

  195. I remember it was about 2006 when the dam broke full force against Bush, especially after the tragedy of Katrina.

    I predict if OTurd gets in again, it will not be that far along his 2nd term before all leftover legitmacy of his so called presidency will be thrown in the garbage, along with the legitmacy of the LSM who protect him.

  196. Leanora
    July 9th, 2012 at 7:36 am

    I have not heard of this “Agenda 21”, I’ll read up on it, thanks for the info.

  197. http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/agenda-21-how-globalist-domination-happens-on-a-local-level/17379/#more-17379

    Hillary is in favor of partnerships between governments and corporations to help force upon the world the Agenda 21 movement! Can this possibly be true?

    =================

    It’s very possible that Hillary is in favor of such a good cause, imo. But that silly article doesn’t give any evidence for the claim. Here is what it says about her:

    Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State supports the incorporation of the Agenda 21 movement. She remarked that “sustainability won’t happen without business investment. Governments alone cannot solve all the problems we face, from climate change to persistent poverty to chronic energy shortages. That’s why we are so strongly in favor of partnerships.”

    I tried searching for that quote minus “perverse biodiversity” (an interesting concept which appears elsewhere in the article) and found nothing citing Hillary as its source.

  198. http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/07/09/obama-announce-left-pelosi/

    Obama to Announce He’s to the Left of Pelosi

    by Keith Koffler on July 9, 2012, 8:44 am

    There’s not much room over there, but President Obama found it.

    Today at 11:50 am ET, President Obama will announce that he supports a one-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000, a plan that puts him at odds with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), each of whom back extending the tax cuts for people making up to $1 million.

    Obama’s plan will sock the country with a huge tax increase even as the economy continues to stagger.

    It’s bad economics, but the Obama people have calculated that it’s good politics for a politician waging class warfare. Obama will be able to sock Republicans and Mitt Romney for backing tax cuts “for the rich” and “holding hostage” his populist proposal for a “middle class tax cut.”

    As if to underline the political nature of the move, the president will hit the campaign trail Tuesday, traveling to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to tout his proposal. There, he’ll visit the home of a family that would see its taxes rise if none of the Bush tax cuts were extended.

    White House Dossier will live stream Obama’s remarks as well as the briefing by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, which has been bumped back to 1:00 pm.

    ……………………………….

    He tried this little political ploy back in 2010 and it blew up in his face, what makes him think it will be any different now.

  199. SunPower: Twice As Bad As Solyndra, Twice As Bad For Obama

    http://www.humanevents.com/2011/10/11/sunpower-twice-as-bad-as-solyndra-twice-as-bad-for-obama-2/#.T_qazfEFZUk.twitter

    How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project-three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.

    The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization. If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain.

    Two men with insight into the process are SunPower rooter Rep. George R. Miller III, (D.-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee and the co-chairman of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, and his SunPower lobbyist son, George Miller IV.

    Miller the Elder is a strong advocate for SunPower, which converted an old Richmond, Calif., Ford plant in his district to a panel-manufacturing facility.

    The congressman hosted an Oct. 14, 2010, tour of the plant with company CEO Thomas H. Werner and Interior Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar to promote the company’s fortunes.

    “The path to a clean energy economy starts here, in places like SunPower’s research and development facility,” said Salazar during the tour.

    “The work that comes from these facilities transforms renewable energy ideas into a reality. When renewable energy companies continue to invest in places like California, the realization of a new energy future is within our reach,” he said.

    Miller the Elder said he was grateful for Salazar’s interest.

    read on.

  200. tim
    July 9th, 2012 at 8:12 am
    Leanora
    July 9th, 2012 at 7:36 am
    I have not heard of this “Agenda 21″, I’ll read up on it, thanks for the info.
    *************************************

    Tim – please do read it. It’s not as simple as others are trying to make it sound.

    And if you want to learn more about A21, check out this site from a group of democrats who are trying to fight against it:

    http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

  201. What is going on here…..

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/record-shows-obama-at-columbia-only-1-year/

    NEW YORK – Two separate database reports from the National Student Clearinghouse last year that contradicted President Obama’s claim he attended Columbia University for two years added to the intrigue generated by Obama’s unwillingness to discuss his time at the Ivy League institution, his block on the release of educational records, and the many political science students and faculty there in the early 1980s who say they don’t remember him.

    Swirling amid the black hole of information are a host of theories about Obama’s whereabouts – particularly during the 1981-1982 school year – including speculation he was working for the CIA in Pakistan.

    read on.

  202. Interesting….

    New CNN poll: 69% Want Obama to Come Clean on ‘Fast & Furious’

    http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/304999/69-want-obama-come-clean-fast-furious

    Wow. Among adults, not registered voters or likely voters, 53 percent approve of the U.S. House of Representatives holding “Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to a program called Operation Fast and Furious.” Only 33 percent disapprove.

    The CNN survey also found that only 34 percent thought House Republicans had “real ethical concerns,” while 61 percent thought House Republicans did it to “gain political advantage.”

    (What political advantage is that? Just how different is the level of “advantage” the House GOP has today compared to two weeks ago?)

    Naturally, the CNN.com headline is, “CNN Poll: Was politics behind Holder contempt vote?“

    The pollsters also asked, “In the congressional investigation of Operation Fast and Furious, in your view, should President Obama and his aides continue to invoke executive privilege to protect the White House decision making process, or should they drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated?June 28-July 12012

    Only 28 percent said “invoke executive privilege,” and 69 percent said “answer all questions.”

  203. moononpluto
    July 9th, 2012 at 9:48 am

    tsk tsk moononplouto, com’on on, don’t you know the MSM is more interested in evil Mitt romney’s brand of underwear he wears, see, that is soooooooo much more important.

    🙂 🙂 🙂

  204. Top of the page at Drudge.
    Hill Poll: Majority believe Obama has changed country for worse
    By Sheldon Alberts – 07/09/12 05:00 AM ET
    Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.
    A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.
    Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.
    A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.
    http://thehill.com/polls/236627-hill-poll-majority-feel-obama-has-changed-country-for-worse

  205. Morning Jay: The State of the Race, Four Months Out

    6:00 AM, Jul 9, 2012 • By JAY COST

    Give the media enough time, and they will spin straw into gold – for Democrats, naturally. And so it has been over the last two weeks since the Obamacare ruling was handed down. We have seen media pundits debate whether the ruling hurts Mitt Romney. We have seen them criticize Team Romney for not being johnny-on-the-spot with a reaction to a ruling that virtually nobody expected. We have seen them speculate that Team Obama’s Bain attacks are working, despite a dearth of hard evidence and no serious indication from the Romney campaign that they are worth responding to. And on and on it goes.

    With the media consistently confusing and obscuring the true state of the race, it is worth reviewing the key facts that will determine the parameters of the fall campaign.

    There are four, in particular.

    (1) Barack Obama is an unpopular president. You might never pick up on this if your only sources for information are NBC Nightly News and the New York Times. But that does not make it untrue:

    Which president was the last one to win reelection with a job approval less than 50 percent among the electorate?

    Don’t worry if you are having trouble answering. It’s a trick question. Since they’ve been asking the question, the exit polls and the National Election Study have not found such a victor.

    It is worth pointing out that the polls in the RealClearPolitics average are mostly polls of adults, which tend to oversample Democrats. This means that Obama’s standing with the actual electorate is probably weaker than these numbers suggest.

    Additionally, Obama’s numbers are substantially worse on the three top issues of this campaign. The recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found Obama’s overall net job approval at -1, but on the economy he stood at -11. The Fox News poll found him with a net job approval of +5, but his standing on health care was -8. And a Gallup poll from May found that just 39 percent of respondents trusted Obama to handle the deficit better than Mitt Romney.

    The story is basically the same in the swing states. In state after state, we see Obama pulling in about 47 percent of the vote, mostly among registered voters, which is in standing with his national job approval rating.

    (2) Impressions about Obama seem mostly to be set. Not only is the president’s job approval under 50 percent, but it has been this way for most of the last 30 months. There have only been two exceptions when the president enjoyed a brief bounce – In late 2010 for signing the tax cut extension and then in May 2011 after the killing of Osama bin Laden. Otherwise, we have to go back to November 2009 to find this president regularly pulling in more than 50 percent approval. And again, that was with adults.

    (3) The economy is hurting the president. Unemployment is high. Real incomes are stagnant. The industrial sector is slowing to a crawl. Businesses are not hiring enough to keep up with population growth. The sorts of jobs being added are not high paying jobs. And so on.

    No incumbent president has ever won reelection amid an economy as weak as the current one. The closest anybody ever came was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. But then of course he helped defeat the Nazis. What’s more, George H.W. Bush lost with an economy that was actually stronger than the current state. And he had won the Gulf War just 22 months prior.

    President Obama still can use George W. Bush for a great deal of political cover. Most people blame Bush for the recession itself, and the core Democratic electorate (roughly 45 percent of the voting public) seems to buy the notion that Obama has done everything that could possibly have been done to jumpstart economic growth. Yet the evidence suggests that this is insufficient for the independent voters who swing elections – which explains why he’s consistently polled terribly on the economy.

    (4) Romney will have an opportunity to define himself. Team Obama has run hard against Mitt Romney in the swing states for outsourcing jobs, offshore bank accounts, and the like. Team Romney has been notably silent, not committing resources to rebut these charges. One reason might be that the charges are not resonating. Importantly, a new Gallup poll of the swing states shows no statistically significant change in the preferences of registered voters since early May.

    It is important to remember that Team Romney will use the Republican National Convention to introduce him to the public. Of course, the Bain attacks are eventually going to damage his reputation, at least a little bit – but Romney has a solid and compelling story to tell. He saved the Olympics. He was a pragmatic governor in deep blue Massachusetts. He’s a loyal family man. And so on. Voters are going to have all the facts about Romney come November – the positive and the negative.

    It makes sense for Romney to hold off until the Republican convention to do that, as that will be the time when voters start becoming engaged. By the same token, it is not at all clear that Team Obama is making the right choice to go after Romney so early. If voters are not paying much attention, these attacks might be played out by the fall without ever having had their full effect. Again, the Gallup poll suggests that they have not made much of an impact just yet, and so also does Team Romney’s silence. If the campaign thought the Obama ads were having an impact in Ohio, for instance, they’d surely be on the air responding to them.

    Related Stories
    Morning Jay: Obama’s Troubled Reelection Strategy
    Morning Jay: Obama on Thin Ice
    What the Fox Poll Shows
    N.C. Poll: Romney 50, Obama 45
    Obamacare Opinion Makes Voters More Apt to Back Romney

    More by Jay Cost
    Morning Jay: Don’t Bet On Obamacare
    Morning Jay: The Case for John Roberts
    What Did SCOTUS Just Do?
    The Mandate Represents What’s Wrong With Democrats
    Morning Jay: Is Gallup Biased Against Obama?

    So, what does all this mean? Well, I’ll put it this way. InTrade has the odds of Obama winning at 56 percent. Nate Silver has it at 67 percent. Both of those odds look far too high to me. If I were trading futures contracts on this election, I’d sell at both prices. This president is in deep trouble.

    Jay Cost is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic, available now wherever books are sold.

  206. moononpluto
    July 9th, 2012 at 8:59 am

    He tried this little political ploy back in 2010 and it blew up in his face, what makes him think it will be any different now.
    ——————–
    “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
    – attributed to Albert Einstein

  207. Now we know why Obama was getting pissy….Romney $106.1 million………………..Obama.

    President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign announced Monday that it, along with the Democratic National Committee, raised $71 million in June from more than 706,000 donors.

    The amount lags far behind the $106 million Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee raised last month, a number the campaign made official early Monday.

  208. Now for the question of the day that someone needs to ask Obama.

    Why a middle-class extension for only one year? Answer: Obama plans a middle-class tax hike in a second term.

  209. So Obama got $5 million less than he got in May but Romney soared off into the stratosphere and beat him by over $35 million….Gee, i wonder why?

  210. jbstonesfan: from the Jay Cost article, something to keep in mind . . . .

    “It is worth pointing out that the polls in the RealClearPolitics average are mostly polls of adults, which tend to oversample Democrats. This means that Obama’s standing with the actual electorate is probably weaker than these numbers suggest.”

  211. moononpluto
    July 9th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    Now for the question of the day that someone needs to ask Obama.

    Why a middle-class extension for only one year? Answer: Obama plans a middle-class tax hike in a second term
    ———————–
    Bingo. And if Romney does not capitalize on that limitation, he is making a mistake.

  212. Unexpected: Obama’s Fundraising Slowdown

    Back in the heady days of 2011, while the GOP seemed mired in a multi-candidate primary campaign, the Obama campaign boasted that it was on track to raise over $1 billion for the 2012 election. Reuters breathless reported at the time that Obama’s campaign would be a “bigger, slicker machine likely to dwarf that of his eventual Republican opponent.” As with most things, Obama’s rhetoric has failed to match up with reality.

    This morning, the Obama campaign reported the campaign and the DNC had raised a combined $71 million in June. Its their highest monthly total to date, but, unfortunately for the Democrats, falls far short of Romney’s June fundraising haul. The Romney campaign reported this morning that, together with the RNC, it had raised a whopping $106 million in June–$35 million more than the Democrats.

    Romney first started beating Obama’s fundraising in May, but June’s numbers show the financial disparity is growing. Romney and the RNC had over $160 million cash-on-hand at the end of the reporting period.

    Its possible that Romney’s fundraising could go quite a bit higher. In the 24 hours after the Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare, the Romney campaign reported receiving over $4 million in donations. In June, 94% of all donations received were under $250. As grass roots activists realize that the only path to undo ObamaCare lies through the election of Romney, expect a surge in the number of small dollar donations to the campaign.

    Given the powerful assist Obama receives from the news media, his campaign can survive being out-spent by Romney. But, its a significant decline in fortunes for a campaign that used to arrogantly boast about its fundraising juggernaut. In Obama’s world, his campaign is an overwhelming political force that can steam-roll through all opposition. In the real world though, his campaign spams potential donors with increasingly desperate please for money. The November election, fortunately, will take place in the real world.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/09/obamas-fundraising-slowdown

    ……………………………….

    as usual Obama’s hype does not live up to the real thing.

  213. Things must be pretty bad if the WH sees it as an improvement to tack from #ObamaCare to raising taxes.

    Bottom line of today’s Obama speech: let’s cut taxes on middle class through the election, and then just give me your blind trust after that.

    This could be fun ……….Would POTUS veto a bill sent to his desk that extends the Bush tax cuts for everyone for a year? Unanswered Q.

    alll a plot as…..No veto threat from Obama if he gets bill to extend all Bush tax cuts

    ………………………

    So all political theatre, the GOP were going to send a bill anyway to extend Bush tax cuts, Obama just wants to try and take credit for it.

  214. ” “I’m not proposing anything radical here.””
    LOL.

    I surprised he didn’t use his trademark, “the notion”… “The notion that I’m proposing anything radical is ridiculous.”

  215. Breaking: the Bush tax cuts are now central to Obama’s economic recovery plan.

    So much for blaming Bush.

  216. Oh look, more bussed in protests by Obots.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/r-romney-s-hamptons-fundraising-blitz-draws-beach-protest.html

    Details about yesterday’s $50,000 per-person dinner were spare. Brothers David and Charles Koch closely guard their privacy and prefer to spend their political dollars through non- profit groups that don’t disclose their donors — even as they’ve publicly stated a desire to oust President Barack Obama.

    Obama and surrogates in battleground states will contrast the president’s and Romney’s approaches toward the middle class with a series of events this week. Obama today called on Congress to approve a yearlong extension of the Bush-era tax cuts on annual earnings of less than $250,000 while allowing rates to rise for higher earners.

    The president will travel to Iowa tomorrow and also is scheduled to hold local television interviews as his campaign kicks off events in other states, including New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado and Florida.
    ‘Koch Problem’

    After an invitation to the Koch evening event for Romney surfaced publicly, MoveOn.org, Occupy Wall Street and other groups that support Democratic causes took note, busing in about 100 protesters from Manhattan and flying a plane trailing a banner that said: “Romney has a Koch problem.”

    read on……

  217. Leanora
    July 9th, 2012 at 11:36 am
    They sure don’t want this man to testify in fast & furious…
    &&&&

    He’s lucky that option 1 was chosen (send him overseas). Option 2 is a lot more “permanent” (Breitbart, etc.).

  218. rgb44hrc…..the idiot probably has not realised he’ll get no2 when he gets to iraq where no one will question if a rogue firefight goes wrong.

  219. Fox reporting that DCCC now stalking republican representatives in their homes, videotaping the repub congressmen’s homes, videotaping their familes. DCCC is not apologizing.

    Just lovely DCCC. Just lovely. /sarc

  220. jbstonesfan
    July 8th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
    47%-45% Obama in swing staates.
    &&&&&&&&&&

    And yet in RCP, Obummer’s job approval is -1.5%. Methinks they’re skewing the “swing state” numbers.

    And I don’t even buy the -1.5%.

  221. “OTurd Version 1.0 says, hey, its ok to use food stamps to purchase porn, manicures, tattoos.”
    **********
    Just more street theater. The “retail” lobby loves SNAP, EBTs, etc., they don’t want any restrictions on use. One example of the power of the retail lobby to maintain the cash flowing into the “corporate slop trough” is that it is illegal for the Dept. of Ag. to release data on “what an where” the hundreds of billions of food stamp dollars are spent. It’s considered “proprietary” business information.

  222. BAILING ON OBUMMER

    Good analysis.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/8/curl-whos-bailing-on-obama-just-about-everybody/

    Who’s bailing on Obama? Just about everybody
    ======================================

    Joseph Curl
    Sunday, July 8, 2012

    Today, let’s look at the polls — all of them. To start with, health care: Just 6 percent of Americans think health care is the most pressing issue, according to the latest Gallup poll. Why? Because lots of those Americans don’t have jobs or are underemployed — the real jobless rate nationwide is more like 14.9 percent, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

    So savoring his big win on health care is most definitely a waste of time for President Obama, and he knows it. After less than a week of spiking the football (a relatively short time for America’s most narcissistic president ever), the president is back on the campaign trail. What’s striking is where he’s going: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa — places he won in 2008.

    Why? Simple. All the latest polls show he’s losing … well, everyone. He’s down 13 points with voters ages 18 to 25, nearly half of whom think he’s done a mediocre job, according to Students for Life of America. The healthy young don’t really care about health care, but they do care about jobs — and nearly 2 million 20- to 24-year-olds are unemployed.

    “With skyrocketing student debt and grim unemployment prospects for those out of college, young voters’ collective love affair with the president has abated,” SFLA Executive Director Kristan Hawkins said.

    The rate is far worse if you’re young and black. For blacks ages 16 to 19, the unemployment rate is now 39.3 percent, up from 36.5 percent last month. Older blacks don’t fare much better: The overall rate for blacks rose nearly a full percentage point in June to 14.4 percent.

    Which explains why Mr. Obama, the first half-black president, is faring so poorly with blacks. A recent poll by the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling showed that Mitt Romney would get 20 percent of the black vote in the crucial swing state of North Carolina — where Mr. Obama took 95 percent of that vote in 2008. Nationwide, his approval rating among blacks is down nine points to 77 percent while Mr. Romney’s has doubled to 18 percent.

    His half-white side isn’t faring much better. White support is down six points from November 2008 to just 38 percent, according to a Gallup poll in June. Despite his nonstop class warfare, Mr. Obama has dropped most among less-affluent whites, down nine points with whites who make $60,000 or less per year.

    “President Obama does not currently have enough white support to win re-election even if he retains his minority base from 2008,” Real Clear Politics’ David Paul Kuhn wrote late last month. “Today, fewer whites back Obama than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale. Romney does not need to emulate Ronald Reagan to win. Should he match Reagan’s share of the white vote in 1984 — presuming all else remains constant since 2008 — Romney would rout Obama.”

    Mr. Obama is perhaps doing worst among postgraduate white women — down nine points. In another key swing state, Florida, a June poll shows Mr. Romney closing a double-digit gap among women to actually take the lead, 48 percent to 46 percent. In Ohio, women are split: 47 percent approve of Mr. Obama, 47 percent disapprove — a dismal number for a Democrat who took 56 percent of the female vote in 2008.

    Like all other demographics, women care most about jobs. Perhaps this time around, they’re put off by the fact that 780,000 fewer women are employed than when Mr. Obama took office.

    Another key group, Jews, also are bailing in droves. A June poll by Gallup showed the president down 10 points to 64 percent — he took three-quarters of the vote in 2008.

    “Obama’s current support is the lowest percentage for any Democrat since Jimmy Carter,” the Jerusalem Post wrote. “The average Jewish vote for a Democrat is 71%, so his support is significantly below average. In fact, the last two Democrats to receive less than 70% of the Jewish vote — [Michael] Dukakis and Mondale — both lost.” (No wonder Mr. Romney is planning a trip to Israel, a place Mr. Obama has never gone as president, nor even has Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.)

    The only demographic with whom Mr. Obama is still strong is Hispanics, thanks to his extraconsitutional move to allow more than a million illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. But while the move made half of Hispanics in swing states Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia “more enthusiastic” about the Democrat, he still falls short of his 2008 support. A new NBC News-Wall Street Journal-Telemundo poll shows 66 percent of Hispanics nationwide support Mr. Obama, yet he took 67 percent of the vote in 2008.

    “Their interest in this election remains far below 2008 levels, and lags well behind other key groups this cycle,” NBC News said.

    So, they aren’t all that enthused. Again, the economy and jobs weigh heaviest for the demographic: The latest unemployment numbers show the rate at 11 percent for Hispanics, nearly three points higher than the overall average.

    While the lack of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama does not translate into enthusiasm for Mr. Romney, the GOP candidate has a clear path to victory: Nibble away at the margins the president won in 2008 — across all demographics. Pick up 4 percent here, 9 percent there … until victory.

  223. DOUBLING DOWN ON STUPID…..

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/48120446

    In Maryland, Higher Taxes Chase Out Rich: Study

    A new report says wealthy Maryland residents may be moving out due to recent tax hikes – a finding that is sure to escalate the battle over taxing the American rich.

    The study, by the anti-tax group Change Maryland, says that a net 31,000 residents left the state between 2007 and 2010, the tenure of a “millionaire’s tax” pushed through by Gov. Martin O’Malley. The tax, which expired in 2010, in imposed a rate of 6.25 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year.

    The Change Maryland study found that the tax cost Maryland $1.7 billion in lost tax revenues. A county-by-county analysis by Change Maryland also found that the state’s wealthiest counties also had some of the largest population outflows.

    In total, Maryland has added 24 new taxes or fees in recent years, Change Maryland says. Florida, which has no income-tax, has been a large recipient of Maryland’s exiled wealthy.

    Maryland has reached the point of diminishing returns. We’re taxing people too much and people are voting with their feet,” said Change Maryland Chairman Larry Hogan. “Until we change our focus from tax increases to increasing the tax base, more people are simply going to leave, leading to a downward spiral of raising revenues on fewer citizens.”

    The finding adds to the renewed debate over raising taxes on the wealthy. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie recently vetoed a millionaire’s tax passed by his legislature, while California and other state governments are also considering higher taxes on high earners to fix budget problems. President Obama is expected today to ask Congress to extend tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more – effectively increasing taxes for the higher earners.

    Many contend that higher taxes drive out the highly mobile rich, who can simply move to a lower-tax state or even lower-tax country. Recent data shows that a record 1,800 Americans renounces their citizenship last year.

    Some argue, however, that there is little real evidence that higher state taxes drive out large numbers of high earners. Neil Bergsman, director of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute, said while a number of people left the state between 2007 and 2010, others moved in. The net loss, he said, is “very small,” he said.

    What’s more, he points out that the wealthy usually move because of a job change, life change or retirement rather than taxes.

    “There is no evidence that tax structures are a significant determinant in their location choices,” Bergsman said.

    What’s more, he said, Maryland is still minting high-earners and has among the highest incomes and highest concentration of millionaires in the country.

    Other studies in New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island have also failed to offer proof that taxes are the main driver of out-migration by the top earners. (See here and here). In some states, weather is a bigger driver of out-migration by the wealthy than taxes.

    Still, with top earners paying the largest share of taxes in many high-income states, many politicians don’t want to take the risk of raising tax rates further.

    …………………….

    Hell of a way to put your state into the pit.

  224. moononpluto
    July 9th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    rgb44hrc…..the idiot probably has not realised he’ll get no2 when he gets to iraq where no one will question if a rogue firefight goes wrong.
    &&&&&&&&&&

    Isn’t Iraq completely safe now due to Obama’s diligent management of the war, so much so that he’s pulling out…well, kind of a phased, prolonged “redeployment”. So it’s a completely safe country.

    :^)

  225. DOT: Pigs, Horses Must be Permitted on Jetliners | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

    Pigs will soon fly under updated rules being considered by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. The proposed guidelines would force airlines to allow service animals like pot-bellied pigs, miniature horses and monkeys to accompany their owners inside the cabins of airplanes….
    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/dot-wants-to-allow-pigs-horses-onboard-jetliners.html

  226. NOTHING GOOD TO SAY ABOUT OBUMMER

    I’ve noticed that Paul Krugman (among many other commentators) has only one trick left: talk about how bad Mitt Romney is.

    Bain.

    Rich guy who won’t come clean about his taxes.

    Absolutely nothing to say about Obama.

    Every once in a while, they’ll say, “Obama on the other hand, while disappointing, is less bad in this area”.

    Indeed, it’s not much fun defending the past three years.

  227. Essentially, they are “providing cover”, like in war movies where they lay down a barrage of machine gun fire to occupy the enemy.

    Krugman, Dowd, etc. need to keep attention off Obama, so they’re tying up air waves and the headlines:

    Romney Scandal??

    Mitt will destroy (your favorite program).

    Mitt is underqualified.

    &&&&&

    I especially love the underqualified argument, as if Obama in 2008 had ANY executive experience. And after three years, he’s proven he’s not a good on-the-job learner.

  228. holdthemaccountable
    July 9th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    DOT: Pigs, Horses Must be Permitted on Jetliners
    &&&&&&&&&

    …when pigs fly…

  229. FOR YOUR ESSAY TEST, COMPARE AND CONTRAST…

    Comparing “leading from behind” (Oturd) versus “leading with foresight” (HRC).

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0708-mann-hillary-clinton-obama-foreign-20120708,0,6583990.story

    Hillary Clinton, diplomat in chief
    ===============================

    The secretary of State’s standing has soared, as her views have remained constant.

    By James Mann
    July 8, 2012

    Two summers ago, in announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq, President Obama told the nation it was time for America to devote itself to problems at home. American soldiers “have met every test that they faced,” said the president. “Now, it’s our turn.”

    At first glance, that speech seemed unexceptional. But it left one high-ranking American official privately uneasy: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    By the accounts of former aides, Clinton worried that it might be interpreted overseas as a sign that the U.S. was relinquishing its role as the world’s dominant power. And so, eight days later, she delivered a speech of her own: “The United States can, must and will lead in this new century,” she asserted. ” …This administration is also committed to maintaining the greatest military in the history of the world and, if needed, to vigorously defend ourselves and our friends.”

    Those two speeches managed to capture both the subtle shade of difference in outlook between Clinton and Obama and the considerable irony inherent in her service as secretary of State.

    The irony can be simply stated: Clinton lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Obama in part because liberal Democrats perceived her to be more hawkish than he was on foreign policy.

    Her views haven’t fundamentally changed. And yet, after 3 1/2 years as secretary of State, she is now vastly more popular than she was in 2008, and probably more popular among Democratic voters than Obama.

    This is not to say that the two of them are in competition anymore. Nor are they at odds with each other in the administration’s internal deliberations. The recent wave of Clinton profiles, pegged to her announced determination to leave the administration after this year, invariably focuses on how well she gets along with the president, how she has been unfailingly loyal to him.

    Such accounts are accurate, but they rarely address the interesting question of Clinton’s own ideas and worldview, as distinct from those of Obama. It is as if, because she is working for Obama, her beliefs, deemed of utmost importance four years ago, have become somehow irrelevant.

    Many Americans, particularly Democrats, now view the president as distinctly hawkish on foreign policy. He sent more troops to Afghanistan, vastly increased the use of drone aircraft and perpetuated quite a few of the Bush administration’s counter-terrorism policies. The changed perception of Obama also reflects the fact that in 2008, antiwar Democrats saw in him what they wanted to see. They failed to pay enough attention when he called Iraq a “dumb war,” leaving open the possibility of smart wars, or when he promised to step up the war in Afghanistan, or when he said he would take more aggressive military action in Pakistan.

    Nevertheless, on broader issues Obama remains something of a dove. Some of his pronouncements dare to hint that America’s role as the world’s preeminent power is time-bound. “The United States has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms,” he said in his Nobel Prize speech, leaving unanswered how much longer it can or will do so.

    Clinton’s public pronouncements point more to America’s enduring role in the world. She adheres to the basic tenets of U.S. foreign policy since World War II, emphasizing our leadership and alliances. She carries forward the ideas of the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War, when President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called America “the indispensable nation.”

    These days, however, Obama and his aides are discovering that the United States is not always so indispensable. The president goes to international summits and finds that America’s requests go unheeded; he sends Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Europe with recommendations for how to handle its financial crisis and finds that America’s advice is respectfully ignored. American diplomats have discovered the United States has less money available to further its influence in East Asia than China does, and less money to spread around the Middle East than Saudi Arabia does.

    Clinton offers what amounts to pep talks aimed at restoring confidence in America’s power and influence. In the same speech in which she invoked American leadership, she proclaimed a “New American moment” in which the U.S. should “lay the foundations for lasting American leadership for decades to come.” (Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seemed to borrow that, consciously or unconsciously, when he exclaimed, in his own foreign policy speech a year later, “This is America’s moment!”)

    Clinton’s forceful view of American power extends well beyond speeches. Her trip to Asia in the summer of 2010 paved the way for a more assertive U.S. policy toward China. In the administration’s early years, she was generally aligned with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Pentagon. She did part company with Gates on the issue of Libya — and in that case, she favored military intervention, whereas he did not.

    The difference in emphasis between Clinton and Obama may in part be attributable to their different jobs: He’s responsible for domestic as well as foreign policy, and she’s not. She has to devote a greater portion of her time explaining America to the rest of the world.

    But it also reflects their underlying instincts. Obama sees himself as an agent of change, seeking ways for America to adapt to new circumstances. Clinton focuses more on America’s continuing strength, in the tradition of Democratic presidents at the peak of U.S. power, from Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman to John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

    In political terms, Clinton has benefited more from the last four years than Obama has. She didn’t lose the 2008 primaries exclusively because of her position on Iraq. The deeper problems were that back then, some voters saw her as merely an agent for Bill Clinton’s return, and others viewed as flimsy her claims to experience in foreign policy. With her stint as secretary of State, she seems to have overcome both of these liabilities.

    And she has done so while remaining as generally hawkish on foreign policy. Remember the 2007 debate in which a YouTube questioner asked the candidates whether they would “meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration … with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea”?

    Obama immediately said he would. Clinton demurred, saying such a meeting could be used for propaganda purposes. At the time, the Obama campaign claimed Clinton had a “Washington salon foreign policy.” But Obama must have recognized she was right because (other than a quick handshake with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez) he hasn’t been willing to meet unconditionally with any of these leaders. It turns out that in quite a few ways, Obama has changed more than Clinton.

    The two former Democratic rivals have worked together surprisingly smoothly. And yet for all that, her assertive views on foreign policy, which Obama and grass-roots Democrats once criticized, have remained relatively constant, while her public standing has soared. Quite a neat trick for someone who, in 2008, was accused of having mediocre political skills.

  230. Hilarious, is she that stupid to drive herself into that ditch.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/08/wasserman_schultz_pretty_happy_with_82_unemployment.html

    John Roberts, FOX News: “So then the suggestion that we should keep doing the same thing? There’s that old definition of doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.”

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Well we should keep doing — Well, I am pretty happy about straight 28 months of job growth in the private sector.”

    Roberts: “Are you happy about 80,000 jobs last month? 69,000 the month before that. Are you happy with those numbers?

    Wasserman Schultz: “Like I said, we — and President Obama has said, we need to continue to improve and we need to do more and we need to work together.”

  231. http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-campaign-threatens-donors-we-could-lose-if-this-continues/article/2501656

    The Obama re-election team is not happy with the latest fundraising reports, showing that Mitt Romney and the RNC raised $35 million more than the president and the DNC.

    “We could lose if this continues,” reads a message emailed to donors today from Obama’s Campaign Chief Operating Officer Ann Marie Habershaw. More text below:

    Dear (Supporter)

    Well, I’ve got some good news and some bad news.

    Good news first: June was our best fundraising month yet. We exceeded expectations — more than 706,000 people stepped up and pitched in for a grand total of $71 million raised for this campaign and the Democratic Party.

    Bad news? We still got beat. Handily. Romney and the RNC pulled in a whopping $106 million.

    So, to recap: We had our best fundraising month yet, and we still fell about $35 million short. We can win while being outspent — but we need to keep it close.

    You know what that means. We’ve got some work to do.

    Pitch in $3 or more right now to start closing the gap.

    This is no joke. If we can’t keep the money race close, it becomes that much harder to win in November.

    …………………………

    boo effing hoo.

  232. “Quite a neat trick for someone who, in 2008, was accused of having mediocre political skills.
    ” {according to every “expert” Obot reporter}

  233. some voters saw her as merely an agent for Bill Clinton’s return

    =================

    Merely?!? ‘Bill’ was Billary all along, and we should return them both!

  234. Socialized medicine – isn’t it wonderful? Surely not for the seniors.

    ====================

    Private insurance is more efficient. It doesn’t let them into the hospital in the first place.

  235. holdthemaccountable
    July 9th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    DOT: Pigs, Horses Must be Permitted on Jetliners

    well pigs are already allowed on planes, I remember I had some great pork chops on a flight to CA a couple of years ago.

  236. “DOT: Pigs, Horses Must be Permitted on Jetliners”
    ********
    I went to the Federal Register and read the regs. They, however, discriminate based on the species of the “service” animal. Regs don’t apply service animals such as ferrets, snakes, rodents or reptiles.

    When I read that pot bellied pigs are permitted to fly, I thought that it would be interesting to test one form of political correctness against another. My experiment would involve passengers with “emotional support” pigs flying in and out of the Flint, MI airport for a few months. (Flint has the largest Muslim population in the US.)

  237. So CNBC’s headline and lede are dishonest. Surprise. Here’s the better information buried in the article:

    Some argue, however, that there is little real evidence that higher state taxes drive out large numbers of high earners. Neil Bergsman, director of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute, said while a number of people left the state between 2007 and 2010, others moved in. The net loss, he said, is “very small,” he said.

    What’s more, he points out that the wealthy usually move because of a job change, life change or retirement rather than taxes.

    “There is no evidence that tax structures are a significant determinant in their location choices,” Bergsman said.

    What’s more, he said, Maryland is still minting high-earners and has among the highest incomes and highest concentration of millionaires in the country.

    Other studies in New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island have also failed to offer proof that taxes are the main driver of out-migration by the top earners. (See here and here). In some states, weather is a bigger driver of out-migration by the wealthy than taxes.

    And here’s the dishonest headline and lede:

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/48120446

    In Maryland, Higher Taxes Chase Out Rich: Study

    A new report says wealthy Maryland residents may be moving out due to recent tax hikes – a finding that is sure to escalate the battle over taxing the American rich.

    The study, by the anti-tax group Change Maryland [….]

  238. jbstonesfan that 47%-45% you’re quoting in swing states is REGISTERED voters which is not as accurate as LIKELY voters. Read the information in that poll.

    First of all undecided voters always go against the incumbent. Look at this video where Dick Morris says the polls that show this is a tight race is a poll among registered voters. The fact that Obama is doing better among registered voters than likely voters doesn’t show his strength but shows his weakness. Likely voters are more prone to vote than registered voters are

    This video was posted May 14th but Dick Morris explains it. Watch it. It’s interesting. Morris is of the belief that Romney will win in a landslide.


Comments are closed.