Totally agree Oobie. (Quick..go check your thermostat! )
Seriously, you're going to hate me for saying this but I think it was a gift to prop Obama up. Why else would they do it when virtually every economist out there is saying what you're saying?
I would have thought it would be the legions of hew IRS employees they are hiring, but I think I saw something the other day about how they were not going to be chasing people down.
I'll put that on my "research" list for tomorrow. Too tired tonight.
I saw this in the news today. I wonder how people are going to react when this "inconvenient truth" sinks in.
But the saddest thing is that ALSO creates an incentive for people like me, who pays $7,000 a year for family coverage, to drop my coverage in favor of "Obamacare" and just pay the $1,200 fine.
That's the first I've heard of either of these things but I will say the Sandman bit is quite plausible. In fact, it's very much what I have been thinking for awhile now but was unable to articulate.
Not saying I'm buying it - but I'm going to snoop around now.
Real Clear Politics "compared the final Gallup polls with the actual results in every race in which an incumbent president was opposing an insurgent since 1964. This included the Johnson-Goldwater race of 1964, the Nixon-McGovern race of 1972, the Carter-Ford race of 1976, the Reagan-Carter-Anderson race of 1980, the Reagan-Mondale race of 1984, the Clinton-Bush-Perot race of 1992, the Clinton-Dole race of 1996 and the Bush-Kerry race of 2004.
In these races, the undecided vote went heavily for the insurgent and the incumbent lost vote share between the final poll and the election, even when the incumbent was winning the contest easily overall. Six of eight presidents seeking reelection performed worse than the final Gallup poll predicted, while one finished the same (Reagan in 1984) and one gained votes (Bush in 2004). Seven of the nine insurgent candidates did better than the final Gallup survey predicted.
• In 1964, Johnson lost 3 points to Goldwater at the end.
• In 1972, Nixon lost 1 point to a third-party candidate.
• In 1976, there was a 4-point swing to Carter.
• In 1980, there was a 3-point swing to Reagan or Anderson.
• In 1984, there was no change between the final poll and the results.
• In 1992, there was a 1-point shift away from Bush. In that contest, there was also a 5-point swing away from Clinton to Perot at the end.
• In 1996, there was a 5-point swing away from Clinton and to Dole or Perot.
• Only Bush in 2004 ran better in the result than in the final poll, by ?2 points.
In other words, of the total of ?19 points that shifted between the final poll and the election results, 17 points or 89 percent went to the challenger.
The implications of these findings are that the current polls, while seemingly close, portend a strong Republican victory. The RealClearPolitics.com average of the past eight presidential horse race polls shows Obama with a 47-44 lead over Romney. But among likely voters, in the Rasmussen survey (all others were of either registered voters or adults), the president was running behind Romney by 48-44.
Dude, Obama was so busy campaigning he ditched his weekly security meeting. Maybe if he had attended he would have known of this very specific threat to the embassy. Do you realize they left them there with no military protection despite the warnings????
Well yeah...except Obama has attended more than twice the number of fund raisers than most presidents - meaning more expensive time on Air Force One at the tax payers expense, and LESS time in the office doing his job.
Obama's total number of fundraisers held for his reelection bid is 160, according to figures maintained by CBS News’ Mark Knoller. That is more than double the 79 events that President George W. Bush had held at this same time in the 2004 presidential race.
Do you think it's time we set a limit on how much campaigning a president can do at the country's expense????
Ut Oh Dude...it looks like Obama's been caught in another lie
"A three-page intelligence report shows that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."
The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi.
But he was sooooo sure it was spontaneous and had nothing to do with American policy.. Oh NO! Like he told Letterman last night..it was all because of that darned video!
Think about it Dude. In the past, any time there was serious conflict either involving us or other countries, the President stands before the nation and the world and offers a position statement, condolences, warnings...SOMETHING!
But this mealy-mouthed weasel of a president just ducks and runs...says nothing. Americans are clueless as to where we stand, and other nations are wondering, too.
Not good, Dude. He is exhibiting the most extremely poor leadership I've ever seen in my lifetime.
There's two fundamental differences between Obama's campaigning and Romney's campaigning.
1) Romney isn't flying all over the country in Air Force One on the tax payers dime, and
2) Romney isn't responsibe for running the government...yet...and not in a time of great world conflicts like this week. Obama is so busy campaigning and attending fund raisers, he has barely paused to tend to his duties as President.
(Reuters) - Iran said on Tuesday it planned to build its first nuclear-powered submarine, a news agency reported, an announcement that came days before talks with world powers and may add to Western concerns over its atomic activities.
If that's true, my apologies...but it was covered on the news as nuclear. They also said it had been retrofitted or reoutfitted or something. Is it possible it now has nuclear capability?
Here's some more links for ya, Dude. Don't say I never gave you anything!
More News On Iran Deploying A New Sub In The Persian Gulf
Iran launches Tareq 901 submarine, Sahand destroyer -- Press TV (Iran) Growing gulf: Iran deploys Russian made sub as tensions rise -- RT (Russia) Iran Returns Russian-Built Sub to Persian Gulf -- RIA Novosti (Russia) Iran upgrades Russia-made heavy submarine, launches new destroyer -- Haaretz Iran launches submarine as US navy drills in Gulf -- Jerusalem Post/Reuters Iran Launched A Submarine Right Into The Middle Of The International Naval Exercises -- Business Insider Iran deploys Russian-made submarine in Gulf -- AP
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Tehran has deployed one of its Russian-made submarines in the Persian Gulf, just days after the United States and more than two dozen allies began naval exercises nearby, Iranian state television reported Tuesday.
The Taregh-1 joined the Iranian fleet in the southern port of Bandar Abbas after it was overhauled earlier this year, according to the TV report. It's one of three Russian Kilo class submarines that Iran obtained in the early 1990s.
In May, Iran redeployed another Russian-made submarine after repairs.
The report also showed the launch of what was said to be the partially completed hull of a destroyer, the Sahand, which the TV said is expected to be ready in the near future.
And speaking of the DOJ...Remember Fast and Furious?
"A bombshell report released Wednesday on Operation Fast and Furious faulted a range of federal agencies for the failed anti-gunrunning program and accused officials in charge of a "disregard" for public safety. In the wake of the report, one Justice Department official resigned and another retired.
The sprawling report by the department's inspector general is the most comprehensive account yet on the deadly operation which allowed weapons to "walk" across the U.S.-Mexico border and resulted in hundreds of firearms turning up at crime scenes in both countries.
The report says Attorney General Eric Holder was not made aware of potential flaws in the program until February of last year. But the report cites 14 other department employees -- including Criminal Division head Lanny Breuer -- for potential wrongdoing, recommending the department consider disciplinary action against them.
The report also marked Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division, as the highest-ranking DOJ employee in a position to stop the program. Weinstein, who disputes the findings, is nevertheless resigning in the wake of the report.
Now if this had been a Republican Administration the media would be all over it...but right now they are so quiet you can hear a pin drop.
So now that we know a little about Soros, and considering he owns Media Matters....
Don't you think its just a tad unprofessional (even impeachable) that the DOJ and Erick Holder have been caught red handed working in collusion with Media Matters on stories???
WhatUwish4 Forum Posts (7,986)
)
RE: why ordinary Americans love obama?
Well...ok.