Politics:

Despite poli-fatigue, I'm seeing something that is disturbing me.

The new narrative I'm hearing from some of my conservative friends, and what I've
seen repeated by some Fox News pundits is that voters voted FOR Obama because
they "wanted free stuff".

* Republicans tried to pass a law in Arizona saying if someone *looked* like they might
 be an immigrant, they could be stopped anway and questioned by police

* Republicans talked about "self-deportation" where they advocated making life SO
 difficult for immigrants they would take themselves away

* Republicans had minuteman volunteers with guns patrolling the border and harassing Mexicans

* Republicans fought against the Dream Act calling it "Amnesty"

* Republicans have fought against Discrimination legislation

* Republicans fought AGAINST equal pay for women

* Republicans fought against including contraception on some Health Plans (although viagra is already there for some)

and yet despite all this -- they tell themselves these groups of people voted against you
 NOT because policies were hostile to them, but rather in the extremely offensive and insulting terms of "they want free stuff".

This lack of self-reflection is good for ongoing Democrat Presidential prospects, but is bad for the country in terms of the National dialogue.  You cant advocate hostile legislation, and then say people fought against it because they're "lazy" or want to "take your stuff".

Until this changes - it hurts the country as a whole...

(Mitt Romney is trying to weather) the fallout from his suggestion during the G.O.P. primaries that he was in favor of dismantling federal emergency management and privatizing relief efforts. At a CNN debate in June, 2011, the moderator John King engaged the candidates in a discussion about the role of government. When he got to Romney, the exchange went like this:

So Romney is in favor of keeping FEMA, after all—or is he? On Monday afternoon, even before Sandy had hit, the editorial page of the Times invoked Romney’s 2011 comments in the debate and asked, “Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages.” So far, the Obama campaign hasn’t adopted this mode of attack, probably because it doesn’t need to. With the President sticking to the line that the election is the furthest thing from his mind, it can rely on the media to make life even more difficult for Team Romney, which is clearly struggling to come up with a post-Sandy strategy.

Wingnut Gallery Goes Double Batshit Crazy

THE TIN-FOIL HAT CREW
WASHINGTON -- Following an unexpectedly strong jobs report Friday showing unemployment falling to 7.8 percent and 114,000 new jobs added, conservative media figures and one prominent business leader quickly latched on to conspiracy theories about the veracity of the numbers.

Call it jobs-numbers trutherism. And for the sake of historical record, its origin was a tweet from former General Electric CEO Jack Welch.

"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," tweeted Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric.

The right-leaning Americans for Limited Government released a statement saying, "Either the Federal Reserve, which has its fingers on the pulse of every element of the economy, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics manufacturing survey report are grievously wrong or the number used to calculate the unemployment rate are wrong, or worse manipulated. Given that these numbers conveniently meet Obama's campaign promises one month before the election, the conclusions are obvious."

Economic journalist Stuart Varney said on Fox News, "There is widespread distrust of this report." ...

Of all the people who have something to say about the BLS, none is more unintentionally ironic than former GE CEO Jack Welch.

I have long stated that Jack welch was one of the luckier, more wildly over-compensated CEOs around. He became CEO of General Electric in 1981, just before an 18 year bull market in big cap stocks began. he left in 2001, just as the market implosion was getting rolling.

GE’s revenues grew 385% under his watch, but the company’s market cap grew 4000%. How did that happen? GE increased earnings over the years, and with stunning regularity, managed a quarterly profit beat.

Indeed, it was too regular: After the 2000 crash, we learned of earnings manipulation and accounting shenanigans. The criticism was GE Capital acted as an opaque leveraged hedge fund that always be counted on to help GE beat by a penny. (GE eventually had to settle accounting fraud charges with the SEC).

So if anyone knows a thing or two about cooking the books, its GE’s Jack Welch. Want even more proof? Have a look at this chart of Welch’s earnings versus his successor, Jeff Immelt:

(This was originally posted to my blog, but I thought I would share it here)

Last night, I watched the first Presidential Debate of the 2012 General Election. I thought I would share with you my thoughts and observations over lunch.

Strictly in terms of performance, I thought that Gov. Romney did a better job. His responses were smooth with few pauses. He conveyed warmth and sincerity. President Obama also came across as sincere and warm (especially when he flashed the winning smile), but his pauses and hesitations when speaking (what I would call the “um” factor) hurt him greatly.

This, by the way, agrees with the media perception. But then again, the media wants an election to be like the weather report. A weather report that is the same is dull; one that goes from hot to cold to hot is exciting and can be spun for ratings. Same thing with an election: it is rare to have an election where one candidate goes up up up. To the media, amplifying Romney’s performance helps make the election exciting and turns in the viewers. Any non-embarassing performance would have been declared a win (so when you combine that with Obama’s stiff performance), the media is selling Romney as the winner based on performance alone.

But we don’t elect a President on performance alone. After all, who would want an actor as President. Actors belong on the stage, not in the House, Senate, Governors Office, or the Oval Office.*
[*: Grandy, Murphy, Ahhnold, Ronnie. However, comic writers do make great Senators.]

Think about it this way: Expensive foreign sports cars often look great and perform well, but when you look under the hood, you find the flaws in their design that will end up costing you a lot of money in the long run. Sometimes the best engineered car may be dull on the outside. When choosing that car for your family, what do you prefer: the brand-new Porsche or the four-year old Volvo? So what about the candidate’s positions and what they said?

One thing that struck me initially was how similar the positions of Romney and Obama seemed to be. Given what I had read previously about Romney, this came as quite a surprise. It appears that in the last week or two (especially as Romney has gone down in the polls), Romney’s positions have been shifting to the center. Now I don’t expect candidates to pick a position and stick with them. I’m happy to see a politician who can learn over time that their initial positions were wrong, and move to a position that’s better for the country. But I would expect that within a short term (i.e., a single election) their positions would remain consistent. If they can’t keep a position for that long, then I would wonder whether what they were telling me was what they were really going to stick with. Right now, even though Romney came across as very moderate in the debate, I have little confidence that he will remain that way (especially in the face of a Republican House that is being driven by the Tea Party).

During the debate, I listened closely to a number of the positions, and although I thought Romney gave the better performance, I think that Obama had the better positions. So what didn’t I like about Romney’s positions:

• I do not like Romney’s approach on Medicare. I’m 52; I’m part of that group nearing Medicare age, but young enough that I would be affected by Romney’s voucher approach. I don’t think vouchers are the way to go for Medicare; I think the President is correct when he indicates that insurance companies will cherry pick the healthy seniors, and will leave those with more expensive conditions to burden Medicare. Medicare needs the balance in order to be successful.


• I do not like Romney’s categorical rejection of taxes or revenue. I do not believe that simple loophole or deduction reduction can obtained the increased revenue to offset the cuts Romney proposes; if it was that easy, it would have been done. I also do not like Romney’s rejection of the notion of $1 in revenue for every $10 in cuts. That’s a reasonable approach.


• I do not like Romney’s misrepresentation of existing policies. He indicated he supported the work of the bipartisan commission, while ignoring the fact that his VP was one of the people responsible for torpedoing the effort. He misrepresented the Obamacare commission as dictating what care was permitted, while ignoring the fact that they legally cannot do that.


• I do not like Romney’s lack of specifics. If Romney is going to be cutting deductions and such to raise income, I’d like to know what they are. If he has a replacement health plan, I want to know what it is. If he has specific approaches on jobs, I want to know what they are. If he wants to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank, I want to know what parts. Presidents should be able to present a strawman proposal to Congress, which Congress will then modify. That’s the purpose of a President — executive leadership. Coming in with a general goal and leaving it up to Congress is not leadership. Leaving it up to Congress to come up with the solution is the mark of a weak President; further, it doesn’t work, for if it did, our problems would have been solved long ago.


• I do not like Romney’s ignoring the behavior of Congress. Especially with respect to the economy, the President has little power. Although the President could propose ideas, we were dealing with a Congress that refused to go along with anything. If Romney wins, I don’t think that will change (we’ll still have a Democratic senate). I don’t see how Romney would be able to overcome that problem; I can’t see him doing it by moving to the left (if people recall, Obama tried moving to the right, and that didn’t convince Congress). Saying he was able to do it in Mass. is no guarantee it will work at the National level.


• I do not like Romney’s general approach to healthcare: that is, turning it back to the states. That hasn’t worked before: states have been free to set up their own solutions to the healthcare problem, and they haven’t done it. I see no reason that would compel them to do so after Obamacare is repealed. I certainly do not believe his claims regarding pre-existing conditions no longer being a factor.


• I do not like that Romney played loose with the facts. They sounded good during the debate, but subsequent checking has shown a number of his statements to be false or exaggerated.


• I do not like Romney’s threat to cut funding for NPR or PBS. These funds support presentation of the arts to the country, and we’re seeing enough attacks on the arts. Governments have always played a role in promulgating culture.


• I do not like Romney’s mocking of green energy initiatives. When you are encouraging companies in a cutting edge area, some will fail. Those that succeed will endow America with technology and innovations that will pay off for years to come. I view this as an example of how Romney would view research in new areas as something not worthy of Government investment.


• I do not like how Romney’s states how he wants job growth, but then cavalierly talks about government cutbacks. Most of these cutbacks… at the local, state, and Federal levels… mean massive job cuts and people losing well paying jobs. Just because someone works for the government does not make their job loss something to dismiss. Further, the cutbacks have impacts on contractors and vendors further down the supply chain. Yes, we need to cut waste in government, but we also need to pay attention to all the good people that support the government, honestly, and who view it as important a service to the nation as those in our armed forces.


• I don’t like how Romney doesn’t do the math. In relationship to my last point, Romney did say he wants the cuts to be through attrition, but attrition is not that the rate that would actually save money or eliminate duplicity — meaning there would need to be significant cuts. There was similar funny math in his numbers behind his tax proposals, where he couldn’t get the savings he claimed, or in his Medicare proposal which, over the long term, wouldn’t create the savings he claims.

In short, much as I was impressed by Romney’s performance, I don’t believe his positions will move the country in the correct direction. I may not agree with everything President Obama has done, but overall I think he has moved the country onto the slow path of steady recovery. Children want instant gratification; they want Mommy or Daddy to kiss it and make it better right now… and they throw a tantrum if they don’t get it. Parents know that sometimes things take time to heal; much as we might want it better instantly, to heal it in a way that will be strong for the long term takes time and patience. I think we’re starting to see signs that the healing is occurring. At the present time, I see no reason to divert from that path — I’d rather keep the healing progressing than to rip off the bandage and try a different treatment.

[Disclaimer: Of course, this is my opinion, and I respect those of you who have different opinions. I'm always open to well thought out and cogent discussions of subjects.]

Note: This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. You may comment either here or there (where there are comment(s)).

exhpfan

September 19th, 12:10

Usually campaigns wait until right before the first presidential debate to spring their most damaging attack on their opponent. The reason is that the first debate is the last chance to put an opponent down for the count before the election. Since the debate questions almost always focus on the issues in the news at the time of the debates, each campaign tries to define the tone of the debate. Since the Romney video was released this week instead of October 1, I have to assume that the October suprise is going to be a bombshell. Of couse I might be wrong and Mother Jones might just be releasing the video on their schedule rather then coordination with the Obama campaign. I do,however, have a theory and thought I would throw out this theory for speculation. I will be looking for daily news leaks during the next week to see if it is proceeding toward my theory's proposed October Suprise or not.

Theory: The Obama campaign somehow has direct proof that Romney paid no income taxes for at least one year. Under their plan they had Reid make his statement that a source had confided in him that Romney paid no taxes. This is denied by Romney. They release a video where Romney makes damaging comments about people who pay no income taxes. Romney doubles down on his comment and makes the "nontaxpayor" a issue of the election. Right before the debate it is shown(through a very legal and believable means) that Romney himself is one of these "nontaxpayors." It would be a knockout blow. If the story turns to Obama abusing his office to obtain Romney's tax returns, however, it would destroy Obama. How Obama would have trustworthy information about Romney's tax returns that was obtained legally is the one unanswered question in my theory.

Looking at news: Today 9/18/2012 Reid says on Senate floor that Romney might be one of the 47% he is condemning because he might not have paid taxes and demands Romney to release his tax returns. My thought is that the plan might be to just revive the debate that Romney release his tax returns for the debate to assure the question is asked. If so then the Romney video was released 1 week too early in my opinion.

I will be adding comments to this post as the days pass so check back for any updates. If anyone sees any news that supports or counters my theory please post. We'll know the answer by October 2nd at the latest.

David Gergen, Part Of The Bain Clique

You want to know what's wrong with the press corps? In a sentence:

I have a past relationship with the top partners at Bain that is both personal and financial. I have worked with them in support of nonprofit organizations such as City Year. I have given a couple of paid speeches for Bain dinners, as I have for many other groups. I was on the board of a for-profit child care company, Bright Horizons, that was purchased by Bain Capital. It was a transaction with financial benefits for all board members and shareholders, including me.

You know what's even more wrong?

This very connection prompted CNN to ask Gergen to do some reporting on Bain. And - surprise! - Gergen simply ignores the key evidence on the table: Romney's own sworn testimony that he kept involved in Bain activities and attended Bain company board meetings and remained CEO, sole owner and chairman of Bain all the way through till 2002. If you own a company, benefit from its profits, and are paid a salary, declaring that you had left it is an untrue SEC filing. Which is a felony.

Just as so many of Washington's media elites could not bring themselves to indict their friends and business partners for war crimes - even though the evidence was overwhelming - so now buck-rakers like Gergen, knee deep in corporate cash, defend the men who helped them get rich. Gergen is part of the problem, not the solution.

Employment Data Has Soft Patch & Media Yells 'Fire!'

Lies, Damn Lies & Mitt's Whoppers ...

Romney's Lies About Obama's Unemployment Rate

Mitt Romney’s claim that Obama said stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent

“Three years ago, a newly elected President Obama told America that if Congress approved his plan to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, he would hold unemployment below 8 percent.”

— Mitt Romney, Feb. 4, 2012

We had dealt with this claim more than a year ago, but we unaware that it had slipped into the former Massachusetts governor’s talking points until loyal reader Chuck Smith sent us a homemade, five-minute YouTube video challenging Romney to a $10,000 bet to prove that Obama actually ever said this. (See video at bottom of the column.)

We welcome reader contributions, especially when folks do their own research. (Smith has a separate video proposing that candidates or their aides pay a fine if their claims don’t pass muster with The Fact Checker or other nonpartisan fact-checking organizations. We like that idea.)

Since this claim is bound to crop up again in the campaign, perhaps it is time for a refresher course. (Smith notes that GOP.com also touts a similar version of this claim.)

The Facts

Interestingly, the information to disprove this claim exists on the Romney campaign Web site. Far from being anything that Obama said, the Romney campaign acknowledges that this 8 percent figure comes from a staff-written projection issued Jan. 9, 2009 — before Obama had taken the oath of office. Of course, the campaign still spins it as a negative.

Here’s what happened. Two Obama aides, Christina Romer, the nominee to head the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, an incoming economic adviser to Vice President-elect Biden, wrote a 14-page report that attempted to assess the impact of a possible $775 billion stimulus package and how much of a difference it would make compared to doing nothing.

Thus, it was not an official government assessment or even an analysis of an actual plan that had passed Congress.

Page 4 of the report included a chart that showed that unemployment would peak at 8 percent in 2009, compared to 9 percent in 2010 if nothing was done. But the report also contained numerous caveats and warnings because, after all, it was merely a projection.

“Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially,” the report said. “Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.” As Smith noted in his video, the report spoke of “considerable uncertainty” in the estimates and the potential for “significant margins of error.”

At the time, other economists had similar forecasts — Romer and Bernstein were in the mid-range — but the economy turned out to be in deeper trouble than most people thought. Even with a massive stimulus bill, the unemployment rate soared above 9 percent.

Indeed, a December 2008 confidential memo to Obama from incoming National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers — recently disclosed by the New Yorker — provides a window into the thinking at the time.

The memo warned Obama that without any stimulus, the economy was projected to “lose 3 to 4 million jobs in 2009.” (Ironically, the economy ended up losing that many jobs even with stimulus, a sign economists had not yet grasped the dimensions of the crisis.)

Summers wrote that the economic team had concluded that a $600 billion stimulus was too small and that Obama should go for something bigger. The memo then outlined four options, with the highest being $890 billion, to keep the unemployment rate from going above 8 percent.

The legislation that ultimately passed Congress was pegged at $787 billion; some lawmakers had balked at accepting any bill over $800 billion.On balance, most academic studies judge that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, but some consider it to be a failure.

Romer, after she left the White House in 2010, said that the estimate of the impact of the stimulus bill was accurate but that the 8 percent “prediction was so far off” because economic conditions were so much worse.

“We, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP [gross domestic product] and unemployment would break down,” Romer said.

In any case, Obama himself never “told America” that his plan “would hold unemployment below 8 percent,” as Romney claims. This was merely a staff report about a generic stimulus package, not even Obama’s own plan.

A Romney spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

A REAL Analysis of the Economic Recovery Under Obama

Hope the Supremes Strike Down ObamaCare? Get Ready for PanemCare

Since Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia clearly isn't going to take the time to actually read the health care reform law before he decides whether or not it's constitutional, maybe he and a couple of his buddies on the High Court can catch a screening of The Hunger Games, the movie about children battling each other to the death in a futuristic America, renamed Panem.

"You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?" Scalia asked during arguments on the constitutionality of the law last week. "Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?"

He joked that spending time to read the Affordable Care Act before the Court decides its fate would put him in danger of violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. LOL, Judge.

Cruel and unusual punishment is crucial to the Hunger Games, but it only lasts 142 minutes and no one in the audience gets hurt, mitigating anybody's risk of violating the Constitution. The movie portrays a government completely disconnected from the people who struggle every day for the most basic elements of survival, including medical care. Only the wealthy residents of the Capitol have access to hospitals and modern medicine, which, fortunately for them, seems to have a cure for everything.

This society-gone-bad scenario of denying basic care to citizens based on their income or social status seems on the big screen not only cruel and unusual but even incomprehensible. I can just hear Justice Scalia asking, again, "Is this not totally unrealistic?"

Guess what, Judge, it's not. In fact, it's occurring every day in what is still called the United States. And if you and your colleagues decide to scuttle ObamaCare, it won't be long before we have PanemCare. For many Americans, we already do...