Watch what people are seeing and having second thoughts on obama.
Unemployment is still above 8 percent, job gains aren’t even keeping up with population growth, the economy is barely moving forward. And yet, according to most polls, the Romney-Ryan ticket is falling further and further behind. How can this be?
Because Republicans are failing the central test of electability. Instead of putting together the largest possible coalition of voters, they’re relying largely on one slice of America — middle-aged white men — and alienating just about everyone else.
Start with Hispanics, whose electoral heft keeps growing as they become an ever-larger portion of the electorate. Hispanics now favor President Obama over Romney-Ryan by a larger margin than they did six months ago.
Why? In last February’s Republican primary debate Romney dubbed Arizona’s controversial immigration policy – that authorized police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone looking Hispanic — a “model law” for the rest of the nation.
Romney then attacked GOP rival Texas Governor Rick Perry for supporting in-state tuition at the University of Texas for children of undocumented immigrants. And Romney advocates what he calls “self-deportation” – making life so difficult for undocumented immigrants and their families that they choose to leave.
As if all this weren’t enough, the GOP has been pushing voter ID laws all over America, whose obvious aim is to intimidate Hispanic voters so they won’t come to the polls. But they may be having the opposite effect – emboldening the vast majority of ethnic Hispanics, who are American citizens, to vote in even greater numbers and lend even more support to Obama and other Democrats.
Or consider women – whose political and economic impact in America continues to grow (women are fast becoming better educated than men and the major breadwinners in American homes). According to polls, the political gender gap is widening.
Why? It’s not just GOP senatorial candidate Todd Akin’s call to ban all abortions even in the case of “legitimate rape” (because he believes women’s bodies somehow reject violent sperm). The GOP platform itself seeks to bar all abortions, with no exception for rape or incest. And on several occasions Paul Ryan has voted in favor of exactly such legislation.
Meanwhile, Republican legislators in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, and Alabama have pushed bills requiring women seeking abortions to undergo invasive vaginal ultrasound tests. All told, over 400 Republican bills are pending in state legislatures, attacking womens’ reproductive rights.
Republicans have repeatedly voted against legislation giving women equal pay for the same work as men. Republicans in Wisconsin have even repealed a law designed to prevent employers from discriminating against women.
Or consider students – a significant and growing electoral force, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. What are Republicans doing to woo them back?
Paul Ryan’s budget plan – approved by almost every House Republican and enthusiastically endorsed by Mitt Romney – would have allowed rates on student loans to double, adding an average of $1,000 a year to student debt loads. (Under mounting political pressure, House Republicans came up with just enough money to keep the loan program going safely past Election Day by raiding a fund established for preventive care in the new health-care act.)
Now Romney wants to hand the federal student loan program over to the banks, which will charge even more. Earlier this year he argued subsidized student loans were bad because they encouraged colleges to raise their tuition, and suggested students ask their families for money.
Republicans have even managed to antagonize seniors by seeking to turn Medicare into vouchers whose value won’t keep up with rising healthcare costs, and cutting $800 billion out of Medicaid (which many seniors rely on for nursing home care).
And, of course, they’ve come out against equal marriage rights for gay couples.
Romney, Ryan, and the GOP don’t seem to know how to satisfy their middle-aged white male base without at the same time turning off everyone who’s not white, male, straight, or middle-aged. Unfortunately for Romney and Ryan, the people they’re turning off are the majority.
ROBERT B. REICH,
Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock" and “The Work of Nations." His latest, "Beyond Outrage," is now out in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
Read More: http://robertreich.org/post/31668931701
Reich is what? He is a professor at Cal-Berkeley, and is also in demand as a TV commentator. He worked in the Clinton administration as Secretary of Labor, and his advice is always sought by other economists.
Both of them are highly successful, while Rush Limbaugh is a success at being a buffoon. He could not match either of them in a debate, or anyone else of moderate-to-high intelligence, especially if he couldn't control the microphone. He is basically a bully, whose mike is always louder than anyone else's.
Condi Rice is also a professor, at Stanford, and she was a member of an administration where she was always overruled by Cheney. We seldom see her on any of the talk shows. And yet she is always praised as a highly successful woman by the right, while Krugman and Reich are always pilloried. What has she accomplished, besides being admitted to Augusta National?
You failed to mention Joseph Stiglitz, who also received a Nobel in economics, in 2001. Is he a communist, a boob or a hack? What's the deal on him?
Krugman, always a bridemaid, never the bride. whoops. not even a bridesmaid. Not a seat on a regional Fed, either.
he's a kookernaut.
Cal Berkeley? that ought to tell you a bunch just for that. anybody that comes out of the people's republic of Berkeley is automatically suspect.
i don't count Limbaugh as anything but a bloviator. well, just like Krugman without the sheepskins.
I call Rice a second teamer based on her hysterical need to close any deal with NK.
I don't see Stieglitz that often. No real opinion.
who i do see pop up all over is Alan Blinder. i suspect he shows up in the WSJ just to be pilloried for his unconventional (read that:Keynesian) arguments.
Krugman was asked to serve in the Clinton and Obama administrations, but he declined. He is happy where he is.
Summers served on the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan, was Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration after Rubin left, and was on the National Economic Council in the Obama administration. He seems to irritate people wherever he goes.
A kookernaut? You are making these up, right?
Cal-Berkeley is known in the academic community as a top-tier institute of higher learning, a public-university version of Stanford, which is just down the road.
NK? North Korea? You seem to rank Rice lower than I do. She originally came on board when she was asked by Poppy Bush to mentor his son on foreign policy at Crawford. She was ready to return to Stanford when she was asked to be national security adviser, and then Secretary of State when Colin Powell left. I always got the impression she would rather be at Stanford, especially when Cheney kept pulling rank on her. Now we hear talk that she might run for president, but I don't think she is interested.
Blinder has been a vice chairman of the Fed. He served in the Clinton administration on the Coun...
Krugman was asked to serve in the Clinton and Obama administrations, but he declined. He is happy where he is.
Summers served on the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan, was Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration after Rubin left, and was on the National Economic Council in the Obama administration. He seems to irritate people wherever he goes.
A kookernaut? You are making these up, right?
Cal-Berkeley is known in the academic community as a top-tier institute of higher learning, a public-university version of Stanford, which is just down the road.
NK? North Korea? You seem to rank Rice lower than I do. She originally came on board when she was asked by Poppy Bush to mentor his son on foreign policy at Crawford. She was ready to return to Stanford when she was asked to be national security adviser, and then Secretary of State when Colin Powell left. I always got the impression she would rather be at Stanford, especially when Cheney kept pulling rank on her. Now we hear talk that she might run for president, but I don't think she is interested.
Blinder has been a vice chairman of the Fed. He served in the Clinton administration on the Council of Economic Advisers, and he is now one of Krugman's colleagues at Princeton. He is considered very sharp, but he prefers a lower profile than either Krugman or Reich.
2. Polls show Obama is not blamed for the economy: R/R didn't get that message
3. Women don't like being told what to do in the private dept: RR didn't get that msg
4. A party that tries to suppress the vote is admitting that they're not worth voting for.
2.) nobody EVER blamed him for causing the bust. they hold him responsible for its current condition, though.
3.) the 'war on women' is democrat campaign rhetoric to try and distract the average voter from the reality of the economy. two more months of bad job numbers and even this feeble attempt at distraction won't have any effect, even with the feminists.
4.) suppressing the vote? LOL! by having people show their IDs? cmon.
And as for your opinion, it matters to all of, well you.
Everyone who worked in the Clinton administration loves America. Don't you?
Again, "And as for your opinion, it matters to all of, well you."
Myers finally resigned after her husband wrote an article for Vanity Fair critical of Clinton, which made her position untenable. She said no one had expressed criticism to her, but she felt the time was right to move on. She has kept very busy since then. Her resignation had nothing to do with a security clearance.
Your cartoon of Obama is irrelevant to the Clinton administration, although I know he is your favorite punching bag.
Yea she had other "things" to do, like check herself into a cocaine rehab clinic, least that's what she said, of course, you'd know better, I'm sure.
Isn't there someone more current that you can smear? What is your problem with a press secretary from two administrations ago?
No problem, just answering the question, what's the problem for you with the truth?
So, "did Holder, Billary and Panetta quit, along with a whole raft of others?", quit the Barry Admin?
Solutions???? What are Obama's "solutions" to the coming crises in SOCIAL SECURITY? MEDICARE?, MEDICAID? His only solution is to attack anyone who really wants to deal with our problems. The way to protect himself from having to defend his ideas is to not have ideas to defend.
If Romney/Ryan go down it is because we have an over abundant supply of stupid voters, like you, sycophants that will ignore all reality to keep Obama in.
I guess you weren't around when he lost 4.3 million jobs in his first 13 months in office only to regain them all and add more in the next 30 months in the private sector.
Those aren't answers? Only to you.
If you happen to believe that lowering taxes AGAIN after we've seen some of the lowest taxes EVER is going to do anything, you're out of touch with reality.
Obamacare is no solution, it is a whole new set of problems. A report was just released showing how we waste $750 billion a year on healthcare spending. His 'solution' is woefully lacking on anything to reduce those costs.
Removing loopholes and taxing at a lower rate does not equal lowering taxes.
As for tax increases I am all for some tax increases. I think it is disgusting that a family of four making $50K pays absolutely NO federal income tax now. I think we should all have some skin in the game rather that coasting on the fruits of others labors. I also don't think we need to be giving Warren Buffet and other billionaires and multi millionaires social security and medicare. Of course Obama is dead set against ending the gravy train for the wealthy.
I always hear about those coming into the workforce, but I never hear about those retiring. Amazing, huh?
Oh, guess what? That waste money you quoted? It's now being rerouted to cutting health care costs under the ACA and giving Medicare another 8 years of benefits for the elderly.
What loopholes will be removed to cover revenue losses? Even Romney can't answer that. Neither can Ryan. Why? They don't know.
So, you happen to think a family of 4 making 50k is too much to get an Earned Income Tax Credit, a credit for their home ownership or anything else, huh? That's mighty nice of you. I didn't know that 50K a year was a lot of money to raise a family of 4 on. Why don't you tell me how easy it is? I'm waiting.
I don't think it's coasting on the fruits of others when you get tax credits, but somehow you do, but guess who "coasts" more than anyone in America? The rich. But, you're too concerned in being disgusted with the poor.
Oh well... you and Romney can discuss it when he loses.
And yet fewer people are working today than when he took office.....Thanks but I think we get fed enough BS out of the White House....
As he said, "The American people, he conceded, are "not better off" than they were four years ago.
"The unemployment rate is way too high," he said of the 9 percent jobless rate, the highest in more than half a century. "
Hell if a lyin' piece of social commie can be honest why can't you?
You can make an argument for percentage of the population still on the workforce fulltime or something, but there's more people working now than 4 years ago. If you don't believe that, you'd have to provide actual stats to prove such. I'm not aware that's the case.
Wait, we have a 9 percent unemployment rate now? When did that happen? Last I checked, it was 8.1.
How outdated are your "facts?"
staffwriter 7:12 am on September 5, 2012
Tags: #Japanese ( 12,923 ), #ocra ( 1,094 ), #Russian ( 13,153 ), #TCOT ( 72,431 ), czech ( 6,254 ), events ( 12,946 ), italian ( 12,989 ), Times ( 13,935 )
CNN:.."overall, there fewer people working today than when Obama took over…" http://t.co/IMFXGfAB #p2 #tcot #ocra
Here's some "real time".....
Feb 2009 BLS stats..
“…Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
The civilian, labor force participation rate was about unchanged at 65.6 percent. The employment population ratio, at 60.3 percent in February, continued to trend down. The ratio has declined by 2.4 percentage points over the year. (See table A-1.)
In February, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose by 787,000, reaching 8.6 million. The number of such workers rose by 3.7 million over the past 12 months. This category includes persons who would like to work full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they...>>>
staffwriter 7:12 am on September 5, 2012
Tags: #Japanese ( 12,923 ), #ocra ( 1,094 ), #Russian ( 13,153 ), #TCOT ( 72,431 ), czech ( 6,254 ), events ( 12,946 ), italian ( 12,989 ), Times ( 13,935 )
CNN:.."overall, there fewer people working today than when Obama took over…" http://t.co/IMFXGfAB #p2 #tcot #ocra
Here's some "real time".....
Feb 2009 BLS stats..
“…Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
The civilian, labor force participation rate was about unchanged at 65.6 percent. The employment population ratio, at 60.3 percent in February, continued to trend down. The ratio has declined by 2.4 percentage points over the year. (See table A-1.)
In February, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose by 787,000, reaching 8.6 million. The number of such workers rose by 3.7 million over the past 12 months. This category includes persons who would like to work full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-5.) >>>”
Aug 2012 BLS Stats…
“…In August, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.0 million. These individuals accounted for 40.0 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
Both the civilian labor force (154.6 million) and the labor force participation rate (63.5 percent) declined in August. The employment-population ratio, at 58.3 percent , was little changed. (See table A-1.)….”
The Labor Force Participation Rate in 2009 was 65.6%, in 2012 it is 63.5, that “Participation Rate” drop of 2.1% is 3,246,600 million people out of the labor force, not working, collecting “something”. That’s pretty sad. I’ll presume you know at least what the Labor Force Participation Rate means.
debt clock - 16,043,855,000,000 and rising........Thanks Bo...
That's not the same thing.
From that report....
"...In August, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor
force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 844,000 discouraged workers in August, a decline of 133,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons
not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in August had not searched for work in the 4 week...
From that report....
"...In August, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor
force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 844,000 discouraged workers in August, a decline of 133,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons
not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in August had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)..."
2.6 (1.7) million not counted because they were not searching for jobs 4 weeks before the survey. Gee at least the discouraged worker numbers have dropped.
If you look at raw numbers, we have more jobs in the private sector than when Obama took office. That's undeniable. If you want to attach caveats about people not looking for work, you should also look at the amount of people retiring and leaving the workforce to re-enter school, which I'm sure you haven't bothered to do.
You'll even note that your own numbers quoted aren't seasonally adjusted, just to try and make things look worse than they are.
Your argument is flawed.
No more that JFK was a Corporate shill.
WRONG!!!! GUESS WHAT? The money you are talking about is the elimination of 'medicare advantage' plans. The study was about waste that is not addressed in Obamacare. There were several very easy steps to cut health care costs and the dims didn't implement any of them.
GUESS WHAT? At $50K they are making close to 10% more than half the countries households. $40K for a couple to make is not a lot of money either, but they must pay thousands in income tax. The 2 dependents are choices THEY made, are they to STUPID to know it might not be easy?Iif you want to subsidize them with YOUR money fine. No reason anyone else should do so unless they also choose to. There is no reason the dims should offer them the teat, other than to buy their votes.
Of course I don't think if I decide to quit working and get lost in a haze of drug and alcohol society should give me SS disability and healthcare, dimocrats do.
I'm loving your idea that people are stupid for having kids and that 50k is too rich to get tax credits back on. I also love your idea that everyone on unemployment or food stamps, or welfare, or any other government program is a drug addict.
That's amazing. What work of fiction are you getting these ideas from?
For one, do you even know who started with giving tax credits for kids? The Republicans. Since 1997. And, the only reason that those making 50k can get those credits is because Bush pushed for that with his last stimulus in 2008.
Obama was just watching as the "making work pay" tax credit took effect with bipartisan support, which kept the income available to the credit at 51k. Why is he all of a sudden responsible for this "horrible act?"
I happen to believe that having a family shouldn't be demonized, especially when you're gainfully employed and law-abiding. A tax credit isn't taking money from other people's pockets. If it was, guess who would be responsible for taking more money than anyone other group in the country? THE RICH.
Get your facts in order, and stop blaming people for being down on their luck or not making enough money.
How am I supposed to prove that it isn't from cutting waste? Because OBAMA explains his medicare cut and it is all about reductions to medicare advantage plans, BENEFITS, not one god damn thing about cutting the waste from unnecessary tests and all the rest of the system failures.
Obama Defends Medicare Advantage Cuts
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/p...
THAT WAS FROM 2009, ass hat.
THIS IS FROM TWO WEEKS AGO, ass hat.
How the U.S. Health-Care System Wastes $750 Billion Annually
http://www.theatlantic.com/he...
Get it dumb F? His cuts and the waste just reported ARE NOT connected. Of course if you are smart enough to understand you will just continue lying. That is what liars do.
FURTHER MORE YOU IGNORANT POS,
" I also love your idea that everyone on unemployment or food stamps, or welfare, or any other government program is a drug addict. "
I never said every one was an addict, they are just one of the MANY groups you wish to subsidize. So once again you tell tell stupid F'ing lies about what was said. Because that is what liars do.
" A tax credit isn't taking money from other people's pockets"
IT IS NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE!
"I'm loving your idea that people are stupid for having kids"
I am hating YOUR idea that having kids you can't support...
How am I supposed to prove that it isn't from cutting waste? Because OBAMA explains his medicare cut and it is all about reductions to medicare advantage plans, BENEFITS, not one god damn thing about cutting the waste from unnecessary tests and all the rest of the system failures.
Obama Defends Medicare Advantage Cuts
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/p...
THAT WAS FROM 2009, ass hat.
THIS IS FROM TWO WEEKS AGO, ass hat.
How the U.S. Health-Care System Wastes $750 Billion Annually
http://www.theatlantic.com/he...
Get it dumb F? His cuts and the waste just reported ARE NOT connected. Of course if you are smart enough to understand you will just continue lying. That is what liars do.
FURTHER MORE YOU IGNORANT POS,
" I also love your idea that everyone on unemployment or food stamps, or welfare, or any other government program is a drug addict. "
I never said every one was an addict, they are just one of the MANY groups you wish to subsidize. So once again you tell tell stupid F'ing lies about what was said. Because that is what liars do.
" A tax credit isn't taking money from other people's pockets"
IT IS NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE!
"I'm loving your idea that people are stupid for having kids"
I am hating YOUR idea that having kids you can't support is a smart thing to do.
If you want to give people in the upper half of income in this country money, give them YOURS.
You are an ignorant, stupid, lying, POS. A liberal home run.
"Health care reform does not cut Medicare benefits. In fact, health care reform expands Medicare coverage, by eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services, adding a yearly wellness visit, limiting some cost-sharing in private Medicare plans, and closing the Part D "Donut Hole." It also improves the solvency of the Medicare program itself. Reform does, however, change some Medicare payment policies. Some misstated reports of these changes have resulted in exaggerating public fear of cuts to Medicare benefits. This Alert summarizes the changes in certain Medicare payments in order to clarify that the Medicare reforms do not reduce Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.
The Affordable Care Act[i] achieves savings in the Medicare program through a series of payment reforms, service delivery innovations, and increased efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. The actual projected reduction in Medicare spending is $428 billion over 10 years, after $105 billion in new Medicare spending is taken into consideration.[ii] These projections actually extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by about a decade. It is important to stress that none of the payment reforms affect Medicare's guaranteed benefit packages. The law specifically states that the guarantee...
"Health care reform does not cut Medicare benefits. In fact, health care reform expands Medicare coverage, by eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services, adding a yearly wellness visit, limiting some cost-sharing in private Medicare plans, and closing the Part D "Donut Hole." It also improves the solvency of the Medicare program itself. Reform does, however, change some Medicare payment policies. Some misstated reports of these changes have resulted in exaggerating public fear of cuts to Medicare benefits. This Alert summarizes the changes in certain Medicare payments in order to clarify that the Medicare reforms do not reduce Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.
The Affordable Care Act[i] achieves savings in the Medicare program through a series of payment reforms, service delivery innovations, and increased efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. The actual projected reduction in Medicare spending is $428 billion over 10 years, after $105 billion in new Medicare spending is taken into consideration.[ii] These projections actually extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by about a decade. It is important to stress that none of the payment reforms affect Medicare's guaranteed benefit packages. The law specifically states that the guaranteed benefits in Medicare Part A and Part B will not be reduced or eliminated as a result of changes to the Medicare program.[iii]"
"The greatest amount of savings in Medicare, about $130 billion over 10 years, [iv] will be achieved by reducing overpayments to private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans."
So, I take it you still don't know what you're talking about. But, I've linked you to the facts. Thanks, for playing.
So, If a few happen to be addicts, then the majority should suffer for it, by having their funding cut? Ummmm... that's not a good idea. But, you can keep running with it, if you think that makes you look better.
I don't think you have any idea what Tax Credits are or how they work, but you should do some research on that before you attack them so much.
Also, you should look up what 50k is when you're living in a big city. It's not that much. You should also look at what the median income is in some areas and how 50k could support even two children in those areas. There's so much you don't know, I can understand why you want to personally attack me for making it so obvious.
So, If a few happen to be addicts, then the majority should suffer for it, by having their funding cut? Ummmm... that's not a good idea. But, you can keep running with it, if you think that makes you look better.
Unless you can find where I said that, F.Y. Where I said it, not where you said I said it.
None of your crap addressed the waste report that I referenced.
You are a sycophant that will attempt to twist anything to justify an indefensible position or lack of leadership. A sycophant, yeah, we get you.