What the media isn’t telling you about our economy

Judging from the media coverage, you might think that our economy was improving. You’d be wrong.

The truth is that the slowest recovery on record appears destined to set even more records for slow growth. That’s not good news for President Obama. And more bad economic news hit him this past week. Here’s a short list of indicators:

Slow GDP growth: GDP rose at an annual rate of just 1.25% during April through June, barely keeping up with the growth in population. The economy has been getting slower and slower since the end of last year.

Durable goods orders plunged 13.2 percent in August.

Median household income has actually fallen. Income has dropped from $53,718 to $50,678 since the “recovery” started in June 2009.

Despite all this, the news media has been uncharacteristically cheerful the last couple of months. Take some of the newspaper headlines from August, when the unemployment rate had gone up again for the second time in three months, rising from 8.2 to 8.3 percent. The Wall Street Journal headline read: “Job Gains Spark Stock Rally.” The New York Times reported: “Hiring Picks Up in July, but Data Gives No Clear Signal.”

These headlines can’t truly be labeled “dishonest,” but they are misleading. Initial job growth was reported to be 163,000 (later revised downward to 141,000), but the working age population had grown by 198,000.

The media decided to emphasize the small grain of positive news that they could find in the report which was the slight uptick in jobs.

But the press isn’t always so consistent. You won’t be surprised to learn that when there is a Democratic president in the White House, the media tend to view things in a positive light. When Republicans are at the helm, they are more negative.

Continue reading HERE.


Think like I do that the owner of this pickup does not like obama, will not be voting for any democrats?


The Flaws That Will Bring Down Obama’s Health-Care Plan

The debate over President Barack Obama’s health-care law has taken another twist. Now conservatives and libertarians are defending it, while the administration tries to toss part of the legislation out.
The reason for this role reversal is that the drafters of the law outsmarted themselves and handed their opponents a weapon. Now they would like to pretend the law doesn’t say what it does.

Obama’s plan makes tax credits available to people who get health insurance from exchanges set up by state governments. If states don’t establish those exchanges, the federal government will do so for them. The federal exchanges, however, don’t come with tax credits: The law authorizes credits only for people who get insurance from state-established exchanges. And that creates some problems the administration didn’t foresee, and now hopes to wish away.

Legislative debate over the law didn’t go into great detail about these provisions. We can surmise what happened, though. Supporters of the legislation wanted to encourage states to set up the exchanges. So they offered the states a deal: If they did so, they would get to write their own rules, and their citizens would be able to get the tax credit. The states would also gain extra flexibility on Medicaid spending. The law’s supporters also expected the health-care law to become more popular over time.

Taxes and Penalties

That hasn’t happened. Many states are determined in their opposition, and few of them have set up exchanges. If they don’t do so, the tax credits don’t go into effect and the federally established exchanges won’t work: People won’t be able to afford the insurance available on them without the subsidy.

States have another incentive to refrain from setting up exchanges under the health-care law: It protects companies and individuals in the state from tax increases. The law introduces penalties of as much as $3,000 per employee for firms that don’t provide insurance — but only if an employee is getting coverage with the help of a tax credit. No state exchanges means no tax credits and thus no employer penalties. The law also notoriously penalizes many people for not buying insurance. In some cases, being eligible for a tax credit and still not buying insurance subjects you to the penalty. So, again, no state exchange means no tax credit and thus fewer people hit by the penalty.

The administration’s response to the impending failure of its signature legislation — a failure resulting entirely from its flawed design — has been to ignore the inconvenient portion of the law. In May, the Internal Revenue Service decided it would issue tax credits to people who get insurance from exchanges established by the federal government. It has thus exposed firms and individuals to taxes and penalties without any legal authorization. Obviously, that situation sets the stage for lawsuits.

The plaintiffs will have a strong case.

Read more.


Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter Visits the Ladies of “The View”

Things aren’t going well at ‘Obama For America 2012? Headquarters these days…..



From HERE.



Blacks vote for Obama = not racist; Whites vote against Obama = racist!….Really? [Reader Post]

In 2008, 96% of black Americans voted for Barack Obama.

The current election has featured one continuous stream of racism from the left. Everything is racist.

Tavis Smiley put markers down early. O’Donnell at PMSNBC asserts that saying Obama plays golf a lot is racist. Even claiming Obama’s plans didn’t work is racist.

This is terribly one sided.

Black people in this country are nearly monolithic in their support for Obama and it is simply and completely racially based.

Van Jones say there is virtually nothing Obama can do to lose black voters

Continue reading HERE.


Supposedly the Drudge Report is coming out with an unseen video of obama tonight at 9 pm. Will wait for that one!

Go to the site and check it out. May or may not have that video. HERE.


Oversight Presses for Answers: Diplomats in Libya Requested Additional Security, Washington Officials Denied the Resources

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection were denied to the U.S. mission in Libya by Washington officials prior to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The denials came after repeated attacks and security threats to U.S. personnel.

“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter outlines 13 security threats over the six months prior to the attack.

“Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,” the chairmen write.

The Committee indicated it intends to convene a hearing in Washington on Wednesday October 10, 2012, on the security failures that preceded the attack.

Read more.


The Romney Tax Plan: Not a Tax Hike on the Middle Class

A report by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) has been used to claim that Romney will hike taxes on the middle class. A closer look, however, and the TPC report falls apart.

Democrats launched a surprising attack on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in recent weeks when they accused the governor of trying to raise taxes on the middle class. This criticism is odd coming from the party that unapologetically seeks hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes and that adopted numerous tax increases, including some on the middle class, in President Obama’s healthcare reform. The Democrats’ attack is also an about-face on their standard argument that Republicans think the solution to every problem is another tax cut.

The Democrats have spent millions of advertising dollars in an intensive and well-coordinated attack on Romney’s proposal to simplify, streamline, and reform the tax code—a tax code that virtually no one thinks works well. Two think tanks, Obama’s campaign, super PACs, and high-profile media reports have all converged on this message.

Romney recently spelled out his tax reform objectives to Meet the Press: “Bring our rates down to encourage growth, keep revenue up by limiting deductions and exemptions, and make sure we don’t put any bigger burden on middle income people.”

What Is Actually Included in Romney’s Tax Plan

In order to objectively assess the claims made by the critics, let’s begin by looking closely at the key components of Romney’s proposal:

  • Reduce statutory income tax rates 20 percent, from 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent to 8, 12, 20, 22.4, and 28 percent.
  • Reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.
  • Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax for individuals and corporations.
  • Repeal the estate tax.
  • Eliminate, curtail, and reform numerous special provisions in the tax code—the credits, deductions, and exclusions that cause complexity, compliance problems, distortions, and inefficiencies.

In many regards, the Romney plan is like that of Obama’s bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. Both plans share a structural consistency of low tax rates and a broader tax base. One important difference is that Romney proposes to keep the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends unchanged while Simpson-Bowles proposes raising those rates considerably. Furthermore, the Simpson-Bowles plan is an explicit tax increase–$80 billion a year more than even Obama has proposed–while Romney’s tax reform plan is revenue neutral.

Read it all HERE.


To just from the dishes, the author must be not skinny?


Why Obama Sticks in my Craw

It seems that politicians rely on the short-lived memories of the general public. But I am tortured by a good memory. Maybe it is just that I remember being misled like cattle recall the hot iron. Here is an array of instances that stick in my craw.

The Cairo Initiative

Obama’s Cairo Initiative and the June 2009 speech in which Obama scurried over to Cairo and spoke to the Muslim world and the specially invited Muslim Brotherhood. He promised a new era in relations between the Muslims and the United States. At the time, Obama’s priorities seemed curious. Now we witness the murder of our ambassador, the invasion of several of our embassies, and the hoisting of the al-Qaeda flag where ours once flew, torn from our own sovereign embassy soil. We find ourselves funding Muslim Brotherhood-operated countries with our foreign aid. It has been quite a four years of resetting. A new era indeed.

Hey Dude, where’s my space program?

Despite the Mars landing, which gave the impression of a vibrant and active space program, NASA funding has been cut. Of all the activities of the federal government, the Obama administration selects our space program as one which could be more efficiently conducted by private enterprise. X Space, the private-sector partner of NASA, will make an October 7 launch of space station resupply atop the new Falcon 9 rocket engine. The optics of a failure actually could have political considerations.

Our military in the past has relied on missile technologies provided by NASA. Certainly American industry and the United States military heavily rely on GPS technology. Can private enterprise provide the missile technology input and GPS support, both of which are clearly national security issues? Should they be entrusted with these responsibilities?

We can find comfort in the fact that a new mandate for NASA involves a Muslim outreach, as per instructions from Obama. Maybe the Muslim Brotherhood nations can use our foreign aid to enter the Space Age.

Compare and contrast how Reagan and Obama have utilized our pre-eminence in space technology. Reagan’s Star Wars program raised the space bar so high as to help finesse the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, if we want to put a man in space, we must hire the Russians.

And Obama whispers to Russians.

This episode might have been grounds for impeachment in a previous era. When Obama leaned over and said to Medvedev that he, Obama, would have more flexibility after the election regarding missile defense, what were his designs? Was he revealing that upon re-election, he would make a move that in the pre-election world would be unpalatable or politically damaging? The Democrats already controlled the treaty-ratifying Senate. The referred-to “flexibility” most assuredly involves something that many Americans might consider damaging to the country and its security. Let’s not find out.

“Resetting” with the Russians and New START

It seems that the resetting was unilateral. Russia appears to be continually engaged in endeavors not aligned with our view of the world. Russians have sent helicopters to Syria to fight the insurrection. One can surmise that Russians supplied the pilots as well. The Russians have supplied the Iranians with a submarine to swim in the waters shared by our 7th fleet. Recently the Russians have stepped up missile capabilities on their nuclear submarines. “No other country has missiles with similar performance characteristics.” They consider these missiles “defensive” in nature.

This brings us to the New START, a treaty that was much heralded by Obama but seems to be flimsy ephemera rather than a watertight agreement. The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, “has repeatedly noted that Moscow reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty should missile defense impair Russia’s nuclear deterrent and argued that this is permitted by the treaty’s preamble.”

Then there is the seemingly trivial.

“Special Pictures” was the reason given back in 2009 when Air Force One buzzed New York City on a Sunday morning. New Yorkers were alarmed. It seemed an indelicate aeronautic act to pull on the city still smarting from the effects of previous low-flying large jets.

Not to worry…and please disregard. We were told that these pictures were for a special documentary or something, therefore the flight was necessary. Forget that any off-the-shelf photo-editing program could put Air Force One into a New York City skyline without the fuel, escort, or citizen alarm.

I must have missed the documentary or any other use of Air Force One pictures with New York City as a background. Certainly it was not as some suggest. There is no way a power-hungry narcissist would be so egocentric as to order Air Force One into the air for a joyride with the family. Nor could we imagine a first lady so power-crazy, or even a Napoleonic chief of staff.

We seem to have been told one thing, and time has proven it untrue. Is this not emblematic of this entire Obama administration and the past four years?

Read more.


Want to know the perks of being a cauliflower?


We are the 91%

The most important unnoted characteristic of telephone polls (on which most of the political journalism these days seems focused — instead of on the economy) is that 91% of people refuse to participate in them. In other words, only 9% of the population is being heard in the polls.
The data and analysis are laid out by Zombie at PJ Media:

One of the most amazing – and significant – statistics of this election season has gone almost completely unnoticed:
Only 9% of sampled households gave an answer to pollsters in 2012

Read the whole thing.
At Instapundit, Sara Hoyt sums it up:

THE SILENCE OF THE NINETY ONE PERCENT: WE ARE THE 91%: Only 9% of Americans Cooperate with Pollsters  and most of my family and friends aren’t among them.  Why not?   They don’t trust the person on the other side of the phone NOT to be from the government and taking down numbers for nefarious purposes.  After Joe the Plumber, after Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate, after the media that won’t report this administration’s malfeasance, do you blame them?

I’ve long argued that it is not smart to assume those who refuse to participate in polls have the same opinion profile as those who do.  I think that is even more true at a time when there seems to be record levels of distrust and downright loathing of civic institutions such as the media, academia, labor unions and the federal government.   A few years ago you might see posts about lying to pollsters at a few extreme sites.  Now I am increasingly seeing them at mainstream conservative sites such as Lucianne and PJ Media.   Having recently been jumped all over at a social event by a neighbor who lets MSNBC do her thinking for merely mentioning that I was Republican I can understand the attitude of Ms. Hoyt and her family.  The only thing more dangerous than sharing your opinion these days is citing facts to those nurtured on a steady diet of propaganda.

Read more.


Now someone was thinking! Imagine the possibilities now for your food with a grinder? Not just the doritos, but other foods!


I remember when I had free range chickens in Texas, they would do they same when a snake (did not matter if it was a cotton mouth or what) showed up in our yard or pastures.