Thread: obama's 2012 campaign

^ From your Raw Story link:
The U.S. Department of Labor did not respond to a request for comment.
And, it was not Fox & Friends (which I don't watch, but I watched the supplied clip) that made the assertions, it was Newt Gingrich. Here's another Gallup poll for ya:

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

Each result is based on a 30-day rolling average; not seasonally adjusted

• Download complete trend

Here's the stats for Feb 2012: employed: 64.1% Underemployed: 18.7% unemployed: 8.7%

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment

As for Biden's tuition story, see, even when that dinosaur was going to college, costs were high. PO. Costs were high when I went to uni on a 4-yr degree (the basic then was 3 yrs; good way to grab more cash by extending the # of yrs, huh? those libbie ivory tower folks like their cash). Pffft. I paid my own way by working P/T and summers, scholarships and five years of payback. Based on wages/costs back then, it's the same split as now. You want to listen to lefties preach their crap, you can pay.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by Minnie Maugham

KILL American spirits prez.

Where do you get your information? Or are you just disgusted because you understand things might be getting better for some of us Americans with a Democratic President (that will win another term) and a Republican House doing everything they can to stop his/our (as in the US) progress?

Because the information I see tells a different story. Seems the American public is seeing brighter skies. Look at the graph below and when Bush left office in 08,……..-60 and now economic confidence among Americans is at -27 . Which still isn’t good a good number, but it’s a hellofa lot better number than -60.

Again, why do you hate us Americans so much? Most non-American hate posters here could give a shit about our politics: Americans’ Economic Confidence Continues to Dramatically Improve | Elections

Good post.
I hope the repubs decide to run campaign based on a theme of pessimism. They will only be hurting themselves in the election.

It looks to me as though this is the nail in the coffin of the old guard. This was the Republican's last chance and they have blown it.

Most people younger than 30 don't even consider the rights to gays to marry or reproductive rights to be issue. They don't care who is having butt sex or who takes a morning after pill. As long Republicans continue to make issue of those things, they are out of step and will get few votes from the young. Obama still represents the young better than any of the Republicans sorry presidential offerings and he will be reelected.

The right can harp on endlessly about what a low life Obama is, but few buy it. Even those who disagree with his actions know that he is basically a decent man and not the antichrist the reactionaries have made him out to be.

It's also pretty clear there is progress being made in the direction of the economy in spite of all the obstruction placed before the president.

Yep, too many entitlements and not enough folks paying tax.


Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

inShar

View Enlarged Image

The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."
The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.
The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.
"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.
Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100...
...
At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.
...

The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% over the past two years.


Dependent Nation: Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama; 67 Million Get Aid - Investors.com

The number of people who went on food stamps was slightly larger during the tenure of President George W. Bush: 14.7 million people during Bush's two terms — a 63% increase — compared with 14.2 million people since Obama took office, according to Agriculture Department data obtained by FactCheck.org.

Ad watch: Commercial underscores Gingrich debate point

The “Food Stamp Speaker” is Actually Newt Gingrich

With Newt Gingrich throwing around the phrase “food stamp President” like he’s about to drop a new track featuring Kanye with that title, attention is starting to be paid to his claims. Gingrich never tires of calling Barack Obama a food stamp President, saying that the food stamp rolls increased by the highest amount in history under this Administration. As a technical matter, this is not true. George W. Bush actually put more people on food stamps than any President in American history, mainly because of a change to encourage enrollment by state governments during his two terms, as well as the beginnings of the recession.

But that doesn’t totally get at who is responsible for the increase in food stamp benefits. And whoever we can point to as the responsible party should take a bow, because the food stamp program is wildly successful, increasing economic activity, creating jobs and keeping millions of Americans out of poverty.

As Brooks Jackson points out, the economic downturn that began in December 2007 made 4.4 million Americans newly eligible for food stamp benefits. The Obama Adminstration included increased benefit levels in the 2009 stimulus, making the program more attractive and increasing the rolls as well. But there’s a reason that the food stamp program, or SNAP, became a vehicle for direct benefits to poor Americans. It can be traced back to a guy named Newt Gingrich.

In 1996, Gingrich succeeded as House Speaker in passing welfare “reform,” which decimated the welfare program, particularly its ability to respond during times of economic stress. Because TANF (welfare) is block-granted, it cannot increase when more people become eligible for it. As a result, SNAP became one of the easiest ways to provide needed benefits to struggling Americans. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes that “SNAP’s role in the safety net has been all the more important because TANF cash assistance has not been available to many unemployed low-income families.” The 1996 welfare reform made cuts to SNAP, most of which remain. But it’s still expandable during a downturn, unlike TANF. In 2010, 40% of single mothers received food stamps, while only 10% received TANF funds. And this is why SNAP costs increased by 102% during the Great Recession.

In other words, without the “end of welfare as we know it,” nobody would likely have become a food stamp President. The closing of the welfare channel forced an opening of a separate channel to deliver benefits. I suppose the other option is to let the poor starve, which Gingrich must be advancing. But when he talks about “food stamp Presidents,” recognize that he’s responsible.

And he should be thrilled to take the credit! The US Department of Agriculture estimates that $1 spent on food stamps generates $1.79 for the economy, creating economic activity with one of the best multipliers of any federal program. Census data from 2011 shows that SNAP kept 5.1 million Americans out of poverty, including substantial numbers of women and children. It’s a great program that helps the food production industry, keeps struggling families afloat when the economy turns sharply against them, and which has an historically low error rate. Almost all of the benefits get directly to people with a tiny administrative overhead.

Of course, whether or not SNAP is a good program has little to do with the racial overtones of Gingrich’s remarks. He and his allies can object all they want, but he clearly is painting a picture of a “food stamp king” as a mirror to Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queens.” This is ridiculous, primarily because the plurality of food stamp beneficiaries – 36% – are white. But liberals should not shrink from defending SNAP, a massively successful program that helps people in need with a residual economic benefit. If every federal program worked this way, and if we funded them rather than tax cuts, we’d be much better off. So thanks, Newt Gingrich, for building the food stamp program to where it is today.

there are many links in this article and if you open it you can click for the support: The “Food Stamp Speaker” is Actually Newt Gingrich | FDL News Desk

It's become necessary now for Obama to support his own super-PAC fundraising. He was against the supreme court ruling which made this kind of unlimited fundraising legal.

Romney's group, Restore our Future, has raised $30.2 million while Obama's Priorities USA has raised only $4.2.

Bill Burton, co-founder of Priorities USA, said: “As has become evident in the past month, the only enthusiasm in the Republican Party is among oil company billionaires and investment bankers on Wall Street looking to defeat President Obama. We’re committed to providing a balance to Karl Rove and the Koch brothers who have pledged more than half a billion dollars to their effort.”

In shift, Obama campaign to support Super PAC fundraiser | Reuters

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

^Yes. Those people inheriting wealth didn't earn anything. They are born into priviledge and can reap the benefits of their illustrious family names. Sort of like Mitt Romney.

Would say many more people will notice this and vote for Obama. It is becoming a major issue.

^
That's socialism bordering on outright communism...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all

Is it fair that 40% of Americans are that poor? Nope.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Absolutely not- they pay less tax than the damn middle class, this in a country with Third world rates of wealth and income inequality.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan

It is absolutely absurd, because actually US corporations paid on average about 12% of their earnings in tax last year. That is lower than Hong Kong's rate of 15%.

Read all about it-
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Originally Posted by sabang

Is it fair that 40% of Americans are that poor? Nope.

You cannot legislate 'fairness' nor income equality. North Korea, Albania, Cuba etc come to mind...

^ Funny you didn't mention Sweeden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany etc. a bit selective there BM.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Sweeden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany

Very interesting all countries with vastly higher quality of life for their citizens then the US.

^ sort of the point bsnub legislation promoting fairness and economic equality seems to work in those countries.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Ready for some Good News?

Gallup State-by-State Numbers Predict Huge Obama Loss




Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Might want to consider removing Virginia as a Red state in the general election.


February 8, 2012 - Obama Inches Past Romney In Virginia Presidential Race, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds

For the first time in this election cycle, President Barack Obama inches ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the leading Republican candidate, 47 - 43 percent in Virginia, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Snip

In the Obama-Romney matchup, independent voters favor the president 45 - 41 percent, compared to a 41 - 41 percent tie in December. A gender gap is opening up as women shift to the president, backing him 52 - 40 percent, compared to a 43 - 45 percent split in December. Men back Romney 47 - 43 percent, compared to 43 - 42 percent in December.


Might go blue: Virginia (VA) Poll * February 8, 2012 * Obama Inches Past Romney In Vi - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut


Let’s see,… Virginia has 13 electoral votes. So we’ll add that to,……..

No Republican will take Florida-29 (or PA-20 or OH-18) which is another 67 electoral votes on top of the 229 Obama has pretty much locked up. Total electoral votes for Obama 296,..he wins.

Total electoral votes for Obama is at 309. He wins, again.

Poll: 20% of Republicans likely to re-elect Obama

A shocking poll recently released by a conservative publication found that a large number of Republicans and conservatives are likely to vote for President Barack Obama.

The survey, conducted by Wenzel Strategies for World Net Daily, showed that one in five Republicans are leaning towards or would “definitely” re-elect the current president.


: 20% of Republicans leaning to Obama!

and

Poll: 20% of Republicans likely to re-elect Obama | The Raw Story

^
Heh...Drill through the details and there are a bunch of better headlines

• 64% of people under $50k are not making Obama a definite choice.
• 43% of independent would choose Gingrich or Romney over Obama
• 28% of democrats would vote consider NOT voting for Obama
• 39% of blacks would support someone other than Obama
• 51% of hispanics would support someone other than Obama
• Over 50% of those under 20 years old would vote for someone other than Obama.

Source

^Source? Curmudgeonlyskepticalblogspot? I couldn't find those "details" anywhere hidden in that racist mess.

Originally Posted by misskit

^Source? Curmudgeonlyskepticalblogspot? I couldn't find those "details" anywhere hidden in that racist mess.

Racist mess?

Scroll down, Bad Pussy...

Originally Posted by misskit

^Source? Curmudgeonlyskepticalblogspot? I couldn't find those "details" anywhere hidden in that racist mess.

Its is there amongst the prog guns, anti small car, racist shit, redneck jokes. This is where BM sources his crap from.