Yet he is beating Bachmann ,Perry,Cain,Huntsman and Gingrich by double digits
Obama leading Perry and Bachmann by 11 and 14 points
- Thread starter AK Forty Seven
- Start date
Yet he is beating Bachmann ,Perry,Cain,Huntsman and Gingrich by double digits
Carter had a nearly balanced budget,kept us out of wars, didn't add much to the national debt, weakened Russia by setting a trap for them to go to war in Afghanistan , wouldn't submit to Washington's corruption and left office with the national debt less then 1 trillion.I'd take that over Obama,Reagan,Bush and Bush 2 any day
Against Perry ,Bachmann,Gingrich,Huntsman,Santurium and Cain I believe he would
This is an example of the alternate reality history I fear our children are being taught.
Let's continue on with this theme introduced to us by AK regarding the good news coming forth from Public Policy Polling:
From The Hill:
Republican Bob Turner won former Rep. Anthony Weiner's (D-N.Y.) House seat on Tuesday, a bad sign for President Obama and down-ticket Democrats heading into next yearâs election.
Turner was leading Democrat David Weprin by 54 percent to 46 percent with 81 percent of precincts reporting right before midnight eastern time. The Associated Press has called the race.
Democrats have held Weinerâs district since 1923, and it was Sen. Charles Schumerâs (D-N.Y.) seat before he ran for the Senate. Obama will shoulder some blame for the loss, which comes at a pivotal time for the president as he pushes Congress to pass a jobs bill that will likely be a major part of his reelection campaign.
National Republican Congressional Campaign Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) put out a statement immediately after the race was called, blaming Obama for the loss.
"This clear rebuke of President Obamaâs policies delivers a blow to Democratsâ goal of making Nancy Pelosi the Speaker again. New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel. An unpopular President Obama is now a liability for Democrats nationwide in a 2012 election that is a referendum on his economic policies," he said.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) though dismissed suggestions the loss was a troubling sign for Democrats in 2012.
"The results in NY-09 are not reflective of what will happen in November 2012 when Democratic challengers run against Republican incumbents who voted to end Medicare and cut Social Security while protecting tax loopholes for big corporations and the ultra wealthy," wrote Israel in a statement.
âSpecial Elections are always difficult â they are low turnout, high intensity races,â he said.
The NRCC also put out a statement from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the only Jewish Republican serving in the House.
Cantor criticized Obama's Middle East policies, which was a huge issue in the largely Orthodox Jewish district.
Turner "understands the special relationship that America has with our friend Israel. His victory tonight is an indicator that the Middle East policy pursued by the Obama Administration does not sit well with the many people who care deeply about the U.S./Israel relationship," Cantor said.
Polling leading up to the race indicated Obama was dragging down the Democratic candidate. Democratic pollster Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling said that a Turner win would be âlargely due to the incredible unpopularity of Barack Obama dragging his party down in the districtâ after PPPâs polling found Obama with just 31 percent approval in a district he won with 55 percent of the vote in 2008.
A Democratic strategist said Obama has become such a problem for down-ticket Democrats that he was wary of encouraging candidates to run next year. âIâm warning my clients â âDonât run in 2012.â I donât want to see good candidates lose by 12 to 15 points because of the president,â said the strategist.
National Democrats expected early on that they would have no problems holding the district, even though it has trended Republican over the last decade. But when the race tightened the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee decided to spend $500,000 on television ads in the highly expensive media market, while the Democratic outside group House Majority PAC has spent an additional $100,000. Republicans were badly outspent in the race, but it didnât matter.
The districtâs population, which besides the Orthodox Jewish community contains many Catholics of Irish and Italian descent as well as large populations of Hispanics and Asians, has trended away from the Democratic Party since Sept. 11, 2001, although Weiner had done well there up until his resignation in June. Al Gore won the district with 67 percent of the vote in 2000, but Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) won just 56 percent there in 2004. It had the largest shift towards the GOP from 2000 to 2008 of any district outside of the South.
Democrats, meanwhile, complain the Weprin campaign failed to reach out effectively to the sizeable Asian and Hispanic communities in the district, leaving the electorate whiter and more conservative than it could have been.
But even taking into account some of the Weprin campaignâs weaknesses, the unusual dynamics of a special election, the districtâs unusual demographics and drift towards the GOP, for Democrats to lose a district long held by their party should concern them.
The results might point to another trend: a softening in Obama support from the Jewish community, which strongly backed him in 2008. The district has one of the largest Orthodox Jewish populations in the country.
Turner got some early momentum when a prominent state Democrat crossed party lines and endorsed him. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch (D) sent a message to Obama about his policies toward Israel with his endorsement of the Catholic Turner over Weprin, an Orthodox Jew.
Turnerâs win will scramble the stateâs redistricting process. New York is losing two seats, and the Democrats and Republicans who share control of the stateâs line-drawing process were expected to ax this district as well as a Republican one in the upstate area. But Republicans will be less willing to have two of their districts put on the chopping block.
The Republican win also ended a string of Democratic special-election victories in New York and give the local GOP some payback. Besides Democrat Kathy Hochulâs 2010 win, Democrats Bill Owens and Scott Murphy won open House seats in Republican-leaning districts in 2009, although Murphy went on to lose his reelection campaign in 2010.
A senior Democratic strategist agreed that Obamaâs numbers have been worrying down-ticket Democrats, and that a New York special-election loss would heighten their concerns.
âThe one thing thatâs going to resonate in the echo chamber is the president is really pulling down peopleâs numbers,â he said. âDemocrats are going to start getting a little nervous.â
-- This story was last updated at 6:44 a.m.
From The Hill:
Republican Bob Turner won former Rep. Anthony Weiner's (D-N.Y.) House seat on Tuesday, a bad sign for President Obama and down-ticket Democrats heading into next yearâs election.
Turner was leading Democrat David Weprin by 54 percent to 46 percent with 81 percent of precincts reporting right before midnight eastern time. The Associated Press has called the race.
Democrats have held Weinerâs district since 1923, and it was Sen. Charles Schumerâs (D-N.Y.) seat before he ran for the Senate. Obama will shoulder some blame for the loss, which comes at a pivotal time for the president as he pushes Congress to pass a jobs bill that will likely be a major part of his reelection campaign.
National Republican Congressional Campaign Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) put out a statement immediately after the race was called, blaming Obama for the loss.
"This clear rebuke of President Obamaâs policies delivers a blow to Democratsâ goal of making Nancy Pelosi the Speaker again. New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel. An unpopular President Obama is now a liability for Democrats nationwide in a 2012 election that is a referendum on his economic policies," he said.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) though dismissed suggestions the loss was a troubling sign for Democrats in 2012.
"The results in NY-09 are not reflective of what will happen in November 2012 when Democratic challengers run against Republican incumbents who voted to end Medicare and cut Social Security while protecting tax loopholes for big corporations and the ultra wealthy," wrote Israel in a statement.
âSpecial Elections are always difficult â they are low turnout, high intensity races,â he said.
The NRCC also put out a statement from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the only Jewish Republican serving in the House.
Cantor criticized Obama's Middle East policies, which was a huge issue in the largely Orthodox Jewish district.
Turner "understands the special relationship that America has with our friend Israel. His victory tonight is an indicator that the Middle East policy pursued by the Obama Administration does not sit well with the many people who care deeply about the U.S./Israel relationship," Cantor said.
Polling leading up to the race indicated Obama was dragging down the Democratic candidate. Democratic pollster Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling said that a Turner win would be âlargely due to the incredible unpopularity of Barack Obama dragging his party down in the districtâ after PPPâs polling found Obama with just 31 percent approval in a district he won with 55 percent of the vote in 2008.
A Democratic strategist said Obama has become such a problem for down-ticket Democrats that he was wary of encouraging candidates to run next year. âIâm warning my clients â âDonât run in 2012.â I donât want to see good candidates lose by 12 to 15 points because of the president,â said the strategist.
National Democrats expected early on that they would have no problems holding the district, even though it has trended Republican over the last decade. But when the race tightened the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee decided to spend $500,000 on television ads in the highly expensive media market, while the Democratic outside group House Majority PAC has spent an additional $100,000. Republicans were badly outspent in the race, but it didnât matter.
The districtâs population, which besides the Orthodox Jewish community contains many Catholics of Irish and Italian descent as well as large populations of Hispanics and Asians, has trended away from the Democratic Party since Sept. 11, 2001, although Weiner had done well there up until his resignation in June. Al Gore won the district with 67 percent of the vote in 2000, but Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) won just 56 percent there in 2004. It had the largest shift towards the GOP from 2000 to 2008 of any district outside of the South.
Democrats, meanwhile, complain the Weprin campaign failed to reach out effectively to the sizeable Asian and Hispanic communities in the district, leaving the electorate whiter and more conservative than it could have been.
But even taking into account some of the Weprin campaignâs weaknesses, the unusual dynamics of a special election, the districtâs unusual demographics and drift towards the GOP, for Democrats to lose a district long held by their party should concern them.
The results might point to another trend: a softening in Obama support from the Jewish community, which strongly backed him in 2008. The district has one of the largest Orthodox Jewish populations in the country.
Turner got some early momentum when a prominent state Democrat crossed party lines and endorsed him. Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch (D) sent a message to Obama about his policies toward Israel with his endorsement of the Catholic Turner over Weprin, an Orthodox Jew.
Turnerâs win will scramble the stateâs redistricting process. New York is losing two seats, and the Democrats and Republicans who share control of the stateâs line-drawing process were expected to ax this district as well as a Republican one in the upstate area. But Republicans will be less willing to have two of their districts put on the chopping block.
The Republican win also ended a string of Democratic special-election victories in New York and give the local GOP some payback. Besides Democrat Kathy Hochulâs 2010 win, Democrats Bill Owens and Scott Murphy won open House seats in Republican-leaning districts in 2009, although Murphy went on to lose his reelection campaign in 2010.
A senior Democratic strategist agreed that Obamaâs numbers have been worrying down-ticket Democrats, and that a New York special-election loss would heighten their concerns.
âThe one thing thatâs going to resonate in the echo chamber is the president is really pulling down peopleâs numbers,â he said. âDemocrats are going to start getting a little nervous.â
-- This story was last updated at 6:44 a.m.
Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi!
by John Stossel
"Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I said it. To the extent people believe there are trust funds with their names on them, Social Security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. So is Medicare. People need to hear it.
Many people think that when the government takes payroll tax from their paychecks, it goes to something like a savings account. Seniors who collect Social Security think they're just getting back money that they put into their "account." Or they think it's like an insurance policy -- you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent by government that year. Right away. There's no trust fund. The plan is unsustainable. Medicare is worse.
Mitt Romney and other Republicans who scoff at Rick Perry​ shamelessly pander to older voters. They should tell people the truth.
Still, I'm not convinced Perry has more than a sound bite. In his USA Today op-ed this week, the most he says is, "We must consider reforms to make Social Security financially viable." He doesn't say what kind of reforms.
Charles Ponzi promised to make money for investors by taking advantage of price differences in coupons for postage stamps. Trouble is, he paid some early "investors" with money wheedled from later "investors."
What sustains a Ponzi scheme is deception. If people really knew how it worked, they wouldn't sign on.
Social Security and Medicare are different. You could say no to Ponzi. I wouldn't advise saying no to the government. Not if you want to stay out of prison.
Social Security is nothing more than a promise from politicians. The next gang can break the promise.
Twice the government has argued before the Supreme Court that Social Security is not insurance. In 1960, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Arthur Sherwood Flemming submitted a brief to the courts stating: "The contribution exacted under the Social Security plan is a true tax. It is not comparable to a premium promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age."
In a ruling that denied a man's property claim to Social Security benefits, the Supreme Court said, "It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."
So anyone who believes Social Security is an investment plan really has only himself to blame.
If you want evidence, listen to how politicians talk about your Social Security "contributions." They are taxes and nothing more. No one pretends they are premiums. In fact, President Obama and the Republicans want to stimulate the economy by extending a cut in the payroll tax for workers and cutting the employer's share of the tax -- but without reducing Social Security benefits.
Now, I like tax cuts more than the next person, but as Freeman editor Sheldon Richman points out, this one has a complication the politicians don't seem to care about:
"President Obama's jobs program calls for cuts in both sides of the payroll tax. That tax finances Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are already taking in less money than they need to pay retirees. So they will have to cash in more of the Treasury IOUs left behind when previous surpluses were used to finance general expenditures. But the Treasury is also already running a deficit, a trillion dollars-plus. So it will have to borrow more in the capital markets in order to pay back the Social Security and Medicare funds. Unless Obama makes up the lost revenue by changing the tax code. But then money will be withdrawn from the economy in the form of higher taxes so it can be put back into the economy through the payroll-tax cut. Somehow that's supposed to stimulate the economy."
Like all jobs programs, Obama's latest plan is a scam. The economy would create ample opportunities to earn income -- and make it easier for people to look after themselves in retirement -- if the government would just slash spending, taxes, regulation and privilege.
Ponzi scheme or not, we wouldn't need Social Security."
by John Stossel
"Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I said it. To the extent people believe there are trust funds with their names on them, Social Security is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. So is Medicare. People need to hear it.
Many people think that when the government takes payroll tax from their paychecks, it goes to something like a savings account. Seniors who collect Social Security think they're just getting back money that they put into their "account." Or they think it's like an insurance policy -- you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent by government that year. Right away. There's no trust fund. The plan is unsustainable. Medicare is worse.
Mitt Romney and other Republicans who scoff at Rick Perry​ shamelessly pander to older voters. They should tell people the truth.
Still, I'm not convinced Perry has more than a sound bite. In his USA Today op-ed this week, the most he says is, "We must consider reforms to make Social Security financially viable." He doesn't say what kind of reforms.
Charles Ponzi promised to make money for investors by taking advantage of price differences in coupons for postage stamps. Trouble is, he paid some early "investors" with money wheedled from later "investors."
What sustains a Ponzi scheme is deception. If people really knew how it worked, they wouldn't sign on.
Social Security and Medicare are different. You could say no to Ponzi. I wouldn't advise saying no to the government. Not if you want to stay out of prison.
Social Security is nothing more than a promise from politicians. The next gang can break the promise.
Twice the government has argued before the Supreme Court that Social Security is not insurance. In 1960, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Arthur Sherwood Flemming submitted a brief to the courts stating: "The contribution exacted under the Social Security plan is a true tax. It is not comparable to a premium promising the payment of an annuity commencing at a designated age."
In a ruling that denied a man's property claim to Social Security benefits, the Supreme Court said, "It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."
So anyone who believes Social Security is an investment plan really has only himself to blame.
If you want evidence, listen to how politicians talk about your Social Security "contributions." They are taxes and nothing more. No one pretends they are premiums. In fact, President Obama and the Republicans want to stimulate the economy by extending a cut in the payroll tax for workers and cutting the employer's share of the tax -- but without reducing Social Security benefits.
Now, I like tax cuts more than the next person, but as Freeman editor Sheldon Richman points out, this one has a complication the politicians don't seem to care about:
"President Obama's jobs program calls for cuts in both sides of the payroll tax. That tax finances Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are already taking in less money than they need to pay retirees. So they will have to cash in more of the Treasury IOUs left behind when previous surpluses were used to finance general expenditures. But the Treasury is also already running a deficit, a trillion dollars-plus. So it will have to borrow more in the capital markets in order to pay back the Social Security and Medicare funds. Unless Obama makes up the lost revenue by changing the tax code. But then money will be withdrawn from the economy in the form of higher taxes so it can be put back into the economy through the payroll-tax cut. Somehow that's supposed to stimulate the economy."
Like all jobs programs, Obama's latest plan is a scam. The economy would create ample opportunities to earn income -- and make it easier for people to look after themselves in retirement -- if the government would just slash spending, taxes, regulation and privilege.
Ponzi scheme or not, we wouldn't need Social Security."