Archive for September 6th, 2012

Please give me a chance to fix the mess I’ve created!

This isn’t what he promised or claimed in 2008. Obama lied, over-promised and under delivered for 4 years and now wants voters to just give him another 4 to turn around the mess he’s created.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – President Barack Obama will ask voters for another four years in office tonight, arguing that he needs more time in order to fully address some of the nation’s deepest-rooted problems.

“I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. I never have. You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear,” Obama will say tonight at the Democratic National Convention, according to excerpts released by his campaign.

“You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades,” he will add.

Says the most well documented liar in US political history.

The president’s pitch seems, in part, to acknowledge voters’ disappointment that the “change” Obama had promised to bring about during his 2008 campaign had come slowly, something the president himself often notes on the campaign trail.

But as Republicans continue to argue this week that voters today are no better off than when Obama took office, Obama will lay out elements of a second-term agenda he would seek if re-elected.

Among Obama’s promises would be a $4 trillion reduction in the deficit over the next decade, and creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs by the end of his second term. Obama will also call for halving net oil imports by 2020 and cutting the growth rate of college tuition in half over the next 10 years, too.

This from the guy who promised to cut the deficit in half, then ran up $1 trillion plus deficits each year of his presidency. You can trust Obama will surely cut the deficit the next time (wink).

It’s not clear whether Obama will offer much detail as to how he might accomplish these proposals, especially since tonight’s speech is essentially a political one. The preview offered by his campaign says, though, that savings associated with ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be re-invested in the economy.

Savings? It’s just spending the money in different areas and most likely to Obama’s bundlers. There is no savings. Remember Obama was elected to tell the “truth?”

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

As must suspected, the real reason Team Obama moved Obama’s speech inside to the smaller 15,000 seat Time Warner Arena, home of the Charlotte Bobcats, was due to crowd size, not the weather. Here in Charlotte today, the weather was perfect. Mostly sunny with bouts of overcast skies but not a single drop of rain and no booming thunderstorms, which are common in September.

LMAO @ Hope & Change.

Read Full Post »

The best way to defeat Obama is to use the words that come from his lying mouth.

Read Full Post »

The real violence and lack of civility comes from the left. Liberal media is silent as usual.

From Daily Caller:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A spokesman for the Secret Service told The Daily Caller that the agency is aware of video showing a delegate at the Democratic National Convention expressing a desire to “kill” Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

“We are aware of it,” Secret Service spokesman George Ogilvie told TheDC on Thursday.

He said the department is “taking the appropriate follow-up steps” with the woman.

Video surfaced on Wednesday of a woman identifying herself as New York delegate Julia Rodriguez telling The Blaze, “If I see him” — in reference to Romney — “I would like to kill him.”

In the video, Rodriguez says she’s from Puerto Rico but she now lives in New York. She expressed her desire to kill the Republican nominee after saying “Romney will destroy this country.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Watch the Video<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Read Full Post »

Union Goons for Obama

As I continue to say, all Democrats have is lie and are doing so to distract everyone’s attention away from Obama’s failed record. The desperation is pathetic.

From ABC News:

The Democratic National Convention on Wednesday featured three speakers billed as “former employees of companies controlled by Bain Capital.”

They each told compelling stories about jobs lost, allegedly because of the actions of Bain under Romney’s leadership.

But it turns out one of those employees never actually worked for a company controlled by Bain Capital.
David Foster was supposedly one of those former employees on the convention schedule. He told the story about 750 steelworkers who lost their jobs when the Bain-controlled company GST steel filed for bankruptcy in the early 1990s.

“In 2001, with GST bankrupt and Romney still CEO of Bain, I stood in front of hundreds of steelworkers in their 50s and 60s, and retirees in their 70s and 80s, and told them Romney and Bain had broken their promises. Jobs, vacation pay, severance, health insurance and pension benefits that were promised — they were all gone,” he said. Read his full speech here

But Foster, according to a former spokesman for GST Steel, never actually worked for the company.
“David Foster was never an employee of GST Steel’s Kansas City plant. He was employed by the United Steelworkers of America as their regional union director to represent GST Steel, but was not employed at our facility,” according to BC Huselton, who was head of HR at GST.
Instead, Foster was a union organizer, who negotiated for workers that did work for the company.
Foster explained in his remarks that he was an organizer during his dealings with GST Steel. But it is not clear from the remarks that he never worked for a company controlled by Bain.

Read Full Post »

Chicago commie

Add Gallup to the Obama’s enemy list! Team Obama is loaded with Chicago goons who use intimidation as a political tool. Remember folks, this is the same administration that attempted to get a 4-star General to change his testimony to help out an Obama campaign donor and who tried to get the credit agencies to hold off on the downgrade. Not to mention their enemies list where they have attacked Romney donors.

From Daily Caller:

Internal emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, obtained by The Daily Caller, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempting to subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president.

After Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, Obama’s Department of Justice hit it with an unrelated lawsuit that appears damning on its face.

TheDC is withholding the identities of the Gallup officials to protect them from potential retaliation from Obama’s campaign and his administration.

In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead.

In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012.”

Internally, Gallup officials discussed via email how to respond Axelrod’s accusations. One suggested that it “seems like a pretty good time for a blog response,” and named a potential writer.

In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

I’m a convicted liar…why would you believe anything I say?

Distort, Distract & Lie. That’s all the Democrats have going for them at the DNC convention.

From WaPo:

We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”

— Former president Bill Clinton, quoting Romney campaign pollster Neil Newhouse

Whew. In a previous life, The Fact Checker covered the Clinton White House and always marveled at Bill Clinton’s speechifying, his apparent command of policy and his sometimes slippery use of the facts. We are going to offer an initial take on some of his claims — and those of other Democrats — and then may come back to others in the coming days. Everyone needs to get some sleep.

“He [Obama] has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade. For every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission. … It passes the arithmetic test.”— Former president Bill Clinton

“President Obama’s plan uses the bipartisan commission’s balanced approach. It reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion.”— Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate.

By the administration’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). Presto, $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.

But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. The $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.

Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end.

In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. (Imagine taking credit for saving money on buying a new car every year, even though you intended to keep your car for 10 years.)

Rather than good arithmetic, independent budget analysts called the maneuver “a major budget gimmick.”

The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a “spending cut,” which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program.

There are a number of other games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects. In effect, most of Obama’s claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases.

Meanwhile, both Clinton and Van Hollen claim Obama’s budget has the “balanced approach” of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposal. But the Simpson-Bowles plan is actually quite different, calling for tough spending cuts and substantial tax reforms — not the faux proposals contained in the president’s budget.

“We could have done better, but last year the Republicans blocked the president’s job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here’s another job score. President Obama: plus 4.5 million. Congressional Republicans: zero.”— Clinton

Obama’s jobs plan was more of a rhetorical device, aimed at Republicans, rather than a real plan. He even used the same $1 trillion in previously-agreed savings with Republicans, mentioned above, that was supposed to be in his budget in order to pay for this plan. The jobs plan also would be paid for with the imaginary money from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The administration argued that the budget had never passed, so the money could be used again.)

Get the picture? Clinton praises Obama both for his sound budget math and for his jobs plan, even though the money to fund the budget and the jobs plan is used twice. That certainly doesn’t pass the Arkansas 2+2=4 test.

We have noted the problems with Obama’s claim that 4.5 million private sector jobs have been created. (It is a cherry-picked figure.) As for whether 1 million jobs would be created through Obama’s jobs plan, that is merely a fuzzy and optimistic projection. Bloomberg News surveyed 34 economists and found that the median estimate was that the plan would add or keep 275,000 workers on payrolls.

“During this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama. That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.”— Clinton

Clinton is referring to the period since February 2010, the administration’s preferred date for counting employment figures. If you count from the beginning of Obama’s term, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 500,000. Manufacturing jobs have been on a long steep decline since the middle of Clinton’s term, with some 2 million jobs lost during the recession that started at the end of George W. Bush’s term.

“More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents’ policies can cover them.”— Clinton

Interestingly, Clinton frames this more accurately than President Obama. The Department of Health and Human Services in June reported that more than 3 million young adults would not have health insurance without the health-care law.

Obama prefers to cite a private survey, published by the Commonwealth Fund, that showed that 6.6 million young adults “stayed on or joined their parents’ health plans” in 2011. Not all of those people were uninsured; some simply joined their parents’ plans for other reasons.

“For the last two years, after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, for the last two years, health care costs have been under 4 percent in both years for the first time in 50 years.”— Clinton

Clinton tried to attribute this decline in health costs to the health-care law, but much of it has not yet been implemented. Most economists say the slowdown is more likely because of the lousy economy.

“It’s tempting to think that provider initiatives are truly denting costs, but it’s hard for changes in provider behavior to influence costs before they occur,” said a recent article in Modern Healthcare magazine. “Instead, the drop in healthcare cost growth is primarily attributable to the Great Recession’s impact on employment, private health insurance, government revenues and budgets.”

Indeed, government actuaries in June published an article in Health Affairs predicting health-care costs would begin to spike as the health-care law was implemented. “For 2011 through 2021, national health spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.7 percent annually, which would be 0.9 percentage point faster than the expected annual increase in the gross domestic product during this period,” the article said.

“Soon the insurance companies — not the government, the insurance companies — will have millions of new customers, many of them middle-class people with preexisting conditions who never could get insurance before.”

— ClintonActually, the original Congressional Budget Office estimate is that 16 million people would end up in private coverage and 16 million would end up on Medicaid. But the Medicaid number may shrink as a result of the Supreme Court ruling allowing states to opt out of the expansion of the program.

Keep reading, it’s a very long list>>>


Dana Loesch has a better fact check list than WaPo.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: