Obama 2013

Obama 2013
Randslide
Loading...

Friday, August 26, 2011

KUCINICH CALLS FOR RESIGNATION OF WHITE HOUSE JOBS CZAR



http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/sites/default/files/images/TwoAmericans.jpg
(above): Jeffrey Immelt, Obama

Liberty Underground News reports:
"Congressman Dennis Kucinich has called for the resignation of White House jobs czar Jeffrey Immelt, and urged the White House to fire him if he doesn't step down.  'Jeffrey Immelt has a conflict of interest,' Kucinich said in a statement. 'He cannot ethically advise the president on how to create American jobs and promote American competitiveness, while at the same time leading a company that is exporting American technology and, along with it, American jobs.'
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002025891/5221421540_outsource_answer_1_xlarge.jpeghttp://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/styles/dv6/public/636_Jeff_Immelt_GE_logo_AP.jpg
"True, but President Obama needs the General Electric money for his reelection campaign.  Does anybody doubt why Immelt got the job?  How could anybody on the planet believe Immelt cares if Americans have jobs?  These questions don't get asked in our hopelessly corrupt mass media, and any reporter knows they'd lose their job just by asking them.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcCzeV7vIkSpMMRreW4mBnzSMWwTUzK1DoJvv34rv1f4WNnbGr
"When GE can make more profit by hiring people they will do it, meanwhile they will grab every dime they can from the treasury while paying no taxes themselves and offshoring American jobs as fast as they can make a dime in profit from it."
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNBAw83Y7JfUTWYEFf5vQzkzy08t4jWLHTQ9dVcTU2y9Zp-Jgcsw

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Obama funnies


Posted Image


Posted Image


Click below for related story: 

Posted Image 


Resized to 99% (was 699 x 220) - Click image to enlargePosted Image






Click below to see more: 

 





Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Resized to 98% (was 704 x 484) - Click image to enlargePosted Image



Posted Image





Resized to 99% (was 699 x 699) - Click image to enlargePosted Image



Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Resized to 99% (was 695 x 526) - Click image to enlargePosted Image



Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Resized to 98% (was 703 x 528) - Click image to enlargePosted Image



Posted Image


Resized to 98% (was 705 x 546) - Click image to enlargePosted Image



Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Click below for related story: 

Resized to 98% (was 702 x 542) - Click image to enlargePosted Image



Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Resized to 99% (was 697 x 697) - Click image to enlargePosted Image



Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Click below for related story: 




Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Resized to 98% (was 706 x 540) - Click image to enlargePosted Image



Posted Image


Posted Image


Click below for related video: 

Posted Image 





Resized to 98% (was 702 x 563) - Click image to enlarge



This Thread Brought To You By The Letters W & P:

Posted Image



In Case You Missed It Dept.:


0bama "Bad Luck" (video)


Tea Party Revolution (video)


President 0bama Working HARD on JOBS! 


0bama Halts Deportation Of Illegals


"Hope and Change" by the Numbers 

 

Which Strategy Really Ended the Great Depression?


Our Economic PastWhich Strategy Really Ended the Great Depression?Burton W. Folsom Jr.
September 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 7 •

“World War II got us out of the Great Depression.” Many people said that during the war, and some still do today. The quality of American life, however, was precarious during the war. Food was rationed, luxuries removed, taxes high, and work dangerous. A recovery that does not make­as Robert Higgs points out in Depression, War, and Cold War.

Franklin Roosevelt recognized that the war only provided a short-term fix for the economy -- and a very costly one at that. What would happen after the war­when 12 million troops came home and the strong demand for guns, bullets, tanks, and ships ceased?

Roosevelt envisioned a New Deal revival. He had created the National Resources Planning Board (NRPB) in 1939 and urged it during the war to plan for peacetime. The NRPB leaders believed that government planning was necessary to promote economic development. They consciously (and sometimes unconsciously) followed ideas popularized in 1936 by John Maynard Keynes in his bestselling book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

Capitalism was inherently unstable, Keynes argued, and would rarely provide full employment. Therefore government intervention was needed, especially in recessions, to spend massive amounts of money on public works, which would create new jobs, expand demand, and rebuild consumer confidence. Yes, government would need to run large deficits, but economic stability was society’s reward. If government planners could manage aggregate demand through public works, the boom-bust business cycle could be flattened and economic development could be managed in the national interest. No more Great Depressions. Man could indeed be master of his economic future.

Before and during the war Keynes’s ideas swept through the United States and first transformed the universities, then the political culture of the day. With statistics in hand and a near reverence for government, the Keynesians were the new generation of planners. They wanted to remake society. Not entrepreneurs, but economists were needed to gather data, plan government programs, and regulate economic development. Paul Samuelson, for example, a 21-year-old economics student, was cautious at first, but then euphoric after Keynes’s book was published. “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven,” Samuelson wrote. Other economists soon accepted Keynes, and by the 1940s his ideas dominated the economics profession. In 1948, Samuelson would defend Keynes by writing the best-selling economics textbook of all time.

Planning for Peace
Those on the NRPB were among the excited disciples of Keynes and economic planning. The war itself seemed to be evidence that government jobs had pulled the U.S. economy out of the Depression. Now the economists and planners needed to take the nation’s helm to plan for peace.

According to Charles Merriam, vice president of the NRPB, “[I]t should be the declared policy of the United States government, supplementing the work of private agencies as a final guarantor if all else failed, to underwrite full employment for employables. . . .” That idea launched what Merriam and the NRPB dubbed “A New Bill of Rights.” FDR would call it his Economic Bill of Rights. Included was a right to a job “with fair pay and working conditions,” “equal access to education for all, equal access to health and nutrition for all, and wholesome housing conditions for all.”

New Bill of Rights
FDR viewed this Economic Bill of Rights as his tool for guaranteeing employment for veterans (and others) after World War II. But it was more than a mere jobs ploy; it had the potential to transform American society. The first Bill of Rights, which became part of the Constitution, emphasized free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion and assembly. They were freedoms from government interference. The right to speak freely imposes no obligation on anyone else to provide the means of communication. Moreover, others can listen or leave as they see fit.

But a right to a job, a house, or medical care imposes an obligation on others to pay for those things. The NRPB implied that the taxpayers as a group had a duty to provide the revenue to pay for the medical care, the houses, the education, and the jobs that millions of Americans would be demanding if the new bill of rights became law. In practical terms this meant that, say, a polio victim’s right to a wheelchair properly diminished all taxpayers’ rights to keep the income they had earned. In other words, the rights announced in the Economic Bill of Rights contradicted the property rights promised to Americans in their Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.

FDR promoted his Economic Bill of Rights in his State of the Union message in 1944, but he died before the war ended. Shortly before his death, Senator James Murray (D-Mont.) introduced a full-employment bill into the Senate for discussion. The bill committed the government in a general way to provide jobs if unemployment became too high. Many leading Democrats and economists supported Murray’s bill. “In this session of Congress,” The New Republic reported, “one of the first bills to be introduced will no doubt be the full employment bill of 1945, designed to carry out item number one in the Economic Bill of Rights.” The Nation joined The New Republic in endorsing the full-employment bill. “Mr. Roosevelt’s program,” it concluded, “is squarely based on the best economic authority available. It is entirely consistent with the economic doctrines of the distinguished British economist Lord Keynes.”

On September 6, 1945, President Harry Truman gave a major speech in which he supported the Economic Bill of Rights, especially a full-employment bill. Most congressmen, however, rejected both. Rep. Harold Knutson (R-Minn.) said, “Nobody knows what the President’s full employment bill will cost American taxpayers, but the aggregate will be enormous.”

Instead, Knutson and many other congressmen favored cutting tax rates and slashing the size of government as the best measure to restore economic growth. Senator Albert Hawkes (R-N.J.) even argued that “the repeal of the excess-profits tax, in my opinion, may raise more revenue for the United States than would be raised if it were retained.” Hawkes proved to be prophetic. After vigorous debate Congress scrapped the Economic Bill of Rights and cut tax rates instead. American business then expanded, revenues to the Treasury increased to balance the federal budget, and unemployment was only 3.9 percent in 1946 and 1947. The Great Depression was over.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/which-strategy-really-ended-the-great-depression/

-- 

Jay Carney's jobs program expands; but employment doesn't


USA becomes Food Stamp Nation but is it sustainable?

Photo
Mon, Aug 22 2011
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Genna Saucedo supervises cashiers at a Wal-Mart in Pico Rivera, California, but her wages aren't enough to feed herself and her 12-year-old son.

Saucedo, who earns $9.70 an hour for about 26 hours a week and lives with her mother, is one of the many Americans who survive because of government handouts in what has rapidly become a food stamp nation.

Altogether, there are now almost 46 million people in the United States on food stamps, roughly 15 percent of the population. That's an increase of 74 percent since 2007, just before the financial crisis and a deep recession led to mass job losses.

At the same time, the cost doubled to reach $68 billion in 2010 -- more than a third of the amount the U.S. government received in corporate income tax last year -- which means the program has started to attract the attention of some Republican lawmakers looking for ways to cut the nation's budget deficit.
While there are clearly some cases of abuse by people who claim food stamps but don't really need them, for many Americans like Saucedo there is little current alternative if they are to put food on the table while paying rent and utility bills.

"It's kind of sad that even though I'm working that I need to have government assistance. I have asked them to please put me on full-time so I can have benefits," said the 32-year-old.

She's worked at Wal-Mart for nine months, and applied for food stamps as soon as her probation ended. She said plenty of her colleagues are in the same situation.

So are her customers. Bill Simon, head of Wal-Mart's U.S. operations, told a conference call last Tuesday that the company had seen an increase in the number of shoppers relying on government assistance for food.

About forty percent of food stamp recipients are, like Saucedo, in households in which at least one member of the family earns wages. Many more could be eligible: the government estimates one in three who could be on the program are not.

"If they're working, they often think they can't get help. But people can't support their families on $10, $11, $12 an hour jobs, especially when you add transport, clothes, rent." said Carolyn McLaughlin, executive director of BronxWorks, a social services organization in New York.

The maximum amount a family of four can receive in food stamps is $668 a month. They can only be used to buy food -- though not hot food -- and for plants and seeds to grow food.

Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all made efforts to raise awareness about the program and remove the stigma associated with it.

In 2004, paper coupons were replaced with cards similar to debit cards onto which benefits can be loaded. In 2008 they were renamed Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits though most people still call them food stamps.

Despite the bipartisan support for the program in the past, some of the recent political rhetoric has food stamp advocates worried.

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich last year derided Democrats as "the party of food stamps". And Republican leaders in the House of Representatives propose changing the program so that the funding is through a "block grant" to the states, rather than allowing it to grow automatically when needed due to an emergency, such as a natural disaster or economic crisis.

In some parts of the country, shoppers using food stamps have almost become the norm. In May 2011, a third of all people in Alabama were on food stamps -- though part of that was because of emergency assistance after communities were destroyed by a series of destructive tornadoes. Washington D.C., Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon and Tennessee all had about a fifth of their population on food stamps that month.

"Food stamps have traditionally been insulated from politics," said Parke Wilde, professor of U.S. food policy at Tufts University. "But as you look over the current fiscally conservative proposals, the question is, has something fundamentally changed?"

A LOW WAGE SUPPORT PROGRAM
Over the past 20 years, the characteristics of the program's recipients have changed. In 1989, a higher percentage were on benefits than working, but as of 2009 a higher percentage had earned income.
"SNAP is increasingly work support," said Ed Bolen, an analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And that's only likely to get worse: So far in the recovery, jobs growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, with minimal growth in middle-income wages as many higher-paid blue collar jobs have disappeared.

And 6 percent of the 72.9 million Americans paid by the hour received wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2010. That's up from 4.9 percent in 2009, and 3 percent in 2002, according to government data.

Bolen said just based on income, minimum wage single parents are almost always eligible for food stamps.

"This becomes an implicit subsidy for low-wage jobs and in terms of incentives for higher wage job creation that really is not a good thing," said Arindrajit Dube, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, whose research shows raising the minimum wage would spur economic activity.

Until a couple of weeks ago Tashawna Green, 21, from Queens Village, New York, worked 25 hours a week at an $8.08 hourly rate at retailer Target. She is on food stamps, and says a good number of her former colleagues are too.

"It's a good thing that the government helps, but if employers paid enough and gave enough hours, then we wouldn't need to be on food stamps," said Green, who has a six-year-old daughter.
Of course, with an unemployment rate over 9 percent, some argue that those with any job at all are lucky.

Millions of Americans whose unemployment benefits have expired have to exist only on food stamps and other government aid, such as Medicaid healthcare support. [nN1E7660K4]
And even with unemployment benefits, said Jessica King, 25, from Portland, Oregon, her family juggles bills to ensure the electricity stays on. They are also selling some belongings on Craigslist to raise funds.
King's husband Stephen, 30, an elec
tronics assembly worker, lost his job two months ago when she was seven months pregnant with their second child. It was the third time he has been laid off since 2008.
She said she was reluctant, initially, to go on food stamps.
"I felt the way our national debt was going I didn't want to be part of the problem," said King, who used to work as a cook at a faith-based non-profit organization.

"But I didn't know what else to do and I got to a point where I swallowed my pride and decided to do what was best for my daughter."

(additional reporting by Jessica Wohl in Chicago, editing by Martin Howell in New York)

© Thomson Reuters 2011. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

AFP Spending Tour


Header
Dear Bruce,
Can you help AFP expose the truth about the Left’s dangerous, out-of-controlspending habits?
Bruce, AFP’s new nationwide Cut Spending Tour is launching next month in key parts of the country — and we need your support to make it a success.
If you haven’t already, please click here to find out more about how you can help AFP’s Cut Spending Tour today.
BrucePresident Obama and the Left are working hard to make sure the American people forget the damage their disastrous economic policies have done to America:
  • Unemployment is at 9.1% and job growth is stagnant,
  • 7 out of 10 small businesses report that they’ve stopped hiring because of economic uncertainties,
  • Public confidence is dropping, with 4 in 10 Americans saying that the economy is in a “permanent decline,” according to a New York Times/CBSpoll,
  • Their out-of-control spending has even led to the loss of America’s AAA credit rating—for the first time ever,
But with your help, AFP’s Cut Spending Tour will turn out tens of thousands of people nationwide, to tell Washington that we need real conservative reforms that will get our economy growing again.
We’ll use the same integrated strategy that won a number of policy fights both this year and last year. In fact, AFP grassroots campaigns helped kill cap-and-trade, card check, and the Obamacare public option in 2010. And recently won critical free market and tax-cut victories in Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas.
Please click here to find out more about the Cut Spending Tour—and how you can help us expose the truth about the Left’s radical spend-and-borrow agenda that’s bankrupting our nation.
Bruce, thank you for everything you’ve helped AFP do in the past—and I look forward to fighting alongside you on the Cut Spending Tour.
Sincerely,

JP DeGance, AFP
P.S. We’re counting on you to make AFP’s Cut Spending Tour a success. We need you to help us win the fight for common sense spending now. Please click here to find out more information.
Americans for Prosperity® (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 1,800,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 31 state chapters and affiliates. More than 90,000 Americans in all 50 states have made a financial investment in AFP or AFP Foundation. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

Media Bias in Campaign 2012


Who's Afraid of Ron Paul?



Ron Paul, M.D., is a longtime Congressman serving the state of Texas. Described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian, Paul has been termed the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.
He is also one of the Republicans competing to be the GOP presidential nominee for 2012. In fact, a recent (August 23)Rasmussen Reports poll finds that Obama and Ron Paul are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.

This is the media's coverage of Ron Paul compared to other 2012 candidates:
Here's the chart presented as number of campaign stories:
Candidate               # of Campaign Stories
Barack Obama                    221
Mitt Romney                        120
Newt Gingrich                     112
Michele Bachmann            108
Donald Trump                      94
Sarah Palin                            85
Tim Pawlenty                        52
Jon Huntsman                      44
Rick Perry                               33
Ron Paul                                 27
Rick Santorum                      21
Herman Cain                         11
Tim Pawlenty got more media coverage than Ron Paul? Puleeze!!!!!

Why is that?

Is it because of Ron Paul's adamant insistence that the "creature from Jekyll Island," aka as the U.S. Federal Reserve System, be audited?
Or is it because Ron Paul recently warned that "They're setting up the stage for violence in America"?
H/t beloved fellow Joseph.
~Eowyn

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Obama funnies from the foreign press






























You know things are bad when even the cartoonists make fun of such things! 
Speak up! Check out the Tea Party and add your voice to theirs!