Story Of Obama

Same Principles, Fresh Take

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8O7V-WxWQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=0s

 

In March 2007, Jesse Jackson declared his support for then-Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 democratic primaries. Jackson later criticized Obama in 2007 for "acting like he's white."

On July 6, 2008, during an interview with Fox News, a microphone picked up Jackson whispering to fellow guest Dr. Reed Tuckson:"See, Barack's been, ahh, talking down to black people on this faith-based... I want to cut his nuts off."

 

If I PM you my address will you sell me some of those hallucinogens you are taking?

 

Changing The Vision

 

O’s Losing Strategy – It’s All Fear And Envy, No Hope
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann on April 9, 2012

The shape of President Obama’s re-election strategy is coming clear. The key elements:

1) Don’t run on your record; run as if there were no incumbent

2) Stress class warfare; exploit fear of Republican spending cuts. Harp on the negatives.

3) Hide the negatives about your record in a miasma of general pessimism. (Medicare was broken before we got here; headwinds slowed the economy.)

It’s hard to see how this works. Economic populism has never been able to reach more than about 40 percent of the American electorate. And the only modern incumbent to run away from his record and win was Harry Truman in the aftermath of World War II and the Roosevelt era.

So what are the people around Obama thinking?

They seem to be betting that a decided shift in our political culture in the past decade has transformed class envy and save-government-spending demagoguery into a way to win a majority.

The Democratic Party’s left has long believed in this strategy. In the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign, moderates squared off against economic populists and won the day. The likes of former Labor Secretary Robert Reich pushed populist remedies, but the polling never showed that this rhetoric would suffice to win a majority. (Yes, Clinton used some of their arguments to get elected in 1992 — but he only had to win 43 percent of the vote to prevail, because Ross Perot made it a three-way race.)

Has our culture changed that much since? Are the partisan divisions so entrenched and hatred of the other side so pronounced that a divisive campaign, a la Richard Nixon in 1968, can win? We don’t know yet.

Perhaps Obama’s people have polling that suggests things are different now — that the country is so embittered and divided that sunny optimism and appeals to national unity strike a false note with voters.

Alternately, it may all just be an attempt to revive the 2008 Obama coalition by igniting divisive passions to amplify turnout among his old base.

Note that Obama regularly draws 49 percent to 52 percent of registered voters in national polls against Romney — but does far worse when the poll is limited to the smaller pool of likely voters, trailing Romney 47 percent to 45 percent (Rasmussen) or tied at 47 (Bloomberg).

That gap illustrates Obama’s central problem: turnout.

He won in 2008 because blacks rose from 11 percent of the vote to 14 percent, Latino participation rose from 7 percent to 8.5 percent, and the under-30 voters dramatically increased their turnout as well.

His ratings among African-Americans remain high, but the prospects for a heavy turnout are diminished. And (according to Rasmussen) his approval among Latinos is down to 41 percent and among under-30 voters to 54 percent.

Obama’s appeals to fear, envy and class antagonisms haven’t been working lately. But even if they start to, he’s sacrificing the themes of optimism and hope.

A dour, bitter Obama, lashing out at the rich and peddling fear of the Republicans, can’t compete with a sunny, smiling Mitt Romney. He’s largely stuck talking about who Romney is — an unbecoming attack line that doesn’t inspire faith in a national leader.

Were we France or Italy, perhaps this rhetoric would fall on receptive ears conditioned by years of discord. Here in America? Not yet.

 

I'm confused, about what do you think he is hallucinating?

 

Not About This...

 

Obama’s Second-Term Taxes
By Dick Morris on April 10, 2012

If Obama is reelected, the tax increase he and a Democratic Congress would impose on middle- and upper-middle-income Americans would be disastrous. It’s easy to lose sight of his tax plans because he has hidden them in a variety of nooks and crannies, including the Simpson-Bowles Commission Report, the Pelosi budget of 2009 and the various tax proposals advanced by his party. But, should he win, they will all come out of hiding, and together, they will be the principal legislative thrust of his efforts in 2013.

For a couple making $250,000, these tax hikes would add another $3,000 to $4,000 a month in taxes (depending on whether they were self-employed).

For a couple making $150,000, they would add another $1,200 to $1,400 per month.

Let’s all realize that Obama let a massive deficit accumulate precisely because he realized that doing so gave him the leverage he would need to raise taxes and increase, permanently, the size of government in America. Reagan let the deficit pile up so liberals couldn’t spend more money. Obama did so in order to make conservatives vote for higher taxes.

How will he tax us? Let us count the ways:

• Most basic, of course, will be an increase in tax rates. Those paying 33 percent will now pay 36 percent. People paying 35 percent will now pay 40 percent. Most people accept and expect that Obama will raise these brackets if he is reelected. But they don’t realize what else he will do.

• As he advocated in the 2008 campaign, he will eliminate the ceiling on wages that must be taxed for Social Security. Currently, wages are taxed at 6.2 percent (now, temporarily, at 4.2 percent) up to a ceiling about $100,000 per year in income. The ceiling rises with the cost of living. But Obama will eliminate the ceiling and subject all wages to FICA taxation. (In his campaign, he spoke of a “carve-out” for those making between $100,000 and $200,000, where income would be exempt from FICA, but don’t count on it.) For those who are employed, the increase in FICA taxes will mean an effective increase in their tax bracket of 6.2 percentage points. For the self-employed, it will mean a whopping 12.4 percentage point increase, bringing their effective tax rate, if they are in the top bracket, over 52 percent. Obama has refrained from addressing Social Security’s financial problems and will do so until after the election. But his solution will be higher taxes, not curtailed benefits.

• All deductions for mortgage interest, charitable giving and state and local tax payments would likely end for those making more than $250,000.

• Even for those making less than $250,000, the Bowles-Simpson recommendations call for replacing the current tax deduction for mortgage interest, charitable giving and state and local taxes with a tax credit. Usually 8 percent is mentioned as the tax credit level.

So add it up:
Case A
Married couple
Income: $250,000
Home: $300,000 (mortgage interest: $20,000)
Property taxes: $15,000
Self-employed
Basic tax rate: +5% +$12,500
FICA on full income: +$18,600 ($9,300 if employed)
No deduction
Mortgage interest +$ 6,500
Prop Taxes +$5,000
State income tax (9%) +$7,500
Total additional tax: +$50,100 ($40,800 if employed)

Case B
Married couple
Income: $150,000
Home: $200,000 (mortgage interest: $10,000)
Property taxes: $10,000
Self-employed
Basic tax rate: +3% +$ 4,500
FICA on full income +$6,200 ($3,100 if employed)
8% credit, no deduction
Mortgage interest +$ 2,500
Property taxes +$ 2,500
State income tax (6%) +$ 1,500
(calculation replaces deduction at 33% bracket with an 8% credit)
Total additional tax: +$17,200 ($14,100 if employed)

Can we afford Barack Obama for four more years? No way! And don’t say you weren’t warned!

 

Obama's Re-election Plan

http://www.dickmorris.com/how-will-obama-explain-away-his-record-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

 

The Great Life
Obverse View

As a child, I hated to be lectured; beat me, sit me in the corner, or make me shovel cow manure, but don't lecture me. Now that I am an adult, or perhaps on my way back to childhood, I hate to hear politicians lecture because I know they are standing on a pile of the manure that I once had to shovel.

Our titular leader is heads and above any President that I can remember during my lifetime in the arena of hypocrisy and twaddle. He lectures us, the common people, on buying smaller, more gas efficient automobiles, inflating our tires to save gas, and in general, cutting back on our use of energy. And then what does he do?

Mr. Obama, over the course of 104 days, made 65 domestic trips; and over the period of 22 days, made six trips to 8 countries. He also took six vacation trips totaling 32 days. Took 196 helicopter trips and squeezed in 29 rounds of left-handed golf. Air Force One costs the taxpayers of this country $181,757.00 per flight hour; this does not consider the cost of Marine One, Secret Service, advance planners, cooks, barbers, physicians, nurses, speech writers, teleprompter technicians, presidential limousine, and a separate plane for the First Lady so that she can arrive early, presumably to fluff the pillows .

The Secret Service purchased two, made in Canada, $1.1 million buses so that the President could visit the Midwest and "meet with the people." The President would fly to an airport on Air Force One, get on one of the buses and do a little one-two hour tour and then fly on to another city. There he would get on the other bus and ride around for one-two hours and repeat the adventure. The buses were leap-frogged on a Boeing C-17 Globemaster to be awaiting the President on arrival at his next stop. This was described as a non-campaign trip so the cost of the buses and all auxiliary expenses were picked up by the taxpayer; the Democratic National Committee did not expend one thin dime on this caricature.

On spring break, the President's 13 year old daughter took a trip to Oaxaca, Mexico with 12 of her friends. They were escorted by a 25 man Secret Service detail and flown to and from Mexico on two jet aircraft. Now I don't care what this President's kids do; this is not about the kid, it is about spending hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of taxpayer dollars on a spring break trip – the kid did not authorize the travel or expenses – BHO did.

Mrs. Obama wore a $500.00 + pair of Lanvin sneakers to do a photo op at a feed the poor food bank. And then there is the $400.00 + lobster lunch at the Waldorf. Now I don't care what Mrs. Obama wears, well I do, but the tennis shoes are the least of her wardrobe malfunctions, and I don't care what she eats. This goes to the hypocrisy of the general lecture we constantly receive about "shared sacrifice." One would have to be very, very rich to find $500 sneakers and $400 lunches sacrificial. I doubt that even the filthy rich could top these obvious lapses in common sense decorum.

Mrs. Obama treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I cannot engender respect for the Obamas' because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, and their dignity, the First Family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – all this as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare. This is the worse type of rancid elitism and certainly is not an all-inclusive list of their arrogance!

I don't expect any President to fly commercial or stay at the Holiday Inn, but a little acknowledgment of the plight of so many Americans by cutting back on the taxpayer funded fun and games seems to be in order.

Perhaps this reign of excesses and misuse of our nation's highest office will end with one term, and perhaps not; it is difficult to imagine what the Obama's would do during a second term.

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903) Perhaps in our case just a majority of voting Americans!

Have a good week. Obverseview@yahoogroups.com.