Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
.By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News 9/19/2012
In the twilight of President Barack Obama's first term, many polls, including a new Quinnipiac University tri-state survey of likely voters, show that most Americans say they are not better off than they were four years ago. But in those same polls, the president retains his edge over challenger Mitt Romney.
That's not normal, says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter A. Brown.
"Most times if voters think things haven't gone well, they say, 'Let's think of somebody else.' But at this point they're not saying that," Brown said. "Clearly they think [Obama] is more in tune with their lives."
Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Why? Because the US is controlled by the Feds. They control the media and election machine. They select the politicians to control the government. That's why even Clinton did a good job in his last term, Bush won the election. What the Feds needed was not a good economy, they need war and the Patriot Act. Several month after his election, 911 happened which satisfied what the Feds needed.
This time, Obama will give the Feds something Romney can't give. So you saw Romney is under the fire of media despite the life of Americans is worse off after four years reign of Obama.
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
Horse hockey.
I am far better off after three and a half years of Obama, than I was four years ago.
And I know lot's of others who will say the same thing.
I am far better off after three and a half years of Obama, than I was four years ago.
And I know lot's of others who will say the same thing.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
I know I am not better off.
I also know who led us into this crapfest and it wasn't obama.
I also know who led us into this crapfest and it wasn't obama.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
The pollsters discovered that the response depended on the way the question was asked. If they asked "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago" the yes/no response was about equal. But if they asked "Are you better off now than you were under Bush" more people said that they were better off now.
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
Most Americans say U.S. on wrong track: poll
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:21pm EDT
(Reuters) - Economic fears are weighing heavily on Americans, with a large majority saying the United States is on the wrong track and nearly half believing the worst is yet to come, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said on Wednesday.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 73 percent of Americans believe the United States is "off on the wrong track," and just one in five, 21 percent, think the country is headed in the right direction.
Most Americans say U.S. on wrong track: poll | Reuters
If most people believe US is on wrong tracks, why do they still support Obama. That's Obama's track. But when the Feds need Obama, they would manipulate the media to convince people Obama will win, no matter how senseless it is.
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:21pm EDT
(Reuters) - Economic fears are weighing heavily on Americans, with a large majority saying the United States is on the wrong track and nearly half believing the worst is yet to come, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said on Wednesday.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 73 percent of Americans believe the United States is "off on the wrong track," and just one in five, 21 percent, think the country is headed in the right direction.
Most Americans say U.S. on wrong track: poll | Reuters
If most people believe US is on wrong tracks, why do they still support Obama. That's Obama's track. But when the Feds need Obama, they would manipulate the media to convince people Obama will win, no matter how senseless it is.
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
Well, if your riding on a bus full of people, and the bus is careening down a steep mountain, barely in control, and nobody else on the bus really knows how to drive the thing, that's not the time to try and change drivers.
So, even though we may want to have somebody besides Obama, most of us are pretty certain that Romney is not the guy who will get us down the hill in one piece.
So, even though we may want to have somebody besides Obama, most of us are pretty certain that Romney is not the guy who will get us down the hill in one piece.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
Fallacy. Could that be a reason that a bad leader when he made a mess on his business then refuse any change. Say any new leader would cause a crash. Why we need an election every four years?
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
katsung47;1407061 wrote: Fallacy. Could that be a reason that a bad leader when he made a mess on his business then refuse any change. Say any new leader would cause a crash. Why we need an election every four years?
I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying Mitt the Marvelous is not the guy that I want to see replace him.
I am hoping we have a monster turnout for Ron Paul. He can't do too much damage in four years, and it sends the message to the parties that things need to change.
I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying Mitt the Marvelous is not the guy that I want to see replace him.
I am hoping we have a monster turnout for Ron Paul. He can't do too much damage in four years, and it sends the message to the parties that things need to change.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
The real reason is the Feds need Obama's new Health care reform. There is nothing they care if people can benefit from it or not. They just want it to frame a target in their case with which they have created OKC bombing, 911 attack to get the Patriot Act.
You can see it from the surprise turn around of the Chief Justice Roberts.
726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)
On 6/28, Supreme Court issued a pass for Obama's Health care policy. What surprised people was Chief Justice Roberts sided with four liberal justices in voting 5-4 to declare the law's "individual mandate" constitutional.
Why did John Roberts, a Bush appointee who generally votes with his conservative colleagues, suddenly change his opinion to vote with the liberal? Just three months ago, he still opposed that "individual mandate" law.
Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?
Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)
Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone? (0:42) - The Washington Post
There are different theories about this mysterious turnaround. Mostly were from disinformation office of the Feds to cover up their puppet Roberts. None could solve the puzzle. I know why - the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision. When the Feds want to put Kat Sung under surveillance, they forced the law makers passing through the Patriot Act. (Through OKC bombing and 911 bombing) When the Feds want to restrict Kat Sung in US, they activate the TSA search, (blocking leaving from air flight) blocking the entering of Canada and Mexico; (by "Operation Fast and Furious") see "697. TSA search, Canada and Mexico (12/11/2011)". Now when they want Kat Sung to have a health insurance, they activate their proxy- John Roberts.
Six years ago when Roberts was selected as Chief Justice, I have written already,
"344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)"
The dark side of the USA in Public Forum Forum
This case proves I was very, very accurate at that judgement.
I'll talk about why the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision.
You can see it from the surprise turn around of the Chief Justice Roberts.
726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)
On 6/28, Supreme Court issued a pass for Obama's Health care policy. What surprised people was Chief Justice Roberts sided with four liberal justices in voting 5-4 to declare the law's "individual mandate" constitutional.
Why did John Roberts, a Bush appointee who generally votes with his conservative colleagues, suddenly change his opinion to vote with the liberal? Just three months ago, he still opposed that "individual mandate" law.
Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?
Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)
Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone? (0:42) - The Washington Post
There are different theories about this mysterious turnaround. Mostly were from disinformation office of the Feds to cover up their puppet Roberts. None could solve the puzzle. I know why - the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision. When the Feds want to put Kat Sung under surveillance, they forced the law makers passing through the Patriot Act. (Through OKC bombing and 911 bombing) When the Feds want to restrict Kat Sung in US, they activate the TSA search, (blocking leaving from air flight) blocking the entering of Canada and Mexico; (by "Operation Fast and Furious") see "697. TSA search, Canada and Mexico (12/11/2011)". Now when they want Kat Sung to have a health insurance, they activate their proxy- John Roberts.
Six years ago when Roberts was selected as Chief Justice, I have written already,
"344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)"
The dark side of the USA in Public Forum Forum
This case proves I was very, very accurate at that judgement.
I'll talk about why the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision.
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
Two storms help Obama to win the election.
Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 05:28 AM PDT
So what does Romney do now?
If the hurricane freezes the presidential race in place, it's not good news for the GOP nominee
By Steve Kornacki
For Romney, the downside is obvious: Sandy has for now frozen the race in place – and where the race is right now isn’t good for him. If the election were held this moment, Barack Obama would probably be returned to office for a second term. The president is at best tied with Romney in the national horserace and at worst behind by a point, but he holds clear advantages in the most important battleground states and is much better-positioned to reach 270 electoral votes.
So what does Romney do now? - Salon.com
It seems the Feds activated their climate weapon to help Obama. If you still remember just months ago how hurricane Issac attacked Republican's Convention.
Rush Limbaugh Says Obama Manipulated Isaac Storm Track To Delay GOP Convention: ‘The Hurricane Center Is … Obama’
By Stephen Lacey on Aug 27, 2012
Rush Limbaugh Says Obama Manipulated Isaac Storm Track To Delay GOP Convention: 'The Hurricane Center Is ... Obama' | ThinkProgress
GOP fears ghost of Katrina at RNC 2012
Read more: Republican convention 2012: GOP fears ghost of Katrina - POLITICO.com
Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 05:28 AM PDT
So what does Romney do now?
If the hurricane freezes the presidential race in place, it's not good news for the GOP nominee
By Steve Kornacki
For Romney, the downside is obvious: Sandy has for now frozen the race in place – and where the race is right now isn’t good for him. If the election were held this moment, Barack Obama would probably be returned to office for a second term. The president is at best tied with Romney in the national horserace and at worst behind by a point, but he holds clear advantages in the most important battleground states and is much better-positioned to reach 270 electoral votes.
So what does Romney do now? - Salon.com
It seems the Feds activated their climate weapon to help Obama. If you still remember just months ago how hurricane Issac attacked Republican's Convention.
Rush Limbaugh Says Obama Manipulated Isaac Storm Track To Delay GOP Convention: ‘The Hurricane Center Is … Obama’
By Stephen Lacey on Aug 27, 2012
Rush Limbaugh Says Obama Manipulated Isaac Storm Track To Delay GOP Convention: 'The Hurricane Center Is ... Obama' | ThinkProgress
GOP fears ghost of Katrina at RNC 2012
Read more: Republican convention 2012: GOP fears ghost of Katrina - POLITICO.com
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
742. Re-election of Obama (10/24/2012)
About that Gallup poll: Is Romney really up by 7? And will Obama win the election anyway?
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 19, 2012
According to Real Clear Politics, Mitt Romney is, on average, up by one point in the polls. According to both Nate Silver and InTrade, President Obama has a better-than-60-percent chance of winning the election. I think it’s fair to say that the election is, for the moment, close.
But not according to Gallup. Their seven-day tracking poll shows Romney up by seven points — yes, seven — with likely voters. But he’s only up by one point with registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...- ... on-anyway/
The Gallup poll is just a gimmick to cheat people. This election is pre-decided. Obama will win his second term. It is not politics. It is a plot of the Feds. They need Obama’s Health Reform that they forced Chief Justice Roberts to change his mind in June to pass the “Healthcare Reform. (see #726)
To keep Obama to stay in his seat, the Feds have to create an economic situation that favors him. Two months ago- in early September, we saw European bank chief Draghi said they would buy the bond with no limit. Why?
Draghi helps out Obama campaign
By Robin Harding in Washington September 6, 2012
Barack Obama’s chances of re-election as US president rose on Thursday and the words that did it were not his but Mario Draghi’s.
Long before Mr Obama stood up to accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina, the head of the European Central Bank had sketched out a new plan to buy the bonds of troubled eurozone countries.
That will not move the polls; it will not move a single vote. But Mr Draghi has lowered the gravest of risks to Mr Obama: a pre-election meltdown in the eurozone that would have blown up banks, pulverised Wall Street, and routed a fragile US economy back into recession.
If that happened, it would not be Mr Obama’s fault, but he would get the blame. Just as the failure of Lehman Brothers doomed his rival John McCain in 2008, a eurozone implosion would create economic odds too great for Mr Obama to surmount.
Draghi helps out Obama campaign - FT.com
Within days, Federal Reserve Chief Bernanke announced another QE which would push up economy temporarily but hurt it in long term with inflation. The timing of issuing QE3 obviously helps Obama. Republican feels it immediately.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3
By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington September 14, 2012
Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3 - FT.com
QE3 will produce another housing bubble.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption
Source: BI-ME , Author: Constantine Gardner Fri September 14, 2012
"Asset prices will go up and the money will flow to the Mayfair Economy," he said, defining the latter as an "economy of the rich people whose assets prices go up and whose net worth increases" without any trickle down benefit to the real economy.
What you have is a small economy that is booming and the majority of the economy is being damaged by QE, Faber explains.
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...) leading to the subprime crisis in 2007. "The money printers and the neo-Keynesians interventionists are responsible for the crisis, reckons Faber, and people should know this."
Dr Bernanke's attempt to boost growth and reduce unemployment will end up, according to Dr. Faber, in a fiscal Grand Canyon with never ending deficits, the majority of the economy being damaged, the man in the street facing higher prices and losing his job.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption - Business Intelligence Middle East - bi-me.com - News, analysis, reports
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years responsible for the Nasdaq bubble and the following housing bubble. I talked about these two bubbles from #733 to #739. And the Federal Reserve now is going to create the third one at the purpose to help the Feds to remove the hot potatoes in their hands to the ordinary people.
743. Unusual drop of unemployment rate (10/29/2012)
The unemployment rate was still highthree months before the voting date. It made the re-election unlikely for Obama.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
By: Jon King | August 5, 2012
Many pundits (including this one) have made the point that if the unemployment rate is at 8% or higher that the president will have an uphill battle to win the election.
The reason why 8% is such a hurdle is that no modern president has ever won re-election when unemployment was over 8%. Actually, if one wants to take an even more skeptical view, they could say that no president since Roosevelt has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
It’s difficult to convince people the unemployment rate could drop below 7.2% from 8.3% in two months. But the Feds still could manage to get a figure of 7.8% in order to make Obama’s re-election more reasonable.
[quote ] Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions
by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012
Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls.
The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.
One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.
In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...o ... Questioned
Nobody can verify the figure. The Feds have kept a war criminal (who activated a war with a lie) to stay on his second term, what’s the problem for another puppet? Just create a hoax of a better off economy for the time being then blame everything on the coming financial cliff.
About that Gallup poll: Is Romney really up by 7? And will Obama win the election anyway?
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 19, 2012
According to Real Clear Politics, Mitt Romney is, on average, up by one point in the polls. According to both Nate Silver and InTrade, President Obama has a better-than-60-percent chance of winning the election. I think it’s fair to say that the election is, for the moment, close.
But not according to Gallup. Their seven-day tracking poll shows Romney up by seven points — yes, seven — with likely voters. But he’s only up by one point with registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...- ... on-anyway/
The Gallup poll is just a gimmick to cheat people. This election is pre-decided. Obama will win his second term. It is not politics. It is a plot of the Feds. They need Obama’s Health Reform that they forced Chief Justice Roberts to change his mind in June to pass the “Healthcare Reform. (see #726)
To keep Obama to stay in his seat, the Feds have to create an economic situation that favors him. Two months ago- in early September, we saw European bank chief Draghi said they would buy the bond with no limit. Why?
Draghi helps out Obama campaign
By Robin Harding in Washington September 6, 2012
Barack Obama’s chances of re-election as US president rose on Thursday and the words that did it were not his but Mario Draghi’s.
Long before Mr Obama stood up to accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina, the head of the European Central Bank had sketched out a new plan to buy the bonds of troubled eurozone countries.
That will not move the polls; it will not move a single vote. But Mr Draghi has lowered the gravest of risks to Mr Obama: a pre-election meltdown in the eurozone that would have blown up banks, pulverised Wall Street, and routed a fragile US economy back into recession.
If that happened, it would not be Mr Obama’s fault, but he would get the blame. Just as the failure of Lehman Brothers doomed his rival John McCain in 2008, a eurozone implosion would create economic odds too great for Mr Obama to surmount.
Draghi helps out Obama campaign - FT.com
Within days, Federal Reserve Chief Bernanke announced another QE which would push up economy temporarily but hurt it in long term with inflation. The timing of issuing QE3 obviously helps Obama. Republican feels it immediately.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3
By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington September 14, 2012
Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3 - FT.com
QE3 will produce another housing bubble.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption
Source: BI-ME , Author: Constantine Gardner Fri September 14, 2012
"Asset prices will go up and the money will flow to the Mayfair Economy," he said, defining the latter as an "economy of the rich people whose assets prices go up and whose net worth increases" without any trickle down benefit to the real economy.
What you have is a small economy that is booming and the majority of the economy is being damaged by QE, Faber explains.
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...) leading to the subprime crisis in 2007. "The money printers and the neo-Keynesians interventionists are responsible for the crisis, reckons Faber, and people should know this."
Dr Bernanke's attempt to boost growth and reduce unemployment will end up, according to Dr. Faber, in a fiscal Grand Canyon with never ending deficits, the majority of the economy being damaged, the man in the street facing higher prices and losing his job.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption - Business Intelligence Middle East - bi-me.com - News, analysis, reports
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years responsible for the Nasdaq bubble and the following housing bubble. I talked about these two bubbles from #733 to #739. And the Federal Reserve now is going to create the third one at the purpose to help the Feds to remove the hot potatoes in their hands to the ordinary people.
743. Unusual drop of unemployment rate (10/29/2012)
The unemployment rate was still highthree months before the voting date. It made the re-election unlikely for Obama.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
By: Jon King | August 5, 2012
Many pundits (including this one) have made the point that if the unemployment rate is at 8% or higher that the president will have an uphill battle to win the election.
The reason why 8% is such a hurdle is that no modern president has ever won re-election when unemployment was over 8%. Actually, if one wants to take an even more skeptical view, they could say that no president since Roosevelt has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
It’s difficult to convince people the unemployment rate could drop below 7.2% from 8.3% in two months. But the Feds still could manage to get a figure of 7.8% in order to make Obama’s re-election more reasonable.
[quote ] Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions
by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012
Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls.
The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.
One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.
In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...o ... Questioned
Nobody can verify the figure. The Feds have kept a war criminal (who activated a war with a lie) to stay on his second term, what’s the problem for another puppet? Just create a hoax of a better off economy for the time being then blame everything on the coming financial cliff.
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
742. Re-election of Obama (10/24/2012)
About that Gallup poll: Is Romney really up by 7? And will Obama win the election anyway?
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 19, 2012
According to Real Clear Politics, Mitt Romney is, on average, up by one point in the polls. According to both Nate Silver and InTrade, President Obama has a better-than-60-percent chance of winning the election. I think it’s fair to say that the election is, for the moment, close.
But not according to Gallup. Their seven-day tracking poll shows Romney up by seven points — yes, seven — with likely voters. But he’s only up by one point with registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...- ... on-anyway/
The Gallup poll is just a gimmick to cheat people. This election is pre-decided. Obama will win his second term. It is not politics. It is a plot of the Feds. They need Obama’s Health Reform that they forced Chief Justice Roberts to change his mind in June to pass the “Healthcare Reform. (see #726)
To keep Obama to stay in his seat, the Feds have to create an economic situation that favors him. Two months ago- in early September, we saw European bank chief Draghi said they would buy the bond with no limit. Why?
Draghi helps out Obama campaign
By Robin Harding in Washington September 6, 2012
Barack Obama’s chances of re-election as US president rose on Thursday and the words that did it were not his but Mario Draghi’s.
Long before Mr Obama stood up to accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina, the head of the European Central Bank had sketched out a new plan to buy the bonds of troubled eurozone countries.
That will not move the polls; it will not move a single vote. But Mr Draghi has lowered the gravest of risks to Mr Obama: a pre-election meltdown in the eurozone that would have blown up banks, pulverised Wall Street, and routed a fragile US economy back into recession.
If that happened, it would not be Mr Obama’s fault, but he would get the blame. Just as the failure of Lehman Brothers doomed his rival John McCain in 2008, a eurozone implosion would create economic odds too great for Mr Obama to surmount.
Draghi helps out Obama campaign - FT.com
Within days, Federal Reserve Chief Bernanke announced another QE which would push up economy temporarily but hurt it in long term with inflation. The timing of issuing QE3 obviously helps Obama. Republican feels it immediately.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3
By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington September 14, 2012
Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3 - FT.com
QE3 will produce another housing bubble.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption
Source: BI-ME , Author: Constantine Gardner Fri September 14, 2012
"Asset prices will go up and the money will flow to the Mayfair Economy," he said, defining the latter as an "economy of the rich people whose assets prices go up and whose net worth increases" without any trickle down benefit to the real economy.
What you have is a small economy that is booming and the majority of the economy is being damaged by QE, Faber explains.
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...) leading to the subprime crisis in 2007. "The money printers and the neo-Keynesians interventionists are responsible for the crisis, reckons Faber, and people should know this."
Dr Bernanke's attempt to boost growth and reduce unemployment will end up, according to Dr. Faber, in a fiscal Grand Canyon with never ending deficits, the majority of the economy being damaged, the man in the street facing higher prices and losing his job.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption - Business Intelligence Middle East - bi-me.com - News, analysis, reports
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years responsible for the Nasdaq bubble and the following housing bubble. I talked about these two bubbles from #733 to #739. And the Federal Reserve now is going to create the third one at the purpose to help the Feds to remove the hot potatoes in their hands to the ordinary people.
743. Unusual drop of unemployment rate (10/29/2012)
The unemployment rate was still highthree months before the voting date. It made the re-election unlikely for Obama.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
By: Jon King | August 5, 2012
Many pundits (including this one) have made the point that if the unemployment rate is at 8% or higher that the president will have an uphill battle to win the election.
The reason why 8% is such a hurdle is that no modern president has ever won re-election when unemployment was over 8%. Actually, if one wants to take an even more skeptical view, they could say that no president since Roosevelt has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
It’s difficult to convince people the unemployment rate could drop below 7.2% from 8.3% in two months. But the Feds still could manage to get a figure of 7.8% in order to make Obama’s re-election more reasonable.
[quote ] Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions
by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012
Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls.
The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.
One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.
In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...o ... Questioned
Nobody can verify the figure. The Feds have kept a war criminal (who activated a war with a lie) to stay on his second term, what’s the problem for another puppet? Just create a hoax of a better off economy for the time being then blame everything on the coming financial cliff.
About that Gallup poll: Is Romney really up by 7? And will Obama win the election anyway?
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 19, 2012
According to Real Clear Politics, Mitt Romney is, on average, up by one point in the polls. According to both Nate Silver and InTrade, President Obama has a better-than-60-percent chance of winning the election. I think it’s fair to say that the election is, for the moment, close.
But not according to Gallup. Their seven-day tracking poll shows Romney up by seven points — yes, seven — with likely voters. But he’s only up by one point with registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...- ... on-anyway/
The Gallup poll is just a gimmick to cheat people. This election is pre-decided. Obama will win his second term. It is not politics. It is a plot of the Feds. They need Obama’s Health Reform that they forced Chief Justice Roberts to change his mind in June to pass the “Healthcare Reform. (see #726)
To keep Obama to stay in his seat, the Feds have to create an economic situation that favors him. Two months ago- in early September, we saw European bank chief Draghi said they would buy the bond with no limit. Why?
Draghi helps out Obama campaign
By Robin Harding in Washington September 6, 2012
Barack Obama’s chances of re-election as US president rose on Thursday and the words that did it were not his but Mario Draghi’s.
Long before Mr Obama stood up to accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina, the head of the European Central Bank had sketched out a new plan to buy the bonds of troubled eurozone countries.
That will not move the polls; it will not move a single vote. But Mr Draghi has lowered the gravest of risks to Mr Obama: a pre-election meltdown in the eurozone that would have blown up banks, pulverised Wall Street, and routed a fragile US economy back into recession.
If that happened, it would not be Mr Obama’s fault, but he would get the blame. Just as the failure of Lehman Brothers doomed his rival John McCain in 2008, a eurozone implosion would create economic odds too great for Mr Obama to surmount.
Draghi helps out Obama campaign - FT.com
Within days, Federal Reserve Chief Bernanke announced another QE which would push up economy temporarily but hurt it in long term with inflation. The timing of issuing QE3 obviously helps Obama. Republican feels it immediately.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3
By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington September 14, 2012
Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3 - FT.com
QE3 will produce another housing bubble.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption
Source: BI-ME , Author: Constantine Gardner Fri September 14, 2012
"Asset prices will go up and the money will flow to the Mayfair Economy," he said, defining the latter as an "economy of the rich people whose assets prices go up and whose net worth increases" without any trickle down benefit to the real economy.
What you have is a small economy that is booming and the majority of the economy is being damaged by QE, Faber explains.
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...) leading to the subprime crisis in 2007. "The money printers and the neo-Keynesians interventionists are responsible for the crisis, reckons Faber, and people should know this."
Dr Bernanke's attempt to boost growth and reduce unemployment will end up, according to Dr. Faber, in a fiscal Grand Canyon with never ending deficits, the majority of the economy being damaged, the man in the street facing higher prices and losing his job.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption - Business Intelligence Middle East - bi-me.com - News, analysis, reports
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years responsible for the Nasdaq bubble and the following housing bubble. I talked about these two bubbles from #733 to #739. And the Federal Reserve now is going to create the third one at the purpose to help the Feds to remove the hot potatoes in their hands to the ordinary people.
743. Unusual drop of unemployment rate (10/29/2012)
The unemployment rate was still highthree months before the voting date. It made the re-election unlikely for Obama.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
By: Jon King | August 5, 2012
Many pundits (including this one) have made the point that if the unemployment rate is at 8% or higher that the president will have an uphill battle to win the election.
The reason why 8% is such a hurdle is that no modern president has ever won re-election when unemployment was over 8%. Actually, if one wants to take an even more skeptical view, they could say that no president since Roosevelt has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
It’s difficult to convince people the unemployment rate could drop below 7.2% from 8.3% in two months. But the Feds still could manage to get a figure of 7.8% in order to make Obama’s re-election more reasonable.
[quote ] Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions
by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012
Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls.
The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.
One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.
In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...o ... Questioned
Nobody can verify the figure. The Feds have kept a war criminal (who activated a war with a lie) to stay on his second term, what’s the problem for another puppet? Just create a hoax of a better off economy for the time being then blame everything on the coming financial cliff.
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham
After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham
Election Fraud? Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts
Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators don’t even get 99% of the vote.
After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham
Election Fraud? Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts
Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators don’t even get 99% of the vote.
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
katsung47;1411750 wrote: 22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham
After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham
Election Fraud? Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts
Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators dont even get 99% of the vote.
I look forward to seeing all of the prosecutions for voter fraud. Since the feds, states, and counties can each prosecute and thus span both major political parties, there should be thousands and thousands of such prosecutions. Funny though, I'm not seeing any.
After what we have seen this November, how is any American ever supposed to trust the integrity of our elections ever again? There were over 70,000 reports of voting problems on election day, and there are numerous eyewitnesses that claim that they saw voting machines change votes for one candidate to another candidate right in front of their eyes. In several of the swing states there were counties where the number of registered voters exceeded the total voting age population by a very wide margin. How in the world does that happen? Some of the vote totals that were reported in some of the most important swing states were completely and totally absurd, and yet we are just supposed to accept them on blind faith without ever being able to ask any questions.
22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham
Election Fraud? Obama Won More Than 99 Percent Of The Vote In More Than 100 Ohio Precincts
Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators dont even get 99% of the vote.
I look forward to seeing all of the prosecutions for voter fraud. Since the feds, states, and counties can each prosecute and thus span both major political parties, there should be thousands and thousands of such prosecutions. Funny though, I'm not seeing any.
Voters say they're worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
Wandrin;1411755 wrote: I look forward to seeing all of the prosecutions for voter fraud. Since the feds, states, and counties can each prosecute and thus span both major political parties, there should be thousands and thousands of such prosecutions. Funny though, I'm not seeing any.
Because political incorrect case used to be rejected.
Appeals court rejects torture suit against Rumsfeld
November 07, 2012 |Reuters
(Reuters) - Two American citizens cannot sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over allegations that they were tortured by the U.S. military in Iraq, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel had said Rumsfeld and unnamed others allegedly developed, authorized and used harsh interrogation techniques against them in Iraq
In early 2006, they were taken into custody by U.S. military forces and eventually taken to Camp Cropper near Baghdad's airport. Vance and Ertel claimed they were subjected to harsh interrogations and physical and emotional abuse.
They said that months later they were unceremoniously dropped at the airport and never charged with a crime. They sued, seeking unspecified damages, saying their constitutional rights had been violated and U.S. officials knew they were innocent.
A three-judge panel last year ruled that while it may have been unusual for Rumsfeld to be personally responsible for the treatment of detainees, the two men had sufficiently argued that decisions were made at the highest levels of government. But a larger panel of the appeals court disagreed on Wednesday.
Appeals court rejects torture suit against Rumsfeld - Chicago Tribune
Because political incorrect case used to be rejected.
Appeals court rejects torture suit against Rumsfeld
November 07, 2012 |Reuters
(Reuters) - Two American citizens cannot sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over allegations that they were tortured by the U.S. military in Iraq, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel had said Rumsfeld and unnamed others allegedly developed, authorized and used harsh interrogation techniques against them in Iraq
In early 2006, they were taken into custody by U.S. military forces and eventually taken to Camp Cropper near Baghdad's airport. Vance and Ertel claimed they were subjected to harsh interrogations and physical and emotional abuse.
They said that months later they were unceremoniously dropped at the airport and never charged with a crime. They sued, seeking unspecified damages, saying their constitutional rights had been violated and U.S. officials knew they were innocent.
A three-judge panel last year ruled that while it may have been unusual for Rumsfeld to be personally responsible for the treatment of detainees, the two men had sufficiently argued that decisions were made at the highest levels of government. But a larger panel of the appeals court disagreed on Wednesday.
Appeals court rejects torture suit against Rumsfeld - Chicago Tribune