Saturday, September 22, 2012

Democrats Hit Poor with Huge Tax Increase!

 by sr4402

In their rush to increase taxes on the wealthy, the Democrat U.S. Senate left a tax increase of 50% on the poor.

Nevermind, the Senate left a scheduled tax increase on Every American next year (before adjourning to campaign - a thing we can thank every Democrat through our votes). But we can take into account what they have done to the poor.

Those Americans who are the working poor are scheduled for a tax increase of 50%. That's right, a whopping 50%.

College graduates, many getting their first low wage part time job will find it much harder to get started.

Some barely surviving on two jobs will not be able to survive anymore and fall in this weak economy.

Seniors who were in the 10% bracket will now have to economize further finding themselves with a %15 percent tax next year.

To the rich and elites like Harry Reid and the Democrats, %5 isn't too bad upon the Poor. But when you realize that's 50% more tax upon the working poor, those barely surviving, those just entering the work force and many seniors I'm sure many will want to let them know how they feel about that.
A tax increase during an election cycle? Let the Democrats know how you feel about you and the working poor having less money on the table next year.


Gasoline Prices More than Double Under Obama: $1.84 to $3.85 (Where's the MSM on this one?)

CNS News ^ | 9/14/2012 | Matt Cover

Average retail gasoline prices have more than doubled under President Obama, according to government statistics, rising from $1.84 per gallon to $3.85 per gallon.
The average gasoline price is calculated by the Energy Information Agency, and shows that over the past 43 months of President Obama’s term retail gasoline prices have more than doubled, rising from an average of $1.84 per gallon to $3.85 per gallon.
Rising gasoline prices were particularly prevalent in August, which saw a 9.0 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for gasoline, a rise that almost entirely accounts for the general increase in prices seen by families across the country over the past month.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

We Need A Startup President Who Knows How Jobs Are Created

RCM ^ | 09/22/2012

How can the next presidential get the American job machine functioning again? One way is establish a policy environment that incentivizes business startups, which have fallen hard under the current administration.

President Obama tells small-business owners they "didn't build" their companies. But they know better. And they are also aware of the important role they play in employment.

Small businesses employ about half of all U.S. workers and they create the majority - by some estimates 80% or more - of the new jobs.
Rather than trying to convince entrepreneurs they're not responsible for their own success, Obama should be telling them how much he's done to make it easier to launch new companies.
But he can't. Consequently, just like businesses sitting on cash and refusing to hire due to the uncertainties spread by this White House, entrepreneurs have been sitting out the recovery that began only months after Obama took office.
"The state of entrepreneurship in the United States," laments economist Tim Kane, "is, sadly, weaker than ever."
In a paper for the Hudson Institute, Kane cites a Bureau of Labor Statistics journal that says, "New establishments are not being formed at the same levels seen before the economic downturn began, and the number is much lower than it was during the 2001 recession."
Using Census Bureau data, Kane determined that startup jobs per 1,000 Americans were steady under both Bush presidencies and that of Bill Clinton - averaging about 11.1. The range was from 11.3 under the first President Bush to 10.8 under the second. The rate during the Clinton years was in between at 11.2.
It's a different world today, though. Under Obama, the rate has plummeted to 7.8 startup jobs per 1,000 Americans. While the trend was already falling under the last years of Bush,
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Dereliction of Duty

Coach is Right ^ | Jim Emerson

Dereliction – Noun.

1. deliberate, conscious, or willful neglect (esp. in the phrase dereliction of duty)
2. the act of abandoning or deserting or the state of being abandoned or deserted

The last few weeks President Barack Obama and his administration have been derelict in their duty to this country. The 9-11 invasion of the Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, the well planned attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the protests against other embassies in the Middle East have been blamed on a video on YouTube that no one has ever seen. Instead of admitting that these incidents have little to do with an obscure video they maintain a narrative that will most likely incite more attacks against Americans around the world. This lame excuse is nothing more than covering up the fact that this White House has made a deal with the modern incarnation of the devil known as the Muslim Brotherhood and their underling, al Qaeda

Libyan President Mohammed believes al Qaeda attacked the consulate was led by Sufyan Ben Qumu. Mr. Qumu was captured in Pakistan and turned over to the United States. He was listed as a probable member of al Qaeda and was sent to Guantánamo Bay prison (GITMO). While held a GITMO Qumu was considered a high risk to Americans and allies if released. In 2007 he was sent to Libya to be held but was released in 2008 by Muammar el-Qaddafi. During the Arab Spring upraising he fought with rebels that were praised by this White House as spreading democracy. Current intelligence reports believe that he was the al Qaeda mastermind behind the murder of four Americans and he didn’t need a poorly made video as inspiration.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Can Obama Cruise to Victory? (Why the current media meme is nonsense)

American Thinker ^ | 09/22/2012 | Jim O'Sullivan

Just before the Republican National Convention, a mainstream media (MSM) narrative began to take shape. The false meme stated that Obama had the momentum and the necessary support to easily win re-election. Soon another feature was added to the construct -- i.e., that Obama's re-election is inevitable.
Too often this narrative was supported by selective polling data that underpinned the stories and purported to make them true. The stories said Obama is inevitable because Romney is dangerous, cares only for the rich, cannot empathize with ordinary people, isn't likeable, and lacks needed experience, intelligence, and even the temperament to be the president. And good grief, he selected Paul Ryan as his running mate, thus the conclusion must be obvious.
The result of this tragedy (not just a mistake, but a catastrophe, a tragedy): if Romney were to be elected, it would mean no health care, no Medicare, no abortions, and an extremist Supreme Court. This construct was not just reported, but pushed by CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, et al. This meme aside, can any candidate cruise? Can Obama? Can Romney? Is Obama's re-election inevitable? Let's take a moment and assess some of the issues.
President Obama has important advantages. He is the incumbent, and Americans resist retiring an incumbent without strong reasons. Obama has the bully pulpit and is very willing to use its power and reach. Further, Obama and his advisers have very few reservations about spinning, dissembling, and outright dishonesty in their efforts to gain victory. And most notably, he has a blatantly fawning, biased, and collusive MSM championing his re-election. Nevertheless, Obama faces numerous challenges:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

US Jews Should Consider Grave Consequences of Choosing Obama Over Israel

Ynet News ^ | 09/20/12 | Shoula Romano Horing

One only has to review the pro-Israel sections of the 2008 and 2004 Democratic Party platforms which were removed from the 2012 Democratic Party platform to realize at last Obama’s true intentions and plans for Israel in his second term and how disastrous it will be to Israel’s security and survival if he is reelected.

The Obama campaign and Jewish Democratic leaders asserted that the deletion concerning Jerusalem as “the capital of Israel” was an innocent mistake and technical oversight and does not reflect Obama’s true beliefs. They claim that the president personally intervened during the convention to reinstate the language regarding Jerusalem to bring it in line with his own views consistent with the 2008 Democratic Party platform.

If this is true, how can the Democrats explain the fact that even though the omitted section on Jerusalem was reinstated, other pro- Israel sections in the 2008 platform concerning the important issues of Hamas, Palestinian refugees, and borders remain deleted in the 2012 platform and Obama did not try to reinstate these.
Furthermore, the platform with the sections that were actually deleted, including the almost deleted Jerusalem section, which was reinstated at the last minute under intense pressure, are an almost exact replica of Obama’s positions in the controversial Middle East speech he gave on May 19, 2011.
That speech was the first time any sitting US president stated that he believes that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.” Before the 1967 Six- Day War, Israel’s borders were based on the 1949 armistice lines in which Israel did not control the West Bank or east Jerusalem with its holy Jewish sites, such as the Western Wall and the Temple Mount. Consequently, Jerusalem was divided and Jews were not allowed to visit or pray at their holy sites from 1949-to 1967. Moreover, in that speech President Obama disregarded other assurances made to Israel from previous administrations concerning the Palestinian refugees and Hamas, just as the 2012 platform does.
Therefore, Obama’s agenda concerning Israel during a second term will likely include the following:
Obama will try to divide Jerusalem and recognize a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem. The 2008 and 2004 Democratic Party platforms declared “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel…It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.” The original 2012 platform in which Jerusalem was unmentioned is consistent with Obama’s May, 2011 speech and with the recent State Department and White House spokespeople’s refusal to acknowledge under intense questioning by reporters that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Obama will demand from Israel a complete and a full return to the 1949 armistice lines, which excludes from Israel east Jerusalem and the West Bank hills which look down at the country’s international airport and 80% of its the population.The 2008 DNC platform stated “All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” This pro- Israel section does not exist in the 2012 platform.
Obama will demand the return of Palestinian refugees into Israel, not just to a future Palestinian state. Both the 2004 and 2008 platforms stated: “The creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.” The 2012 platform does not contain such language.
Obama will recognize Hamas, the terrorist organization which currently controls the Gaza Strip, and will begin negotiations with them, despite the fact that Hamas will never recognize Israel’s right to exist and supports and sponsors terrorism.The 2008 DNC platform declared, “The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.” This language is gone from the 2012 platform.
American military cooperation with Israel will be reduced.The 2008 platform, for example, spoke of a “commitment which requires us to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense.” The 2012 platform mentions only that “(the) administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region,” with no commitment to doing so in the future.
The Democrats and their Jewish supporters’ denials and excuses concerning Obama’s commitment to Israel, are wishful thinking and blindly naive. US Jews should carefully consider the consequences of choosing Obama over the Jewish state.
Shoula Romano Horing was born and raised in Israel. She is

Obama's Ambition

American Thinker ^ | September 22, 2012 | Eric Homes

After years of trying to figure out who Barack Obama is, I think I have found the solution. I've read countless stories of various theories which describe him as:

(1) a communist, (2) a Muslim, (3) an anarchist, (4) a New World Order proponent, (5) a narcissist, or even (6) an anti-christ.

Though after watching his behavior the last few years and reading all I could on his background, I believe that the motivation behind Barack Obama is that he has no ambition, and what drives him is a life of leisure with wealth and no responsibility.

Rather than a lifetime of achievements and years of toil at anything, the evidence points to a person who enjoys all the fruits given him. Some have reported that he doesn't really like being president. According to Investors Business Daily, he skips over half the daily intel meetings, he has more time on the golf course than attending economy meetings, and we also know he takes more vacations than any previous president has taken. During the most recent crisis, he spent his time in Las Vegas, on talk shows, and rubbing elbows with celebrities.
In the study of successful people, they all have in common years of hard work, and tens of thousands of hours of practice and study, all beginning at a young age. What did Obama do during his youth? He smoked dope and complained that he didn't get more playing time during his basketball games...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama: A Man of Character & Class?

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 9-22-2012 | MOTUS

I’ve been feeling a little guilty about not reporting on Lady M’s sacrificin’ for the past week or so. So as I wrap up my vacation, let me at least pass on news about this campaign stop in Gainesville as originally reported by our own Blonde Gator.

Apparently MO appeared before a huge crowd at the University of Florida, and wowed them with her own two versions of ‘gator choppers:

mo u of F gatormo u of F gator2
Nice gator skin dress!
She then awed those gathered for the pep rally with tall tales of Big Guy’s respect for and loyalty to everyone:
"We know that my husband will always have our backs," she said.

American Embassy_Benghazi024372-benghazi-consulate-attack
Don’t worry, I’ve got your back!
On the other hand, you could just hire your own Black Water security team...
..."What truly made me fall in love with Barack Obama was his character," she said.
That figures. Birds of a feather and all...

bibi-v-obama-21-e1338665688579obama-netanyahu-640-480bo fingerObama feet on resolute desk
Character. Class. You’ve either got ‘em or you ain’t...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Romney Can Still Overcome Obama's Dishonest, Divisive Campaign

U.s. News & World Report ^ | September 21, 2012 | MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN

The problem for Mitt Romney right now is that he has put his entire candidacy at risk to the point where he may not even qualify for the dismissive equation of Barack Obama that Marco Rubio formulated for the Republican faithful: "Our problem is not that he's a bad person. Our problem is that he's a bad president." Is Romney also "not a bad person, just a bad candidate"? With his "47 percent" remarks at a Republican fundraiser in May, he has given his opponent evidence to initiate a new line of attack.
Voters can forgive a candidate who stumbles in the heat of an election, trapped by "gotcha" questions from journalists, being quoted out of context in cunning TV attack commercials, and in the Twitter age, failing to appreciate that nothing that is said is secret anymore. We all know the game, and Romney has demonstrated that he is not perfect at this game.
The same can be said of President Obama. As a candidate, he ran a brilliantly smooth and targeted campaign four years ago, but even he misspoke, as they say, in what he thought was a private meeting of San Francisco liberals. When the polls suggested he wasn't appealing to rural voters, his response was to blame them for not seeing how different he was from the likes of Bill Clinton and George Bush, who had let them down. "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," he said. "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their..."...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Palin to Romney-Ryan: 'Go Rogue'

"America desperately needs to have a 'come to Jesus' moment..."

Daniel Harper

In a statement to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin offers some advice for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, this year's Republican ticket for president and vice president, respectively.
"With so much at stake in this election, both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan should 'go rogue' and not hold back from telling the American people the true state of our economy and national security," says Palin. "They need to continue to find ways to break through the filter of the liberal media to communicate their message of reform."
Palin also suggests that Romney and Ryan can be responsible for an epiphany on this country's fiscal standing. "America desperately needs to have a 'come to Jesus' moment in discussing our big dysfunctional, disconnected, and debt-ridden federal government," says Palin.
"It is nothing short of appalling that President Obama couldn't even remember how much our national debt is during his interview with David Letterman the other night. Even my 10-year-old daughter knows that it's $16 trillion, and unlike Obama, she's not responsible for adding trillions to it. Obama casually told America that we don't have to worry about our debt in the 'short term.' Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan need to ask him how long that 'short term' will last."
Palin adds that Romney and Ryan are being "counted on" to get this right.
"At the founding of our country, a great American patriot wrote, 'If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace,'" says Palin. "Obama's motto seems to be, 'Let the good times roll in my day. The kids can deal with the catastrophic bankruptcy in theirs.' That's no way for the leader of a great nation to behave, and I hope Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney continue to call him out on it. Generations of American children are counting on them."

President Obama Slams House GOP Over Unfinished Business (Reid's missing budget not mentioned)

ABC News ^ | 9/22/12 | Mary Bruce

President Obama is blasting lawmakers for leaving Washington for a six-week recess ahead of the November election without acting on his proposals to boost job creation and jump-start the economy.

“Without much fanfare, members of the House of Representatives banged a gavel, turned out the lights and rushed home, declaring their work finished for now,” Obama said in his weekly address. “If that frustrates you, it should – because their work isn’t finished.”

The president concluded by asking the public for its help.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Show and Tell

Growth Of Early Voting Transforms Electoral Strategy [40% of Electorate Voting Before Nov. 06!]

Washington Post ^ | September 21, 2012 | Bill Turque

Election Day is more than six weeks away, but by Nov. 6 tens of millions of Americans — perhaps as many as 40 percent of all voters — will have cast their ballots in the presidential race and other contests.

The robust growth in early voting, either by mailed absentee ballot or in person, has made it a critical element in the ground-game strategies of both major presidential campaigns. The traditional get-out-the vote push, once focused on a the final hours of a contest, has become an elaborate 45-day operation.
This year’s early balloting is underway, and by mid-to-late October it could yield indicators of the outcome. In North Carolina, nearly 3,000 ballots already have been returned by mail. On Friday, voters in South Dakota and Idaho began casting ballots in person.

Over the next month, the District and 34 states (including Maryland) will allow voters to cast early ballots without providing a reason — “no-excuse” voting. Virginia law requires that voters meet at least one of more than a dozen criteria, including anticipated absence on Election Day, disability, pregnancy or a lengthy commute to work.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Unions Tell Taxpayers: “We have no confidence in you.” ^ | September 22, 2012 | John Ransom

All over the country, union leaders are demanding that communities cough up extra cash to help “make teachers whole.” And unions around the country are testing the waters with teachers by asking teachers in budget stricken districts to vote “no confidence” in the community to send a message to taxpayers to cough up cash or else.


Never mind making communities whole; those communities can never be whole under Obama.
As cash-strapped municipalities deal with declining tax revenues and too-rosy assumptions made by administrators and union officials, teachers unions are stamping their feet, holding their breath and mouthing the political equivalent of “La, la, la, I can’t hear you.”

In Palm Beach County, the teachers union is demanding $70 million dollars in raises for teachers at a time when the district has to hire more new teachers just to comply with state-mandated classroom sizes.
“There must be a plan in place to have a light at the end of the tunnel,” said Brian Phillips, the chief negotiator for the Classroom Teachers Association. “Is the board really interested in putting teachers back where they need to be?”
Perhaps they are. But the more vital question is can taxpayers afford it?
“It isn’t a lack of wanting to,” said the districts’ negotiator Van Ludy, “It’s a lack of being able to.”
And not just that either. For years public education has been in crisis in this county. Test scores are falling in the U.S. compared to other nations. At the K-12 level we are graduating fewer students ready for college. Around 77 percent of students who take ACT test aren’t “college ready” according to ACT.
Yet in district after district, budgets are being busted by union benefits that have been bankrolled by union campaign contribution taken out of your tax dollars.
Since 1992, the American Federation of Teachers of has given $30 million in campaign contributions to Democrats, who essentially run the education bureaucracy in the country, while donating less than $300,000 to Republicans
That’s why in Democrat-controlled Chicago, teachers went on strike after the district offered them a whopping 16 percent raise over four years. The union demanded 30 percent.
Teachers in Chicago already make an average salary of $76,000, reports the CBS local news affiliate, while New York City teachers average $73,000.
“Working conditions are part of everyone’s job,” says Chicago Teachers Union attorney Robert Bloch told CBS2 Chicago, “we all think about working conditions.”
But apparently not test scores.
Only 21 percent of Chicago Public School 8th graders are proficient in reading and only 20 percent scored at grade level in mathematics, according to the U.S. Department of Education.
Chicago lags the national public school average, which lags the international average of industrialized nations, 224 to 240 or 16 points on a 500 point scale. Even Washington DC’s disreputable school system out-performs Chicago in teaching math. The scores for the respective cities are tied for reading.
In Chicago, the teachers strike was preceded, as it has been elsewhere, by a token “vote of no confidence” circulated by the Chicago Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers.
I’m thinking where can I register a “vote of no confidence” in the union?
In districts all over the country unions are asking teachers to take “no confidence” votes in administrations already strapped by taxpayers, who in turn are already strapped by Obamanomics. The “no confidence” votes are meant to test teachers’ resolve to strike.
The solution to the school funding issue is not asking property values to take a hit on higher taxes. Higher taxes mean not just an increased tax bill, but lower overall property values in the long run.
The solution for teachers, just like everyone else on Main Street, is a vibrant economy that produces lots of tax revenue at lower rates.
We know that teachers in Chicago aren’t getting the job dome on reading and writing for students.
Perhaps they should brush up on economics too.

Your Fair Share ^ | September 22, 2012 | John C. Goodman

Barack Obama doesn't think the rich are paying their fair share of income taxes. So what is their fair share?

I posed this question to Fox News commentator Juan Williams in Dallas the other day. "The top 10 percent of income earners are paying 71 percent of all income taxes," I said. "Isn't that enough?" Although Juan was trying to defend the Obama position, he didn't have an answer.

Then I turned the question around. "The bottom one-half of the population is paying zero, or close to zero, income taxes. What's their fair share?" He didn't have an answer to that question either.

Perhaps you have an answer. The median household income in the United States is $50,054, according to the latest Census Bureau report. People earning up to this amount are contributing almost nothing to the operations of the federal government, even though the government is spending one out of every four dollars in our economy.

When you couple that with the fact that nearly half the population is receiving at least one entitlement benefit, we have a dangerous political situation on our hand. If roughly half the population is receiving and not paying, they have an obvious self interest in seeing taxes and spending go higher and higher. This could be a ticket to national bankruptcy.
So back to the original question. What portion of the federal burden should each of us pay? Actually, I have an answer. It's called the Biblical tithe.
One of the reasons why tax rates are so high is that about half of all the income earned in our economy is not taxed at all. This income escapes taxation, courtesy of the standard deduction and tons of other deductions, credits and loopholes in the tax code. What if we wiped out all of these escape routes and taxed all income at one low rate? Then we would all be paying a tax rate of about 10%.
If we want to replace the corporate income tax as part of reform, our rate would have to rise to 11%. But with these low rates the economy would be more efficient. It would grow faster. More income would be reported. Taking that into consideration, it looks like an across-the-board rate of 10 percent is all we would need to replace the personal and corporate income taxes we are now paying. As Dick Armey used to say, most of us could fill out our tax returns on a post card!
Ah, but we're not done yet. There is the not so small issue of the payroll tax, which currently stands at 15.3 percent. Although we are told that workers who pay this tax are contributing to their Social Security and Medicare benefits, in fact all the money is spent the very minute it comes in the door. If each of us were saving for our own retirement, we would need to put aside only half that much. Instead workers are paying 15.3 percent of every paycheck — not for themselves, but for someone else's benefits.
Moreover, unlike the income tax, the payroll tax is actually very regressive. That's because we only pay it on the first $110,000 of income. All income above that level gets off scot free. If we integrate the income and payroll tax, we're now looking at about a 20 percent tax on all income. That's a double tithe. And we're not done yet.
There are three other things to consider.
First, as I wrote in a previous post, it's in everyone's self-interest to have a tax system that makes the economy larger, rather than smaller. When people save and invest they are benefitting the rest of us. When they consume, they are benefitting themselves. That's why it makes sense to only tax that part of people's income that they consume. Practically this means that people would pay the flat tax on all income, minus the dollars they invest.
Second, we have a huge imbalance in our federal finances and it is probably unrealistic to think that the problem can be solved without some increase in the tax burden.
Finally, there is the whole question of whether this type of reform unduly benefits the wealthy at the expense of low and moderate income families. To deal with this objection, some flat tax advocates (Dick Armey, Steve Forbes, etc.) include a generous standard deduction for everyone. Advocates of a national sales tax include a generous rebate for everyone. Sometime back, my colleague Larry Kotlikoff and I decided that this approach gives away too much money to people who don't need it (e.g., Warren Buffett) while leaving important social goals unmet.
As an alternative, we proposed a generous rebate to the bottom third of taxpayers to solve other social problems. For example, to get one-half the rebate, low-income families would have to produce proof of health insurance. This would encourage millions of people who qualify to enroll in Medicaid or in their employer's health plan. Barring that, families could apply the tax rebate to health insurance they purchase on their own. We propose making the other half contingent on proof of a pension, an IRA, a 401(k) or some other savings account.
So instead of national health insurance and more government spending on the elderly, we would use our flat-tax proposal to urge people to solve these problems on their own.
We called our proposal a "progressive flat tax." The reason: under our flat tax the rich would bear more of the tax burden than they currently do.
So where does that leave us? With a flat tax rate of about 28%. Interestingly this is the rate Ronald Reagan left us with as part of tax reform in 1988.

Top 10 bad economic signs for Obama

Human Events ^ | 9/22/12 | Staff

Here are the top 10 economic indicators that Obama doesn’t want you to pay attention to:

1. Unemployment rate
Despite his promise that the nearly $1 trillion 2009 economic stimulus would get America working again, the unemployment rate has been above 8 percent for 43 straight months. The current 8.1 percent jobless rate woefully understates the reality of problem. When taking into account people working part-time who want a full-time job and those who have given up looking for work, the rate is over 15 percent. Add in recent college graduates working at McDonald’s at the rate tops 18 percent.

2. Job creation
At the Democratic convention, Obama was quick to praise himself for having presided over the creation of 4.5 million jobs “over the last three and a half years.” The only problem is that he doesn’t include the jobs lost in the recession earlier in his term. A true reading of job creation under Obama shows a net gain of only several hundred thousand and he has the worst record on growing employment of any president since World War II.

3. Economic growth
Remember the “recovery summer” that Joe Biden promised in 2010? Or how Obama’s stimulus package was going to get the economy moving with all those “shovel-ready” jobs? The latest GDP report showed anemic 1.7 percent growth in the second quarter as any short-term benefit from Obama’s fiscal shot-in-the-arm has faded and now the nation is facing the possibility of a double-dip recession.

4. Food stamps
The one area of growth that Obama has presided over is the explosive increase in food stamp participation. When he took office in January 2009, fewer than 31 million Americans received food stamps. After an aggressive effort by the Obama administration to expand the program, now one-out-of-seven Americans, over 46

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

No bat, no swing, no hit.