Wednesday, September 26, 2012

NASA And We Know It

Today I gave a talk at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Met some great people, they took me out to lunch and gave me a tour of Building Seven, where they build and test amazing stuff.

It is really impressive to see the scale of that enterprise, the cleanrooms, the gigantic centrifuge, audio and vibration test platforms, the incredible James Webb Telescope and satellite parts they are working on -- ten thousand people out there in Greenbelt. The spacecraft they design and build allow us to study the earth, the sun, the moon, planets, this is the human species pushing at the limits of our environment, reaching beyond our planet into the unknown.

Interestingly, the invitation to speak about particle swarm optimization at Goddard resulted indirectly from a meeting in MoCo in 2008 to discuss a response to the shower-nuts. You just never know.

I have been lucky in my life to have met people who are so smart and such totally dedicated nerds, they are so far from cool that they come around to cool again.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

he was nerdy when nerdy wasn't cooOOoo1ll

and on to infinity

hey guys, let's give this man a contract:

"WASHINGTON — Four years ago, Barack Obama campaigned for president on a promise to cut annual federal budget deficits in half by the end of his term. Then came $1.4 trillion in stimulus measures and a maddeningly slow economic recovery.

Now, the deficit for the fiscal year that ends on Sunday will surpass $1 trillion for the fourth straight time. Against that headline-grabbing figure, Mr. Obama’s explanation — that the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised, measured as a percentage of the economy’s total output — sounds professorial at best.

The fiscal imbalance on Mr. Obama’s watch, a result his own policy choices, has increased the nation’s accumulated debt by about 40 percent""

September 27, 2012 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who came back to comment on his favorite blog!

Like most Vigilance readers, I prefer giving Cool Hand Obama the contract so we can continue our slow but steady climb up out of economic failure, the legacy of the Bush years.

The flip-flopping panderer featured in this Daily Show clip, Mittless, will never get my vote:

Every Which Way But Lucid or Mitt Romney Is The Second Luckiest Dude on The Planet"

September 27, 2012 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what, pray tell, do you believe Obama has done differently from Bush?

"The overwhelming majority of media polling this election employ such absurd assumptions about turnout this November that they not only misrepresent the presidential race, they are actively distorting it. I believe it is intentional.

In 2008, the electorate that elected Barack Obama was 39% Democrat, 32% GOP and 29% Independent. This is what we call a D+7 electorate. Obama defeated McCain by 7 points, the same margin. In 2004, the electorate was 37% Democrat, 37% Republican, and 26% Independent, in other words D/R +0. Bush defeated John Kerry by 3 points nationally.

Yet, virtually every big media poll is based on a model in which Democrats equal or increase their share of the electorate over 2008. Beyond simple common sense, there are many reasons this won't happen. The Dem vote in '08 was the largest in decades. It came after fatigue of eight years of GOP control, two unpopular wars, a charming Democrat candidate who was the Chauncy Gardner of politics, a vessel who could hold everyone's personal dreams and hopes for a politician. It was a perfect storm for Democrats.

None of the factors driving Democrat turnout in '08 exist today. Recent daily tracking polls from Rasmussen show the race essentially tied. Only those polls showing an electorate with equal or greater numbers of Democrats than 2008 show Obama with any sizable lead.

Yet, it's these polls that are driving the political narrative. Every day the media launches a number of stories about Romney's "struggling" campaign. They cite anonymous GOP sources who wring their hands that the campaign is losing ground. The only real evidence of this, however, are the polls which heavily over-sample Democrat voters. Without these skewed polls, the media's narrative would be untenable.

Quite simply, and apart from past years, the media have decided to weaponize the polls. The heavy D polls aren't just meant to reassure them that everything is okay in ObamaLand, but to actually hit the Romney campaign. The constant drumbeat echoed by unrealistic polls is designed to dampen fundraising, tap down on GOP enthusiasm and create a false narrative that Obama is pulling away with the race.

In recent days, a number of pollsters have pushed back against criticism about the sampling in their polls. They argue that they are just picking up a big swing in the electorate towards the Democrats. If that were true, though, wouldn't we see signs of it outside the polls. Obama's speaking to much smaller venues than he did in 2008. There are far fewer signs and bumper stickers supporting Obama. Obama's main support bases, young voters and minorities, all show less enthusiasm for voting this year. None of this is dispositive, but if we were really seeing a return to the '08 Democrat wave wouldn't we, well, see it?

Every election features something new, an evolution from past campaigns. This year's development is troubling. Polls are now being used, not simply to gauge the state of the race, but to impact the race. We're not far off from the day that the New York Times or CBS will have to file their polls as in-kind contributions to the Democrats."

September 27, 2012 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"what, pray tell, do you believe Obama has done differently from Bush?"

What the heck kind of question is that? Is Bush running for President again this year??

Bush is the man who drove our economy to the brink of financial collapse and he is not well thought of by his own party!

The GOP didn't even allow Bush near their convention to nominate the Mittless one, now did they? Compare that snub to the DNC and its primetime lovefest for Clinton!

I can't say I blame the GOP from running as fast and as far away as possible from the Bushmeister, but I can say "What took you guys so long??"

Here's a better questions -- Which of Bush's brilliant ideas do you think Obama has failed to change? And a related question, if Bush's ideas were so brilliant AND you think Obama hasn't changed them, why are you supporting Mittless?

September 27, 2012 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gallup: Obama Approval, Vote Support Both Reach 50% or Better

"Presidential race has fluctuated in September, but currently favorable to Obama

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's job approval rating has been 50% or higher in each of the last four Gallup Daily tracking figures, including a 51% rating in the latest three-day rolling average, from Sept. 23-25. This nearly matches the level of approval for Obama that Gallup found at the end of the Democratic National Convention earlier this month. His approval then dipped into the 40s by mid-month before rebounding to 51% late last week.

More generally, September is turning out to be one of Obama's best months in over a year: he is on track to average roughly 49% job approval this month, up from 45% in August and 41% in September 2011.

At the same time, the president is enjoying increased support from voters in Gallup Daily tracking of presidential election preferences. Registered voters favor Obama over his Republican challenger Mitt Romney by 50% to 44% in Gallup Daily tracking from Sept. 19-25. As is seen with his job approval rating, voter support for Obama is now similar to where it stood toward the end of the Democratic convention, after a week in mid-September when the race had collapsed to a tie.

Bottom Line

Several important events have taken place in the past month that may indicate the boundaries in which the final stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign will play out.

First, the Republican National Convention produced no bounce in support for Romney, leaving the race a virtual tie. Next, the Democratic National Convention boosted Obama's support by three percentage points, not big by historical bounce standards, but enough to give him a significant lead for the first time since July. The race then tightened again, possibly reflecting a fading of Obama's convention bounce or a backlash against Obama over anti-American violence in the Mideast, including the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya on Sept. 11. The race remained close over several days when the primary news focus was on Romney's Sept. 18 comments about the "47%" of Americans who are dependent on government, but most recently has reverted to a six-point lead for Obama.

Over the same period, Obama's job approval rating has ranged from 43% to 52%, levels historically associated with either near-certain defeat or near-certain re-election for an incumbent. Obama is currently at the high end of that range, and has had more good days than bad this month, in terms of achieving job approval ratings of 49% or better. But there have been enough dips below that to suggest the race is far from over.

Looking forward, with three presidential debates scheduled and two more jobs reports coming out before Election Day, there is plenty of opportunity for voter preferences to swing back and forth in this range, even without further international incidents or campaign controversies."

There already are new controversies, from Romney's 2011 tax return showing how Romney "is able to avoid paying capital gains taxes" on profits f rom his investments in China and a newly unearthed video of Romney talking about "Bain as a way to harvest companies for significant profit."

September 28, 2012 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And today, Rasmussen report re-joins all the other polls in reporting President Obama leads Governor Romney among LIKELY VOTERS.

September 28, 2012 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bob Schieffer: "The fact is, unemployment is up. It is higher than when President Obama came to office, the economy is still in the dump. Some people say that is reason enough to make a change."

Bill Clinton: "It is if you believe that we could have been fully healed in four years. I don't know a single serious economist who believes that as much damage as we had could have been healed."

CBS's "Face the Nation," September 23, 2012

Well, let's see. We can think of several serious people who said we could heal the economy in four years. There's Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Christina Romer, Jared Bernstein, Mark Zandi, and, most importantly, President Obama himself.

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."

Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a "summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr. Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007. The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about where the economy would be today.

Mr. Obama promised that the deficit would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit (estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458 billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10 and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy. The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's predecessor when things don't get better. Usually these Presidents end up one-termers."

September 28, 2012 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for 2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr. Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.

When George W. Bush was elected, he inherited a mild recession from Mr. Clinton amid the bursting of the dot-com bubble, some $7 trillion of wealth eviscerated. Nine months later came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Yet by 2003 the economy was growing by more than 3% and eight million jobs were created over the next four years.

The Administration and its acolytes claim that the nature of the 2008 financial collapse was different from past recessions, and that it can take up to a decade to restore growth after such a financial crisis. Economist Michael Bordo rebuts that claim with historical economic evidence nearby.

In reality, the biggest difference between this recovery and others hasn't been the nature of the crisis, but the nature of the policy prescriptions. Mr. Obama's chief anti-recession idea was a near trillion-dollar leap of faith in the Keynesian "multiplier" effect of government spending. It was the same approach that didn't work in the 1930s, didn't work in the 1970s, didn't work in 2008, and didn't work in such other nations as Japan. It didn't work again in 2009.

Ronald Reagan also inherited an economy loaded with problems. The stock market had been flat for 12 years, inflation rates neared 14%, and mortgage rates almost 20%. The recession he endured in 1981-82 to cure inflation sent unemployment to 10.8%, higher than Mr. Obama's peak of 10%. But the business and jobs recovery by early 1983 was rapid and lasted seven years.

Reagan used tax-rate cuts, disinflationary monetary policy and deregulation to reignite growth—more or less the opposite of the Obama policy mix. Liberals tried to explain the Reagan boom that they said would never happen by arguing that there was nothing unusual about the growth spurt after such a deep recession. So why didn't that happen this time?

When campaigning to be President in 1960, John F. Kennedy denounced slow growth under Eisenhower and Nixon and said "We can do bettah." Growth was 7.2% in 1959 and 2.5% in 1960. Since the recession ended under Mr. Obama, growth has been 2.4% in 2010, 1.8% in 2011 and, after Thursday's downward revision for the second quarter, 1.7% in 2012.

Mr. Obama is running for re-election trying to convince Americans that an economy limping at less than 2% growth, 8% unemployment, real incomes down 5.7% since the recovery began, and deficits of more than $1 trillion is the best we could achieve. We liked it better when he stood for hope and change."

September 28, 2012 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OoooOOOooo another two part comment from Anon!

Haven't figured out the HTML to make a link to your source yet, huh?

OK, here's link to your WSJ enditorial, provided free of charge in appreciation of your double effort to post a comment today.

Just yesterday you were implying Obama has done nothing different from Bush, though I know from your past comments you are keenly aware it was Obama who repealed DADT, enacted the ACA, and brought our American troops home from Iraq, among other differences between them.

So tell us Anon, why do you think Obama's poll numbers are rising while Romney's are not?

Here's what I think --

Romney has proved himself too many times to be an Etch-a-Sketch politician. He went from calling himself pro-choice to pro-life, from calling himself "more liberal than Ted Kennedy" to "severely conservative," from creating Romneycare to panning Obamacare, and most tellingly from running for President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to telling some of his $50K a plate supporters "These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." In other words, he only wants to be President to 53% of America.

Romney said it out loud for all the nation (and world) to hear: Romney sees no need to waste his time "worrying" about folks who are so poor they pay no income tax because they won't vote for him!

And now all of a sudden, Romney is putting out some "I care" ads. I've got news for Mr. Romney, those ads are just making all us poor folks puke! Romney does not care enough about to worry about poor folks and he should quit and pretending he cares.

So here's why Romney is losing IMHO -- nobody likes a fake.

September 28, 2012 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"OoooOOOooo another two part comment from Anon!"

this comment just sounds gay

"Haven't figured out the HTML to make a link to your source yet, huh?"

no, copying and pasting is among the many tricky techie skills I possess

I'd prefer the language to be onscreen without clicking

"OK, here's link to your WSJ enditorial, provided free of charge in appreciation of your double effort to post a comment today."

always so bizarre when TTFers think it dazzles us that they can use Google

on behalf of a awed world, thank you so much

"Just yesterday you were implying Obama has done nothing different from Bush,"

no, I asked you what he had done differently

"though I know from your past comments you are keenly aware it was Obama who repealed DADT,"


I think the context of the conversation was the economy

"enacted the ACA,"

you mean the "national health insurance" that will leave tens of millions uninsured and enact a new tax on lower income individuals and a new tax on investment income and a new tax on medical equipment and raise the average American's health insurance costs and reduce their choices and empower an unelected death panel to make life and death choices for us?

thanks a lot, Barry but ACA is damaging the economy already

"and brought our American troops home from Iraq, among other differences between them."

actually Bush was winding down the war and Obama didn't change the schedule

Bush had the war won when he left and Obama squandered much of the advantage we had gained from the Petraeus initiatives

"So tell us Anon, why do you think Obama's poll numbers are rising while Romney's are not?"

assuming they're accurate, I think it might be due to an unprecented advocacy of Obama by the mainstream media

the scope and breadth of this effort is shocking and has blindsided our democracy

"Here's what I think --"

OK, I resist any obvious jokes here

"Romney has proved himself too many times to be an Etch-a-Sketch politician."

well, that's true but I don't think it's had any effect

and, let's face it: going from conservative to liberal in your thinking is heroic growth while the opposite is hypocrisy


"Romney sees no need to waste his time "worrying" about folks who are so poor they pay no income tax because they won't vote for him!"

got news for you: most of those people won't vote for Obama either

they generally don't vote

"I've got news for Mr. Romney, those ads are just making all us poor folks puke!"

you consider yourself a "poor folk"?

just curious, what do you think you will gain by re-electing Obama?

"For all of the wishful thinking in the mainstream press about President Obama’s positioning 40 days before this election, Obama’s approval rating looks remarkably similar to what it was on this date in 2010 — shortly before his party lost a historic 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats. On September 27, 2010 — exactly two years ago — Rasmussen Reports showed Obama’s net approval rating among likely voters to be minus-3 percentage points (with 48 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving). Among those who felt “strongly,” Obama’s net approval rating was minus-14 points (with 27 percent “strongly” approving and 41 percent “strongly” disapproving).

Today, Rasmussen Reports shows Obama’s net approval rating among likely voters to be minus-3 points (with 48 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving). Among those who feel “strongly,” Obama’s net approval rating is minus-14 points (with 28 percent “strongly” approving and 42 percent “strongly” disapproving). So, two years after the biggest Republican gains in the House since before World War II, Americans remain every bit as unimpressed with the way Obama is handling his job as president as they were then."

September 29, 2012 3:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bush had the war won "

What precisely did we "win" in Iraq other than a huge hole in our economy and our standing in the eyes of the world?

Open letter to Mitt Romney

Dear Mr. Romney

I hold a college degree because I took out government student loans, whish have all been repaid. I am the mother of three, so thanks to the child tax credit, I have not paid any income tax for the last several years. I own a small business and while I did build it, I didn't build it alone. My oldest son is currently in college and he would not be, if he had not qualified for government student loans. I am better off financially than I was four years ago. I am a woman who believes that you and your cronies no more care about me and the issues that I find important than you care about the poor, the disenfranchised, the minority populations, or the middle class. I find your arrogance reprehensible, your integrity greatly lacking, and your pandering to the wealthy to be abhorrent. I, too, am part of the 47% who will not vote for you, but I am not a victim and I don't need you to tach me one single thing about personal responsibility.


Anonymous Lady

More later, I'm off to canvass in a swing state! :)

September 29, 2012 7:59 AM  
Anonymous obama is a failure said...

"Imagine if a U.S. senator came forward with an idea for a third economic stimulus package. But unlike President Obama's first stimulus, which cost about $800 billion and included transfer payments for the working poor and middle class, this stimulus would be given almost entirely to the rich. Worse, unlike Obama's second stimulus, which passed in December 2010 at a cost of about $900 billion and included tax cuts for working Americans and an extension of unemployment benefits, this new stimulus plan would be infinitely large. About $960 billion would be pumped into the economy in the first two years alone.

Sounds terrible right? No sane politician who ever had to face voters at the polls would ever vote for such a plan, right? Unfortunately, not only does this plan exist, but it is already being implemented by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Two weeks ago, Bernanke announced that, due to the continued failure of Obama's economic policies to reduce unemployment, the Fed would begin buying $40 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac every month. And how long would these securities purchases last? "If the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially, the committee will continue its purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities," the Fed said. In other words, the printing of money will continue until unemployment improves.

But will the Fed's new mortgage security purchases (more commonly referred to as "quantitative easing") do anything to reduce unemployment? History seems to suggest not. This is actually the third time the Fed has tried to stimulate economic activity by buying assets, thus adding more money to the economy. In 2009, the Fed spent $1.25 trillion buying mortgage-backed securities in "QE1", and in 2010, it spent another $600 billion buying U.S. Treasuries as part of "QE2." Yet despite all this money creation, the nation's unemployment rate has exceeded 8 percent for a record 43 consecutive months.

So if all this money is not going to job creation, where is it going? Straight to the same institutions that caused the financial crisis to begin with: the banks. "QE3" is supposed to help homeowners by lowering the interest rates they pay on mortgages. When the Fed buys securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those agencies can then offer lower interest to banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America that actually give mortgages to homeowners. But according to data compiled by Businessweek, the banks are not passing the savings onto mortgagors. Interest rates for home buyers are down but not nearly as far down as the rates the banks are paying. Therefore, the vast majority of the Fed's printed cash is going straight into the wallets of the banksters. "It's very good to be a mortgage originator right now," industry analyst Kevin Barker told Businessweek.

When Obama reappointed Bernanke in August of 2009, he called him a "out-of-the-box" thinker whose "bold, persistent experimentation" saved our financial system. But Paul Ryan has a different view. He has called Bernanke's Wall Street bailouts "sugar high economics" that may help "big banks and Wall Street but it doesn't help the rest of us." Ryan is dead on. And it is time for the experts in Washington to stop playing economic doctor and start letting the private economy heal."

September 29, 2012 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice side-step, Anon. Bernanke is not running for President this year, just like Bush who appointed him isn't running for President this year either. I'm sorry you are stuck with the candidate your party chose, Mittless. Well, unless you live in Virginia.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows President Obama attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Today's RCP average has Obama +4.3%.

"Ryan is dead on."

Which anonymous editorial writer at the Washington Examiner came up with that little gem? Now that the Mittless one has selected him as VP, Ryan has been deadly --

“47%” Was Bad for Romney; Ryan Has Been Deadly

"...Back in late August, Obama led Romney on the question of who would handle Medicare better by 8 points in Florida and 10 points in Ohio; now he’s up 15 in Florida and 16 in Ohio. And the problems are especially acute among senior citizens, a group Obama has traditionally struggled with. A month ago, Obama was down 13 points in Florida among people 65 and older; today he’s up 4. On the specific question of Medicare, Obama was down 4 points among Florida seniors in August; today he’s up 5 points. (The Quinnipiac Poll re-shuffled its age-groups between August and September, so you won’t be make apples-to-apples comparisons by eyeballing their crosstabs. But the super-kind people at Quinnipiac re-reshuffled them for me.)

The numbers for Ohio are similar: In August, Obama was down 8 among seniors in the state; today he’s up 1. A month ago Obama was down 6 points among Ohio seniors on the Medicare issue; today he’s up 6. The turnaround here is simply breathtaking.

Nor is the Times/Quinnipiac poll an outlier. Though I haven’t looked at the internal numbers, a set of Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation state polls out today shows something similar: Obama up 19 over Romney on Medicare in Ohio, 15 in Florida, 13 in Virginia, and 17 nationally (his largest lead on the question all year). As the Post write-up puts it: “[T]he more voters focus on Medicare, the more likely they are to support the president’s bid for reelection.”

Interestingly, the early post-Ryan polling actually showed the GOP ticket gaining ground on Medicare, if only by disingenuously accusing Obama of cutting $716 billion from the program to pay for healthcare reform. (Ryan had proposed identical cuts, except in his case they would have been refunded to the wealthy as tax cuts.) But that that was before the Democrats joined the fight. Since then, the Dems have relentlessly attacked the Ryan plan, both at their convention and on the campaign trail, and the numbers have followed suit. It’s hard to believe Obama would have had the success he’s had here without Ryan himself on the ticket. ..."

September 29, 2012 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bernanke is not running for President this year, just like Bush who appointed him isn't running for President this year either."

no, Bernanke isn't running for President

but he's taken on trying to fix the economy since the person we elected to do that is more concerned with enacting the liberal agenda

"Steven Rattner, a key figure in the Obama auto bailout, recently wrote in the NY Times about the reality of Obamacare. Tacitly acknowledging that costs are going to soar out of sight, Rattner opens with this frank admission: “We need death panels.”

When can Sarah Palin expect her letter of apology?”

Rattner goes on to back away from “death panels,” but instead uses the R-word: rationing.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.

Take note, liberals: Rattner, an Obamanaut, has taken aim at the “entitlement” mentality. Next thing you know he’ll be muttering a certain number, like “47%.”

This is where it becomes tedious to explain why the Ryan premium support approach is superior. I know I’d rather have the flexibility to shop for an insurance package that is better suited to my likely medical needs in old age (knee replacements will surely come first, if I keep up with reviving my old running habits) rather than be subject to a one-size-fits-all approach the government will be compelled to put in place, and/or the arbitrary rationing decisions of a bunch of bureaucrats.

In the great struggle of our time between bureaucracy and markets, between centralized prescription and individual choice, it is useful to have the alternatives laid out clearly."

seniors have about a month to catch on to what Obama is trying to do to them

September 30, 2012 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"but he's taken on trying to fix the economy since the person we elected to do that is more concerned with enacting the liberal agenda"

We also elected certain members of the GOP to Congress and they are the reason laws "to fix the economy" do not get enacted.

Seniors, like a majority of Americans, have caught on to the GOP hope expressed by Mitch McConnell to do everything possible to ensure Obama is a one-term President. That's why a majority of Americans support - and seniors are flocking to support - President Obama's reelection.

Everybody but the GOP's base knows it's the Senate GOP's overuse of the filibuster and the GOP's inability to even consider raising federal revenues that prevent laws that could "fix the economy" from being enacted by the 112th Congress.

In fact, the 112th Congress churns out fewest laws since 1947

"Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the post-World War II era.

Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2 percent of all proposed laws, according to a USA Today analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk's office.

Congress' historically low approval ratings hit 10 percent Tuesday, according to Gallup polling.

In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law. The only other year in which Congress failed to pass at least 125 laws was 1995.

These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-12, the least productive two-year gathering on Capitol Hill since the end of World War II. Not even the 80th Congress, which President Harry S. Truman called the "do-nothing Congress" in 1948, passed as few laws as the current one, records show.

The difference between 1995 and now is that Republicans rebounded in the second year of the 104th Congress in 1996, churning out 245 laws with a Democratic president, including a tax-cut package, a minimum-wage increase, an overhaul of the nation's welfare system, and requiring law enforcement to disclose where sex offenders live.

When Democrats controlled both chambers during the 111th Congress, 258 laws were enacted in 2010 and 125 in 2009, including President Barack Obama's health care law.

The 112th Congress will conclude after Election Day following an anticipated lame-duck session. It has been defined by partisan divisions and legislative failures, including the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles "Super Committee" that failed to enact $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

GOP vice presidential pick Paul Ryan helped block the plan from advancing to a vote in the House and Senate. Ryan opposed the revenue increases called for in the proposal.

Issues on which the divided Congress has not found consensus include the Dec. 31 expiration of the Bush tax cuts and a budget plan to replace $109 billion in automatic spending cuts, a drought-relief plan passed by the House but not the Senate, the extension of the Senate-passed federal farm bill that is languishing in the House and a bill to overhaul the U.S. Postal Service."

September 30, 2012 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

September 30, 2012 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We also elected certain members of the GOP to Congress and they are the reason laws "to fix the economy" do not get enacted."

nice rewrite of history

unemployment blew up as soon as Obama was elected and he had a filibuster proof Congress for his first two years

he did nothing but focus on the liberal agenda

"Seniors, like a majority of Americans, have caught on to the GOP hope expressed by Mitch McConnell to do everything possible to ensure Obama is a one-term President. That's why a majority of Americans support - and seniors are flocking to support - President Obama's reelection."

funny, yesterday you aid it Medicare

I agree with that

Obama's Medicare lies are the reason

and also, there is good reason to believe the polls are warped

"Everybody but the GOP's base knows it's the Senate GOP's overuse of the filibuster and the GOP's inability to even consider raising federal revenues that prevent laws that could "fix the economy" from being enacted by the 112th Congress."

even now, Obama's only economic idea is to tax the rich

overall, the don't have enough money to make this work

Obama is clearly trying to bankrupt the country so government takeover of business will become inevitable and realize the socialist dreams of his father

meanwhile, the bottom has fallen out

the distinguised Gallup poll, which just yesterday gave Obama a six point lead has dropped it today to five

fasten your seat belt

here we go!!

September 30, 2012 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and also, there is good reason to believe the polls are warped

Anon's latest right wing talking point conspiracy theory of warped polls sinks of it's own weight.

The latest "fair and balanced" FOX News poll shows Obama up by 5 points like most every other poll in today's RCP average of polls, which have Obama +4.1%.

Even Rasmussen is showing Obama up by 2 points today, again.

"Sunday, September 30, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows President Obama attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 46%. "

September 30, 2012 4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we'll see

but one thing is certain

no one is blowing anyone out

which is not the story I've been hearing from the media

September 30, 2012 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Apparently some tea baggers believe the polls said...

"CINCINNATI — Lori Monroe, a 40-year-old Democrat who lives in central Ohio, was startled a few weeks ago to open a letter that said a stranger was challenging her right to vote in the presidential election.

Monroe, who was recovering from cancer surgery, called the local election board to protest. A local tea party leader was trying to strike Monroe from the voter rolls for a reason that made no sense: Her apartment building in Lancaster was listed as a commercial property.

“I’m like, really? Seriously?" Monroe said. “I’ve lived here seven years, and now I’m getting challenged?"

Monroe’s is one of at least 2,100 names that tea party groups have sought to remove from Ohio’s voter rosters.

The groups and their allies describe it as a citizen movement to prevent ballot fraud, although the Republican secretary of state said in an interview that he knew of no evidence that any more than a handful of illegal votes had been cast in Ohio in the last few presidential elections.

“We’re all about election integrity — making sure everyone who votes is registered and qualified voters," said Mary Siegel, one of the leaders of the Ohio effort.

Some Democrats see it as a targeted vote-suppression drive. The names selected for purging include hundreds of college students, trailer park residents, homeless people and African-Americans in counties President Barack Obama won in 2008.

The battle over who belongs on the voter rolls in Ohio comes as supporters of Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, are making elaborate plans to monitor the polls and mount legal challenges after the Nov. 6 election if necessary.

...The tea party groups, scattered around the state, have joined forces under the banner of the Ohio Voter Integrity Project. It is an offshoot of True the Vote, a Texas organization that has recruited volunteers nationwide to challenge voter rosters and work as poll watchers.

True the Vote was founded by Catherine and Bryan Engelbrecht, a couple who run an oil field equipment manufacturing firm in Rosenberg, Texas.

In Ohio, election records show, one of the project’s top priorities has been to remove college students from the voter rolls for failure to specify dorm room numbers. (As a group, college students are strongly in Obama’s camp.)

Voters challenged include 284 students at the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, 110 at Oberlin College, 88 at College of Wooster, 38 at Kent State — and dozens more from the University of Cincinnati, Miami University, Lake Erie College, Walsh University, Hiram College, John Carroll University and Telshe Yeshiva, a rabbinical college near Cleveland.

So far, every county election board that has reviewed the dorm challenges found them invalid.

...Marlene Hess Kocher, another leader of the Ohio project, filed 420 challenges in Hamilton County over the last month. Kocher alleged that eight members of an African-American family, the Sharps, were registered to vote at a vacant lot in Lockland, just outside Cincinnati.

“You are hereby notified that your right to vote has been challenged," letters from county elections officials told each of the Sharps.

“Does this look like a vacant lot?" Teresa Sharp, 53, asked one recent afternoon as she and a friend sat on canvas chairs outside the four-bedroom house where the family has lived since the 1980s.

“People went through a lot just to have women allowed to vote, and then to have black people allowed to vote. So when they sent me that letter, I’m like, OK, they must know I’m black. And on top of that, my whole family — which really made me angry."

Sharp confronted Kocher at an elections board hearing. Kocher, who displays signs on her front lawn for the Cincinnati Tea Party and Republican congressional candidates, told the board she mistakenly relied on “vacant lot misinformation" that she found on the county auditor’s website. She apologized to Sharp."

September 30, 2012 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dispatch Poll: Obama widens lead as balloting starts
Poll echoes four others that show Romney behind by at least 5 points in Ohio

"From Day One, Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency has rested on the belief that his ability to turn around faltering businesses would translate into turning around the country.

But before he has that chance, it appears the former Massachusetts governor first must turn around his own campaign.

A new Dispatch Poll shows him trailing President Barack Obama in bellwether Ohio by 9 points, 51 percent to 42 percent.

A surge of Democratic support for Obama has transformed the race since the first Dispatch Poll had the two dead-even at 45 percent just before the Republican National Convention in late August.

The survey is the fifth major poll — from The Washington Post to Fox News — of Ohio voters in a week to show the president ahead by 5 to 10 points. He also leads in surveys of most of the remaining swing states.

Obama’s rise comes at an especially fortuitous time for the Democrat: Ohioans begin casting early ballots in two days...."

September 30, 2012 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hate to break it to you guys but a Washington Post poll of likely voters is out that agrees with Rasmussen

the race is neck and neck

and Obama is worried about Wednesday night is Denver, the place he originally declared himself a demi-god four years ago

October 01, 2012 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the new GWU/Politico poll shows the same

and also puts Romney four points ahead among independents

and a debate about our poor economic performance under Obama looms Wednesday night for fearful Democrats


October 01, 2012 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

btw, the Post poll shows that most Americans think Romney paid quite enough taxes, thank you

"Republicans hold a substantial enthusiasm edge over Democrats as President Obama and Mitt Romney prepare to face off in their first head-to-head debate on Wednesday in Denver.

According to a new USA Today/Gallup poll, 64 percent of Republicans say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, while 48 percent of Democrats say the same."

October 01, 2012 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the Post poll also says two-thirds think Obama will win and two-thirds think he will win the debate on Wednesday

and yet, the race is deadlocked and Republican enthusiasm is much higher than Dem

all of which would lead one to believe that expectations are high and Obama has managed to create some pretty unreasonable mythology about his skills

Obama is positioned for a fall if he loses or even ties

Romney hasn't much to lose

this will be a good week

October 01, 2012 12:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 01, 2012 3:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, your pretending what you want to be true is reality isn't going to convince anyone. Even you know Obama's got a consistent and enduring lead of 4% points. One can argue that with any single poll a spread of 2 or 3 points is within the margin of error and is therefore technically deadlocked, but every honest statistician and most people of slightly below average intelligence and above knows that when you average several polls the margin of error drops dramatically and when that average shows a 4 percentage point lead there's no disputing that Obama has a real and large lead. Further, when for months the average of several polls consistently shows a 4 percent Obama lead the margin of error is virtually zero and your guy is undeniably losing badly.

But of course you'd have to be honest to admit that and the truth is of no importance to you, only pushing your agenda matters.

This is going to be exactly like 2008 when you assured us with unmitigated confidence "president Huckabee" was going to implement all your favourite right wing policies during his two terms.

By tomorrow early voting will be underway in 35 states so the RCP average of polls showing a 4% Obama lead isn't just a prediction of what will almost certainly happenon election day, its a statment of what IS happening NOW. Romney hasn't got a prayer of undoing on election day the lead in votes Obama now is racking up as we speak.

October 01, 2012 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's really interesting the way you pick through the various polls, trying to string together one favorable bit at one polling site to another favorable bit from another polling site into a false rosy Romney narrative.

"Washington Post poll of likely voters is out that agrees with Rasmussen"

Every poll in today's RCP average shows Obama ahead and Romney behind.

Also as of today, Rasmussen shows Obama has the support of 50% of voters while Romney doesn't.

"Monday, October 01, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows President Obama attracting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 47%."

Your beloved pollster of the likely voter, Rasmussen report has found the race has recently gone from tied, to Obama up by one, back to tied, to Obama up by one, then two, and now three points.

It's fun to watch you trip over yourself in order to fail to see the obvious trend there. Let's see how Romney's debate zingers effect that trend.

"the new GWU/Politico poll shows the same

and also puts Romney four points ahead among independents"

Oooo! That must be Romney Clinton bounce!

That's right Anon, GWU/Politico did find a 4% advantage for Romney among independents and here's how Politico explained the findings in context with other groups:

"Romney now leads by 4 points among independents, up slightly from a week ago. The Republican must overperform with that group to make up for the near monolithic support of African-Americans for Obama [see last month's GWU/Politico Poll: 0 percent of blacks for Mitt Romney], as well as the huge Democratic advantage among Latinos [see today's Poll: Obama hits all-time high with Latinos] and women.

...Romney ... has a problem with women, among whom Obama leads by 12 points, 54 percent to 42 percent. Asked about Romney as a person, 51 percent of women say they don’t have a good impression. "

There are a lot more women voters than independent voters. And here's an interesting fact from Wikipedia about the voting gender gap.

"In 1996 Bill Clinton raked in 11 percentage points more women than men, 54% of all women and 43% of all men voted for Clinton. The only other president to get a higher women vote was Barack Obama with 56%."

Uh oh Anon, here's another new poll showing the same trend as Rasmussen!

Wash Times/Zogby Poll: Obama Leads Romney 49-41

October 01, 2012 3:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home