Obamanomics Explained

Do you really need to know ANY MORE than this??

Read More

Taxmageddon – What it is and what it means for YOU

From the Heritage Foundation

Taxmageddon and its impact

A tsunami of tax hikes is set to hit the American people in 2013 if Congress fails to act. Here are some snapshots of how Taxmageddon affects the country, drawn from the research of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data
Analysis (CDA).

■ The Nation: $494 billion total tax
increase on all Americans
■ Families: $4,138 average tax
■ Baby Boomers: $4,223 average tax
■ Millennials: $1,099 average tax
■ Low-Income Workers: $1,207 average tax increase
■ Retirees: $857 average increase
■ States: $1,929 (WV) to $5,161 (CT)
range in average tax hikes per
■ Congressional Districts: $1,236
(NY-16) to $13,951 (NY-14) range
in average tax hikes per return.

These tax increases, which will hit every taxpayer in the country, will take effect on January 1, 2013 because the Senate hasn’t bothered to re-authorize the Bush Tax Cuts.  To find out how badly they will affect you, please read the research done by the Heritage Foundation here:

These increase will have a negative effect on an economy that’s already hurting thanks to failed Democrat policies and they simply don’t care that you’ll pay even more than you do now.  Americans can hardly afford more job killing government idiocy like this.

Read More

Obama’s FAKE Steel Worker – the LIES continue


From the Gateway Pundit

Obama Camp to Deploy Fake GST Steel Employee to Bash Mitt Romney Before Debate

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, September 30, 2012, 8:54 AM
The Obama Campaign will attack Mitt Romney’s business record before the debate this week by sending out a phoney GST steel employee to bash the Republican nominee. David Foster spoke against Mitt Romney at the DNC too.

David Foster’s first line at the DNC:
“I’m David Foster and I was a steelworker for 31 years.” (He forgot to mention he was a union organizer and not an employee of GST steel.)

But David Foster never worked for Bain or GST. He was a union organizer.

The Politico reported:

The Obama campaign will deploy a group of surrogates to go after Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital record in the days surrounding the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, a campaign official said Saturday.

Among those surrogates will be multiple ex-employees of companies owned by Bain. Randy Johnson, the former Ampad worker who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, will campaign in Wisconsin on Oct. 2 and 3. Former Dade Behring employee Cindy Hewitt will appear in Florida on Oct. 3 and 4. And David Foster, who was a union negotiator for workers at the Bain-owned company GST Steel, will visit Ohio on Oct. 3 and 4 and join some of Johnson’s events in Wisconsin.

But former “steelworker” David Foster never worked at GST or Bain. He was a union organizer.
ABC reported on this during the DNC convention:

David Foster was never an employee of GST Steel’s Kansas City plant. He was employed by the United Steelworkers of America as their regional union director to represent GST Steel, but was not employed at our facility,” according to BC Huselton, who was head of HR at GST.

Instead, Foster was a union organizer, who negotiated for workers that did work for the company.

Read More

Democrat LIES about Romney and Ryan



Read More

Obama’s EPA Honors Marxist Murderer Che Guevara


Obama’s EPA easily makes the ‘Despicable Democrats’ list with this one.  If you don’t know the truth about the cowardly murderer Che Guevara – read HERE for just a bit of it.  Democrats either support Guevara fully KNOWING the type of person he really was or they are complete and utter idiots – either way it makes them despicable to EVER honor or support this heinous monster.


IBD Editorials

EPA Honors Noted Environmentalist Che Guevara

Mon, Sep 17 2012 00:00:00 EA16_ISSUES

Posted 09/14/2012 07:06 PM ET

Regulators: The EPA has commemorated the start of Hispanic Heritage Month with an emailed picture of Marxist thug Che Guevara. Considering the agency’s totalitarian energy policies, it’s somehow appropriate.

The internal email sent by EPA management analyst Susie Goldring was said to have been issued without clearance from higher-ups. EPA said it was “drafted and sent by an individual employee, and without official clearance.”

But sent it was, a document with a photo of a mural with a visage of the murderous revolutionary that was lifted without attribution from the website, Guevara, of course, was an enemy of the very freedom that Hispanics, particularly from Cuba, came here seeking.

Was honoring Guevara an accident in an administration led by a disciple of Saul Alinsky, where self-avowed Marxist Van Jones gets the prime post of President Obama’s “green jobs” czar?

Wasn’t Obama friend and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers also an admirer of Guevara? Did Goldring ever work at Obama’s Houston office in 2008, where posters of the Marxist killer adorned the walls?

Guevara was Fidel Castro’s right-hand-man, thought to be personally responsible for scores of murders carried out in the name of Castro and the revolution. Maybe the EPA staffer couldn’t find any murals of freedom fighters such as Jose Marti and Simon Bolivar.

Actually, Guevara may have found himself in tune with the EPA culture and policies that also claim to be based in creativity but are bringing nothing but a loss of freedom for people and entrepreneurs and the destruction the American economy.

We are reminded of what EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz once said about his “philosophy” of enforcement. It was, he said, to single out an oil company, punish it “as hard as you can” and make an example of it to scare others into submission. Armendariz described how Romans would conquer villages. They’d go into a town, he said, and “find the first five guys they saw, and they would crucify them” to make an example of them.

We don’t know if Armendariz had a picture of Che Guevara on the wall of his college dorm, but we wouldn’t have been surprised if he did. The thread of totalitarian arrogance runs both through the current EPA and the Marxist Cuban revolution.

Read More

Wages of Obama

A picture is worth a thousand words – or shows the epic FAILURE of the Obama Administration

Read More

The Shocking TRUTH about Unemployment

The truth about unemployment is far worse than any Democrats will tell you.  They cheer when the unemployment rate goes down but neglect to tell you it’s going down because more people are leaving the workforce than jobs created.  The charts below show the long unemployment rates and then the historical trends regarding recessions.  The gray bars represent recessions. You’ll notice historically there are job losses then job gains – until Obama.   These charts should scare the living hell out of you.  You can read the full story here.





Read More

Democrats have ZERO respect for Women Voters

Democrats have been telling the most despicable lies to women voters.  They are fearmongering and lying about all for a vote. What they don’t talk about is the higher poverty rate for women under Obama or the high unemployment rate for women under Obama’s reign.

Click on the links below to find out the TRUTH


Read More

Obama in his OWN Words

Obama is his OWN WORDS.


h/t Pat Dollard

Read More

Corporations buy Republicans

The Demcorats’ lie that Corporations buy Republicans is just that, a LIE.  As you can see from the chart below:

Notice which political party gets more money in donations…and notice it’s Unions that are buying Democrats.

Read More

Obama Campaign Calls Romney a Felon

Obama lies about it to reporters

Read More

Democrats’ Lies about Redefining Rape

From National Review Online

Scare Tactics Gone Wild

In recent days, the Left has pumped up the volume with scare tactics about the new majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans are back and they want to take over your personal lives! Ironic, of course, given the whole Obamacare incident. And the image of Speaker John Boehner asking Chris Wallace to leave him and his bad smoking habit alone is a little bit in conflict with that contention, too.

The latest attempt at scaring and misleading the public is the recent claim that Republicans, in some kind of supposedly radical ban on federal taxpayer funding of abortion — a ban along the lines of what the pro-choice Left has claimed has been law all along — are trying to redefine rape.

Redefining rape?!

They’re not.

In particular, abortion activists* are taking aim at H.R. 3, “The No Funding for Abortion Act,” which everyone from John Boehner to Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Jordan, to Democrat Dan Lipinski has explicitly and vocally supported for about a year now. On their radar is also “The Protect Life Act,” which Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.) introduced along with Lipinski the morning after January’s Obamacare repeal vote (the same day Smith joined Boehner to introduce H.R. 3).

A Mother Jones piece that ABCNews’s website republished yesterday as what appeared to be a news story (and later removed) insists that Republicans are on some kind of rape campaign: “Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.”

“The Hyde Amendment does permit federal funding of abortions for women who are impregnated through assaults, regardless of age, which of course includes drug-assisted rape and rape of unconscious women, to cite just two of the more ludicrous examples invented by pro-abortion propagandists in recent days,” Douglas Johnson, of the National Right to Life Committee, counters.  “And so do the bills.”

Johnson explains further:

In our view, on this matter, H.R. 3 and H.R. 358 would codify the substance of the policy that was in place from 1993 on (which rape/incest exceptions were added to the Hyde Amendment).  We do not believe that the Hyde Amendment has ever been construed to permit federal funding of abortion based merely on the youth of the mother (“statutory rape”), nor are we aware of evidence that federal funding of abortion in such cases has ever been the practice. It is true that the new bills would not allow general federal funding of abortion on all under-age pregnant girls — but this is no change in policy. In falsely claiming that it is a change in policy, the pro-abortion advocacy groups really are engaged in a brazen effort greatly expand federal funding for abortion. They want to federally fund the abortion of tens of thousands of healthy babies of healthy moms, based solely on the age of their mothers. We would oppose such an expansion of federal funding of abortion.

You can read the FBI’s own longstanding definition of “forcible rape,” which explicitly excludes statutory rape, here. Michael New took a critical look at some of the nonsense the New York Times was peddling this weekend here.

* Would it be redundant to include the media here? I’ll stop asking the question when I see more coverage of the senseless violence that is such a mainstream part our culture today. Planned Parenthood, for instance, is painfully mainstream, a recipient of taxpayer funding and leading politicians’ support. I’ll stop asking the question if I see more coverage and action in response to this new video from New Jersey.

Read More

The Democrats’ $6,400 Medicare LIE

Updated August 19, 2012, 10:24 p.m. ET

The $6,400 Myth

Breaking down a false Obama Medicare claim.


One of President Obama’s regular attacks on Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform is that it would force seniors to pay $6,400 a year more for health care. But merely because he keeps repeating this doesn’t mean it’s in the same area code of accurate.

The claim is based on a now out-of-date Congressional Budget Office estimate of the gap between the cost of health care a decade from now, in 2022, and the size of the House budget’s premium-support subsidy for a typical 65-year-old in 2022.

Editorial board member Joe Rago critiques the latest Obama Medicare ad.

In other words, the $6,400 has no relevance for any senior today. None. But it also is unlikely to have any relevance for any senior ever because CBO concedes that its number is highly uncertain and “will depend on the evolution of the health care and health insurance systems over time, which is hard to predict.” That’s for sure.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks during the Victory Rally in Florida at Town Square, Lake Sumter Landing on August 18, 2012 in The Villages, Florida.

The more fundamental problem is that the CBO analysis has nothing to do with the current Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan plan. Nada. Over the last year Mr. Ryan has made major adjustments to his original proposal as he sought a compromise with Democrats. In its most up-to-date analysis, CBO admits that it “does not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects” in the new version. That is, it does not have the tools to make its $6,400 exaggeration again.

The reason CBO can’t model the 2013 House budget and the Romney-Ryan plan is that they harness markets with competitive bidding. Congress’s budget gnomes can’t handle these dynamic forces.

So how would Ryan 2.0 work in practice? Traditional Medicare and all private insurers in a region would make bids to cover seniors and compete for their business by offering the best value and prices. Then the government would give everyone a subsidy equal to the second-lowest bid.

If seniors chose that No. 2 option, whether it was Medicare or another plan, they’d break even and pay nothing extra out of pocket. If they picked the cheapest plan, they’d keep whatever was left over after the government subsidy—that is, they’d get a cash refund. If they instead picked the third-cheapest option, the fourth-cheapest, etc., they’d pay the difference above the government subsidy.

That structure ensures that seniors would have at least two choices (and likely far more) that they are guaranteed to do better than they do now. The amount of the premium-support subsidy would also be tied to underlying health-care costs, so it would not shift costs to beneficiaries, as Democrats also falsely claim. The very reasonable Romney-Ryan policy bet is that costs could nonetheless fall over time because seniors would have the incentive to switch to the most competitively priced Medicare plan.

The latest real-world reason to expect that would happen comes from a new paper by the Harvard economists Zirui Song, David Cutler and Michael Chernew. The researchers—Mr. Cutler used to be an Obama health adviser—looked at Medicare Advantage, the program that currently gives one of four seniors private alternatives (and that ObamaCare deliberately undermines).

The Advantage insurers make bids today against a benchmark set by traditional Medicare spending, and the Harvard trio find that the second lowest bid in 2009 came in 9% below the normal program on average. Medicare costs $717 per person per month, but the cheapest private plan could provide the same coverage for 87 cents on the government dollar. The second cheapest could do it for 91 cents.

Messrs. Song, Cutler and Chernew are alarmed because they say their results imply—broadly speaking—that seniors in traditional Medicare would have to pay $64 a month more if they kept that coverage. (Note: That totals $768 a year, not $6,400.) But a better way of reading the data is that seniors would migrate to more cost-effective options, saving both themselves and taxpayers a bundle.

None of these facts are likely to deter Democrats from their distorted claims. But the truth is that the Ryan-Romney reform isn’t anywhere close to Mr. Obama’s cartoon version.

A version of this article appeared August 20, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The $6,400 Myth.

Read More

Stolen History

MUST watch video

Read More