Obama Unlimited

Beneath a stagnant-looking surface, the current of fiscal negotiation in Washington, D.C., is moving in the expected direction - and maybe more swiftly than anyone expected.

The unexpected retirement of Sen. Jim DeMint, a conservative firebrand from South Carolina, is the strongest signal yet that Republican hardliners know they can't hold back the tide of higher taxes sweeping across Capitol Hill. DeMint's departure to head the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, is an acknowledgment that the tactical battle has been lost for the time being. He seems to think that, in the long run, he can accomplish more to limit the scope and cost of government, and the share of national wealth it absorbs, from outside the legislative process than from within it.

Taxes on upper-income Americans are going to go up. In fact, they have gone up already in many states over the last several years. During the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney acknowledged that federal taxes would follow suit. House Speaker John Boehner put $800 billion in "revenue enhancements" on the table as part of the Republicans' initial offer to President Obama in the current negotiations.

The question of whether taxes on the wealthy go up via higher tax rates, as Obama insists, or via new limits on deductions, as Republicans prefer, is not trivial - but it isn't earthshakingly important, either, as Republicans are beginning to realize. Limiting deductions would do less damage to the economy because, all else being equal, higher rates create greater distortions - such as an incentive to give more money to charity rather than pay higher taxes to the government. This is why charities are already lobbying behind the scenes to prevent limits on the tax benefits on which their fundraising feeds.

But charitable contributions are voluntary, unlike taxes. Regardless of the mechanics of any tax increase, if the government takes more of your income and you want to spend the same amount on yourself, you can still cut back your philanthropy to make your personal ledger balance. Or you can cut back the amount you invest in expanding your business with new equipment or employees. In the short term, you maintain your personal resources, although it comes at a long-term cost to your own finances as well as to the nation's.

When taxes go up for high earners, they ought to go up for the middle class as well - to underline the point that federal spending isn't free, and to prevent today's voters from dumping their costs on tomorrow's taxpayers. Neither party, however, wants to see taxes rise on the 98 percent of households for whom Obama wants to maintain current rates. Those taxes would rise if current law is allowed to expire at the end of this year, but since neither party wants to see that happen, it won't happen. Even if politicians miss the year-end deadline, they will make a continuation of lower rates retroactive to the beginning of 2013.

The real federal fiscal problem is one of spending, not taxes, and this is where the real conflict between the parties lies. Republicans want to spend less than Democrats do. They want to make more changes in entitlement programs than Democrats want. Again, the differences are not trivial, but in the scheme of things, they are not massive. Republicans mostly want to maintain a federal government that spends an enormous amount of money on defense, health care, Social Security and many other things. Democrats unanimously want a government that spends even more on those same things, except that some Democrats would spend less on defense.

Politicians know how to bridge those differences, and when the politicians engage fully, they will do exactly that.

One obstacle is that Obama has never been much of a politician. If you like him, you may see him as a leader, a visionary or a transcendent figure, a sort of Gandhi who can nail a jump shot. If you don't like him, you may see a bully, a narcissist or the worst sort of lawyer, one who is fully prepared to trample the law (recall his recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, or his treatment of Chrysler debt holders) for his own purposes. Either way, he is not someone with a history of forging legislative compromise.

He has less reason than ever to compromise now that he no longer needs to run for re-election. This explains why the president's own initial offer calls tax increases twice as large as Republicans are proposing, as well as for $50 billion in new so-called "stimulus" spending (you scarcely heard him utter the word "stimulus" during the recent campaign, given the dismal results of his first-term spending binge), and why he has made no serious move on entitlement reform. It is also why he demands a unilateral congressional disarmament on the federal debt limit, which is where Republicans have their greatest remaining leverage. Rather than require approval of ever-higher federal borrowing, Obama would treat every dollar borrowed as pre-authorized unless Congress mustered a supermajority to stop it. The result, like it or not, would be Obama unlimited.

There was a time when Obama himself didn't like it. As a senator in 2006, he voted against a debt ceiling increase, but that vote came when Republican George W. Bush was in the White House.

It might make more sense for House Republicans to refrain from negotiating with the White House at all. After all, any legislation that reaches Obama's desk has to clear the Senate as well as the House. Senate Democrats generally agree with the president's positions, but most of them, unlike Obama, still need to face voters in the future. Of course the president matters, but I don't know why House Republicans don't give Senate Democrats the chore of bringing the president's positions into line with political reality. The House could just pass its own plan and hash out its differences with the Senate in a conference committee.

A deal will be reached sooner or later. Nothing may seem to be happening on the surface, but deep beneath the still waters, things are moving right along.

For more articles, please visit the Palisades Hudson Financial Group LLC newsletter or subscribe to the blog.

Newsletter: http://www.palisadeshudson.com/insights/sentinel/

Blog: http://www.palisadeshudson.com/insights/current-commentary/

View the original article here

Quinnipiac: Only 8% of Voters Think Polls Biased Toward Obama!

Contrary to popular opinion, which is being grossly distorted by the misreporting of left-leaning pollsters, Mitt Romney is not floundering in the race against President Obama.

Every time you read a story about how Romney must "reverse course" after a "disastrous month" of "Obama momentum," realize that this narrative was entirely created by biased pollsters and a complicit media seeking to sway election turnout.

Left-leaning pollsters are actively trying to discourage conservative voters and donors, put the Republican ticket on the defensive, and suppress GOP turnout. What's the proof?

Modern-day pollsters weight their raw sample results to match the electorate by expected turnout for key demographic groups. Almost every poll showing Obama ahead of Romney in swing states by double digits uses a weighting model that predicts Democratic turnout equal to or greater than it was in 2008. Specifically, these polls overweight demographic groups that flocked out en masse for Obama in 2008 and underweight anti-Obama groups.

Rather than assuming that unemployed college students and African Americans are more excited about voting for Obama this year than in 2008, reliable polling agencies such as Rasmussen, Purple Strategies, Gallup, and AP are using a weighting model that predicts Democratic voter turnout closer to what it was in 2004, or to a combination of 2004 and 2008. These firms have consistently found the race to be a toss-up, or for Obama to have only a slight lead.

The issue of weighting is not a statistical lacuna, a minor methodological difference that leads to slight differences among polls without affecting the overall result. In close cases, weighting is everything. It determines the predicted results.

Imagine a state with 5.1 million registered Democrats and 4.9 million Republicans. If both parties saw 75% turnout in 2012, the Democratic candidate would beat the Republican 51% to 49%.

Now suppose that Democrats saw 80% turnout and Republicans only 70%, comparable to 2008. In this case the Democrat would win 54% to 46%. But if Democrats saw 70% turnout and Republicans saw 80%, closer to what happened in 2004, the Republican would win 52% to 48%.

Assuming only slight differences in numbers of registered voters across parties, as in most swing states, turnout decides results. And most pollsters are relying on an outdated turnout model that enormously benefits Democrats, despite the fact that Democratic voter enthusiasm is down and Republican enthusiasm is up.

To get a flavor of how off-the-mark most polling firms' numbers are, consider the regularly updated Real Clear Politics average of poll averages. As of September 30, it predicts Obama beating Romney by a greater margin than he did McCain in Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina, three key swing states; and by similar margins in other swing states. Factor out the more reliable, unbiased polls, and Obama is outpacing Romney to such a degree as to make the 2008 election look like a nail-biter. In North Carolina, the average of averages predicts that Obama's margin of victory over Romney will be almost four times greater than his win over McCain.

Taking an average of several polls doesn't solve the problem, because most polls are making the same mistake. This isn't a case of some polls being a little biased one way, some another way, so let's take the average and call it even. It's a case of almost all polls being hugely biased in the same direction and for the same reason.

Defenders of the insanely optimistic pro-Obama polls claim that even right-leaning pollsters such as Rasmussen and Fox show slight Obama leads. Fine-they show slight Obama leads, not double-digit leads. But pollsters with an agenda know that a lead of a point or two six weeks before an election is not enough to dispirit and demoralize half the population.

As former New York Times columnist Bob Herbert noted, "There's a disconnect between what the polls are showing and... what the feel is... among the electorate. The polls are showing within the margin of error or close races. But there is this feeling that Romney is losing it... If this impression of Romney gets set in stone, that's very difficult to overcome, debates or no debates."

If we're lucky, left-leaning pollsters' efforts will be overcome by Romney and Ryan performing well in the upcoming debates, September and October jobs reports proving the economy still disastrous, Romney parlaying his monetary advantage over Obama, states implementing new voter fraud laws, and undecided voters breaking against the incumbent as they have historically done.

If pollsters successfully influence voter turnout by suppressing Republican enthusiasm and push the election to Obama, they will lose their credibility permanently.

View the original article here

Why It's Actually President Obama Who Will Benefit Most From the First Debate

President Obama gave such a clear walk over to the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney in the First Presidential debate that it now seems almost a deliberate well thought out plan. I mean just the very thought of not using the infamous 47 % remark against Romney shows a well thought out strategy on the part of the President. Can you even imagine the number of aides and campaign strategist's that had written the 47% remark as the first point in their presentations to President Obama before the debate. What is even more interesting is that even after Mitt Romney lied on various core issues, the President seemed in no mood to take his opponent to the cleaners on those points. Also Romney's camp must have written at least a dozen escape plans for him to defend his role in Bain Capital and yet not a word on that issue from the President. And most Democrats immediately went into a defensive mode, without even feeling puzzled even once?

But before we analyze the Obama camp's mysterious response to the debate, let us first set some facts in order. It's about Romney's blatant lies or misinformation. The last I checked the complete transcripts of the debate, I could easily count five misrepresentations on his part. And as I point out later in the article, Mitt Romney will soon realize that these five big lies he tried to sell to the American people will come out to haunt his campaign very soon.

First, on the issue of the magnitude of his Tax cuts, Romney denied his tax cuts could range 5 Trillion Dollars. Independent economist have well established that the price tag of his Tax cuts would exceed 360 billion Dollar in the first year itself, ballooning way beyond the 5 trillion dollar mark in a decade itself.

The second is related to his assertion that his tax cuts will be financed by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions in the existing tax system. Great! The only problem is he hasn't named even one that he can close! Independent tax experts have firmly established that Romney's plan will only result in a 'net tax cut for the highest income group' and a 'net tax increase' for lower and middle income households. On top of it Romney plans to have targeted tax cuts like the estate tax cuts, which will only make life easier for the richest, including his own sons' tax burden.

Third is the number he very emphatically produced during the debate, of 23 million American "who have stopped looking for work". Well, official figures show 12.5 million unemployed, 2.6 million who have stopped looking for work and does that add to 23 million? Not in normal arithmetic, unless it's convenient for Governor Romney to include the 8 million part time workers as unemployed! That is indeed imaginative.

Fourth is his charge that in Obamacare, the unelected board will decide what kind of treatment a patient can have or not. True, Obamacare does have a system of Independent Payment Advisory Board, but it is for constraining Medicare on excess spending. The private insurance market remains out of its purview. And also this specific body is explicitly banned from rationing or limiting healthcare facilities to seniors.

The Fifth was on his health care plan having 'pre-existing conditions' covered. Under Romney, if you have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you are done for. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and deny you coverage. And Romney's own Campaign manager concedes that, but only and conveniently once the debate is over.

So coming back to the reason, this post was intended in the first place, why did Obama just let him get away with all that. We have all seen Barack Obama as the fired up debater during his campaign days in 2007-2008. The fiery debater, armed with facts, backed by eloquence, silencing even his greatest opponents. Where was he? Lets pause here for a moment and remember the fact, 'that' fiery debater is now the also the President of The United States of America. So, do I suggest that becoming the President Nulls one's debating skills or your wit or affability or command over facts!!! Nopes, but just some nuances do come into play and a hell lot of a sense of statesmanship and responsibility.

To understand this one has to look at it as a well thought out strategy or the limitations Barack Obama - the debater- has, as a President or as a finely balanced mix of both. First and foremost is the limitation or better put, responsibility to not look angry as the President of United States of America. He knew before hand, that even if Romney misrepresents facts, he just cannot be explicitly seen as the guy pointing out in the first debate itself that his opponent is completely wrong. It would portray him as THE President using his authority to denounce a fumbling guy, even if it were on facts. He knew that sooner or later any lies spoken, will be picked up by media and the people (as it has happened), and eventually his silence would be understood and appreciated.

There also seems to be a basic understanding in Obama's campaign, that attacking or increasing the heat in the hugely anticipated first debate has to be avoided at all cost. The strategy seems to be, 'let Romney misrepresent, make him seem- oh he is not that bad taking on Obama- for a day or two and then allow the real facts to roll. The Obama campaign knew it would be a double whammy for the Romney camp, for as people realize the truth, they will have a feeling that this guy is so desperate, he lied to us so blatantly and to top it, tried to pass it off as a victory!

In the end this debate could end up haunting Mitt Romney, a scenario very different to the initial sense of jubilation that the Republicans are showing. And if he continues like this, - which seems unlikely- he can be assured of massive political damage. As for the Obama camp, I would say it was a subtle inter mix of knowing that the truth is on their side, character and some great political acumen. They knew Romney has tried to trick America in the past, will come fast and furious again with the wrong facts again and ultimately pay for it.

As the days settle and the Debate is deconstructed everywhere, American's will realize one of their candidates lied to them blatantly just to look good in a debate, their President letting them knowing what Mitt Romney really is by not interrupting him, and finally the realization that the initial debate outcome perception was a bit skewed. Barack Obama as a candidate and as the President has always taken the initiative to talk things through, but this time he knew his inaction was needed. He knew the old adage of not interrupting when your opponent is making mistakes. This debate was lost by us. Because we needed to. Because we had to. Because we wanted to. Democrats have to realize and understand why the battle was lost, so that the war could be won.

The writer can be contacted at the following website. http://www.supportingobama.com/

View the original article here

Obama Is Short-Sighted

Although President Barrack Obama has very moral and Utopian ideas, his vision to get there is lacking proper planning. One thing that is imperative to understand about governing, is that you have to actively engage yourself with reality. While I would say it's safe to say that no one would object from everyone in America having a easier life, it is easy to assert that not everyone believes that is what the priority is right now. We need to get out of debt and into work. President Obama might be a great president given a different America with more resources and a better economy, but of the two candidates in the upcoming election, President Obama is the most harmful to America.

Although it is often viewed as jealousy, the poor have a more envious attitude towards the rich. The distinction between the two is significant because jealously holds more contemptuous feelings, while envy holds a desire to be alike. The difference is between conflict and resolution. Americans are not spiteful people and they respect success more than any other country in the world. So where does the disdain from the one percent come from? It is from the economy and not having enough pies to make us all get a big enough piece.

Mitt Romney allows for a better fiscal plan for America to get out of debt and into prosperity. Nobody can deny that our economy is gaining more and more debt and we have been spiraling downwards for many years. We have had more prosperous economies and there's no reason why we should not be prosperous now. Under President Ronald Reagan, our economy was much better off. The trickle down effect is what allows us to create hierarchies which gives us structure and jobs.

The whole "Occupy" movement has stalled much progress. How many people are in unemployment and not actively searching for jobs? Instead of protesting, take your success in your own hands. It is absolutely ludicrous to be on unemployment for 99 weeks. That is just lazy and unmotivated, and to allow that is the epitome of why America is in trouble.

Everyone wants to have meaning in life and work is one of the most rewarding aspects to feel good about oneself. Everyone wants to feel useful and nobody wants to be poor. There is no reason why someone should be on unemployment in America when we employ millions of illegal immigrants. There are jobs out there to be had, but you might have to make sacrifices to get there. You might have to live in a different area and make less money. But anyone who is willing to live in poverty in a place that can't sustain them with enough jobs and housing deserves what they are willing to settle for. Not because anyone person is better or worse than another, or deserves more or less, but because we have the ability to define our own destiny.

To say that Americans don't want the jobs that the illegals have is to say that we, as Americans, are better than them. That is Hippocratic at its worse right there, and I don't believe it for a second. Look at the quality of life that illegals are allowed to live. I am no better than anyone else to allow this to go on, but if you're fighting for quality of life, you can look both ways. Maybe the illegal immigrants that make less than minimum wage should be the one protesting the people of Occupy. It is this ignorance of reality that allows our country to stay in a downward spiral. We not only don't want to do those jobs, but we allow for other people to do it for slave wages. There is enough corn fed to cattle each year to feed the whole world population. While I don't back this up with specific fact, I do so on purpose because it is irrelevant. We all know that there are enough resources for everyone to live and prosper. What is important is that we go out there and make our own livings and strive to success rather than complaining and expecting someone else to do it for you.

The government's job should be to allow for an economy that can support the people of the United States. Right now, we're more concentrated on trying to provide for everyone and individual responsibility is being ignored. Remember when John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Our government is made up of the people by the people. Our state is not God, and it does not provide for us. We have to do that ourselves. It is time to stop looking outside to find why things are happening, but inside. What can you do to better the world today?

View the original article here

Romney and Obama: Election Issues - Who Will Win the Election? - Who Will Be President?

Romney and Obama! This is of primary interest this fall. Who will win the election? Who will be President? What are the main election issues that are involved?

As a lawyer, I know that nailing the issues of a situation is vitally important. We know if we don't win the main issues, we lose our case. It's the same in politics as in the courtroom: the things people are most affected by are the main election issues of the campaign.

We all know that charisma, charm and likeability play too big a role in politics. It's often the one who smiles the most, shakes the most hands, and gives the best speeches who wins the election - national, state or local. Ability often plays a lesser role. But issues don't. Both Romney and Obama must nail the election issues.

America: Back to the Basics

I wrote a book with the above title. I wrote it for the Bush vs. Dukakis election of 1988. My slogan was, "Campaigning for America, not for political office." It was a book about getting back to the basics of a Constitutional, moral, ethical, caring America.

I tried to revive John F. Kennedy's slogan from 1960: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I got on many radio and T.V. talk shows, and lots of people wanted to talk about this. So it was well timed for a political election. People knew we were getting too far away from a moral, Constitutional America.

Romney's 47% Remark

The news is telling us that Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, made a remark about 47% of the people in the U.S. not paying federal income taxes, and being too dependent on the U.S. government for support.

I feel this will be one of the major issues of the 2012 election.

What Can My Country Do For Me?

Sadly, JFK's words of 1960 have been put into dry-dock, and they have been changed to say, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."

We have a different America today than we had in 1960, or even in 1988 when I wrote my book. Unemployment compensation, and other temporary assistance programs are necessary. People get in hard times and need a helping hand for a period of time.

But sadly, there are many, many people with their hand out trying to grab anything they can get. And I don't just mean beggars on the street corner.

The issues for many people will be, "Which candidate can give me the most?" - "Which candidate will benefit me the most?" It has been said many times that more and more people are tuned into radio station WIIFM: 'what's in it for me?'

This mode of thinking will be a primary issue in the 2012 election. If they get their say, it will drive America further downhill. We will be given more and more assistance, and we'll become addicted to it even more.

What Can I Do For My County?

In case you haven't noticed, America needs help. We are very rapidly heading for a crash we will not be able to recover from. Our founding fathers predicted this if we ever let government get out of control and become too big. This is the situation today.

Many people just what to see it get bigger with their WIIFM thinking.

Those of us who don't subscribe to this must get out and vote in November, and we must urge everyone we know who is like-minded to do the same. There is not much we can do about what is happening, but we can vote. "The power of one" is still the name of the game.

We live in the greatest nation on earth. But she may not remain so if we don't act. Romney and Obama: what are the election issues? Who will win the election? Who will be president? Who will be the best president for America? We are the judge, but we must issue a ruling and vote.

Roger Himes, The Lawyer, Business Coach: http://www.rocksolidbusinesscoach.com/ - and The Gospel Life Coach: http://www.thegospelcoach.com/. Also read daily Tweets on Twitter from the Gospel Coach: Twitter dot com -- /TheGospelCoach

View the original article here

Romney Beats Obama 55-36 in Physician Election Poll

Physicians overwhelmingly support Republican challenger Mitt Romney by 19 points over President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, according to a new poll.

In a 3,600-physician survey that was administered last month, 55% of respondents said they'd vote for Romney, whereas just 36% said they'd choose Obama, according to a poll from physician staffing firm Jackson & Coker.

Doctors who preferred Romney are more likely to be male and retain an ownership stake in their practices. Specialties that skewed toward Romney include anesthesiology, ophthalmology, surgery, and radiology.

Not surprisingly, dissatisfaction with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - one of Obama's signature legislative achievements - ran high among physician supporters of Romney. Romney supporters were more likely to favor a "repeal-and-replace" approach to the ACA, according to the survey.

"The ACA without tort reform... is discriminatory to doctors," said one respondent. "If we are going to be governed by consumer laws, then we should have all the protection that any business and free enterprise receives including unionization, collective bargaining, and ability to fix our prices for services not by the government."

In contrast, Obama physician supporters were more likely to be female and employed by a hospital or health system. Psychiatrists, pediatricians, and addiction medicine physicians also were more likely to support Obama.

"Affordable, high-quality healthcare, including education, lifestyle adjustments, and preventive measures, must be available to all persons living in this country," said another respondent. "We cannot afford to have a significant underclass of sickly people unable to participate fully in our economy."

Among physicians, the split between more conservative practice owners and more liberal employed doctors was the subject of a 2011 New York Times article that noted the evolving political views of those in the medical profession.

"There are no national surveys that track doctors' political leanings, but as more doctors move from business owner to shift worker, their historic alliance with the Republican Party is weakening," the article noted.

For example, the American Medical Association supported the ACA, a significant change for a group that opposed "almost every major health overhaul proposal for nearly a century," the Times reported.

In the Jackson & Coker survey, here's how survey respondents self-identified their party affiliations: 35% Republican, 24% Democrat, 26% Independent, 6% Libertarian, and 7% unaffiliated.

Fifteen percent of the survey's respondents said they voted for Obama in 2008 but planned on switching their vote to the GOP this year. Among those physicians, the ACA and Obama's leadership style were the most frequently cited reasons for the change.

The survey was emailed to more than 133,000 physicians and yielded a response rate of 3%, according to Jackson & Coker.

View the original article here

Are Obama Supporters Afraid the Republicans Will Take Away Their Food Stamps and Freebies?

Okay so the other day I was watching TV and my program was interrupted by another one of those "my name is Barack Obama, and I approve this message" political ads. It was rather bothersome, because it claimed that Mitt Romney was out of touch with Americans, and insisted that because he was wealthy he wanted to help his wealthy friends, and tax all the poor people. Then the political ad insinuated that if Mitt Romney was elected they could lose their Medicare, food stamps, and be thrust into poor hood.

Yes, this was definitely a scare tactic, but it is alarming that an American sitting president would allow his campaign to run such ads. Now then, let me ask you a question; are the supporters of Barack Obama fearful that if the Republicans are able to get Mitt Romney elected that he will then take away their food stamps and freebies? You might not think this a relevant question, but I assure you that it very much is, and let me explain why.

When Mitt Romney noted to a group of supporters that 47% of the people that planned on voting for Barack Obama who were on government aid or food stamps probably wouldn't switch their votes, he's probably right, and statistically speaking, I am sure we can prove what he said is mathematically correct simply by taking surveys. In fact a recent survey showed that Mitt Romney was actually only one or two points behind Barack Obama when all the people who were called were called using land lines rather than cell phone numbers.

Consider if you will that if someone has a land phone line, chances are they've owned the home and that phone number for quite a while. People buying homes today often do not put in a land line because they don't need one, they have a mobile phone. Also, those who are renting a home probably do not have a landline either, along with apartment dwellers.

Now then, this gets back to another point of contention, our founding fathers thought that the electorate should be those who owned their home, because they had a stake in the future of the country, much more so than those that didn't owned property. They didn't want those who had little to lose to bankrupt the government demanding free stuff

Even though Barack Obama and his campaign took what Mitt Romney said out of context, and blew it out of proportion in the media, Mitt Romney was actually correct in what he was saying. But just the fact that he is correct, and that he said it, might be enough to allow the Obama campaign to use that information to scare the ever living bejesus out of those who are getting money from the government, and get them to come to the polls and vote out of fear that they might lose that free money streaming in each month.

It's easy to start a social program, but taking away or reducing it is quite another thing indeed. Did you see what happened in Spain, Italy, and Greece when they tried to go for austerity? There was rioting in the streets. And I must say we are driving down that dead end road towards socialism which leads to a cliff, a federal government financial debt cliff. The socialists know how to play this, and these fear tactics that the Obama campaign are using in these political ads are a play right out of that playbook. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Politics and Economics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

Obama: Why Many Think He Deserves a Second Term

As of today if one were to evaluate the performance of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America, one might find it difficult to give it an exact grade. Not difficult to imagine given that no process seems to be in completion as of now, whether you are talking about the economy, the job situation, the war on terror or Afghanistan or the healthcare. So, why is it so difficult to have a binary assessment of President Barack Obama's tenure so difficult? Let us try and figure it out step wise.

The Inheritance

In recent history, no American President has acquired such a difficult legacy from a previous administration as Barack Obama did. And I am not blaming the bush administration for all the problems. The problems were acquired or to state otherwise were 'accumulating' over a period of time and waiting to happen. Just a summary of them would make any President squirm. The United States of America still fighting a devastating war on terror, economic wastage of decades finally coming to roost, simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, eruption of racial and ethicist divisions in the homeland and much more.

The hope

On the top of it, the ascendency of Brack Obama as President seemed like a panacea for all evils that besieged America. No doubt, his 2008 election campaign of, "Yes We Can" and the subsequent environment of 'change' and 'hope' enveloping America contributed even further to extraordinary expectations. But as he realized (or perhaps even knew) that mere slogans or expectations do not change things on the ground. Even before he could settle in the majestic confines of the White house, he knew he had his hands full. The Wall Street and the global markets were tumbling. Savings of millions of American households were dwindling; jobs were disappearing, war casualties increasing and the big American Hope crumbling. He knew more than anyone else that he would have to forget his own agenda of healthcare, economic and administrative reform that he promised America as a candidate for now and deal with issues at hand first.

And deal he did: The Tenure-

To Their credit Barack Obama and his team kept their sanity in these mad times. Knowing fully well that the problems besieging America would not solve on their own, he and his team set off to the task. The first task was to end the immediate economic woes. Not the economy on the whole, but parts of it. His stern message and legislations for the Wall Street were the first. The revival of American automotive industry came next, followed by tax cuts and investment initiatives, including a major infrastructure revival programme. To some relief, some of these initiatives started bearing fruit early. The automotive industry revived, the mortgage mayhem stopped and the Wall Street stabilized.

Next on the agenda was the ongoing conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. True to his word, Barack Obama ensured that governance in Iraq was safely handed to the people of Iraq and troops were finally back home. Another feather in his cap remains the destruction of Al Qaeda, including the killing of its top leadership - Bin Laden included. A well thought plan was laid for the war on terror. Far from the "You are with us or them" rhetoric of the previous administration, Obama focused on a more inclusive and accommodative foreign policy in which countries across the world were involved in the decision making process on this front. From his path breaking speech in Cairo in 2009 to American support for democracy in the 'Arab Spring', the world has seen America regaining a lot of goodwill, which was seen to be lost in the Bush-Cheney era.

Another milestone has been the passing of the Patient protection and Affordable Health Care Pact (PPACA) also referred to as Obamacare. A major personal initiative of the President, this act vastly divided the political atmosphere in Washington for a while, but is gradually gaining acceptance, aided by the United States Supreme Court ruling terming it fair and constitutional. It is pertinent to mention here that this is one of the most significant changes to American Health Care system since the introduction of Medicare in 1965.

Another Four Years? Why?

With all the good work mentioned above, it would seem even remotely unfair to ask why, instead of why not, for another four years for Obama to be the President of the United States of America. And the answer to that is not simple. The problem is, though the balls have set rolling and problems are getting fixed, the work isn't completed yet. What is even more worrisome is that many American's don't understand the work in progress. For they will only be satisfied, not only when the problems are fully fixed, but also evidently seem to be fixed. And any political commentator worth his salt can tell you that's never possible. The task of solving a problem is one just one aspect, convincing others that you are solving them is an entirely different political endgame. And that is the flux Obama finds himself in. He is solving problems and seemingly that's not enough, and that's the message the Republican's want you to have.

Conclusion

For me, as espoused above, Barack Obama deserves another term at the office beyond doubt. People should understand that work is in progress and in the right direction, but its fruits will come to bear in time. Any change in the team at the White House now will be disastrous, and I am not saying this because I am a Democrat or else. People have to look beyond party lines and see the crux of the problem or problems America has been facing. One has to see it as a team fixing a problem, not a Democratic or Republican team fixing a problem. America has had enough, it is dealing with its problems finally now, let it finish. I would let it. What about you?

Supporting Obama for second term as President. Visit http://www.supportingobama.com/ for more details. Obama selected popular Merchandise and articles available. Mark Presta

View the original article here

Is The Obama Administration Competent When It Comes to Libya, Iran, and Syria?

On October 11, 2012 the Vice Presidential debate in Danville, KY lasted only 90-minutes, but it wasn't much into the first 10-minutes that even the moderator, Martha Raddotz, wondered how Vice President Joe Biden could assert that the Obama Administration had been misadvised on the dangers of the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya which allowed for a terrorist attack and then asserted that the intelligence professionals were watching and knew exactly what Iran was up to on their nuclear weapons program.

Everyone expected a bit of a cat fight at this debate, still what we got was a little bit of arrogant laughter by Joe Biden each time his opponent made a comment, even though it is known how important the topics at hand were to the American People.

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on 10-11-12 titled; "Biden and Ryan to Take Center Stage" by Peter Nicholas and Patrick O'Connor the morning of the evening Town Hall debate between VP Biden and the Republican nominee for Vice President which stated; "This year's single vice-presidential debate has taken on unusual importance," and they were right, however after looking at the results of the debate it left many of us who very much care about our foreign policy scratching our heads.

After the exchange over Libya and Iran, it sure made our government, the administration, the intelligence services, and the State Department look incompetent. In the end whether misdirection, cover-up, or lack of communication hardly matters, it just looked like negligence. So, is the Obama Administration incompetent when it comes to foreign policy? Hard to say, no one knows, but if they are even the Obama Administration doesn't know that.

What concerns me is that President Obama gave a wonderful speech apparently in Egypt after his election (He won a Noble Prize for it) and somehow everyone assumed they were on the right path and that "hope and change" at least in the Middle East might have a chance using the CFRs (Council on Foreign Relations) "win their hearts and minds" motif. But after watching the Arab Spring results, and the simultaneous protests in 20-Arab countries at Western World embassies, one has to point to the score board - these are not "bumps in the road" as the administration would have us believe, the wheels have come off the cart from a IED on the roadside.

We have to do better than this, and so, let's ask the question; does anyone really know what they are doing? It's doesn't appear so, which I'd say was Ryan's main argument, to which Joe Biden, just laughed. Too bad really, I'd expected more substance and less denial. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.

View the original article here