Normally I wouldn’t run a headline like this, but I can’t claim credit for the language. In response to the announcement that CNN would cancel the Super Tuesday CNN debate in Georgia, Newt Gingrich’s spokesman R.C. Hammond tweeted, “@MittRomney spits in Georgia’s face and cancels Atlanta debate appearance. #CNN”. Why are the GOP candidates dipping out of the Georgia debate? Is this a mistake? Should GOP candidates take Georgia for granted?

Georgia carries the largest delegate count on Super Tuesday (76), and carries the largest delegate count of any state until April 3rd when the Texas primary is scheduled (though it will likely be delayed). So why on Earth are the candidates dipping out of the Georgia debate?

It appears to be a strategic decision by Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Both know that their chances of winning a large portion of the delegates in Georgia are slim. Georgia is Newt Gingrich’s home state and Gingrich usually performs very well in debate settings. With that in mind, it seems that instead of allowing Gingrich to possibly have a stellar debate performance on his home turf, the other candidates have decided to not allow that to happen.

I think this is a big mistake. While Georgia has been a red state for quite sometime, the trend is going towards the Democrat party in Georgia for Presidential elections. Since 1996, there has been a steady increase in support for the Republican candidate. G.W. Bush got 54.7% of the vote in 2000 and 58% of the vote in 2004, but in 2008 McCain only got 52.2% of the vote. That is a massive drop of 5.8%! Another drop like that, and Georgia becomes a blue state!

That fact is something the Georgia GOP’s chairwoman is very aware of. When responding to the disappointing news that the debate was cancelled, Sue Everhart said that, “We’re a red state, but we barely squeaked through to beat (then-candidate Barack) Obama in 2008. I was hoping to do a lot better this time. I’ve still got to keep my people energized.” To summarize, the GOP should not take Georgia for granted.

With so much talk about how voters are unenthusiastic about the candidates running, you better believe Everhart is going to have her hands full here in Georgia rallying the base come November. What do you think? Should the candidates have declined the Georgia debate?

Sincerely,
David W Gray

About the Author:

Source

You have heard Rick Santorum say it many times on TV. Santorum says to look at his record. He doesn’t want to impose his values on anyone. Is this true? What does his record say?

Santorum was on Meet the Press this weekend when again he reiterated that he doesn’t want to impose his values on anyone. “Look at my record. I’ve never wanted to impose any of the things that you’ve just talked about. These are my personal held religious beliefs.” Santorum said. “There’s no evidence at all that I want to impose those values on anybody else.”

No evidence at all.

Let’s take a look at something that came up in the most recent GOP debate. At that debate, Rick Santorum was blasted by Mitt Romney for supporting No Child Left Behind. In that debate, Santorum said that he “took one for the team” when he voted for No Child Left Behind. Did Santorum really vote against his principles and take one for team Bush?

No he did not. In fact, Santorum wanted even more government intrusion in the way schools teach across the nation. As part of No Child Left Behind, Rick Santorum authored a proposed amendment, which became known as the Santorum Amendment. The Santorum Amendment was designed to do one thing and one thing only, to promote the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classrooms across the nation.

Santorum worked carefully with Phillip E. Johnson, who helped him draft the language in the amendment. Johnson is considered by many to be the father of the intelligent design movement, which began immediately after the Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of ‘creation science’ along side evolution was unconstitutional. After that ruling, proponents of teaching creationism in science classes needed a new term. That term became Intelligent Design, or as I like to call it, Creationism 2.0.

Make no mistake about it. Santorum not only supported No Child Left Behind, he wanted it to go further. Santorum wanted to impose his values on everyone that goes to public schools by promoting the teaching of Intelligent Design, which is nothing more than religious doctrine that says that life was created by God. It would be one thing if Santorum wanted this to be allowed in an elective class. No, Santorum wanted this to be taught alongside evolution. Why? Because Rick Santorum wants to impose his values on everyone in America.

So that no evidence at all statement from Rick Santorum is a pure, unadulterated lie. The Santorum Amendment is only one example of Santorum wanting to impose his values on the people through the power of government. Don’t be fooled by what he is saying today. Rick Santorum has in the past and will in the future try to impose his values on everyone that he can.

Sincerely,
David W Gray

About the Author:
David W Gray invites you to join The Political Zealot’s community at http://thepoliticalzealot.com where we bring independent analysis of politics from a Millennial’s point of view. The goal of The Political Zealot is to strive to find ways to bridge the gaps of both sides of the political aisle and bring solutions to the table to solve the problems facing the nation today. Join the Political Zealot community and post your comments at http://thepoliticalzealot.com

Source

To the Editor:The 2012 Presidential election is going to be interesting. While the world watches, many interesting and fascinating events will occur. I know it is said every election, at least in the last 15 years, but this is the most critical election in modern time. The fate of not only the United States, but the entire free world as well,hangs in the balance.

Do we continue on the path to destruction by embracing socialism and even worse Marxism, or do we find our way back to what our founding fathers intended for this country and the world, freedom and a place where mankind could reach it’s highest potential without the interference of government.

As has already been evidenced, many individuals will play a part in this election, and each will play a major role in the final outcome.

The moment I saw Sarah Palin in 2008 I knew she would be a major player and possibly president someday.

Everyone seems to forget, John McCain and Sarah were leading the 2008 presidential polls, until the financial crisis which conveniently occurred 5 weeks before the election.(October surprise?)

She was without a doubt the first to speak out, her boldness set the way for others to follow, as a result she took much heat for this. Such is the plight for trend setters. Many see her as radical, this just goes to show how far our country has drifted from the path originally set by our founding fathers. In today’s world John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan would be labeled extreme and would have little chance of getting elected to anything.

Following Governor Palin came Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and others, each contributing much to the campaign. Although most have fallen out of the hunt as of today, they still continue to contribute and slowly educate the American citizen as to the virtues of their beliefs.

Deep down, most people know that what they are saying is true, however, people have been so mis-educated by not only the media, but our educational system and misinformed parents as well, they have lost sight of the basic values we as human souls are all instilled with.

People have been so indoctrinated by a society that teaches many to be dependent on government and their entitlements and the misconception it creates. Many believe that life is easier if someone does everything and pays for everything for them. This may be true for a while, but sooner or later, there is a price to pay, the one with the money is the one in control of your life. Do you want the government in control of your life.

This election will determine the fate of not only the United States and it’s citizens but the fate of the world for many years to come. Do we want to continue down the path of socialism and destruction, or do we want to gradually return to the values and work ethic our country was founded on?

Do we want to take the easy way out, or do we want to return to the time tested values that have sustained generations of people throughout the ages? Do we want to put forth a little extra effort to guarantee of life similar to ours for generations of our descendants, or do we want to sentence them to a life of subjugation and poverty, a life with little freedom and opportunity?

Someday you may return to this planet, what do you want to find if and when you do.

Sincerely,
Gary Wonning

About the Author: My blog contains many articles based on the common sense of my ancestors, much of which has been lost in today’s world. I feel to survive as a country and a world, we all need to start living by some of the values that have in time been lost.

Source

“You must pay Social Security,” said the government man.

“Why?,” I replied. “I can walk to the bank and save my own money or get an annuity with an insurance company. I don’t need you to steal money from my paycheck every week, then hope I live to 67 to get some of my hard-earned money back.”

“You must use our Post Office”.

“Why?”, I said, “UPS, DHL, and Fed Ex gives me better service.”

“You must support Medicare.”

“Why?” I replied, “I can pay for my own health insurance that lets me choose my own health plan, deductibles, doctors, and hospitals. Why don’t you remove your damn regulations on the health-care industry, close down the FDA, and allow a free-market in medical care? Then I would have a lot more doctors and insurance companies to choose from and pay a lot less for medical care and health insurance.”

Just holster your gun, withdraw your taxes, regulations, public schools, and entitlement programs, and get out of our way.”

p>”You must pay 50 percent of your salary in state and Federal income taxes to support all our entitlement programs. You are morally responsible to help the poor, unwed mothers, college students, corporations who want bailouts, big farmers who need farm subsidies, and Mexican illegal aliens who insist on free medical care.”

By what right,” I replied, “do you force me to be my brother’s keeper at the point of a gun? Why do you think you have the right to rob me to give unearned handouts to people who will vote for you? You turn compassion into compulsion and make me hate my brother.”

“You must not develop this land and create homes and apartments for thousands of people, as this would endanger the kangaroo rats and alligators living on the land.”

“You sick environmentalist,” I answered, “why do you value the life of kangaroo rats, alligators who kill children, and mosquitoes that kill millions of people a year with malaria, over the lives of men, women, and children? What made you so twisted inside, and why do you hate the human race? If I develop this land, thousands of families will have decent, low-cost homes and apartments to live in. If that means every kangaroo rat and alligator is killed in the process, I say the sooner the better. There’s a big market for alligator purses.”

“You must send your children to our wonderful public schools.”

“Why, you damn fool? I can teach my children to read with “hooked-on-phonics,” get them local tutors, have them watch math and reading videos, give them one-on-one instruction with computer software and free Internet libraries, or enroll them in a low-cost Internet private school that charges less than $975 a year tuition. My son and daughter will learn to read, write, and do math proficiently in two years, not in the twelve years your miserable, government-controlled public schools force on millions of kids.”

“In short, government man, why do we need you? Just holster your gun, withdraw your taxes, regulations, public schools, and entitlement programs, and get out of our way.”

Sincerely,
Joel Turtel

About the Author:

Joel Turtel is an public-policy analyst and syndicated columnist. He is also the author of Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children and The Welfare State: No Mercy For the Middle Class.
Contact Information:
Website: http://www.americanlibertynews.com
Email: jturtel@yahoo.com

Originally appeared here.

To the Editor:
He could have done so much for his fellow Black Americans. He could have done so much for anyone coming from a low-income background. But President Obama has missed his opportunity to be a difference maker in this great country of ours.

Instead of lifting citizens out of the morass they find themselves in, he has dumped more of the same manure on top of too many people

. It’s the same stuff our people have been getting from the government for 50 years.

Cal Thomas, syndicated writer for Tribune Media Services, noted the other day that Obama’s 2012 State of the Union speech was the same old class envy argument that he used in his first, second, and third State of the Union speeches. Where does “hating the rich” get anyone? Collecting more money from the top income producers will not remove the nation’s debt. It will barely touch it. If politicians collected more money from the rich they would simply continue to spend it frivolously… like they always have.

Collecting more money is not the solution for the poor of this country. Our government is keeping its thumb on the poor. That is the real problem. That is where our president could have changed lives and families. Obama’s plan is wealth redistribution through the “give away” system. This continues to be an insult to low-income individuals. What is he really saying? He is saying many Americans cannot help themselves, so our government must step in and do it for them… from cradle to grave.

The real problems are not difficult to figure out. Many Black (and white) households have no fathers. Over 70% of the children born in these families do not have fathers active in their lives. The education level is pathetic. So many of the men in the Black society are in prison. Obama does not address these real very real concerns. He has done nothing to emphasize the need to take on the roles of being mothers and fathers that become self-sufficient through their own efforts. There is no word on emphasizing graduating from high school or going on to college. There is nothing about taking responsibility for one’s actions.

Instead, he hammers his daily message of getting more money from the rich as if that will take care of everything. Your people are listening, Mr. President. But you’re sending the wrong information. People need to believe that they can make better lives for themselves with their own efforts.

Phil McMillan is a writer who maintains a daily Baby Boomer blog entitled “Baby Boomers Laugh and Learn”. He provides daily humor and information for his readers along with his own comments.

Sincerely,

Phil McMillan | ptmcmillan@gmail.com

Originally appeared here.

Whether you call the nearly uniform abandonment of Newt Gingrich by those who served with him a betrayal or not, it’s clear the Romney campaign is delighted with the tenor. Romney’s latest attempt to question the Gingrich’s campaign assertion that he worked closely with President Reagan and Jack Kemp to carry out Reagan policies is pointing at only a single mention of Newt Gingrich in the Reagan Diaries.

Intimating that Newt Gingrich was anything other than a foot soldier for Ronald Reagan is a total rewrite of the historical facts. Nancy Reagan specifically stated that her husband passed on the conservative torch to Gingrich. Reagan’s biographer Craig Shirley stated that Newt was very close to the administration and was frequently mentioned by the president. Reagan National Security Advisor Bud McFarlane said that in his days in the Reagan Administration it was routine to see Gingrich at the White House.

“Whether it was an appropriation measure or authorization bills or on matters of policy the president could always count on Congressman Gingrich to be a very enthusiastic supporter,” McFarlane said. “Whether it was for the defense budget itself and rebuilding the foundation of our deterrent at a time when it had languished in the Carter years… it was a reliable voice in Congressman Gingrich… to be supportive of President Reagan’s policies and it was quite enthusiastic on the part of Congressman Gingrich.”

Craig Shirley said, “And it’s really in my mind kind of ridiculous that Mitt Romney or others would make some kind of charge that Gingrich wasn’t a Reaganite. He was always a supporter of the Reagan initiatives all through those years.”

On Fox News Channel Sarah Palin said, “Look at Newt Gingrich, what’s going on with him via the establishment’s attacks. They’re trying to crucify this man and rewrite history and rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years.”

Palin, a Tea Party favorite and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee unleashed a torrent against the GOP establishment’s attacks on Newt Friday on her Facebook page decrying their use of left-wing tactics to disrupt the Gingrich campaign.

“The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent,” Palin wrote. “What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.”

Fortunately many Reagan White House insiders are beginning to emerge to defend Gingrich, but the rift seems to show a distinct split among establishment Republican forces and those which were part and parcel of the Gingrich Revolution of the ’80s and ’90s. Romney has chosen to take up the mantel of the “Good Old Boys” network and is playing a dangerous game to garner votes in the primaries that will likely leave him without a unified party if he should prevail.

Romney’s claim that Gingrich resigned from Congress in disgrace is perhaps the most disingenuous of the claims that will surely leave behind a scar heading into the 2012 election. The fact that 83 of the 84 ethics charges against Gingrich were summarily dismissed and the last charge was a paperwork mistake had nothing to do with Gingrich’s departure from Congress. Gingrich agreed to pay $300,000 to defray the costs of the investigation against him to put the matter to rest. There was no fine or other penalty placed upon Mr. Gingrich. The Truth About Gingrich’s Departure From Washington The loss of seats in the ’96 election was the primary cause of Gingrich’s choice to forego a fight for his speakership. The Democrats had focused on Gingrich for years, throwing up baseless charge after baseless charge to make Newt the issue.

Newt came to the conclusion that the “boogyman” the Democrats had created was harmful to the party and country he loved. Having accomplished all he felt he could in the GOP leadership, Gingrich chose to leave the Congress to seek other challenges. Gingrich’s departure was more than 2 years after the resolution of all ethics charges and no disgrace or ethical issues played into Newt’s decision. Romney’s claim is simply false.

Romney’s political action committee and the governor himself stand to benefit from this misinformation, but the gain will be short-lived. In an odd turn-about if Romney is successful in achieving the nomination he may find the Obama campaign machine exposing his deceptions about Gingrich in the presidential election which would likely cause many Republicans to stay home rather than cast a vote for Romney.

The Republicans are scrambling to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, and certainly the Obama-Chicago Democrats must be having a wonderful time watching the GOP devour itself.

Sincerely,
Ken P Kaplan

About The Author

Ken Kaplan welcomes you to explore the world of conservative politics. Here Mr. Kaplan discusses the issues of the day from his unique conservative viewpoint.

Conservatively Speaking

Originally appeared here.

We hear about the problems of U.S. government debt and deficits all the time. In an election year, politicians make claims about how they will work to solve these problems while keeping benefits in place and leaving taxes low. In reality, solving the budget deficit will require painful tradeoffs that are politically unpopular. Let’s roll up our sleeves, crunch some numbers and identify the major tradeoffs.

To get a better sense of how current budget problems are working against each other, let’s take a look at the U.S. government’s income statement.

The government’s revenues come primarily from taxes and social insurance and retirement receipts, while its expenses are made up of the government’s entire budget.

According to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) historical tables for the Budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2011, here are the estimated figures for what the government’s income statement would look like for 2010:

Revenues

Individual Income Taxes                                   $936 billion

Corporation Income Taxes                               $157 billion

Social Insurance & Retirement Receipts            $876 billion

Excise Taxes                                                    $73 billion

Other                                                               $124 billion

Total Revenues                                     $2.165 trillion

Expenses

Health & Medicare                                           $829 billion

Social Security                                      $721 billion

Defense                                                            $719 billion

Income Security                                                $686 billion

All Other Expenses                                           $577 billion

Interest Expense                                               $188 billion

Total Expenses                                     $3.720 trillion

Net Income (Deficit)                                         ($1.556 trillion)

Before we discuss what each of these line items means, we should put the magnitude of these numbers in perspective. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis — part of the U.S. Department of Commerce — U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) for 2010 is expected to be around $14.5 trillion. This means that the U.S. government budget, at $3.7 trillion, makes up just over 25% of the U.S. economy.

The Bottom Line

So let’s cut right to the chase. The bottom line is that under current OMB projections, the deficit for fiscal year 2010 will come to about $1.6 trillion. That means the government will have to borrow $1.6 trillion to cover expenses because it does not have enough revenues.

Currently, the total U.S. debt stands at around $11.9 trillion ($4.3 trillion held by federal government accounts and $7.5 trillion held by the public). This means that the 2010 deficit will cause the national debt to grow by 13% in a single year.

We won’t get into which administrations had the largest deficits, however, the OMB’s historical tables for the budget have information on the budget, the deficit and national debt going back for decades for those who want to trace the current problem. The point here is that the deficit is unsustainable, and even if a large deficit is unavoidable during the current recession, significant measures will have to be taken soon to tackle this problem.

Government Revenues

Jumping back up to the top of the government’s income statement, we have revenues. The government’s revenues are composed of individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts (Social Security and Medicare premiums), excise taxes and other receipts.

For fiscal year 2010, all these revenues are projected to amount to $2.2 trillion. This represents approximately 15% of GDP. In other words, if we were to tax the economy as a whole to fund all the government’s revenues for 2010, the effective tax rate would be 15%. The problem here is that these revenues are simply not enough to cover current expenses.

Let’s pretend, for a moment, that all of the government’s current expenses are absolutely necessary and that the deficit must be overcome by increasing revenues. There are essentially two ways this can be achieved: The economy can grow, increasing tax revenues or the tax rate can be increased to generate more revenues.

Increasing the tax rate is politically unpopular — especially if you had to increase it by 66% (10 percentage points), which is what it would take to balance the budget. But the economy would have to grow by 66% in order balance the budget while keeping tax rates where they are.

It is clear that growing our way out of the deficit is simply not possible in the short run, and in the long run, it is likely that expenses will continue to grow making it difficult to ever catch up. A 25% tax rate on the economy as a whole would balance the budget, but such a tax increase may wind up slowing down the economy and reducing revenues the following year.

Cutting into the Budget

Raising government revenues alone cannot solve the deficit, so let’s take a look at expenses. Health and Medicare are the biggest ticket items, racking up $829 billion — 5.7% of GDP. $462 billion of that is Medicare alone.

Next comes Social Security, which amounts to $721 billion — about 5% of GDP. Adding these first two expense items together comes to about $1.5 trillion or roughly the same size as the current deficit. But before we get excited about eliminating these programs to balance the budget, we have to remember that most of the $876 billion in social insurance and retirement receipt revenues are tied to these programs. Cutting them would mean losing the revenues from them as well.

Defense spending is the next big ticket item on the list, weighing in at $719 billion, roughly the same amount as social security. If we cut all three of these programs entirely — health, social security and defense — that would about balance the budget. Of course GDP would also fall by 15% because that’s what these programs amount to. Jobs would be destroyed and tax revenues would fall resulting in another deficit.

Let’s focus on this for a second. Completely eliminating the three largest spending areas of government — over 60% of the total budget — would still not quite guarantee a balanced budget. There are no painless solutions to the deficit. Defense, social security and Medicare are all programs that many Americans care deeply about, and significant cuts to any of them would hurt.

Moving down the expense list, Income Security amounts to nearly $686 billion. Income Security is composed of federal employee pensions, housing assistance, food stamps, unemployment insurance and other programs designed to provide a safety net for Americans during economic downturns. This line item is clearly going to be high during a recession and politically difficult to cut during hard times.

The next category we have on the government’s income statement is All Other Expenses. That’s right: Anything else we haven’t covered falls into this $576 billion bucket. All these programs are barely over one third the size of the deficit. When politicians want to sound tough on government spending, they pick some unpopular program from this bucket and attack it.

There may certainly be a lot of programs in this catch-all category that could be trimmed, but cut them all and you’ve only made a dent in the deficit. Here are just a few of the programs we’d lose if we wiped out this area: veterans’ benefits, transportation, education, international affairs, justice department, energy, science, agriculture, community and economic development, etc.

Finally we come to our last expense item — and perhaps the scariest. Interest expense on the national debt will amount to $187 billion. It may sound like a lot of money, but it’s actually a deal right now. Since our total debt is roughly $11.9 trillion, that would mean that our weighted average interest rate on that debt is around 1.6%.

As recently as 2006, that weighted average rate was around 2.7%. With today’s level of debt that would put interest expense at $317 billion. And every year we have a deficit, that debt continues to grow. With the growth in debt comes increased risk and increased rates on that debt. Interest expense can quickly get out of hand, and the only way to control it is to balance the budget and pay down the debt.

What to Cut?

No matter how you slice it, Americans will have to pay their debts — either through higher taxes or lost government services and benefits (or both). Yet, we still haven’t heard any politicians stand up and say they’ll take the heat for giving the country its medicine.

And this analysis of the deficit problem is in many ways overly simplistic, because it only looks at the current snapshot of the problem. In reality, the issues are even more complex given the fact that many government expenses will continue to rise (Medicare and Social Security obligations), and the source of revenues will fluctuate with the state of the economy.  But this makes it all the more imperative that politicians tackle this problem now, and that Americans make the hard sacrifices necessary to avoid bankrupting the country.

-
About the Author:
 
Looking for charts and graphs on the U.S. budget deficit, visit www.financeocean.org.
 
Article Source

Back in the shadowy days of the Clinton administration of the stained black dress, wagging fingers telling us he did not have sex with that intern, and friends that got murdered with the Park Police in charge, we have a change that happened in 1994 that allowed the Clinton crew to change the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The methodology included an alternative unemployment rate that removed from the unemployment rolls those that were categorized as the long term discouraged workers which the BLS crossed off the list of those that were considered unemployed.

A Politically Skewed Manipulation

With a politically skewed manipulation of the real unemployment figures getting whittled down to 8.3%, when the real unemployed are figured in it looks like a more truthful picture is found at the logical number of 22.5%. The manipulation of the numbers by the BLS makes it look like the Obama Administration is making headway when in fact real unemployment, when you count in the totals for workers that are no longer looking, runs to 1920′s depression levels of the previous real number of 22.5% that John Williams of the “Shadow Government Statistics” who has railed for years that the fed twists the numbers to make them say what they want them to say.

What is a Depression?

The media in the financial world usually defines a financial depression as being a loss of 10% in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is more than anything just a rule of thumb. Ronald Reagan once said, “Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours.”

Numbers Are Skewed for Political Reasons

In a world where the very thought of trying to analyze a macroeconomic happening measured in dollars in a world where cash is electronic debt, property is still declining in value, capital investments flows freely across economic borders, cheap labor immigrates across our southern borders uninhibited, and politicians leave the government’s biggest expenses off the books has become increasingly absurd over time. How could you ever try to figure out if the economy is expanding or contracting when the numbers used are skewed for political purposes?

News Release Says

A Feb. 2012 news release from BLS told the public that the rate of unemployment had fallen 0.2% from the previous 8.5% we previously had in Dec. of 2011. However, the part of the report that did not make the evening news is the BLS reports the U6 unemployment is 15.6%, U6 meaning those people that were marginally attached to the work force in what is now called the under employed, people looking for full time wages but had to settle for part time jobs. So in not releasing those figures, then dropping those workers who had fallen off the radar after looking for jobs for a year, it is quite clear what the present administration is trying to do. Williams reported that the stats of 8.3% that made the media sound bites were mathematically manipulated and just simply not believable.

Adding Back

Williams put it this way in a report, his official Alternative Unemployment Rate comes out to be 22.5% when you add back into the Bureau of Labor Statistics U6 numbers, the long termed laborers that have fallen off the radar, and have stopped looking for jobs the past year. The BLS of course only reports the U3 stats that are adjusted seasonally which was the 8.3% that was blared out over every news media station.

Keystone Nuked

You can tell just by looking at the BLS own fully reported stats that the nation is in fact in trouble, has been for quite some time, is getting better no time soon, and there seems to be no remedy on the horizon coming down the road. The torpedoing of the Keystone pipeline that was to run from Canada down into Houston Texas would have employed at the peak at least 100,000 jobs directly and another 20,000 jobs indirectly, has been moved to the back burner.

Jobless Recovery

The jobless recovery scenario is a little more nebulous, with the precise timing of the recovery unknown, with little growth for the future estimated, and in danger of turning into a double dip recession, the uncertainty of the foreign export markets, contractions in the European and Asian markets, the double dip looks like the ice cream of the future.

Obama Stimulus a Bust

While the Obama stimulus package looks like a bust, the call for more recovery money not looking good, the pundits and the economists saying that whatever economic growth we do have will not sufficiently reduce the unemployment numbers and the figures will be much higher than normal, the look for economic growth looks grim for 2012 with little or no growth predicted.

The Straight Ahead Future

Looking into this crystal ball into the straight ahead future, while car sales have been good, manufacturing up slightly, and enough money flowing into the treasury to pay the necessary bills on time, if things just stay the same the double dip still looks like it could happen with the jobless recovery in full bloom. Those who adhere to variants of the jobless recovery say the USA is headed for a prolonged jobless recovery where only certain parts of the economy will recover while other segments will remain stagnant.

The Truth Is Different

What we really have waiting for us is historical warning signs that there are increasing numbers of consumer bankruptcies and mortgage defaults, credit debt is out of sight, there is also the unknown impact of enough possible bank failures to render the FDIC insolvent, the possibility of a U.S. state like California going bankrupt, or a possible crash in the derivatives market. Not speaking to the fact that being 4 trillion in debt will do anything good for the future economy or that the out of control printing of money by the Fed might have on our inflation scale when the working class will be unable to keep up. My take on this is the future looks so bright I have to wear shades.

Sincerely,
Gary Kent Boyd | My Blog

Originally seen here.

Barack Obama came into the spotlight like a tornado but instead of promising destruction he wafted through with hope and change and he did it with kindness, honesty and forthrightness plus he humbly asked for help with his mission. Therein lays the dilemma that the people did not follow his example choosing instead to simulate lost sheep wandering oblivious to their stake and participation in the task at hand.

Unfortunately this is being echoed throughout all countries suffering the indignity of recession and depression because the leaders on the ground are also lost in the quagmire of hapless practices. There are solutions and these have been suggested to us since the dawning of time but blindness overshadows clarity and we have the repetitive scenario of the blind leading the blind.

When we choose leaders like Obama to represent our interests in the highest offices it is our duty to assist them in everyway but without a follow up plan we are clueless as to how we may be effective. We may blame the political machine, individual political parties, religious and business leaders or we can blame green men in outer space.

Whichever route we choose there has to be a fundamental plan of action with direction for the smallest group to follow as well as the biggest groups representing their respective interests. Individual lobbying has no place in a society that desires advancement because if we all do not advance then our civilisation lays dormant in primitive schedules and practices.

When Moses was leading his flock from Egypt it was suggested to him to set up mastermind groups as a way of managing the daily tasks thus delegating the onerous and tedious tasks in the hands of those on the ground and Moses could then facilitate his time to the more demanding objectives of his journey. It worked largely but like all things human involving separate interests brings mostly trivial travails but it is essential to not allow them to enlarge thus creating even larger problems.

Every country or entity has one leader and it falls into that leader’s workload to diversify each portfolio into the hands of the most competent managers. Each country or state has counties and within these are townslands and cities with their own marginal electorate of counselors and managers. It is with these that the task of organizing the members of each society lays but few if any actually think of setting up a mastermind concept and as a consequence the people are adrift apart from the real happenings of society. This follows the ladder to the President, King or Queen and Prime Minister or whatever the title may be to bear the full responsibility of inept behaviours that need not be present. Basically if local government did its job effectively the successes of the state or country would be real and tangible developing a more positive outlook.

There are too many self interests in government where the little picture takes the place of the larger picture and as long as this practice continues the leaders at the top will be blamed for the ineffectiveness of the leaders down the chain. Everyone wants a definitive leadership to produce amazing results but those results cannot be attained unless everyone in the chain is strong and forthright. If we cannot do this collectively then self interests groups will continue to manipulate and the general populace shall be the fall guy.

We can change governments and leaders all day long but if we do not embrace the change in our own life and our circle of influence then leaders like Obama shall continue to be disappointed while continuing to do something the rest will not do. They bear the full responsibility that is not theirs alone to carry; it is the responsibility of all of us and we need to walk side by side with our leaders not throwing misdirected criticism!

Sincerely,
Tomas Coimin

-
About the Author:
Coimin is a master of motivational techniques with a strong desire to help others seek greater peace through positive self-esteem. Based in Co. Tipperary Ireland. Through the years it has been very rewarding to receive acknowledgments from readers indicating the benefits of my writings and thus I pray to continue to deliver quality pieces to continue the trends of previous successes. I write and publish poetry and short stories too but my chief aim is to work towards strengthening self-esteem while eliminating the ravages caused by abuses whether financial, physical, sexual or mental.Tomas may be reached at selfesteemawareness@gmail.com
Article Source

Florida is the state that makes or breaks a candidate. Since 1972, the winner of the Florida primary has become the party’s nominee. In 2012, this winner was Mitt Romney.

            Romney won Tuesday’s race in a landslide, receiving 47 percent, with Newt Gingrich coming in second place with 32 percent. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul each received 13 and 7 percent, respectively. The results are a major setback for Gingrich, especially after winning in South Carolina last week, ironically a state that also shares the reputation of choosing the nominee. He skyrocketed in early Florida polls, as well.

What reversed Newt’s momentum? I believe one too many negative ads shot him in both feet. Last week, a Gingrich ad called Romney the “the most anti-immigrant” candidate in the race. While Romney expectedly defended himself against the harsh attack, Marco Rubio, Florida’s senator and a Tea Party favorite, defended Romney, calling the ad “inaccurate and inflammatory.”

Newt’s attack on Romney astounded many. Not only was it harsh, but also incredibly vague. When questioned about the ad last Thursday by CNN debate moderator Wolf Blitzer, Gingrich responded that Romney desires to round up and deport illegal families.

While the ad may not seem like a big deal on its own, this incident is part of a larger issue. Before the primaries began, while still a marginal candidate, Gingrich ran on the notion that his was a “positive campaign” and the main objective was to defeat Barack Obama. However, the optimism disappeared as soon as he saw Romney as a threat, and Newt started berating him with characteristically left-wing attacks, from Romney’s record at Bain Capital to his apparent desire to mercilessly deport illegals. Newt’s latest rant was clearly to pander to Florida’s large Latino population, and a harbinger to the fact that he will say whatever it takes to win. He believed that the Hispanic vote would be awarded to the candidate who is lax and “compassionate” on illegal immigration. By painting Romney as the opposite, Gingrich hoped to find favor in the Latino community.

Rubio proves that Hispanics at large do not feel this way. The senator takes pride in the fact that his parents legally emigrated from Cuba and worked hard for their earnings, and that their son, who came from a poor, working-class Latino family, is now one of the most popular Republican politicians. His story personifies the American dream, not to mention the conservative message of individual liberty and prosperity at its best. The Hispanic community doesn’t stand for politicians who believe that tolerance of illegal immigration will win its vote. It confirmed that on Florida by choosing Romney over Gingrich, 54 to 28 percent.

The American public is growing tired of politicians doing whatever it takes to win, no matter the outcome of their actions. The country wants a president that cares more about the country than his own achievement. It needs leadership, pride, and integrity.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/how-mitt-romney-won-florida-5619823.html

Sincerely,
Jeremy Frankel

Jeremy Frankel is a writer for Quantum Networks and The Talk Radio News Service.