Category Archives: Mitt Romney

New poll says majority of Americans regret reelecting Obama

Antichrist2

Whatever we know about President Beelzebub today, we already had known in 2012 or, for some of us, in 2008.

And yet, according to the results of a new CNN poll released today, July 27, 2014, a majority of Americans now regret having voted for the POS in 2012.

To the question “Suppose that for some reason a presidential election were being held today and you had to choose between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Who would you be more likely to vote for?” or if unsure, “do you lean more toward?”, 53% responded “Mitt Romney,” while 44% answered “Barack Obama.” 3% said “Neither.”

Asked about characteristics they would apply to Obama:

  • 52% say Obama is NOT “a strong and decisive leader”; 48% say he is.
  • 56% say Obama generally does NOT agree with them on issues they care about; 43% say he does agree.
  • 57% do NOT think Obama “can manage the government effectively” vs. 42% who think he does.
  • 53% do NOT believe Obama shares their values vs. 46% who do.
  • On whether Obama “is sincere in what he says,” incredibly, it’s a split: 49% say he is; 49% say he isn’t.
  • On whether “Obama cares about people like you,” 51% still think he does vs. 48% who don’t.

Lest you think the scales really have fallen off the eyes of the “useful idiot” Americans, think again.

When asked “suppose that a presidential election were being held today and you had to choose between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Who would you be more likely to vote for?,” a majority (55%) chose the Hildebeast, with 42% opting for Romney. In fact,

  • An alarming majority (63%) see her as “a strong and decisive leader,” vs. 36% who don’t.
  • A delusional majority (50%) think she “generally agrees with you on issues you care about,” vs. 48% who don’t.
  • An even larger delusional majority (53%) actually believe Hillary “cares about people like you,” vs. 45% who don’t.
  • An even bigger delusional majority (55%) think she “can manage the government effectively,” vs. 44% who don’t — despite then-Secretary of State Hillary’s lying about and complete bungling of the 2012 jihadist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, abandoning four Americans to their death.

The CNN poll, with interviews, of a national sample of 1,012 U.S. adults, was conducted by telephone (both cell and landline) by ORC International on July 18-20, 2014. The entire sample was weighted to reflect national Census figures for gender, race, age, education, region of country, and telephone usage. Among the entire sample, 32% described themselves as Democrats, 24% described themselves as Republicans, and 44% described themselves as Independents or members of another party. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

~Eowyn

Worst & best states to live in, according to residents

In June-December 2013, Gallup conducted a poll of residents of America’s 50 states, asking them to rank if their state is the “worst possible to live in.

A whopping 25% or 1 out of 4 residents of Illinois rated the state as worst. Illinois, of course, is where the POS began his political career of destroying America.

Top 3 worst states are:

  1. Illinois (14.5% Black)
  2. Connecticut (10.1% Black)
  3. Rhode Island (5.7% Black)

Note that the top 3 worst states are all blue (Democrat) states in the 2012 presidential election who voted for the POS.

Top 3 best states are:

  1. Montana (0.4% Black)
  2. Alaska (3.3% Black)
  3. Utah (0.9% Black)

Note that the top 3 best states are all red (Republican) states in the 2012 presidential election who voted for Mitt Romney.

Acting on a hunch, I added the red state vs. blue state classification, as well as the percentage of Blacks.

Here are the full lists of worst and best states:

Worst StatesBest statesH/t Zero Hedge

~Eowyn

Sneeringly insulting leftist surprised by “strange revival of Republican America”

There have been predictions of the Republican Party’s demise since at least the 1990s. But to quote Mark Twain, “Reports of my death are much exaggerated.”

In the following essay in the Financial Times (ft.com), Edward Luce describes the GOP’s resurgence. Being a sneeringly superior leftist, Luce can’t bring himself to say it, but the GOP has none other than Barack Hussein Obama to thank for its latest revival.

I was going to critique Luce’s essay — how he conveniently leaves out the post-Sandy Hook gun control and Obama’s many scandals, especially the NSA massive surveillance that has alienated even some “Progressives”. But I decided against it after reading FT readers’ comments because they say it so much better than I could have. LOL

Their comments skewering Luce follows his essay.

Note: I’ve colored the good news in Luce’s essay in green, and his completely biased characterizations and insults in pink.

Enjoy!

~Eowyn

MSM (by Anthony Freda www.AnthonyFreda.com)The strange revival of Republican America

By Edward Luce, Financial Times, March 23, 2014

For years people have predicted the Republican party’s demise. The decline of whites as a share of the US population and the spread of tolerant values, such as support for gay marriage, would gradually snuff out its appeal. Yet the Grand Old Party has a stubborn way of bouncing back. The coming midterm elections in November are unlikely to be an exception, while the Republican field for the next presidential election looks stronger than at any time since 2000. Tomorrow may indeed arrive at some point. But for the time being, today is going pretty well for the Republicans.

Take the fast-approaching congressional elections. President Barack Obama is giving everything he has in terms of fundraising to retain Democratic control of the Senate. The remainder of his presidency depends on it. Even diehard optimists doubt Democrats could regain control of the House. Yet the more Mr Obama throws at the Senate, the lower his poll numbers fall. Last week he hit a new low of 41 per cent approval versus 54 per cent disapproval. History says an unpopular president’s party loses ground in midterm elections. This year is unlikely to buck the trend.

Republicans need to win six seats to regain control of the Senate in November. Twenty-one of the 36 seats up for grabs are held by Democrats and seven of those are in states that were won by Mitt Romney in 2012. In contrast, just one of the 15 Republican seats being contested was won by Mr Obama. Embattled Democrats, such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, are essentially running against Mr Obama. They have made it clear they do not want his visible support and they talk of Obamacare – his signature healthcare law – as though it was some kind of virus. Charlie Cook, the veteran forecaster, now gives Republicans better than 50:50 odds they will control both chambers for the rest of Mr Obama’s term. Not bad for a party in decline.

Outside Washington, Republicans are more in resurgence than in decline. In 24 states the party holds the governorship and both chambers of the legislature, against just 16 states where the Democrats are in full control. The remaining 10 are split. All told, 30 states have Republican governors.

In some cases, such as Texas, where the Hispanic minority is about to become a majority, the writing is on the wall for conservatives unless they drop their reflexive nativism. In others, such as California, where Republicans have for years done their best to alienate immigrant groups, the party faces the likelihood of being in a permanent minority. Non-whites dislike being scapegoated for society’s ills. They also tend to be more tolerant of fiscal redistribution than whites. Being a party of “small government, big prisons”, is not a recipe for long-term Republican success.

Yet there is something deep within America’s political DNA that recycles first-generation social democrats into second-generation conservatives. For most of the 20th century, Catholic Italians and Irish were a reliable Democratic voting block. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan changed that partly by using dog whistles to play on their racial fears and partly by appealing to their upwardly mobile aspirations. There is no rule that says Latinos cannot gradually move into the Republican fold. Of America’s ethnic groups, only black and Jewish voters are unshakeably Democratic. If a Republican-controlled Congress can push through immigration reform next year, it could undo much of the sense of alienation felt by Hispanics. With barely a quarter of the Latino vote in 2012, the Republican performance can only improve.

A lot will ride on who wins in 2016. Democrats have won five of the past six presidential elections, if you include George W Bush’s Supreme court-imposed victory in 2000 (he lost on the popular vote). Demographics suggest it will become a little more difficult with each cycle for a Republican to take the White House. Moreover, conservative activists in places such as Iowa and South Carolina, which have an outsized say in choosing the party’s nominee, are moving ever further from the US mainstream. Evangelism, opposition to women’s reproductive rights and homophobia are increasingly eccentric planks of an elderly, white base. It becomes increasingly difficult for a moderate, socially tolerant Republican to win his party’s crown. Or so theory goes.

Yet there is nothing like the prospect of victory to galvanise a defeated party. In 2012 most talented Republicans sat on the sidelines. The field comprised Mr Romney plus a human freak show. It was obvious which way the winds were blowing. In contrast, most of the big names this time are either throwing their hat into the ring, or flirting with the idea. From the libertarian Rand Paul, to the moderates Rob Portman and Chris Christie, and the dynastic Jeb Bush, Republican talent clearly sniffs an opportunity.

The contrast with the Democratic field is sharp. Only Hillary Clinton is likely to run and her advisers are agonising over how to distance themselves from Mr Obama without risking his support.

As for Mr Obama, the botched rollout of his healthcare law has done more to discredit the case for activist federal government than Republicans could hope to achieve. For the time being, the hope and change wing of the Democratic party is quiescent. It will be hard for Mrs Clinton to rekindle their enthusiasm. That gives Republicans their best chance since 2000 to regain the White House. The party of yesterday may yet have a future.

Here’s a sample of brilliant comments skewering Edward Luce:

FredIsStillDead | March 24 5:04pm | Permalink

It’s not ‘nativism’ to ask that laws already on the books be enforced. I have yet to hear any mainstream Republican ask us to close our borders to legal immigration.

Biased articles like this are part of the reason Republicans are perceived as anti-non-whites. Asking for fiscal responsibility in having social programs we can afford is not anti-non-white, it’s something every family has to do when maintaining a budget.

Asking for states to have the right to be self-deterministic isn’t anti-non-white, it’s asking that the federal government allow states to govern themselves. Our country was DESIGNED to have states with different policies so that we can have many choices to examine and succeed, instead of one large federal failure like Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Dept. of Education, and dozens of other federal programs that supersede state’s rights under the lie of ‘the common good’.

City after city, and state after state, have shown us that government programs that restrict liberties and do nothing to reward having a job fail. Yet liberals still clamor at taking more money out of the economy and giving it to people that are better off not working at all thanks to the many social programs available.

Continuing to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, is madness. It’s time for a change, and the Republican party, forced to be the Tea Party, is the only one trying to stop the madness of the failed experiment called the ‘The Great Society’

………

User4519931 | March 24 4:43pm | Permalink

“the spread of tolerant values”… “done their best to alienate immigrant groups” … “party of “small government, big prisons” … “using dog whistles to play on their racial fears” … “homophobia” … “human freak show”.

Clearly, Mr. Edward Luce is one of the tolerant and inclusive crowd, respectful of diversity and the differing viewpoints of others! Wow!

………..

Jamesb22 | March 24 3:42pm | Permalink

Since Obama was “elected” – G.O.P ELECTORAL GAINS:

U.S. HOUSE ~ + 56 SEATS (with 10 to 20 more this Nov.)
U.S. SENATE ~ + 2 SEATS (with 6 to 10 more this Nov.)
GOVERNORSHIPS ~ + 9 SEATS (with 5 or so more this Nov.)
STATEWIDE ELECTIVE OFFICES ~ + 750 SEATS.

Only in the sick twisted dreams of the Leftist press is the G.O.P. “dead.” The fluke of a “black” Marxist will only happen once (two terms). The fluke/advent of the “first woman” president will only happen once.

The USA is a center/right country – being hi-jacked by the Leftist media and it’s Hollywood allies. This HORRIBLE Obama economy WILL drive people back to conservative reality.

……………..

DAVEBUC | March 24 3:28pm | Permalink

The problem in this country is the MEDIA. People like you who trash the The republicans while building up the Democrats. Your lies helped the Black Muslim become POTUS and helped pass Obamacare which with 100% certainty result in the END of medical care in this country! The media can and does control presidential elections. The vitriolic lies spewed during the month prior to the last election helped BHO win. However, since state elections are more personal and actually involve issues, it is a lot harder for the media which is primarily national to corrupt the vote!

………………..

DonWilliams | March 24 2:49pm | Permalink

1) I worked as a volunteer for the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, for three Democratic Congressional campaigns, and for the Obama campaign in 2008 (both primary and general). How is it that Edward Luce can discuss this subject and fail to note that the black community has suffered an unemployment rate averaging 15% for the past 5 years?? — their reward for helping to give the Democrats the White House and huge supermajorities in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs executives divided up $Billions in bonuses handed to them out the back door of the US Treasury via the AIG bailout.

2) 2009-2010 was a once-in-30 years opportunity — and what happened? Nothing. Democratic leaders bleated about the Magic Filibuster –but were happy to nuke that Filibuster when it came to ensuring their buddies got patronage jobs. Just not when it came to doing anything to help the average American.
We didn’t hear about the Magic Filibuster in 2001 when 12 Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson voted to let George W Bush steal $3 Trillion out of Social Security/Medicare and hand it to the Rich as a tax cut. To create jobs — in China.

3) Hillary Clinton voted for an unnecessary war that killed more black men in 10 years than the Ku Klux Klan managed in 140 years — and she is the leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

We have 25 million unemployed Americans –and yet the Democrats’ signature initiative is a “reform” to bring in millions more of cheap foreign labor to drive down wages and take jobs.

4) In many ways, the Democrats are WORSE than the Republicans –for the same reason that a mole who claims to be your friend only to stab you in the back at the opportune moment is worse than an honest enemy who shoots at you from the front.

The Democrats give lip service to supporting the lower income 99% — in order to take charge of any populist movements for reform so that they can lead those movements over the cliff.

The Party is a fraud — it exists as a Potemkin Village that actively coopts, undermines, subverts and sabotages the very principles, values and goals it publicly proclaims. Because, like the Republicans, it works for a few hundred billionaires. It differs from the Republicans largely in having a much greater degree of deceit and hypocrisy.

…………

And my choice for the Best Comment:

Michael V. | March 24 2:06pm | Permalink

The worst article of the year FT. Congrats!

Are All Democrats (and Some Republicans) GOING TO HELL?

God

The title of this article poses a pretty provocative question. In order to answer it rationally, let’s leave our emotions at the door and apply logic and reason. The first thing we must ask ourselves is whether God actually exists. Most intelligent adults, including virtually all of those who have actually researched and studied the evidence, say Yes, God exists.

Accepting now the view shared by intelligent adults and the evidence experts that God exists, we then have to ask ourselves whether Heaven and hell also exist. Again, most rational and intelligent adults say Yes. The duality of nature also suggests this, as do the witnesses. “Witnesses?” you say. The Catholic Church is replete with visionaries who have been afforded glimpses of both Heaven and hell. These aren’t the fly-by-night mystics or New Age channelers who charge money for their seminars. They are actual eye witnesses whose testimony has withstood years of rigorous scientific investigation.

If we take the side of evidence, the testimony of multiple eye witnesses, and the consensus shared by intelligent and rational adults, and accept the fact that God, Heaven, and hell all exist, we now must ask ourselves what has the Democratic Party (and some Republicans) done to justify our original question.

We know for a fact that the Democratic Party and some Republicans endorse and encourage abortion and the murder of the unborn. No one denies this, not even the Democrats themselves. We also know that the Democratic Party and some Republicans encourage and exploit racism and poverty. No one who has studied the evidence denies this either.

So if God exists – and we’ve already determined that He does – and if Heaven and hell exist – and we’ve determined that they do – then doesn’t it make sense that behavior such as abortion, the murder of the unborn, and the encouragement and exploitation of racism and poverty would call for restitution?

I realize that there are many who believe God to be a benevolent being who neither judges nor condemns. It’s a popular belief among many in the New Age movement. But is it reality or just wishful thinking? Are you going to believe some New Age marketer who makes their living by selling books and seminars, or are you going to put your faith in a book and in a Church that have served as the foundation for not only our country — the country that has done the most good for the most people than all other countries combined — but the foundation of entire Western Civilization?

And is it not also possible that God does not judge, yet remains a being of such pure love that sin is simply not allowed in His presence? Can it be that God does not condemn souls to hell, but that souls choose to be sent to hell by their own free will while here on earth?

A purist could make the case that the Democratic Party (and some Republicans) routinely violate almost every one of God’s 10 Commandments. The Democratic Party has voted to remove God’s name from their platform. (No one denies this). They dishonor the mother by promoting abortion, and they dishonor the father by social programs that remove him from the home, particularly in the black community. (No one denies this.) They violate God’s Commandment not to commit murder, again by promoting abortion. (No one denies this.) They violate the Commandment not to steal by promoting regulations and taxes that take money and property from one group in order to distribute it to other groups. (No one denies this.)

All in all, it’s impossible to deny the sins committed by the Democratic Party (and some Republicans) and they make no attempt to deny it themselves.

Now let’s consider the second word of our premise in this article’s title: all. Are all Democrats going to hell? Even those who only vote for Democrats or fundraise for Democrats? Look at it this way, when we vote for a politician or donate money to their campaigns we automatically become responsible for everything that person does or doesn’t do. Sounds harsh, I know, but how could it possibly be otherwise?

We supported that politician, we put that politician in office, we now bear the responsibility for every action that politician takes. If the politician we put in office resorts to actions that God finds offensive, then aren’t we equally to blame? Kind of puts a whole new spin on the word responsibility, doesn’t it?

So back to our title. Are all Democrats and some Republicans going to hell? I can’t speak for God, but my guess is if they continue along the path that they are currently on, they better load up on the ice water now, because some day soon they’re going to need it.

If you have voted for Democrats (and some Republicans) or raised money for their campaigns and now regret your actions, it’s never too late to change. Ask God for forgiveness and begin to make up for your past sins. He’s waiting for you. He never gets tired of waiting for you. Won’t you ask His forgiveness now?

Pres. Lucifer’s super PAC will fund the Hildebeast for president 2016

We’re at the beginning of 2014, a mid-term elections year, and two years away from the 2016 presidential elections.

Time to put on our battle armor, because the Devil never sleeps.

~Eowyn

POS and Broomhilda

Philip Rucker and Matea Gold report for the Washington Post, Aug. 29, 2013: 

Priorities USA Action, the pro-Obama super PAC that led attacks against Republican Mitt Romney, is quietly positioning itself to ­become the main independent group funding a media campaign for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, according to Democrats familiar with the plans.Strategists and donors to Priorities are in discussions about how best to help Clinton should she decide to run again for president, three Democrats familiar with the talks said.

The emergence of Priorities as a pro-Clinton ally introduces a heavyweight player into the constellation of super PACs and other independent groups already focused on the 2016 race. The move also shows how the political forces that helped reelect President Obama are increasingly gathering around Clinton and could make it more difficult for Vice President Biden or other Democratic hopefuls to compete for the nomination if she runs.

The people familiar with the plans said Priorities is developing a different mission than Ready for Hillary, a group started this year by ardent Clinton supporters. While Ready for Hillary is focused on grass-roots organizing, Priorities is planning to become what one of the Democrats called “the big money vehicle” that would produce and air expensive television advertisements.

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans for Priorities have not been finalized. Priorities strategist Paul Begala, a former Clinton White House adviser, declined to comment on behalf of the super PAC.

One of the Democrats said Priorities is not planning to become active in the race until Clinton “gives a definite nod that she’s going to run.” Conservative super PACs, such as the Stop Hillary PAC, have already jumped into the fray with attacks on the former U.S. senator and secretary of state.

Unlike federal candidates, super PACs can accept unlimited contributions as long as they do not coordinate their strategy directly with candidates or political parties.

_______

Note: Anyone who believes that has a shoe-sized IQ.

_______

Priorities, started by two former Obama White House aides (see my comment above), was widely regarded as one of the most effective independent groups in the 2012 presidential race. After a sluggish fundraising start, the super PAC ended up raising nearly $80 million — pouring it into a relentless barrage of swing-state television commercials that portrayed Romney as an elitist corporate raider.

Although Priorities spent far less than the pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, the group’s early and consistent focus on Romney’s record at Bain Capital put a negative cast on his business experience that proved hard for the GOP nominee to shake.

“They got off to a slow start, but they had a really strong finish, and ultimately they received a lot of credit for the negative mes­saging that was most effective against Romney,” said Phil Singer, a Democratic strategist who ran the war room for Clinton’s 2008 White House bid. “Priorities has been able to establish credibility.”

Refashioning itself as a pro-Clinton super PAC would be a natural fit for Priorities, which already has strong ties to both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Sean Sweeney, who was the top aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, helped launch Priorities with former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton and continues to steer it. Sweeney worked as a legislative assistant for then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, and people in Clinton’s orbit described Sweeney as a trusted loyalist.

Begala, who remains an adviser to Priorities, was a strategist on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and served as a political counselor in his White House. Harold Ickes, the super PAC’s president, has been a top adviser to both Clintons, while Geoff Garin, who was the group’s pollster and strategic adviser last year, was a top strategist on Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

_______

Note: But we are to believe Begala, Sweeney, Ickes, Garin, et al., don’t “coordinate directly with” the Clintons or with the DNC. Puleeze! 

______

Priorities also has relationships with some of the top Democratic givers, including DreamWorks Animation chief executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, one of its founding donors, who gave the super PAC $3 million. Katzenberg remains committed to working with the group, according to a person familiar with his plans.

___________

Note: DreamWorks is a Hollywood movie studio founded by Katzenberg, director Steven Spielberg, and David Geffen.

___________

Hedge fund manager James H. Simons, who contributed $5 million to Priorities and hosted a fundraiser for the group, is a longtime Clinton backer. Chicago media baron Fred Eychaner, who gave $4.5 million to Priorities, is one of the biggest supporters of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, having given the nonprofit organization more than $25 million.

Texas trial lawyers Steve and Amber Mostyn, who donated more than $3 million to Priorities, are actively supporting Clinton’s potential 2016 candidacy and are founding members of Ready for Hillary’s national finance council.

And Qualcomm founder Irwin M. Jacobs, who gave $2 million to Priorities last year, is an early Clinton backer. Jacobs and his wife, Joan, each gave the maximum $25,000 to Ready for Hillary.

Some fundraisers who bundled donations for Clinton’s 2008 White House bid, such as entertainment executive Haim Saban and producer Steven Spielberg, were also big donors to Priorities in 2012.

Since last year’s election, Priorities has been quiet about its plans. The super PAC made a few donations this spring, including $250,000 to the pro-Democratic Senate Majority PAC, which was used by the group in its campaign against Republican Gabriel Go­mez in the Massachusetts special Senate election, according to Senate Majority PAC spokesman Ty Matsdorf.

Priorities also gave $100,000 to Emily’s List, a group that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, and has launched a “Madam President” campaign to lay the groundwork for Clinton.

As of the end of June, Priorities still had nearly $3.4 million in the bank left over from the 2012 cycle and no debt.

Priorities would play a different role from that of Ready for Hillary, which has stressed its focus on grass-roots organizing and has capped individual donations at $25,000. With a strong social media presence, its profile has risen rapidly, amassing more than 700,000 supporters on Facebook.

Several longtime Clinton aides are supporting Ready for Hillary; the group is being advised by Ickes and former Clinton White House political director Craig Smith, among others.

It remains unclear whether the super PACs would work together. Ready for Hillary officials declined to comment.

A Democrat familiar with Priorities’ plans said there is “a lot of chaos right now” among the party’s operative class to get in place to help a possible Clinton campaign.

“It’s like a bunch of kids under the hoop trying to get the ball, and everybody’s jockeying for position and nobody’s shot the ball yet,” the person said.

“Breaking News”

That’s usually how it breaks, isn’t it?

~Steve~                 H/T   Someone.  I forget. :lol:

Hey give me a break. I’m new around here.

America’s Retirement Disaster: 50% of Boomers have less than $12k in retirement savings

A disaster is in wait for Americans in their retirement years.

Put simply:

Too many Americans are dependent on the government (Social Security and public pensions – more on that below), instead of putting aside savings to ensure our financial security in our “golden” years.

Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform blog, has put together a bar graph that shows how perilously little Americans have in retirement savings:

After a lifetime (presumably) of working, the median Boomer household (age 55 to 64), has managed to accumulate only $12,000 in retirement savings. $12,000 isn’t even enough to support one person, much less a household, for a year. Since “median” is that figure that divides a population into two halves, this means that 50% of Americans age 55 to 64 have less than $12,000 saved for their retirement.

As Quinn colorfully puts it: “These 55 to 64 year olds are up shits creek without a paddle. No wonder the percentage of over 55 people working is at an all-time high.”

But it’s not just the Boomers: Every age bracket has been living in a land of delusion. The median retirement savings of all non-retirement age Americans, 25 to 64 years old, is only $3,000. The entire country has bought into the ”live for today” mantra.

And if you think you can rely on government in your “golden” years, think again.

To begin, Social Security is broke. There is no “trust fund” because for years, the federal government has been dipping into that “trust fund” to make up for its budget deficits. The “trust fund” is an accounting fiction that exists only on paper.

To make matters worse, even if we go by the mythical “trust fund,” Social Security will go broke in 4 years, by 2017, when it will pay out more in benefits than it takes in. In the 1950s, there were roughly 5 workers for every retiree; today, it is roughly half of that. With 78 million Baby Boomers moving into retirement, the demands on Social Security will be even greater in the coming years ahead. With demographics heading in the wrong direction and a much slower-growth economy, the Social Security Administration has moved up its estimate that the Social Security Fund will be exhausted entirely by 2033.

The first Social Security program to go broke will  be Social Security Disability (SSD), which has seen the biggest number of recipients dependents in the 4 years 8 months of the Obama presidency. Today, more than 28 million Americans who are of working age claim to have a disability – a level higher than at any other time in recorded history. But there are good reasons for us to question how many of the 28 million SSD recipients are actually disabled. (See Many on Social Security Disability can but don’t want to work,” Aug. 3, 2013.)

According to a Social Security trustees report released in April 2012, SSD will run out of cash in three years, by 2016, when incoming payroll-tax revenue will cover only 79% of SSD benefits. Because the plan is barred from running a deficit, disability aid would have to be cut, which means SSD recipients will get only about 80% of the monthly payments they used to get.

Then there’s public or government pension, whether federal, state, or local.

As I explained in my post of August 18, 2013 (“Why there will be many more Detroits – in one chart”) and as the graph below shows, public employees pensions are, without exception, severely underfunded because they are based on the expectation that whatever money that’s paid into those funds gets 7% to 8% interest. The only problem is the Federal Reserve is and has been suppressing interest rates to an anemic 1-2% because if the Federal Reserve lets interest rates go up, our already gargantuan national debt of nearly $17 trillion (some say it’s actually $70 trillion) will balloon even quicker.

underfunded pensionsJim Quinn grimly concludes:

“We have trillions in unfunded Social Security obligations that won’t be paid. Cities and States have trillions in unfunded pension and health benefits that won’t be paid. The government and its citizens have lived above their means for decades and haven’t saved for a rainy day or their futures. [...] There is no possible scenario where this ends well or can be solved by another government solution. It’s too late.”

Is it too late?

The one chance we have is if we get a pro-growth leader in the White House and a pro-growth party in both houses of  Congress.

America is rich in energy resources. We can be independent in energy if we want to, instead of being reliant on oil imports from the troublesome Middle East.

If we give free rein to oil exploration and development — instead of the Obama regime’s obstruction and hampering, in pursuit of the chimera of “green” energy by wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on unprofitable, corrupt, and ultimately bankrupt solar energy ventures like Solyndra (which alone received $535 million in never-repaid “loans” from the POS) — we can not only become energy independent but also create millions of jobs. The economy will grow and with that, we can grow ourselves out of our unfunded liabilities and our national debt.

We had that chance in 2012 with Mitt Romney. :(

See also:

~Eowyn

Boomers are delusional, greedy, vain, shallow, obese, sickly, unhappy a-holes

BoomersBaby Boomers are those who were born between the years 1946 and 1964, during the demographic Post–World War II baby boom. Their numbers — almost 80,000,000 strong — make Boomers a powerful demographic force, exerting extraordinary impact on every facet of society. Think of Boomers  like a huge bulge in a python.

You’re a Boomer if you are anywhere between 49 and 67 years old. Some famous leftwing Boomers are (for other famous Boomers, go here.):

  • Al Gore, whom his own Current TV employees call a “bullsh*t hypocrite”.
  • Alec Baldwin: anti-gun rights (Alec, we’re still waiting for you to fulfill your promise of moving to France).
  • Ariana Huffington, founder of Huffington Post and a hypocrite.
  • Barack Hussein Obama
  • Bill and Hillary Clinton
  • Bill Maher, who wants to “kill the right people” because “the planet is too crowded”.
  • Cher, who calls Sarah Palin “stupid” and wishes AIDS for a Republican Congressman.
  • Danny Glover, admirer of socialist dictators Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
  • Ellen DeGeneres: anti-gun rights.
  • George Clooney: anti-gun rights.
  • Jim Carrey, who called gunowners nasty names and made fun of the dead Charlton Heston.
  • Jon Stewart
  • Katie Couric, who referred to Middle America as the “great unwashed”.
  • Madonna, the satanist.
  • Mark Hamill, who called Gov. Mitt Romney a nonhuman “thing”.
  • Michael Moore, a top 1% who hypocritically supports the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, and whose vow for 2013 is to stop saying “I support the troops”.
  • Oprah Winfrey.
  • Roseanne, who wishes cancer for Chick-fil-A patrons.
  • Rosie O’Donnell: anti-gun rights.
  • Sean Penn, admirer of socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, who wishes his critics would “die screaming of rectal cancer”.
  • Tim Robbins, an anti-gun rights top 1% who supports OWS.

The following composite of Boomers, compiled from survey statistics, paints an unflattering picture of a self-indulgent generation who — as a group (there are always individual exceptions!) — are self-deluded, vain, greedy, shallow, sickly and obese as they enter their senior years, and not surprisingly given the preceding attributes, very unhappy.

~Eowyn

cynthia-lummis58-year-old GOP Rep. Cynthia Lummis, who introduced a bill to raise the retirement age of present 6-year-olds to 70, is a Boomer.

10 things baby boomers won’t tell you

The aging Me generation is still putting itself first

By Catey Hill – The Burning Platform – July 12, 2013

1. “Paws off, Junior. This cash is mine.”

Children of boomer parents shouldn’t expect a big inheritance, even if their parents are rich. Only about half of high-net-worth baby boomers — those with more than $3 million in investible assets — say they consider leaving money to their kids a priority, according to a 2012 U.S. Trust Survey. In contrast, nearly three-quarters of people older than boomers say it’s important to them.

Even boomers — typically defined by demographers as those born between 1946 and 1964 — who do plan to leave an inheritance may do so with strings attached. Indeed, nearly seven in 10 high-net-worth boomers surveyed by U.S. Trust said they were not fully confident that their children could handle an inheritance.

“More often than not, clients leave inheritances in trusts,” says John Olivieri, a partner at New York law firm White & Case who works with a lot of boomer clients. With a trust, a third party manages the money and doles it out at intervals that the parent has specified. “Some parents have concerns about how their kids would invest and spend the money,” Olivieri says.

2. “Make room, kids. We’ll be living with you when we’re old…”

Boomers are expected to live longer than any previous generation. At the same time, many haven’t saved nearly enough for retirement. More than 44% of early boomers (whom the Employee Benefit Research Institute defines as those born between 1948 and 1954) and 43% of late boomers (born between 1955 and 1964) may not be able to afford basic living expenses in retirement, according to a 2012 analysis by EBRI. The result? Kids could be supporting mom and dad well into their 80s and 90s.

One of the biggest drains on boomer retirement savings will be health-care expenses. Medicare pays for only about 60% of the cost of health services the typical retiree will face, estimates EBRI. A couple that is 65 today might need nearly $300,000 to cover health costs. “People who haven’t saved enough for health-care costs may deplete their assets,” says Michael Markiewicz, a partner at New York-based Fogel Neale Partners. “A lot of them may have to live with their kids or depend on them for money and care.”

If parents do move in, their kids should expect to spend an extra $6,000 to $10,000 annually on food, clothing and other basics, says Andy Cohen, CEO of Caring.com, a website that provides resources for caregivers. Add thousands more for big-ticket items like wheelchair ramps or home health-care aids. Expensive as that sounds, it’s still often less than what it would cost to move a parent into an assisted living community, about $42,600 per year, on average, according to 2012 data from the MetLife Mature Market Institute.

3. “…and we blame you for that.”

Nearly one in six people ages 45 to 64 say that paying for their kid’s college tuition got in the way of saving for their own retirement, compared with just one in 20 who say that buying a home did, according to a 2012 study from Capital One ShareBuilder.

That’s not surprising, given that the typical middle-income family will spend more than $230,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18, up 23% (in today’s dollars) since 1960, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. When you add paying for college to the mix — for tuition, fees and room and board as of the 2012-2013 school year, you’d pay an average of $17,860 per year for a four-year in-state public school, $30,911 per year for a four-year public out-of-state school or $39,518 per year for a private four-year school, according to the College Board — you could easily spend upwards of $100,000 on the basic’s for your child’s education. This means that retirement savings can really take a hit. “A lot of parents prioritized saving for their kids’ college over saving for retirement,” says Dan Greenshields, the president of CapitalOne ShareBuilder.

The reason? “Parents often equate paying for college with helping their child become successful in life,” says Deborah Fox, the founder of Fox College Funding, a San Diego-based college-funding consulting firm. That’s something they feel they have a duty to do, whether or not they can afford it, she adds.

4. “We can’t face reality.”

What boomers think retirement will be like and what it actually is like are two very different things. A case in point: The forever-young generation just can’t deal with the idea of growing old. Only 13% of pre-retirees (people over 50 who have not yet retired) think their health will be significantly worse in retirement than it is now, while 39% of retirees report that it actually is worse, according to 2011 research by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health.

Boomers are a little fuzzy on the financial realities as well. While only 22% of pre-retirees think their financial situation will be worse in retirement, roughly one-third of retirees say that it is worse. Along those same lines, only 14% of pre-retirees predict that life overall will be worse when they retire, but a quarter of retirees report that it actually is worse. “There’s a real disconnect because your life pre-retirement is much different than your life post-retirement,” says Hal Hershfield, a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business who conducts research on judgment, decision-making and social psychology with an emphasis on how thinking about time can alter decisions and emotions.

5. “ ‘Til death do us part’ doesn’t apply to us.”

Boomers are untying the knot at a record pace. The divorce rate for people over 50 has doubled in the past 20 years, says the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, compared with a slight decrease in divorce overall. More than 600,000 individuals over 50 divorced in 2009, and if the rate continues to grow at the current pace, that number will hit more than 800,000 by 2030.

What’s fueling this trend? Empty nesters find they are a lot less compatible when the kids aren’t around is one phenomenon, says Toronto-based psychologist Tami Kulbatski. Another might be that boomers are more likely to have married young (boomers were far more likely to be married when they were between the ages of 18 and 30, than were members of Generation X, according to research from the Pew Research Center for People & the Press). Now, a lot of boomers are in their second, third or even fourth marriage, and these marriages are more likely to end in divorce, says Krista Kay Payne, a researcher at the center.

Divorce will likely take a chunk out of the average boomer’s already inadequate retirement funds. Lawyers’ fees alone can range from a couple of thousand to tens of thousands of dollars or more, says attorney Jeff Landers, author of “Divorce: Think Financially, Not Emotionally: What Women Need to Know About Securing Their Financial Future Before, During and After Divorce.” Add to that things like alimony and having to split up assets, and boomers’ financial picture gets even murkier.

6. “We’re unhappy …”

Boomers are the least happy of all age groups, according to a 2008 study published in the American Sociological Review journal. “The generation as a group was so large, and their expectations were so great,” Yang Yang, the author of the study, told the American Sociological Association, “not everyone in the group could get what he or she wanted due to competition for opportunities.“

Another report from the Pew Research Center came to a similar conclusion: On a scale of one to 10, boomers, on average, rate their lives a 6.2, compared with a 6.7 for older adults and 6.5 for younger adults. That may not look like much of a difference, but this pattern has held steady for the past two decades. In other words, the boomers — even when they were younger — have been consistently less happy than other generations for the past 20 years.

7. “… and we eat our feelings.”

Nearly 40% of people ages 60 and up and nearly 37% of people 40 to 59 are now considered obese, according to a 2012 report from the Centers for Disease Control, compared with less than one in three for people age 20 to 39. What’s more, baby boomers are fatter than their parents’ generation, according to a study released this year by JAMA Internal Medicine, with nearly 40% of boomers reportedly obese, versus 29% of the previous generation.

Obesity can lead to serious health problems, including diabetes and heart disease. A 65-year-old person who has been obese since age 45 personally incurs roughly $50,000 more in Medicare costs over the course of his or her lifetime than a “normal weight” 65-year-old does, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Medicare and Medicaid end up paying for roughly half of the cost of obesity, which accounts for $190 billion in medical spending annually, according to a 2012 study published in the Journal of Health Economics.

8. “And we’re addicts.”

Maybe it’s because so many grew up in the ’60s, but whatever the excuse, boomers are drinking and drugging their way into old age at a rate much higher than their parents’ generation. The number of people 50 and over who were admitted to substance abuse treatment programs increased 136% between 1992 and 2010, according to the latest data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Alcohol is the most common reason that boomers seek treatment, but the proportion of admissions of people over 50 for heroin abuse nearly doubled and for cocaine use more than tripled over that period. “Because of the magnitude of these changes and their potential impact, it is increasingly important to understand and plan for the health care needs, including the substance use prevention and treatment needs, of this population,” the administration writes.

Treatment doesn’t come cheap. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the mean cost per admission for outpatient substance abuse treatment is more than $1,400 without methadone (a synthetic opioid used to treat heroin and morphine addictions) or $7,415 with it; prices can run into the tens of thousands for inpatient treatment. What’s more, Medicare will only pay about 65% of an outpatient treatment program, and it will pay for inpatient treatment only if a doctor deems it “medically necessary” and the care is in a hospital. (Medicare doesn’t fund treatment at those designer “rehab spas.” Sorry, boomers.)

9. “We will bury you in debt.”

We’re a nation in record debt — an estimated $16 trillion — and the sheer number of boomers is expected to significantly add to that in the coming years, as more begin to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. (Social Security and Medicare spending represented 38% of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2012, and “both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s,” according to the Social Security Administration.)

But in many ways, boomers have been less willing than other demographic groups to support policy changes that could trim the debt. Fully 68% of boomers oppose eliminating the tax deduction for interest paid on home mortgages, compared with just 56% of all adults, according to the Pew Research Center. Furthermore, 80% of boomers (vs. 72% of all adults) oppose taxing employer health insurance benefits and 63% of boomers (vs. 58% of all adults) oppose increasing the age one qualifies for full Social Security benefits, the study shows.

Many boomers are more opposed to these plans because “they would feel the impact more than other groups,” says Kim Parker, the associate director of the Pew Research Center’s Social and Demographic Trends Project. But without some sort of deficit reduction, future generations will be left with the dire economic consequences a massive deficit can cause, she says.

10. “We’re obsessed with (not) aging.”

Sagging skin, crows’ feet, a dull complexion — these used to be the inevitable signs of aging. But if the boomers have anything to say about it, that’s going to change. Revenue for so-called cosmeceutical companies — which manufacture cosmetics with pharmaceutical capabilities, some of the most popular being wrinkle-reducing moisturizers and creams that even skin tone — is expected to hit $5 billion this year and is expected to grow 7.5% each year through 2018, according to data from market research firm IbisWorld; people over 50 account for more of cosmeceutical companies’ consumers than any other age group.

And it’s not just lotions and serums that they’re into. People 51 and up had 24% of all surgical cosmetic procedures, like face-lifts and tummy tucks, and 30% of all cosmetic “minimally invasive” procedures like cellulite treatments, Botox injections and laser hair removals, in 2012.

It also appears that boomer men are one of the fastest-growing segments of the population going under the knife. While overall cosmetic procedures in men increased just 9% in 2012 compared with 2011, face lifts, which are typically performed on the over-50 set, increased 21%, according to data from the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. And this will become more popular, says Jack Fisher, the president of the society, as many boomers want to look and feel young.

AP editor: Obama not the man his supporters voted for

The State Controlled Media are turning against The One whom they once idolized.

They are discovering that The One not only does not reciprocate their loyalty but, as the Associated Press found out last month, sent his DOJ gestapo to secretly seize the phone records of AP‘s offices and the home phones and cellphones of journalists. The records were obtained without notice, directly from the phone company.

Now, in an editorial, the AP — GASP!!! — is questioning President Lucifer’s credibility. GASP!!!

The takeaway quote from the AP editorial below: “people … voted for the Obama they wanted and now are grappling with the Obama they got.”

Hey, don’t say we hadn’t warned you! FOTM has only been doing that for the past 3½ years.

(Note: The ROFL GIFs you’ll see are my editorial comments on the AP editorial. :D )

~Eowyn

elections have consequences

Column: Mounting controversies are all about trust

Another Obama scandal: State Dept covers up employees’ prostitution and drug ring

Hell Must Have Froze Over

Hell Must Have Froze Over

The Fact that CBS or any net has finally broken a story on our resident POS is very encouraging. I think they have had enough. 

—————————————————————————————————-

CBS News: U.S. State Department Cover-Ups Range From Prostitution Charges to Drug Rings

http://washington.cbslocal.com           June 10, 2013 9:44 AM

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – Uncovered documents show the U.S. State Department may have covered up allegations of illegal behavior ranging from sexual assaults to an underground drug ring.

CBS News reports that is has unearthed documents from the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), an internal watchdog agency, that implicate the State Department in a series of misconducts worldwide.

The memo, reported by CBS News’ John Miller, cited eight specific examples, including allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” with foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries” — a problem the report says was “endemic.”

Former State Department internal investigator Aurelia Fedenisn told CBS News, “We also uncovered several allegations of criminal wrongdoing in cases, some of which never became cases.”

Often times, other DSS agents were simply told to back off of investigations of high-ranking State Department members. Fedenisn told CBS that “hostile intelligence services” allow criminal behavior to continue.

In one such cover-up, investigators were told to stop probing the case of a U.S. ambassador who was suspected of patronizing prostitutes in a public park. The memo states that the ambassador was permitted to return to his post despite having, “routinely ditched…his protective security detail” in order to “solicit sexual favors from prostitutes.”

A draft of the Inspector General’s report on the performance of the Diplomatic Security Service, obtained by CBS News, states, “Hindering such cases calls into question the integrity of the investigative process, can result in counterintelligence vulnerabilities and can allow criminal behavior to continue.”

Fedenisn was part of the team that drafted the whistleblower report, and CBS News reports that two hours after the charges were reported, investigators from the State Department’s Inspector General showed up at her door.

A statement to CBS News states, “It goes without saying that the Department does not condone interference with investigation by any of its employees.”

~Steve~                                        H/T  Drudgereport.com

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/cbs-news-u-s-state-department-cover-ups-range-from-prostitution-charges-to-drug-rings/