Category Archives: Republican Party

2014 exit polls show Republicans and Democrats are very different peoples

america_divided

The AP reports that exit polls from the midterm election on November 4, 2014 confirm what surveys had shown in 2013 — that America is a bitterly divided country where “people who vote for Democrats and those who back Republicans seem to be living in different countries.

How Democrats & Republicans see the U.S. and the world:

1. On whether America is on the right track:

  • 88% of Republican voters think America is on the wrong track.
  • 54% of those who voted for Democrats said the country is headed in the right direction.

2. On whether the U.S. economy is in bad shape:

  • Nearly 9 in 10 of those who voted for Republicans, but just over half of Democratic voters, think the economy is in bad shape.
  • 8 in 10 Republican voters think the economy is bad, stagnant or getting worse, but two-thirds of Democratic voters think the economy is either in good shape or is improving.

3. On whether life for the next generation will be better:

  • 64% of Republican voters, but only 30% of Democratic voters, think life for the next generation of Americans will be worse than life today.

4. On “climate change”:

  • 86% of those who voted for Democrats see “climate change” as a serious problem.
  • Two-thirds of Republican voters said it’s not a serious issue.

5. On terrorism:

  • More than 8 in 10 Republican voters vs. 6 in 10 Democratic voters are worried about the threat of terrorism.

6. On marijuana use:

  • Nearly two-thirds of those backing the GOP say marijuana use should be illegal.
  • Most Democratic voters disagree.

Demographics:

1. Where they live: Republican voters are disproportionately likely to live in the South (38%, compared with 27% of Democratic voters) and less likely to live in cities (26%, compared with 39% of Democratic voters).

2. Race: Those who voted Republican tend to be white (87%), in contrast to 61% of voters backing Democratic candidates being white.

3. Gender: Women outnumbered men among the Democratic electorate, but among Republican voters the proportions were reversed. Nearly half of Republican voters, but only about one-quarter of Democratic ones, were white men.

4. Marital status: 70% of Republican voters are married, compared with 55% of Democratic ones.

5. Income: Those who voted for Republicans tend to be richer:

  • 20% of Democratic voters and 12% percent of Republicans made less than $30,000 a year.
  • One-third of those backing Republicans earned $100,000 or more last year, compared with about one-quarter of Democratic voters.

6. Religion:

  • 40% of Republican voters were white evangelical Christians and nearly half attend religious services weekly.
  • Among Democrats, only 11% were white born again Christians; a third attend services weekly.

The AP concludes that the two very different political groups have sharply divergent views on top issues, “making it difficult for lawmakers to discern a clear mandate for governing.”

The survey of 20,168 voters was conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks by Edison Research. This includes results from interviews conducted as voters left a random sample of 281 precincts Tuesday, as well as 3,113 who voted early or absentee and were interviewed by landline or cellular telephone from Oct. 24 through Nov. 2. Results for the full sample were subject to sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points; it is higher for subgroups.

For more on the polls’ sampling and methodology, go to: http://surveys.ap.org/exitpolls.

See also:

~Eowyn

Home ownership increasingly out of reach for U.S. middle class

Home ownership is increasingly out of reach for America’s middle class.

In just one year, the percentage of all homes for sale considered affordable for the middle class has fallen from 62% in 2013 to 59% in 2014.

That’s the finding of a new report by Trulia, an online residential real estate site for home buyers, sellers, renters and real estate professionals.

U.S. home ownership

Mail Online reports, Nov. 21, 2014, that Trulia defines an affordable city as one in which the “total monthly payment, including mortgage, insurance, and property taxes, is less than 31% of the metro area’s median household income.”

By that definition, owning a home is increasingly hard to do for most middle class families.

Other findings in the Trulia report:

  • Most of America’s most affordable cities are around the Great Lakes.
  • Ohio is the state with three cities in the top ten most affordable cities.
  • The two cities where a middle class income is most likely to find you a home are Dayton, Ohio, followed by Rochestor, New York.
  • The least affordable cities tend to be on the coasts, with six on that list being in California.

Trulia economist Jed Kolko said the dream of owning a home is falling out of reach of many Americans: “Homeownership is getting less affordable for the middle class. Unless incomes increase substantially, home ownership will slip further beyond the reach of many households.”

elections have consequences

I’ve been meaning to ask this question to those who had reelected Obama to the presidency in 2012, in particular voters who are in business or in the military or are Christians:

Do you honestly think that if the pro-business and business-experienced, pro-military and military-supported, and Mormon Mitt Romney — who is not perfect — had been elected president, America’s economy, military, and Christianity would be in the sorry state they are today?

And do you honestly think that a President Romney would now be enmeshed in one scandal after another — IRSgate, Grubergate, Benghazigate, VA hospital-gate, Amnestygate, ad nauseum?

Stop being blindly partisan. Try and be honest, for once in your life.

See:

~Eowyn

Jon Gruber who thinks Americans are stupid made nearly $2M from Obamacare

jonathan-gruber

Jonathan Gruber is an MIT economics professor who was the architect of Romneycare in Massachusetts and a key architect of Obamacare, aka the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But both Gruber and the Obama administration kept his work on Obamacare a secret, and instead portrayed him as merely an independent economist who supports Obamacare. Gruber was frequently quoted by journalists and lawmakers who did not know of his connection to the administration; nor did Gruber disclose his connection when writing opinion articles. To this day, Obama denies Gruber’s role in formulating Obamacare or even that he knows the economist at all. (See “Obama lies again: Jon Gruber never worked for me“)

Thanks to Rich Weinstein, a Philadelphia investment adviser, Gruber has now been exposed, not only for his role in crafting Obamacare, but more importantly for his arrogant and contemptuous declarations — captured on video — that Obamacare INTENTIONALLY was written in a tortured and confusing way so as to conceal the law’s true costs from the American people who are too stupid to understand the law anyway, a stupidity “that was really, really critical to get this thing to pass.” 

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Fox News’s “On the Record” on Nov. 12, 2014, that Gruber was paid almost $400,000 ($392,600 to be exact) by the federal government for his “consulting” work in crafting Obamacare.

But it turns out $400,000 is a gross understatement of Jon Gruber’s earnings from Obamacare. After the bill became law, he made a good deal more — 463% more.

Obamacare exchange

Byron York reports for Washington Examiner, Nov. 16, 2014, that when Obamacare became law, many states had to set up online “exchanges” by which individuals and small businesses can compare policies and purchase the now-mandatory health insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).

Those exchanges would have to be built from the ground up. Studies would have to be done. And Gruber — who had designed Obamacare to begin with — was just the man to do the job. The Charleston Daily Mail in September 2012 even called Gruber “a policy rock star.”

Below are Jonathan Gruber’s earnings for his work as a consultant on Obamacare, both before and after it became law:

1. In 2009, as Obamacare was moving its way through Senate committees, Gruber was a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on two contracts — one in March for $95,000 to work on the project; and the second in June for $297,600 to continue that work. Altogether, Gruber received a total of $392,600 from HHS. 

2. In 2010, the state of Wisconsin, under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, paid Gruber $400,000 to do a study of the impact of healthcare reform. By the time Gruber finished his report, however, Republican Scott Walker had been elected governor and wasn’t much interested in using Gruber’s study.

3. In 2011-2013, the state of Minnesota paid Gruber $329,000 to study how to make its exchange conform with Obamacare requirements.

4. In November 2011, the state of Vermont hired a consulting firm that paid Gruber at least $91,875 to study the state exchange. 

5. In 2012, the state of West Virginia signed a contract for $121,500 with Gruber to study its healthcare system.

6. In 2012, the state of Michigan included Gruber in a multi-firm, $481,050 contract to study its exchange system. It’s not clear how much of that went to Gruber himself.

Altogether, Jon Gruber was paid $1,816,025 from federal and state governments. If we exclude item #6 above, at a minimum, Gruber still made a whopping $1,334,975 for his “consultant” work on Obamacare — a bill that he intentionally designed to be confusing so that those stupid American people wouldn’t know what’s in it, which would enable those stupid Congress critters to pass the bill, many if not all of whom didn’t even bother to read the bill before they passed it into law. And then after the bill became law, Gruber then made even more money — 4.63 times more than what he was paid for crafting Obamacare — for his “consultancy” to state governments on how to make the deliberately-confusing law work.

Obamacare Screw U

But to say that Jonathan Gruber was paid $1,334,975 to $1,816,025 by the federal (HHS) and state governments is really a misnomer.

In the end, it was the American taxpayers who paid Jonathan Gruber nearly $2 million dollars — those same “stupid American people” who are too stupid to understand Gruber’s deliberately-confusing “health care” law.

This is what Obamacare is about, from the beginning. Don’t say we hadn’t warned you.

Who's exempt from Obamacare

~Eowyn

Pentagon pressed to change program arming police with military gear

In the six years of Obama’s presidency, America has become increasingly militarized — not our troops abroad, but right here at home — and transforming before our eyes into a police state. (See “Police State U.S.A.”)

40 civilian agencies of the federal government now have armed divisions. Those of us who are not low-information voters are familiar with the alarming purchases of guns, rifles, and lethal hollow-point bullets by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including the Department of Education!

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Increasingly, however, police across America are violating the 4th Amendment by storming into homes, armed to the teeth in military gear, under the pretext of apprehending some suspected criminal. (See “Obama regime supplies military-grade arms to police”)

The most egregious example took place on April 19, 2013.

During a manhunt in the Boston suburb of Watertown, MA, for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, heavily-armed SWAT police and federal agents spent the day storming people’s homes and performing illegal searches, ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised above their heads in submission, and then storming into their homes to perform warrantless searches. (See “Boston Bombing: Getting the sheeple used to the police state”)

Watertown2Watertown1

Charles Hoskinson reports for the Washington Examiner that last Thursday, Nov. 13, 2014, reacting to images of heavily armed police amid the Ferguson racial protests, a House Armed Services subcommittee looked into the issue of the militarization of police.

“In light of these and other disturbing events around the country, it is incumbent on us to review this Department of Defense program,” said Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.), referring to Ferguson.

But Pentagon officials and representatives of national law enforcement groups told the committee that although the Defense Department is overhauling the program that gives surplus military equipment to local police departments, there is good reason to keep it going.

Alan Estevez (principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, logistics and technology) and Vice Adm. Mark Harnitchek (director of the Defense Logistics Agency) said that 96% of the equipment transferred under the program is non-lethal items such as commercial vehicles, office furniture and supplies, generators, tents, tarps, tool kits, first-aid kits, blankets, safety glasses and hand tools — not the small arms and armored vehicles such as the MRAPs used by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

___________

Translated, that means at least 4% of the equipment “transferred” to local police are LETHAL (see below). Don’t you feel better now? /sarc

police state

Harnitchek said that the program does not include items that have only offensive military value, such as belt-fed machine guns. “None of those are authorized for transfer.” He said Pentagon officials have removed some items that were previously provided after determining they were not appropriate for police use, such as military helmets, body armor and camouflage uniforms currently used by U.S. troops.

I don’t like seeing any of the police agencies in my state in military-style uniforms. I think that’s un-American,” responded Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga).

But the program remains controversial, and lawmakers have been putting pressure on the Pentagon for further changes and stricter accountability of how the equipment is used. Some want the program eliminated outright, a proposal that drew pushback from representatives of national police groups.

1. Mark Lomax, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, said, “The 1033 program has provided the necessary equipment to protect our brave officers and provide security and effective response to our communities.”

2. Jim Bueermann, president of the Police Foundation and the retired chief of the Redlands, Calif., police department, said, “Completely eliminating it could have substantial impact on public safety and local budgets.” Bueermann proposed a number of reforms that would make the program more accountable to local communities, including:

  • Public input and approval of a local governing body before police receive any surplus military equipment.
  • Public disclosure of how and how often the equipment is to be used.
  • Requiring police officers be trained on the proper use of the equipment.

Though the Pentagon requires police departments to demonstrate eligibility for transfers and to maintain control of inventory, the program as it is today does not include local oversight, and the Defense Department does not dictate the ways in which they are used by local police.

~Eowyn

Obamacare’s architect says Americans are too stupid to understand it. 32% of Americans agree

jonathan-gruber

Jonathan Gruber is an MIT economics professor who is heavily involved in crafting public health policy, being a key architect of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that’s better and more aptly referred to as Obamacare. For his “consulting” work in crafting Obamacare, Gruber was paid almost $400,000 ($392,600 to be exact), according to Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), on Fox News’s “On the Record,” Nov. 12, 2014.

But both Gruber and the Obama administration kept his work on Obamacare a secret, and instead portrayed him as an independent economist who supports Obamacare. Gruber was frequently quoted by journalists and lawmakers who did not know of his connection to the administration; nor did Gruber disclose his connection when writing opinion articles.

Last Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2014, news came of Gruber being caught on video saying that, to ensure its passage, Obamacare was deliberately and intentionally written in a confusing way so as to conceal the law’s true costs from the American people who are too stupid to understand the law.

After that stunning news went public, Gruber and his fellow Demonrats compounded their contempt for Americans with lies and denials. Forbes reports that Gruber went on MSNBC, claiming that his comments were “off the cuff” and should be disregarded. The Washington Post reports that Congresswoman (and head of House Democrats) Nancy Pelosi actually claimed she did not know who Gruber is, even though she once had touted his work.

Despite their denials, we now have three videos of Gruber making those contemptuous remarks about the American people.

The first video is from a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania in October 2013, in which Gruber says:

This [Obamacare] bill was written in a tortured way …. You get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in, it made explicit that healthy people pay and sick people get money, it would not have passed…. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to get this thing to pass.

The second video is from another October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis. The third video is from a lecture given by Gruber at the University of Rhode Island on November 1, 2012, just before the presidential election of that year. The second and third videos both focus on the origins of Obamacare’s so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which is a direct violation of a 2008 Obama campaign pledge.

In the two Cadillac tax videos, Gruber mocks the “lack of economic understanding” and “stupidity” of the American voter, because a more straightforward tax on employer-sponsored coverage encountered political resistance, while the Cadillac tax—imposed on employers, rather than on workers directly—made it through. This allowed Obama and his allies to falsely claim that Obamacare wouldn’t increase taxes on the middle class, despite the fact that the Cadillac tax clearly affects middle-income Americans, especially unionized industrial laborers.

It turns out that members of Congress are also too stupid to really understand Obamacare. Many of them didn’t even read the 2,700-page health care bill before voting for it. Since its passage into law, many Congress critters have expressed surprise about some of the things in Obamacare.

Gruber’s cynical view of the American people is shared by a third of Americans.

A Pew Research poll finds that 32% of Likely U.S. Voters agree that the American people are too stupid to understand the true costs associated with Obamacare. Just 52% disagree and another 16% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Some of the poll’s other findings:

  • Among voters who favor the health care law, only 18% think Americans are too stupid to understand the actual costs associated with the law. (These are precisely the stupid Americans, aka useful idiots, whom Jonathan Gruber and Obama count on to get the unaffordable care act passed.)
  • Those who oppose the law, however, by a 46% to 42% margin do think the American people are that stupid.
  • 62% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans, and 47% of Independents (voters not affiliated with either major party) say the American people are not too stupid to understand the actual costs associated with Obamacare. 
  • Men and those under 40 are more likely than women and older voters to believe Americans are that dumb.
  • Nearly one-out-of-three likely voters (31%) are not sure how their congressional representative voted on the health care law, even though not one single Republican voted for it and nearly all Democrats did.

And surprise, surprise! Jonathan Gruber is right!

Most voters have said in regular surveys since the law was passed by Congress in March 2010 that it will increase the cost of health care in America and that it is likely to cost more than its supporters have projected. This helps explain why most voters continue to view the health care law unfavorably. Voters are now evenly divided over whether to repeal the health care law entirely or fix it piece-by-piece.

The American people are so stupid and uninformed that only 63% of voters were aware prior to the Nov. 4 mid-term elections that Democrats run the Senate and Republicans control the House of Representatives.

See also:

~Eowyn

Americans want GOP instead of Obama to lead nation

elephant shoots man

Americans want the Republican-led Congress, not Obama, to steer the course of our country.

That’s what a post-election poll found.

Susan Ferrechio reports for the Washington Examiner, Nov. 11, 2014, that a Gallup Poll taken after the Nov. 4 mid-term election that voted a Republican majoirty to both houses of Congress, asked voters ““Who do you want to have more influence over the direction the nation takes in the next year — Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress?”

The result: The GOP Congress won out over Obama by 17 points, 53% to 36%.

The number represents a nearly historic lead for Republicans. In fact, it’s the biggest lead they’ve had on this Gallup question in decades — even larger than the 9-point advantage the GOP Congress had over President Clinton after the 1994 mid-term election that wiped out the House and Senate Democratic majorities.

In contrast, in 2012, Americans preferred Obama instead of Congress to steer the nation’s course, 46% to 42%.

Can you hear us, GOP?

See also:

~Eowyn

How Christians and other religious groups voted in 2014 midterm elections

2014 GOP House wins

Thanks to most Christians, but no-thanks to Jews, atheists, agnostics, and other religions

Mark Silk reports for Religion News, Oct. 5, 2014, that according to exit polls on November 4, America’s various religious groups voted almost the same in the 2014 midterm elections as they did in the last midterm election in 2010, and not much different from the 2012 presidential election.

Christians

  • Protestants voted Republican 59% to 38% in 2010; 57-42 in 2012; and 60-38 in 2014.
    • White Protestants voted Republican from 69-28 in 2010 to 71-27 in 2014.
  • Catholics voted Republican 54% to 44% in 2010; voted narrowly for Democrats 50-48 in 2012; then back to favoring Republican 53-45 in 2014.
  • Regular church attenders (once a week or more) voted Republican 58-40 in 2010, 59-39 in 2012, and 58-41 in 2014.
  • Frankly, I don’t understand how any Christian can vote Democrat, given the Democratic Party is anti-God (the 2012 Democratic Party Convention 3 times rejected God from the party platform) and pro-abortion.

No Religion (atheists and agnostics)

  • Voted Democratic 68% to 30% in 2010; and 69-29 in 2014.
  • Although the No Religions are now 20% of the adult U.S. population, they accounted for only 12% of the 2014 voters.

Other Religions

The one group that appears to have shifted significantly compared to the last midterm were members of “other religions” — Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc.

  • More voters in 2014 were of “other religions,” increasing from 8% of all voters in 2010 to 11% in 2014.
  • 3 out of 4 “other religions” voted Democratic in 2010, decreasing somewhat to 2 out of 3 in 2014.
  • But the decrease of “other religions” who voted Democratic in 2014 came from non-Jews because –
  • The majority of American Jews remain stubbornly Democrat, despite Obama’s treatment of Israel, including a senior White House insulting Israeli prime minister by calling him a “chickenshit. Jews voted Democratic by 66% to 31% in 2010, and by 65-33 in 2014.

Given the fact that the Christian vote in 2014 was largely the same as in 2012 and 2010, that suggests that the GOP wins of both houses of Congress on November 4 are probably because of low voter turnout of the usual Democratic constituencies, specifically of Blacks and Hispanics — in spite of Democrats’ race baiting and racial scare tactics.

~Eowyn