The True Cost of Romney

[TheWa...@here.now]

The True Cost of Romney

October 26, 2012, 2:00pm - 3:00pm

Crash course webinar on how Romney’s policies would hurt the middle
class

We are down to the finals days of the campaign. Right now, you cannot
turn on your TV without seeing ads, more ads, false information and
even more ads. With the election coming down to the wire, it could not
be more important to take a closer look at the facts behind the ads
and see where the real numbers stand.

Want to know where the $5 trillion dollar tax plan comes from or how
the $2,000 tax hike would impact you? We will show – using undisputed
numbers and inescapable math – how America’s middle class will pay
more under Romney’s policies so the wealthiest Americans and huge
corporations can pay less.

Getting the truth out could not be more important. I hope you can
join us Friday for this special briefing on the true cost of Romney's
policies.

RSVP for the True Cost of Romney Webinar
Special briefing and Q&A with CAP Action and Tom Perriello
Friday, October 26, 2012, 2:00pm - 3:00pm


http://www.americanprogressaction.org/events/2012/10/23/42553/the-true-cost-of-romney-4/?evlc=rsvp

[James Baker]

I will be there this Friday and I just signed up with
www.republicansforobama.org and learned that even if Obama doesn't win
they still plan to do whatever it takes to get the party back from the
radicals. I don't know who is worse, them or Al Qaida. Both seemed to
have been to the same schools.

I used to think that only Democrats raised taxes. That's not true, the
Republicans of today will raise them just as the Democrats of old
would do. They may not raise taxes on their wealthy friends but they
will catch the rest of us particularly if they can blame it on
Democrats.

The most expensive member of Congress is a Republican from Alaska.
Look it up.

Bakker

[Mark Hill]

On 10/23/2012 4:03 PM, TheWa...@here.now wrote:
> America’s middle class will pay more under Romney’s policies

Obama has already cost the middle class roughly $4500 in lost income and
an increase of $3,000 in health care so far.

The bleeding must stop.

[James Baker]

Not true. What Obama has done is save jobs and tried to redesign the
health care system into covering more people although those who have
to pay for it are very very upset. Adding any more is just not true.
Obama has a few sour notes in his orchestra. Same Sex marriage and
abortion are two I can think of. Many years ago and in a place far
far away, I managed to correspond with a democrat and I told him that
IMO (of course) if they would give up on three fronts they would be
able to win more elections. First is disarming America. Bad idea and
the majority of the people have no relationship to Brady. Second is
to champion same sex marriage. Let the states handle it and stay out
of it completely. So here I mention not endorcing these items, just
leave them alone. Third is gay issues in themselves. There is no
reason to drag ourselves into their issues. We empower them by doing
so. Leave them alone to their own resources and if the states want to
put up with their behavior, let them. Get rid of those three items
and they might just win elections by more than a hair's width. If the
only way you can win is to be up against a really unacceptable foe,
then you have a problem, not your foe. The democrat dismissed all
that I had to say of course. Our last exchange went like this:
"Why if we did that, what is left of our platform?" and my reply was
"Then your platform is more important than the people you represent?"

Given the extent of the story-telling right wing, to have a candidate
with as close a race as we have today is not something to be proud of.
we should be ashamed that our candidate isn't miles beyond the
current president but then most of what we say isn't true and
apparently most people are aware of that. However November 6th
comes out should be a wake up call for everyone.

Baker

[tr...@my.ass]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:35:40 -0600, Mark Hill <mh...@qmail.not> wrote:

Oh no. Obama has cost us $450,000 in lost income and $200 in health
care. Better stick with the facts.

Now I have to get back to my 3100 hotels. Have a great day!

[Mark Hill]

On 10/24/2012 8:43 AM, James Baker wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:35:40 -0600, Mark Hill<mh...@qmail.not> wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/2012 4:03 PM, TheWa...@here.now wrote:
>>> America’s middle class will pay more under Romney’s policies
>>
>> Obama has already cost the middle class roughly $4500 in lost income and
>> an increase of $3,000 in health care so far.
>>
>> The bleeding must stop.
>>
> Not true.

Precisely and provably true:

http://online.wsj.com/

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%.

REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated August 24, 2012, 6:53 p.m. ET.

Negative $4,019
The Obama years have been brutal on middle-class incomes..

The Presidential race is boiling down to one dominant issue: which
party's policies will do more to help the financially stressed American
middle class. President Obama's campaign theme is that Mitt Romney and
the Republicans cater to the rich, while Mr. Obama cares about
struggling families.

He may care, but he sure hasn't done much for them. New income data from
the Census Bureau, tabulated by former Census income specialists at the
nonpartisan economic consulting firm Sentier Research, reveal that the
three-and-a-half years of the Obama Presidency have done enormous harm
to middle-class households.
In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and
shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household
income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted
for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real
income, a little less than a month's income every year.

> What Obama has done is save jobs

A failure by his own standards as he promised 5.6% unemployment.

He also promised if he didn't get it done he was a 'one termer'.

He lied on BOTH counts.

> and tried to redesign the
> health care system into covering more people although those who have
> to pay for it are very very upset. Adding any more is just not true.

Also a lie, as proven in so many instances like:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/in-north-carolina-student-insurance-costs-rise-under-obamacare/

In April, Tom Ross, the president of the University of North Carolina
system, sent a letter to the university's board of governors announcing
that students should brace for a hike in the cost of university-provided
insurance plans.

Ross explained that at least 64,000 North Carolina college students -
roughly a third of those enrolled in the state's 17 public universities
- should expect to see "substantial" increases in health coverage costs
for the 2012-2013 academic year.

"Based on more than three semesters of actual claims experience, as well
as the new provisions of the Affordable Care Act, we are facing large
increases in premiums for our students," Ross wrote in the letter.

> Obama has a few sour notes in his orchestra.

Overt communists like Van Jones and health care rationing czar Ezekiel
Emanuel are far worse than "sour notes".

> Same Sex marriage and abortion are two I can think of.

Hardly a concern, Dems have always supported state funding for baby-killing.

And their new-found fascination with homosexuality is just another
convenient minority demographic to vote mine, while at the same time
they castigate them individually as "queers".

> Many years ago and in a place far
> far away, I managed to correspond with a democrat and I told him that
> IMO (of course) if they would give up on three fronts they would be
> able to win more elections. First is disarming America. Bad idea and
> the majority of the people have no relationship to Brady.

Not the key issue at this time as our economy nears collapse under Obama.

> Second is
> to champion same sex marriage. Let the states handle it and stay out
> of it completely. So here I mention not endorcing these items, just
> leave them alone. Third is gay issues in themselves. There is no
> reason to drag ourselves into their issues. We empower them by doing
> so. Leave them alone to their own resources and if the states want to
> put up with their behavior, let them. Get rid of those three items
> and they might just win elections by more than a hair's width. If the
> only way you can win is to be up against a really unacceptable foe,
> then you have a problem, not your foe. The democrat dismissed all
> that I had to say of course. Our last exchange went like this:
> "Why if we did that, what is left of our platform?" and my reply was
> "Then your platform is more important than the people you represent?"

The same windy deflection can be played in polar opposite to the
Republican platform.

Iow - the only thing that matters right now is the economy, stupid.

> Given the extent of the story-telling right wing, to have a candidate
> with as close a race as we have today is not something to be proud of.

You reveal your agenda with that slight, but it was inevitable that you
would.

> we should be ashamed that our candidate isn't miles beyond the
> current president but then most of what we say isn't true and
> apparently most people are aware of that. However November 6th
> comes out should be a wake up call for everyone.
>
> Baker

So now you've elevated yourself to mythical "we' Status?

Understand, anyone reading this knows you are a Dem plant, a mole, a
role-player sent to act apart and try and elicit a reaction.

It is the best measure of the Dems' desperation that they have actually
embraced the use of full time internet actors to engage in regular
psy-op games here.

I recommend you re-sock and burn another nym.

[Mark Hill]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/in-north-carolina-student-insurance-costs-rise-under-obamacare/

In April, Tom Ross, the president of the University of North Carolina
system, sent a letter to the university's board of governors announcing
that students should brace for a hike in the cost of university-provided
insurance plans.

Ross explained that at least 64,000 North Carolina college students -
roughly a third of those enrolled in the state's 17 public universities
- should expect to see "substantial" increases in health coverage costs
for the 2012-2013 academic year.

"Based on more than three semesters of actual claims experience, as well
as the new provisions of the Affordable Care Act, we are facing large
increases in premiums for our students," Ross wrote in the letter.

Students at Guilford College, a private liberal arts college in
Greensboro, were informed in July that the cost of their school-provided
health insurance plan was set to rise from $668 per semester in 2011 to
$1,179 per semester this fall.

"Our student health insurance policy premium has been substantially
increased due to changes required by federal regulations issued on March
16, 2012 under the Affordable Care Act," reads the letter, which was
distributed Greg Bursavich, the school's Vice President for Finance.

The main reason for the price hike, Bursavich wrote, is a requirement
that health plans provide a minimum policy benefit of $100,000 instead
of the $50,000 minimum previously offered by the Guilford-provided plan.

"As the coverage continues to increase, as mandated by the law and the
regulations, there is no question the cost is going to go up," Bursavich
told CNN in an interview.

[Mark Hill]

While the Obama White House *ignored the frantic emails* from our Libyan
Embassy WHILE THEY WERE UNDER ATTACK, things were getting bad, very,
very bad...


http://www.examiner.com/article/lebanese-report-us-ambassador-raped-before-murdered

The Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org is reporting that the murdered
American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was raped prior to
his killing September 11, 2012.

Tayyar.com also reported via Google translation from the original
Arabic, Ambassador Stevens:

“
"...was killed and representation of his body in a manner similar to
what happened with Gaddafi, such as murder."

According to the BBC, when the former Libyan strongman Colonel Moammar
Gaddafi was initially captured:

“
"Still images from an analysis of amateur video footage taken in the
moments after Col Gaddafi's capture appear to show him being sodomised
with a pole or knife."

The Washington Times has posted a video clip (left) reportedly
originating from the Libyan Free Press confirming the sodomization of
Ambassador Stevens prior to his murder.

As translated by The Washington Times, the Libyan reporter stated:

“
"Libya - USA Ambassador in Bengazi sodomized and killed by his own
al-Qaeda puppets."


http://video.foxnews.com/v/1922193626001/was-there-a-live-feed-of-the-terrorist-attack-in-benghazi-/

Was there a live feed of the terrorist attack in Benghazi?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/uk-usa-benghazi-emails-idUKBRE89N02E20121024

Emails: White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were
advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission
in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had
claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected
with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested
anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar
al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even
as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were
killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other
U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried
out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or
sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney,
citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for
days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an
anti-Muslim film.

[Sanders Kaufman]

"James Baker" wrote in message
news:sh5e881k3tcv5tfmg...@4ax.com...

> even if Obama doesn't win
> they still plan to do whatever it takes to get the party back from the
> radicals.

"The" radicals?
The Republican party is nothing BUT radicals.
When one wrests control from the others, it's still just a group of
radicals.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <pt4is.1477$iq6....@newsfe21.iad>,

Sanders: "What radicals? Nobody here but us chickend!"