Intrade Odds for 2-Term Obama Now Above 52%
As the chances for the Republicans to produce a strong, unifying presidential candidate look less and less likely, and as the economy gradually improves, Obama's chances for re-election keep getting better and better, according to Intrade odds (see graph above). In October and early November, Obama's re-election odds were less than 50-50, but are now slightly above 52%.
71 Comments:
Yeah, earlier in the day it was sitting at 51.9% or so...
I'm guessing the liberals and other assorted fools saw this Rasmussen poll link on the Drudge Report and went hog wild:
SHOCK POLL: ROMNEY 45% OBAMA 39%...
Obama will sink in the odds and won't win reelection once Romney wins the nomination. I talk with too many people daily who voted for BO last time and who will not in '12. Keep the faith!
but Romney is Obama-Lite anyhow, right?
we Know that Romney is a certified closet liberal...right?
;-)
congratulations Republicans...
;-)
This is one of the most interesting elections of all time, except they are all the most interesting of all time, and the most important ever, depending on which interest groups are going to get their pieholes cut off from the federal teats.
Obama has failed to cut federal agency spending (financed by income taxes), failed to cut entitlement spending (financed by payroll taxes). He even failed to get us out of Afghanistan. Everybody's pinhole is filled--except the taxpayers are getting gouged.
Maybe Romney can do better, though he appears utterly beholden to every kook and grifter on the right side of the aisle.
I wish there was another option to vote for.
"but Romney is Obama-Lite anyhow, right?"...
Well larry g, personally I tend to think so but considering Romney's previous track record in politics, what do you think?
It's hard to believe most Americans want four more years of this, even if the country could afford it.
It is even harder to believe they want to band Republicans the keys to " fix" things.
PT says: "It's hard to believe most Americans want four more years of this, even if the country could afford it"...
Especially after one takes a look at some of these charts from the Econmist...
(h/t Zer0Hedge)
hydra says: "It is even harder to believe they want to band Republicans the keys to " fix" thing"...
Band?!?!
Coming from you, well that's not unexpected...
As the chances for the Republicans to produce a strong, unifying presidential candidate look less and less likely
Let's wait until at least the first vote has been cast before we say that. It seems interminable, but, up till now, we're just dealing in polls.
romney obama aint a choice...two moderate corporalist republicans...
re: Obama has failed...
well he did not run on what Republicans would promise to do anyhow, right?
I think that's bizarre to say that Obama should have done what REpublicans wanted..when they themselves can't agree.
and that's the first I've heard about permanent cuts to FICA... did Obama every say that?
What Republican has advocated that?
Has Romney advocated that?
could ANY candidate get elected by promising to cut FICA taxes permanently ?
could Romney get elected by promising to wipe out SS and Medicare?
nope.
for better or worse... we're seeing how our system of govt works - was designed by our fore fathers... to work...
If the right-wing had a real chance to win - we'd not be looking at Romney as the last man standing... right?
The Republican voters had the chance to select someone to the right of Romney and they could not squeeze the trigger...
why?
in end - they chose someone who could win...
all is not lost by a long shot.
If both houses of Congress goes Republican and you have a Republican President (even if weak kneed)... he would have to sign veto-proof legislation anyhow.
Republicans have a real chance to take the Senate so buck up...
"romney obama aint a choice...two moderate corporalist republicans..."...
Are you looking for the next Mao Tse Tung rjs for that great leap forward?...:-)
Right now, it looks like Rick Santorum is gaining significant momentum in Iowa. I think he has a very good chance of winning the caucus. If he does, I expect he will also win South Carolina's primary. He will appeal to Republican voters in SC (very conservative). The winner of the South Carolina primary has gone on to clinch the party nomination 9 out of 10 times. The lone exception was John Edwards (born in SC) beating John Kerry in 2004.
I honestly had not given much thought to Santorum until now. I had not given him much thought because the last election he was in, he lost 41-59 to Bob Casey Jr in 2006. I think he would have a very good shot of beating Obama in PA. First 2012 is not 2006 when there was a Democratic wave. Next, unlike Bob Casey Jr., Obama is not pro-life nor pro-gun. This is a big deal among the Democratic registered "bitter clingers" in PA. Finally, a contributing factor to Santorum's loss was his unapologetic support for the Irag war when the Iraq war was its least popular.
Buy Intratrade futures on Santorum.
Please say it isn't so!!
It is even harder to believe they want to band Republicans the keys to " fix" things.
************
Obama caused the economic crisis we are in now !!
Back in 2008 when Bush was president and we had a republican congress the economy was strong and no billion dollar bail-outs were needed !!!!
Bring back the republicans they know how to run the economy !!!!
The democrats have placed to many restrictions on wall-steet invest banks, wall street will be our economic saviour !!!
It is even harder to believe they want to band Republicans the keys to " fix" things.
************
Obama caused the economic crisis we are in now !!
Back in 2008 when Bush was president and we had a republican congress the economy was strong and no billion dollar bail-outs were needed !!!!
Bring back the republicans they know how to run the economy !!!!
The democrats have placed to many restrictions on wall-steet invest banks, wall street will be our economic saviour !!!
Great post with a pathetic and sad message!
I linked to you at The Political Commentator here: http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2011/12/check-out-these-links-from-around-world.html
Mike
"Back in 2008 when Bush was president and we had a republican congress the economy was strong and no billion dollar bail-outs were needed !!!!
" - Don Culo
Hey Don, you do realize don't you that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 2008 after they won decisive victories in 2006.
Of course because republicans are just switching from one clown to another.
Their best chance is to stick to Ron Paul.
"Their best chance is to stick to Ron Paul"...
This Ron Paul?!?!
it's the best of all worlds with the GOP is engaged in a non-stop clown show/food fight, eh?
and it's even more fund watching the right-wing swallow a Romney candidacy.
fun, fun, fun, until daddy takes the T-bird away...
I sort of remember someone saying those words.. maybe even Ron Paul in some sort of familiar way, eh?
;-)
Yeah, Obama takes it.
Obamacare is now in the hands of just one man: S.C. Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"and it's even more fund watching the right-wing swallow a Romney candidacy"...
They probably won't hydra...
They had enough of that crapola with McCain...
The final result could end up being a newer and more damaging Roosevelt could end up being reelected...
Romney or Obama.... Obama or Romney...
what's the difference?
In your heart-of-hearts do you think......
that Romney is one of them thar "socialists"?
after all ..the man if the real father of ObamaCare...right?
"after all ..the man if the real father of ObamaCare...right?"...
This was mentioned quite awhile ago as a comment on this blog larry g, so do you have a reason to repeat it?
just making sure that folks agree as to what Romney supports...
since he appears to be the winner...
so far... all Romney has said is that he oppose ObamaCare at the Federal Level but he approves it at the state level if that's what the states want.
so.. does that mean he supports socialism but only at the state level but not the Fed level?
the real power on this issue lies with Congress.
if the Senate goes Republican and Romney wins - ObamaCare is toast - right?
"if the Senate goes Republican and Romney wins - ObamaCare is toast - right?"...
Call me a cynic larry g but consider history, recent history...
Did Reagan try to get rid of or mitgate LBJ's Great Society crapola at all?
maybe.. but Reagan was a real tease...
he said "govt is the problem" but then he ran in the opposite problem.
he wanted govt to out spend the Soviets, right?
I mean how can an anti-govt guy expect the govt to spend out the wazoo even for a good cause?
"I mean how can an anti-govt guy expect the govt to spend out the wazoo even for a good cause?"...
Did you want a nuclear war instead larry g?
There is no difference between Obama and Romney. If either is the next president the USD and/or the US economy is doomed.
Vange, you give the Presidency too much credence. Things will be marginally better with Romney, but neither will really address the long-standing debt and spending problems, so they will just kick the can down the road further, because that's all voters want. But that is hardly "doomed," just further whistling on the way to becoming Greece in a decade or two.
"But that is hardly doomed, just further whistling on the way to becoming Greece in a decade or two"
______________
That's probably about right
re: spending out the wazoo to prevent nuclear war
I think the cat is already out of the bag on that deal.
re: Romney vs Obama
what things will Romney do that Obama has not?
Vange, you give the Presidency too much credence.
That is because I am justified to do so. Look at Reagan's support of the anti-Russian Islamic radicals who came back later to blow up the WTC towers. Look at Clinton's adventures in Bosnia and Serbia. Look at Bush's totally unnecessary war in Iraq and occupation of Afghanistan. Look at Obama siding with al Qaeda in Libya and Syria, his support for Mubarek in Egypt, and his gunning for Iran. Presidents can do a great deal of harm if they ignore the Constitution.
Things will be marginally better with Romney, but neither will really address the long-standing debt and spending problems, so they will just kick the can down the road further, because that's all voters want.
But they won't be marginally better. Both are in the pockets of the big financial institutions and neither has the balls to stand up to the warfare and welfare crowds.
But that is hardly "doomed," just further whistling on the way to becoming Greece in a decade or two.
A decade or two? If you continue down the same road you will be in a worse position than Greece in a few years.
"Look at Bush's totally unnecessary war in Iraq and occupation of Afghanistan"...
Totally unnecessary! Really? vangeIV...
"Look at Bush's totally unnecessary war in Iraq and occupation of Afghanistan"...
Totally unnecessary! Really?
Yes. Iraq had no WMDs. There were no Iraqis on the planes on 9/11. The actions taken were by al Qaeda terrorists who opposed Saddam's secular rule. There was no need to spend more than a trillion dollars and kill close to 5,000 American soldiers for a useless war. You are now almost out of Iraq but have little good to show for all of that spending and sacrifice.
"Yes. Iraq had no WMDs"...
Per your usual style as of late, you're wrong again!...
"There were no Iraqis on the planes on 9/11"...
This delusional statement emanates from where?
"The actions taken were by al Qaeda terrorists who opposed Saddam's secular rule"...
Ah yes, the oft repeated mantra I used to think only clueless liberals would say...
Can you say Salman Pak?
"There was no need to spend more than a trillion dollars..."...
Now I see you repeating the pseudo benny lie...
Even the Obama/Democrat congress stimulus bill cost more than the war in Iraq...
the economy "stimulus" verses the Iraq War "stimulus"?
the Iraq war "stimulus" went on for 10 years and will continue on as we continue to pay for the sliced & diced young people.
Neocon, especially from the "deficits don't matter school of thought" hate entitlements for Americans but love lifetime entitlements for young folks sent off to get sliced & diced by IEDs.
cheap at twice the price, eh?
"Neocon, especially from the "deficits don't matter school of thought" hate entitlements for Americans but love lifetime entitlements for young folks sent off to get sliced & diced by IED"...
So larry g I see that you hail from the enlightened school of thought that being sniveling, cowardly dhimmi is a better attitude to have, right?
Remember all those heroes you mock with your comment knew they were volunteering for something that could put them in harm's way...
BTW I don't know what is today considering the technology used to fight battles but the rule of thumb used to be that it took seven people working the logistics to keep one person at the sharp end...
Per your usual style as of late, you're wrong again!
Your pants must be really hot by now. You use 500 rusty shells produced in 1980 that were found in some munitions dump as your evidence of WMDs? Don't you know that the effectiveness of gas has an expiry date?
And that was not what Powell lied about at the UN. He was talking about trucks that would produce dangerous chemicals, aluminum tubes that would be used for centrifuges, biological weapons, etc., not obsolete shells that the US had sold Saddam to fight his war against Iran. It seems that even Powell got pissed off about the lies that he was told by the neocons in the Bush Administration.
This delusional statement emanates from where?
From the CIA and FBI. The countries of origin were Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. There were no Iraqis. Why is it that you don't know this? Or do you know it but choose to lie because it suits you?
Ah yes, the oft repeated mantra I used to think only clueless liberals would say...
Actually, that is from the CIA. Al Qaeda wants all secular governments to be overthrown and replaced with Islamic conservatives who would implement Sharia Law. Their enemies included the governments of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq. Luckily for al Qaeda, the Obama Administration is helping it overthrow some of those governments. We have already seen the al Qaeda flag fly over Libya. Soon it will fly in Syria.
Now I see you repeating the pseudo benny lie...
Even the Obama/Democrat congress stimulus bill cost more than the war in Iraq.
The fact that Obama is wasting money does not justify the waste of money in Iraq.
I have nothing but respect, admiration and appreciation for the folks who "volunteer" to "defend" the country but getting sliced and diced in a place 10,000 miles away that in theory "harbors" those who would seek to harm us is not the antidote to "sniveling cowards" - it's terminal dumbness to those who think it "works" or that it is "worth it" both in terms of dollars and human lives.
you could pick any place, hundreds of places in the world where people might scheme to harm the US but sending our young people en masse in uniform to all those places to stop them is dumb ... and very, very costly and in terms of "creating jobs", "stimulus", "wasteful govt spending", etc, etc
is grotesquely ironic in addition to the tragedy of a lifetime of disability ... and entitlements to rightly compensate them.
but it's exactly what the NeoCons would have us do - even if we had to spend every money of taxes that we get.
the NeoCons would cut everything else before they would agree to cut back our worldwide DOD operations.
but it's even more hypocritical for a NeoCon to portray themselves as Fiscal Conservatives...
they're only "fiscal conservatives" when it comes to non-DOD spending.
"Your pants must be really hot by now. You use 500 rusty shells produced in 1980 that were found in some munitions dump as your evidence of WMDs?"...
Well vangeIV this of course was in keeping with your other bits of disinformation...
Apparently you were flummoxed by this line: ' It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic'...
You don't know when those shells were produced and of course regardless of when they were produced didn't Saddam pledge to get rid of all Iraq's WMDs?
"And that was not what Powell lied about at the UN. He was talking about trucks that would produce dangerous chemicals, aluminum tubes that would be used for centrifuges, biological weapons, etc., not obsolete shells that the US had sold Saddam to fight his war against Iran"...
Now you're a straight up BSing but I tend to expect that of liberal Canadians...
Again apparently picking and choosing from history is a strong liberal trait: " It seems that even Powell got pissed off about the lies that he was told by the neocons in the Bush Administration"...
Well then I guess all these people were liars too, right?
Gee! Colin Powell whined! Oh dear! Then why wasn't he whining when this guy supposedly lied?
"it's terminal dumbness to those who think it "works" or that it is "worth it" both in terms of dollars and human lives"...
ROFLMAO!!... As if you of all people would know larry g!!
Yet another liberal cherry picking from history: "you could pick any place, hundreds of places in the world where people might scheme to harm the US but sending our young people en masse in uniform to all those places to stop them is dumb ... and very, very costly and in terms of "creating jobs", "stimulus", "wasteful govt spending", etc, etc"...
See those words, 'Salman Pak' in a response to one of your fellow travelers?
Try it out...
Think back to the pre Desert Storm days...
"but it's exactly what the NeoCons would have us do - even if we had to spend every money of taxes that we get"...
How did this particular delusion surface within you larry g and what the do you liberals mean by 'neocon"?
"they're only "fiscal conservatives" when it comes to non-DOD spendin"...
Hmmm, let's see what's in the Constitution, specifically Article One, Section Eight...
Well dang! No feel good legislation for larry g...
" what the do you liberals mean by 'neocon"?"
those who who bankrupt the country in the name of "defending" it whilst at the same time decrying the wasteful govt spending that prevents even more money pissed down the "patriotic" defense of the country.
out out damn scoundrels and necons!
"out out damn scoundrels and necons!"...
I have just the picture for you that you should consider making into a poster to remind yourself that you are one in a long line of generations that just don't get it...
oh I'm OPPOSED to the welfare state but includes DOD...and the wretched NEOCONs who have no problem at all with welfare for DOD and other countries.
"oh I'm OPPOSED to the welfare state but includes DOD.."...
Well larry g you might convince a few of your fellow travelers on this board that you're against welfare but that's about it...
"and the wretched NEOCONs who have no problem at all with welfare for DOD and other countries"...
O.K. larry g, I give up but just what planet did those dastardly neocons do their welfare thingie?
Or was it another one of your dreams or whatever you call it?
welfare for DOD and nation-building is no different than welfare for other "good" causes.
the only difference is that people differ on what they consider to be a "good cause".
health & welfare (in the Constitution)
and National Defense (also in the Constitution).
you can go way too far in both cases...and we have..
but the biggest thing for you to admit here is that money spent on a soldier is ALSO govt money taken from taxpayers ..the very same as other money taken from taxpayers for other "govt" "good things" and that a slice & diced soldier who received lifetime entitlements is also a taxpayer burden - perhaps more deserving than civilian types.
Wars are sometimes necessary. Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Bosnia were not and the Neocon "way" of gladly squandering blood and treasure for "nation building" is neanderthal.
"health & welfare (in the Constitution)"...
So let me be clear I understand where you're coming from larry g, this isn't your rationale that you don't have ObamaCare and a Snap card?
"but the biggest thing for you to admit here is that money spent on a soldier is ALSO govt money taken from taxpayers ..the very same as other money taken from taxpayers for other "govt" "good things""...
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Where did you get the impression that I din't think extorted tax dollars weren't also used for defense spending?!?!
What these supposed, 'other govt good things'?
"Wars are sometimes necessary. Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Bosnia were not and the Neocon "way" of gladly squandering blood and treasure for "nation building" is neanderthal"...
So what you're telling me is that both Clinton and Obama are neocons now?!?!
Wow! Wait till your fellow travelers read that bit of libel... You'll be kicked out of the club...
LMAO!
"health & welfare (in the Constitution)"...
So let me be clear I understand where you're coming from larry g, this isn't your rationale that you don't have ObamaCare and a Snap card?"
where did I say that Juando?
I'm saying we have a 1.5 trillion annual deficit and a 15 trillion debt in no small part because of expenditures for national defense - in addition to domestic welfare spending.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Where did you get the impression that I din't think extorted tax dollars weren't also used for defense spending?!?!
oh.. I was wrong, eh?
So what you're telling me is that both Clinton and Obama are neocons now?!?!
nope. Both of them think we should have not got in to start with but get out once we did... aka.. Bosnia, Libya, Egypt, etc.
what exactly were we trying to achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan and what is the criteria for knowing that we succeeded?
and should we now go into Iran for similar reasons?
boots on the ground on foreign soil to "defend" our homeland interests seems tenuous at best unless they got an army headed for our shores that needs an army to rebut them...
LMAO!
Indeed!
Well vangeIV this of course was in keeping with your other bits of disinformation...
Apparently you were flummoxed by this line: ' It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic'...
You don't know when those shells were produced and of course regardless of when they were produced didn't Saddam pledge to get rid of all Iraq's WMDs?
I take it that when Bush admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq he was wrong or unaware of the information that you claim is important? And let me note that he even admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Now if he is man enough to admit the errors and lies why can't you?
Well then I guess all these people were liars too, right?
Absolutely. There were no WMDs.
Gee! Colin Powell whined! Oh dear! Then why wasn't he whining when this guy supposedly lied?
Because 'that guy' did not have Powell lie for him in front of the UN. As I showed above, even Bush admitted that there were not WMDs and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
And just how stupid are you guys? After having been lied to and made to look like idiots you still buy the current lies without question.
"I take it that when Bush admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq he was wrong or unaware of the information that you claim is important?"...
No Bush understood the intelligence game rather thourghly and how people who have helped the US acquire it could be put in jeapardy by a politico with a need to yammer on...
"And let me note that he even admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11"...
Ahhh again vangeIV as predictable as sunrise drags out the liberal red herring when all else fails to bolster their point of view...
No one in the Bush administration ever claimed that Saddam had any direct contribution to 9/11...
"Absolutely. There were no WMDs"...
ROFLMAO!!
"As I showed above, even Bush admitted that there were not WMDs and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"...
No, what you should in an amazing ineptitude to get a grip on reality and pride in it...
"And just how stupid are you guys?"...
Not nearly as stupid as you since we make an attempt to do some homework...
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction...
"I'm saying we have a 1.5 trillion annual deficit and a 15 trillion debt in no small part because of expenditures for national defense - in addition to domestic welfare spending"...
Actually defense spending admittedly huge doesn't begin to compare with socialist spending...
"nope. Both of them think we should have not got in to start with but get out once we did... aka.. Bosnia, Libya, Egypt, etc."...
Oh please! Clinton pulled us into Bosnia as part of a UN scheme and considering Obama's actions regarding both Egypt and Libya, well your comment is a silly one at best...
"what exactly were we trying to achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan and what is the criteria for knowing that we succeeded?"...
Well we've already blown both those opportunities and thank you George W for that...
Why Kurds and Iraqis in oil-rich Kirkuk want US troops to stay
6.8.2011
By Mohammed A. Salih - Christian Science Monitor
"and should we now go into Iran for similar reasons?"...
Go into Iran?!?!
How about keeping a strong presence in the area unless you're comfortable with the thought of the mullahs and Ahmadinejad having nuclear weapons and a means of delivering them?
"I'm saying we have a 1.5 trillion annual deficit and a 15 trillion debt in no small part because of expenditures for national defense - in addition to domestic welfare spending"...
Actually defense spending admittedly huge doesn't begin to compare with socialist spending...
Heritage is a credible source?
try again. here's your problem in relying on folks like Heritage for honest data.
they list entitlement spending as 2,034 and revenues as 2118 but don't show how much of it is FICA payroll that has almost nothing to do with the 1.5 trillion deficit.
second- they do not show the progression of DOD from 1990 much less total defense spending which includes more than core DOD.
third - what do they count the VA hosptials, DOD pensions and health care as - an entitlement or defense spending?
you need to use honest sources guy not this lying crap.
Oh please! Clinton pulled us into Bosnia as part of a UN scheme and considering Obama's actions regarding both Egypt and Libya, well your comment is a silly one at best...
they got us in - and they got us OUT without losing trillions of dollars and thousands of young lives and sliced and diced bodies that need lifetime care.
Why Kurds and Iraqis in oil-rich Kirkuk want US troops to stay
6.8.2011
By Mohammed A. Salih - Christian Science Monitor
a LOT of anti-govt folks want us to go into their countries... should we? can we afford to? it's downright dumb.
How about keeping a strong presence in the area unless you're comfortable with the thought of the mullahs and Ahmadinejad having nuclear weapons and a means of delivering them?
you don't need hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground permanently deployed.
modern warfare has changed and boots on the ground can and should work like Desert Storm - get in ...rebut the forces and get the hell out.
when you put thousands of US soldiers in a foreign country - it's an occupation force and you're inviting those young soldiers to be sliced and diced with absolutely no benefit because the end game stays the same and that is you gotta leave no matter how volatile the country is - it's not our job and we cannot afford it and if we get involved it should be like we did in Bosnia or Libya or Egypt - not Iraq and Afghanistan.
No Bush understood the intelligence game rather thourghly and how people who have helped the US acquire it could be put in jeapardy by a politico with a need to yammer on...
No. Bush admitted that there were no WMDs and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. You can't spin the video evidence no matter how hard your right wing heart wants to.
No one in the Bush administration ever claimed that Saddam had any direct contribution to 9/11...
Really? What was the Prague meeting hoax all about? You do know that there is evidence that contradicts your statements, don't you?
"As I showed above, even Bush admitted that there were not WMDs and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"...
No, what you should in an amazing ineptitude to get a grip on reality and pride in it...
The video is conclusive. Of course, when it comes to actual facts rather than ideology it is clear that you guys choose the latter. You believe the liars who feed your beliefs and ignore the objective evidence.
"Heritage is a credible source?
try again. here's your problem in relying on folks like Heritage for honest data."...
LMAO!
Thanks for the laugh larry g...
Liberals, how can you anything but laugh at 'em?
Heritage is the king of propaganda and misinformation.
they post perfectly legitimate data ...then "blend" it with bogus data - often without a source or one that can be verified.
I look at their stuff but I also have a trust but verify approach to their stuff.
they tend to use literary "license" when it comes to data and information.
at least Wiki provides footnotes that can be followed and puts dispute notices when data is disputed and polls readers for
being:
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
Heritage is often little more than a right wing propaganda machine.
No. Bush admitted that there were no WMDs and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. You can't spin the video evidence no matter how hard your right wing heart wants to"...
I love how you people that normally suffered BDS all of sudden find him credible when he happens to agree with your narrative...
And you can't spin the facts vangeIV...
Iraqi Nerve Gas, WMD Find Blows Away Pundits
"Really? What was the Prague meeting hoax all about? You do know that there is evidence that contradicts your statements, don't you?"...
LOL! CNN?!?!
What are you going to offer up next to buttress your uniformed opinion, Chris Mathews?
A DECADE OF DECEPTION AND DEFIANCE
"Heritage is the king of propaganda and misinformation"...
And this coming from you the king of cluelessness larry g means exactly what?
Another attempt at humor?
Now this is funny! "they post perfectly legitimate data ...then "blend" it with bogus data - often without a source or one that can be verified"...
Funny, I never have any problem veryifying what they have to say especially when Heritage shows their sources at the bottoms of the postings...
What's next? You going to wikipedia for your information?!?!
LOL!
Heritage does not footnote and the sources they show do not include page numbers.
they will cite an entire 500 - page doc as their "source" and will manipulate the source data.
try to actually track their sources and you'll see what I mean.
and then of course with the top 1% chart they purposely pick dated material that stops in 2005 when there is updated info available that shows clearly that the downtrend they were showing, in late 2007 went back up.
this is fairly typical of how they do business.
and then the right wing blog sites latch on to it like it was credible.
they're not the only think tank that does this - and yes.. sometimes folks on the other side of the political spectrum do it also but it's got to the point where I really don't believe much of what Heritage says anymore unless I have other sources that confirm their assertions.
so you have folks that don't believe CBO and OBM but they'll believe something Heritages puts out and uses CBO/OBM as their "source" but not the page numbers.
they've become a handy dandy..purveyor of misinformation and disinformation....
not everything they do.. they apparently do have some principled folks working for them but they have some dishonest ones also and they all get to use the Heritage Banner.
"Heritage does not footnote and the sources they show do not include page numbers"...
I don't know what Heritage you're looking at larry g (are you sure it doesn't say New York Times at the top of the pages you're reading?) but unless its an opinion piece I see all sorts of links and footnotes...
"so you have folks that don't believe CBO and OBM but they'll believe something Heritages puts out and uses CBO/OBM as their "source" but not the page numbers"...
You are a shallow lad when it comes to doing homework larry g since Heritage doesn't merely source from either one of those site but several many others when you look at the foot notes...
Time to pull your head out of the Daily Kos larry g...
using your link:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010
where they DID provide the source but go follow the link they gave and compare it to the table they generated....
they say National Defense is 719,179 but I get 693,586
then look at how the catagories are organized.
they've rearranged the data modified it so they've manipulated the data and it's not at all easy to figure out what they've done and why.
follow the link yourself guy - notice right off that it's not a clickable link.... and you cannot even copy it because it's an image.
they did not make it easy to look at the source...did not replicate it and did not explain what they did do...
footnotes?
then skip down to the chart 3 major entitlements and go follow that source data...
none of this from Daily KOs - I don't read it... because it's pretty biased. ..you now what I mean?
I found out about Heritage myself by trying to follow the data they reference and discovered that sometimes it's good and right and other times..they don't expect people to actually try to follow it...and they take advantage of that by slicing and dicing data...even synthesizing it at times and hand-waving how they got it.
Not all the time..not every study..but they do it enough that I do not trust them unless I can verify
talking about an annual 1.5 structural deficit and including SS in the data portrays a misleading view IMHO.
FICA funds SS for the most part and if you subtract out Both the FICA Taxes AND the SS expenditures - you get the core non-FICA budget which is a much more accurate picture of what is going on in the budget and the fact that we take in about 1.3 trillion in income taxes and 700 trillion is DOD and does not county other DOD-National Defense related expenditures like VA, spy satellites, homeland security, etc...
What Heritages seeks to portray is the entitlements... that they think are wrong and shifts away from the size and scope of expenditures that are fairly allocated to "national defense".
I love how you people that normally suffered BDS all of sudden find him credible when he happens to agree with your narrative...
And you can't spin the facts vangeIV...
As I said, Bush admitted that there were no WMDs. So did Rumsfeld. And Cheney. They were caught lying over and over again. The video and documentary evidence are very clear. Yet, you still keep spinning the evidence and supporting the lie.
LOL! CNN?!?!
What are you going to offer up next to buttress your uniformed opinion, Chris Mathews?
CNN? It was Cheney who said that on camera you idiot. And the critique of the administration is confirmed by insiders.
vangeIV you are so full of crap and you won't accept the facts before you...
You made the claim (in the not so distant past) that Bush lied us into war and now that the Bush clip is out and about and says something you in your fairy tale dreams want to believe you now believe Bush the same guy supposed that lied us into war...
Are you a fool or a liar?
Boo! Hoo! "Ooh! Ooh! Bush said so!"... Wah! Wah! Wah!
Talk about your Ron Paul syndrome, you are wallowing in it...
larry g says: "where they DID provide the source but go follow the link they gave and compare it to the table they generated"...
Apparently you didn't look at the bottom of the page...
Sources: On file at The Heritage Foundation...
Oh I do look at Heritage "sources" and that's the problem.
look at at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010
" three major entitlements and Spending...."
check the source and page
the premise from Heritage is that an entitlement is an entitlement is an entitlement no matter whether it is funded from FICA or non-FICA and thus is part of the cause of the 1.5 trillion annual deficit.
That's simply not the truth.
FICA /SS / Medicare Part A are funded from FICA and not a cause of the current 1.5 trillion deficit but because Heritage and sites like it portray it as such we get nonsensical sound bite ideas that in order to cut the deficit we must cut SS.
Cutting SS would do nothing for the deficit right now and would play no role in reducing the 1.5 trillion annual deficit - but because of the way that Heritage illegitimately portrays it - many believe it.
People confuse Medicare - not realizing that Part A is funded from FICA payroll taxes while Parts B,C,D are funded from premiums and subsidies.
The law requires FICA-funded SS benefits to not exceed the FICA revenues. By law, benefits will automatically reduce when FICA can no longer funded the scheduled benefits.
That's not true of Parts B,C and D which DO affect the current deficit.
but the really big lie is when Heritage combines SS with other entitlements to show that they are more than DOD. They add in SS (which is not general fund and has almost no role in the current deficit) AND they treat other "national defense" expenditures as general govt and not national defense.
they do this with their charts and tables and narrative....
it's dishonest propaganda that really harms the potential for people to eventually agree on what to do (or not) because it's misrepresenting basic facts that are relevant to understanding the issue.
as I said...we end up with the nonsensical idea that cutting SS is what we need to do to balance the budget.
vangeIV you are so full of crap and you won't accept the facts before you...
The facts are clear. Bush admitted that there were no WMDs. Unlike you, he has given up on trying just one more lie and seeing if it sticks. Rusty unexploded shells that the US government sold Saddam thirty years ago do not qualify as the WMDs that Bush was claiming that Saddam had even when the evidence was clearly saying that he didn't. The Niger lie was exposed early in the game. The Curveball scam fell apart just as quickly. The claims of a biological weapons program, missiles that could be used to attack Americans, and the mushroom cloud scenario were exposed after the invasion that has cost more than a trillion and almost 5,000 American dead.
You made the claim (in the not so distant past) that Bush lied us into war and now that the Bush clip is out and about and says something you in your fairy tale dreams want to believe you now believe Bush the same guy supposed that lied us into war...
He did lie you into war. And he did admit on video that his claims were wrong. Cheney tried to lie by saying that nobody had ever claimed a link between al Qaeda and Saddam but his own words on video were used to expose him as a liar.
Are you a fool or a liar?
Neither. I gave you the video which you choose to ignore. I cited the book by Bush's CIA director that you chose to ignore. That makes you a useful idiot. Santorum or Newt will love guys like you.
Boo! Hoo! "Ooh! Ooh! Bush said so!"... Wah! Wah! Wah!
And Cheney. And Rumsfeld. And Tenant. I guess that you think that they are liars now.
Santorum, ugh!
Santorum, ugh!
Romney is doing cartwheels because they think that Santorum cannot get the nomination. So are the Democrats because Santorum gives Obama the best chance to retain his seat.
The minor parties are dreaming of a Santorum nomination because that would destroy the Republican Party and gives them a chance to elect a President. Right now Gary Johnson has a better chance to be President than Santorum.
Santorum lost by 16 points in his own home state....
the man is a right wing evangelical neo-con nutcase and yes.. he will destroy the Republican Party if he ends up the nominee and Obama will sail to a 2nd term with a shit-eating grin on his face.
just saying.....
;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home