Obama intends to paint Mitt Romney as the Wall Street candidate

Obama intends to paint Mitt Romney as the Wall Street candidate, and when you look at a chart of Romney’s campaign donors you can see how that plan might work.
Source Opensecrets.org
Romney received over $560 thousand from Goldman Sachs for his 2012 campaign. Citigroup contributed $285 thousand to the campaign.

As I reported in an earlier article Goldman Sachs contributed $1,013,091.00 to Obama’s 2008 campaign, and Citigroup contributed $736,771.00.

That’s almost twice as much as they contributed to Romney this year. The thing is, Goldman gave Obama
only $80,224.00 this year.

So it may be easy to make Romney look like a Wall Street Candidate. That is until you look at how much Obama and the Democratic National Committee have collected from Wall Street so far this year, $15.6 million to Romney’s $7.5 million.

President Obama has raised and spent money for his re-election through the DNC (Democratic National Committee) allowing him to collect bigger checks from donors in the financial industry.

Source The Washington Post

Still almost half $85,336,863 (45%) of Obama’s campaign money is coming from Small Individual Contributions.
Source Opensecrets.org
While only $9,145,126 (11%) of Romney’s campaign finances come from Small Individual Contributions.
Source Opensecrets.org

Kind of looks like Obama has the support of Wall Street and the small individual contributor, while Romney’s supporters aren’t showing much.

If we really want Mitt Romney to win this election we had better get busy.

You already know that Obama won the 2008 election with the help of Wall Street support. But the movement that got him elected was the support of young voters and small donors, that’s happening again.

So what if Romney is a Wall Street Candidate? We need someone who understands the Economy and how it works. He can also be the Main Street Candidate…

But that may not happen unless Main Street and the Small Individual Supporters get involved and make it happen. That’s not as hard to do as you might think. You can make a difference, we all can.

Since there are over 50 million registered republican voters, if just half of us Donate as little as $5.00 each, then we can make a big difference ($125. million difference).
…………………… But, what may be more important than the money is the tangible show of support.

So spread the word, tell your friends that we need to get busy if we want a real change…

Forward this to your contact list, help them understand why this is important.

What do you think we should do? Leave a comment, maybe you have a good idea.

P.S. Click on this link to make donations to the Romney Campaign

We’ve debated reforms to hold Wall Street accountable

“We’ve debated reforms to hold Wall Street accountable” Barack Obama May, 1, 2010

The President’s Chief of Staff has at various times been called “The Gatekeeper”, “The Power Behind the Throne”, and “The Co-President”.

Jack Lew is currently serving as President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff.

He is the highest-ranking employee of the White House Office, inside the Executive Branch…

Before becoming a government employee he was the managing director and Chief Operating Officer of Citi’s Global Wealth Group.

You may remember that Citigroup lost billions of dollars while Lew was making millions. $1.1 million in compensation and $950,000.00 in bonuses during 2009…
after Citigroup had taken a federal bailout.

Now he’s responsible for overseeing the actions of the White House staff, managing the president’s schedule, and deciding who is allowed to meet with the president.

On the other hand…

Peter Orszag served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under President Obama. He served from November 2008 through August 2010, after that he took a job as Vice Chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Weekly Address
Washington, DC

Over the past few weeks, as we’ve debated reforms to hold Wall Street accountable and protect consumers and small businesses in our financial system, we’ve come face-to-face with the great power of special interests in the workings of our democracy.
That’s one of the reasons I ran for President: because I believe so strongly that the voices of ordinary Americans were being drowned out by the clamor of a privileged few in Washington. And that’s why, since the day I took office, my administration has been taking steps to reform the system.
But I’m calling on leaders in both parties to resist these pressures. For what we are facing is no less than a potential corporate takeover of our elections.

President Obama selected Gary S. Gensler to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has jurisdiction over $5 trillion in trades. Gensler was sworn in on May 26, 2009.
Mr. Gensler worked for Goldman Sachs for 18 years eventually holding the position of the company’s co-head of finance.

You may remember that Goldman Sachs received $10 billion from the U.S. Treasury in October 2008, as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

And That…
Goldman Sachs contributed $1,013,091.00 to Obama’s 2008 campaign,
and Citigroup contributed $736,771.00.

Source opensecrets.org

Aren’t you glad that Obama is working to reform the system, and stop a potential corporate takeover?

Read my next article about Goldman’s Romney contribution.

Immigration enforcement should be the priority, not new laws

In The Mississippi Business Journal this week there is an article about four influential groups in Mississippi opposing an immigration enforcement bill because of unanswered questions about how it would affect police agencies and local government.

Republican Gov.Phil Bryant was elected with the help of tea party groups that say immigration enforcement is a priority.

Immigration enforcement should be a priority, not new laws.

But we have a new law on the way. The bill has passed the House and faces a deadline next Tuesday for consideration in a Senate committee.

The thing is, we already have a law in place…

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) legally mandates that U.S. employers verify the employment eligibility status of newly-hired employees. IRCA made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or continue to employ unauthorized workers. In response to the law, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now an integrated component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created Form I-9 and mandated its accurate and timely completion by all U.S. employers and their employees.
U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services

After reading the description above, do you think we need a new law?

Would we have such an illegal immigration problem if the law we have in place was enforced?
Why come here looking for work if you can’t be hired? Is it really so complicated?

Maybe our lawmakers need to make it look like they are getting something done. Maybe they could work on enforcement of the law we already have and force employers to comply, or penalize them.

It may be that the penalties need to be stiffer, after all only those breaking the law will suffer the consequences.

You can see the I-9 Employee Verification Form at U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services.

It seems like the Federal Government and our local lawmakers are trying to get a new bill passed into law every time you read the news. When will there be enough laws?

When everything is potentially illegal, then the lawmakers will be in complete control.

Most of us like Tom Hanks the Actor

Most of us like Tom Hanks or at least we like some of his films.

And it’s easy to get caught up in his Obama campaign “Road We’ve Traveled” film. You can watch the film by clicking on the link below.
youtube.com

As I watched the film I wondered if I was hearing Tom Hanks the actor and role player being deceitful, telling us a fictional story to sway our opinions about Obama.

Or was he just Tom Hanks the actor playing the part and reading the lines in a film.

I believe he’s smarter than that.

It’s hard to imagine that any actor as successful as Hanks wouldn’t do a little research before taking on an important role in any film.

I believe, if it really mattered to him, he would have checked his facts.

It may be that he is like the rest of us when it comes to politics and politicians.

We don’t put in the effort to find out about the issues or the people we are voting for.

As you can see from this film and many others just like it we can easily be mislead.

It seems like we are willing to believe just about anything. Especially if we think we are going to get something for nothing, and a celebrity tells us it’s ok.

We just have to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, or the facts.

A lot of what this film has to offer may be true and it’s certainly compelling but some of it is not true and it’s more than a little misleading.

Please read this excerpt from Factcheck.org and visit heir site for the full story.

• The film says, “17 million kids could no longer be denied for preëxisting conditions,” implying all of them were being denied care before the federal health care law was passed. But that’s the total number of kids who could potentially be denied coverage or charged higher premiums if they sought coverage on the individual market.
• It also implies that Obama has reined in the costs of health care premiums — which “had been rising three times the rate of inflation,” as the film says. But the law hasn’t reined in premiums, which still rose three times more than inflation last year. photo link In fact, experts say the law, which requires more generous coverage, caused some of the recent growth.
• The film suggests that Obama refused to compromise on health care. Obama did hold out for a comprehensive bill, but there was compromise along the way, including the decision to drop the “public option” that he once championed. Later, he called the law “nine-tenths of a loaf.”
• On the auto bailout, the video says automakers have “repaid their loans.” But taxpayers are still on the hook for half of the $80 billion in federal aid. It also suggests that Bush gave away $13 billion to auto companies without demanding action on their part, when, in fact, Bush required them to come up with the so-called economic viability plans by March 31, 2009. Obama then used the plans to force the companies into bankruptcy and force the restructuring of the companies.

We have to pay attention to the campaign films, ads, and actors.
Sometimes they are just talking and not really saying anything.

Don’t believe everything they say, they are after all actors playing roles in ads loosely based on true stories.

The director of this particular film is Davis Guggenheim, in 2006 he made a documentary about Vice President Al Gore’s fight against climate change.
He won an Academy Award for that film.

Did he make the Obama film to help the country or Davis Guggeheim.

We can’t discredit him for making the film, that’s what he does. He makes movies and documentaries for entertainment and he is apparently one of the best.

That doesn’t mean we have to swallow it hook line and sinker.

Think before you vote.

All grades will be averaged, no one will fail.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and no one would be poor and no one would be rich — a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan.

All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars- something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed, and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Are you voting with your head or your heart?

Are you voting with your head or your heart?

Do you use common sense when you go into the voting booth, or do you vote for the person you like most today, the one that said what you want to hear?

To vote with your head is to know what you are voting for…

To vote with your heart is to vote for what feels good today, forgetting about tomorrow. What will you do?

You may like the way a candidate looks or what he just said. But do you know what he stands for or what his record is? Have you really given any thought to what he has been saying?

Maybe he promised to pay unemployment benefits for two years, pay for your healthcare, and provide contraceptives.

This all sounds good, then he says that he will lower your taxes, the prices you pay for gas and your house note. Now you really feel good about him.

Then he tells you that he is going to do this by taxing the rich folks and the corporations that have some how gotten rich by taking advantage of you.

Do you think he can keep these promises? Do you believe he intends to keep these promises? He is after all a member of that same wealthy group.

But lets assume we can rely on him to do what he says he will do.

According to the Internal Revenue Service the so-called rich, those making over $250 thousand a year make up only 2 percent of households in America…

In 2010 there were roughly 114 million households in America and two percent of that number is 2.28 million

Our federal deficit as of March 14 2012 is over $1.3 trillion.

According to Gallup’s web site if our government taxes those making $100,000.00 or more at a 100% tax rate, the taxable income produces $1.62 trillion, a bit less than what our federal deficit will be for this one year.

Let’s say they tax the rich at the proposed 39% that would give us $6.31 billion.

Some of our budgeted items are already more than that…

• Medicare/Medicaid is over $800 billion.
• Social Security is over $700 billion.
• Defense is over $695 billion.
• Income security (which pays unemployment benefits) is over $390 billion.
• Our National debt is over $15 trillion.
National Debt Clock

So if our over promising candidate took every thing the rich have and gave it to us we still wouldn’t be able to pay off the deficit for one year, let alone provide all the promised benefits.

Who’s money or property will our government have to seize next to keep the promises that appealed to our hearts and not our minds?

It’s time we started looking beyond the feel good promises and start looking for common sense solutions.

Is it really important that Romney doesn’t eat grits?

Or that Santorum talks about social issues like abortion, birth control and gay marriage?

I hope all voters will be more interested in the issues that matter most, like the economy, national security, and jobs.

This time around, we need to vote with our minds.

Mississippi is in the company of some big states, California, Florida, and Michigan

Mississippi is in the company of some pretty big states, including California, Florida, and Michigan.

We have a population one-third the size of Michigan, one sixth the size of Florida, and not even a tenth the size of California.

Twenty one percent of the population in these three states and Mississippi is underemployed.
This puts us in a group that has the highest underemployment rate in the country.

Anyone working thirty hours a week or less but wanting full-time employment is underemployed.

The average underemployment rate for the country is 18.6%. our rate is 21%, that puts us 2.4% behind the rest of the country.

Thirty percent of us rank the economy and employment as our two most important problems with healthcare and immigration coming in at less than six percent.

The majority of us are dissatisfied with the way things are going, 71% of us mention economic problems as being the most important issue.

On the other hand the percentage of us who are satisfied with the way things are going is as high as 22%.
That’s the highest it’s been since last spring. This increase is probably due to the optimism of democrats, 37% say they are satisfied with the way things are going, while only 10% of the republicans are satisfied.

The 22% satisfaction rate is good for Obama, but It’s still lower than the satisfaction rating for any recent president that was re-elected.
Historically we don’t give presidents a second chance when we see the economy as the most important issue.

Seventy one percent of us see the economy as the most important issue and 59% of us disapprove of the way Obama has handled the economy.

At the same time congress has a record low approval rating of 10%.
Eighty six out of a hundred are dissatisfied with congress.

Even Obama is critical of congress as part of his re-election strategy, but then,
we all give them a very low-grade, so he will be preaching to the choir.

In Mississippi our economic confidence level has dropped six points since Barack took office.

But we aren’t alone economic confidence dropped in all fifty states in 2011.

Mississippians, just like the rest of the country are more negative about the economy. This is not a good sign for Obama’s re-election campaign.

What do you think, do we want four more Obama years? Leave us a comment.

Source Gallup.com

Most Conservative in the Nation, Mississippi is not last

Most Conservative in the Nation, Mississippi is not last.

Most Americans 40%, are likely to identify themselves as conservative, the rest being split between moderates and liberals…

53% of Mississippians identify themselves as conservative…

We adhere to the principles of personal responsibility and moral values…

We believe in traditional American values like personal liberty, free markets, and a limited government that WORKS to provide the freedom we need to solve our problems and pursue our goals.

The majority of us want the same things…

We place a high value on our freedom
We want to prosper
We want to provide for our children
We want to help our neighbors
We want to be safe in our communities and our homes.

For the most part, that’s what we have and we believe in the American way.

According to a recent Gallup Poll most Americans do feel good about their personal financial situations, despite the struggling national economy. We still think we are doing better financially than our parents did when they were our age.

This is positive news, given the difficult state of the U.S. economy over the past several years — with millions of Americans seeing their home values deteriorate and jobs evaporate.

Our economic confidence at the start of 2012 is not as upbeat as it was a year ago, but is comparable to our confidence in January 2010.

U.S. unemployment was 8.3% in mid-January — a slight improvement from 8.5% in December, and down from 9.9% in January a year ago.

Still not great by a long stretch I know, but it shows that we aren’t ready to give up just yet. I don’t think this improvement has anything to do with the claims of the Obama administration. It may be in spite of Obama’s efforts. I don’t know. But I do know that it is up to us and not the guy we elect.

As Americans, Conservatives, and Mississippians we believe in traditional American values, and as individuals, communities, states, and a country we are responsible for solving our problems.

It’s good to know that Mississippi is first at something that really matters.

And it’s no surprise that 46% of us are Republicans, 40% Democrat, and 51% of us disapprove of Obama.

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.” George Washington said this in 1796 and it is still true today.

Don’t you agree? Write a comment and tell me what you think.

Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting than Democrats, Romney ties Obama

Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting for the next president than the Democrats are.

This could give the Republican candidate the boost he will need, if the right guy wins the nomination.

As it stands today, according to the latest Gallup poll, that guy is Mitt Romney

When asked who they would vote for today, if Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, or Paul were the Republican Party’s candidate…

National registered voters chose Mitt Romney.

Each Republican candidate compared to Obama

  • Obama 48 % Romney 48%
  • Obama 49% Paul 46%
  • Obama 51% Santorum 43%
  • Obama 53% Gingrich 41%
  • Read more at Gallup.com

    The blue line on this chart shows Obama’s support as compared to the Republican candidates…
    … Who do you think has the best chance of winning?

    Gingrich would he happier if we didn’t see evidence of his past record.

    I imagine Newt Gingrich would he happier if we didn’t see evidence that his past is a little different from his stories. And you can’t really blame him.

    After all we are asked to compare his background to that of Romney and Santorum.

    Newt regularly brings up the charge that Romney is a successful businessman and that he didn’t pay any more tax than he legally had to. As if the rest of us want to pay more tax than we have to.
    It may be that the our tax system is off-balance and needs to be changed, but that doesn’t make Romney wrong.

    Newt has tried to use other negative ads in his campaign, but they turned out to be mostly if not completely false.

  • A pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC, claims that Romney “thinks judges can overrule parents on abortions.” NOT TRUE
  • At the time, in 2002, Romney was actually arguing against giving 16- and 17-year-old girls a legal right to abortion without consent of either parent.

  • Gingrich’s most savage attack so far, Winning Our Future began airing an ad the afternoon of Jan. 27 going after Romney for his association with a company that committed Medicare fraud while he was a director in the 1990s.
  • The ad strains to imply falsely that Romney was guilty of criminal conduct. At one point the words “illegal activity” appear superimposed over Romney’s face. But the truth is that Mitt was never implicated in any illegal activity.

  • Newt’s ad goes after Romney for raising “fees and taxes” in Massachusetts.
    The ad says Romney “refused to support” the Bush tax cuts when he was governor, and that’s true.
  • Romney pointedly refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003, although he never publicly opposed them, either.

  • It goes on and on, you can read a report at Factcheck.org

    His latest negative ad accuses Romney of being dishonest, is it no wonder that Gingrich would like to be the one that tells his story, the way he wants us to hear it.

    As for Romney he has run some negative ads and some of them are questionable. This latest ad features then-NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw reporting in 1997 on ethics charges against Newt Gingrich. It seems right on to me.

    Watch the Video

    NBC News today is requesting that the Romney campaign remove NBC material from an ad that went up yesterday in Florida attacking Newt Gingrich for 1990s-era House ethics charges.

    The ad prominently features then-NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw reporting in 1997 on the ethics charges at the top of the Nightly News broadcast that evening, Politico reported this morning.

    “The NBC Legal Department has written a letter to the campaign asking for the removal of all NBC News material from their campaign ads,” said Lauren Kapp, NBC senior vice president for marketing and communications, in a statement. Kapp added, “Similar requests have gone out to other campaigns that have inappropriately used Nightly News, Meet the Press, Today and MSNBC material.”

    Brokaw also released a statement voicing his personal concerns.

    “I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad,” he said. “I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”
    MSNBC

    Newt Gingrich is good at saying the things that we want to hear.

  • Though a base on the moon may not be very high on the list of things most of us want to see.
  • One thing that he wants to keep quiet is his record, I don’t blame him. But to accuse Romney of being the only one running negative ads says a lot about Newt. What do you think?