WELCOME TO OPINIONS BASED
ON FACTS (OBOF)
&
THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)
|
Name
|
Published
|
|
OVERVIEW
|
Dec. 28, 2010
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1
|
Dec. 30, 2010
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2
|
Jan. 10, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3
|
Jan. 17, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4
|
Jan. 24, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5
|
Jan. 31, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6
|
Feb. 07, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7
|
Feb. 14, 2011
|
|
SPECIAL ISSUE
|
Feb. 18, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8
|
Feb. 21, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9
|
Mar. 01, 2011
|
|
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10
|
Mar. 07, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 1
|
Mar. 14, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 1A
|
Mar. 21, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 2
|
Mar. 25, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 3
|
Mar. 29, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 4
|
Apr. 04, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 5
|
Apr. 11, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 6
|
Apr. 18, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 7
|
Apr. 25, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 7A
|
Apr. 29, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 8
|
May 02, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 9
|
May 09, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 10
|
May 16, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 11
|
May 24, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
12
|
Jun. 06, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 13
|
Jun. 20, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 14
|
July 05, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 14A
|
July 18, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 15
|
July 19, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 16
|
Aug. 03, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 17
|
Aug. 15, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 18
|
Aug. 29, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 19
|
Sept. 12, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 20
|
Sept. 26, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 21
|
Oct. 10, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 22
|
Oct. 24, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART 22 EXTRA
|
Nov. 04, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
23
|
Nov. 07, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
24
|
Nov. 21, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
25
|
Dec. 05, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
26
|
Dec. 19, 2011
|
|
SS & MORE PART
27
|
JAN. 03, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
27A
|
JAN. 05, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
28
|
JAN. 17, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
29
|
JAN. 31, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
30
|
Feb.
14, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL1
|
Feb.
21, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
30 EXTRA
|
Feb.
23, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
31
|
Feb.
28, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL2 - 59
|
Mar.
06, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
31 EXTRA
|
Mar.
07, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
32
|
Mar.
13, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL3 - 1
|
Mar.
20, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
32 EXTRA
|
Mar.
24, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
33
|
Apr.
10, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL 4 - 2
|
Apr.
17, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
34
|
Apr.
24, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL5 - 49
|
May
01, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
35
|
May
09, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
CL6 - 19
|
May
15, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
35 EXTRA
|
May
18, 2012
|
|
.. SS & MORE PART 36
|
May
22, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
36 EXTRA
|
May
25, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
36
|
|
|
EXTRA II
|
June 01, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
37
|
June 05. 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
37 EXTRA
|
June 07, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
38
|
June 12, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
39
|
June 19, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
40
|
June 26, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
41
|
July
03, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
42
|
July
10, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
43
|
July
17, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
44
|
July
24,2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
45
|
July
31, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
46
|
Aug. 07, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
46 EXTRA
|
Aug. 09, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
47
|
Aug. 14, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
48
|
Aug. 21, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
49
|
Aug. 28, 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
50
|
Sept. 04. 2012
|
|
SS & MORE PART
51
|
Sept. 11. 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 1
|
Sept. 20, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 2
|
Sept. 24,2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 3
|
Oct. 02, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 4
|
Oct. 04, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 5
|
Oct. 09, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 6
|
Oct. 18, 2012
|
|
OBOF & TYMHM
PART 7
|
Oct. 24,2012
|
IN THIS
ISSUE
1.
What a night. What a day
after. Final Presidential debate.
2.
President Obama's plan for second term.
3.
Taxes go up next year no matter who is President.
4.
Voting machines owned by Romney.
5.
U. S.
6.
Parting thought.
~~~
"VOTE,
AN EDUCATED VOTE"
What is an educated vote? It is one that has been made with as much
knowledge, based on facts, not misinformation, that an individual can obtain.
~~~
WHAT A NIGHT!
WHAT A DAY AFTER!
WHAT A DEBATE LET DOWN!
Well, the debates are over. Frankly, I am glad. I really don't think the debates tell us much
about how a person will perform as President.
I keep going back to the questions that Lawrence
Maybe you remember, he asked " Is it important to
you that a Presidential candidate be witty?
Is it important to you that he can think fast on his feet? Is it important to you that he is a really,
really good memorizer?" These are
the things that are tested in a debate.
BUT, not one of them, not one is required to be President. A President NEVER makes a decision
alone. He always has input from many
sources before he makes the decision.
In addition, these debates have lived up to the belief
that, while the pundits determine who won and who lost, there generally is
little bounce for either participant that lasts. Now they are kind of fun, but there is doubt
as to how effective they are in helping voters to really make up their
minds. In the case of this last debate
on Foreign Policy, there are a number of articles listing all the things that
people have said they would rather had heard the candidates debate, such as more things relating to domestic affairs.
NOW, there is no question about who won and who lost. Obama was on the aggressive mode right from
the start. Romney wound up, all through
the debate, agreeing with the President on many issues. On others, the President just simply put
Romney to bed. For example, you may have
already heard this, but it is worthwhile to hear it again. The President answered Romney on one of his
statements as follows:
"You mention the Navy, and the fact that
we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and
bayonets. We have these things called aircraft
carriers and planes land on them. We
have ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. It’s not a game of Battleship, where we’re
counting ships. It’s "What are our
priorities?"
The, so called, instant polls right after the close of
the debate, just simply, to me, have little meaning. For example, a CBS poll of undecided voters
showed Obama won by 53% and Romney won by 23%.
Now, I ask you, does that even sound the slightest bit reasonable. That poll means nothing. There was another poll, by CNN, that had
Obama 48% and Romney at 40%. That sounds
a little more reasonable, but again, they don't mean anything, as far as who is
going to be elected. The latest national
poll before the debate had them in an even tie at 47%.
To close my thoughts about this final debate, I will say
that I was very proud of our President.
He performed great. John Nichols
of the Nation Magazine had a very interest article about the debate. I list below just one small part of it.
Foreign Policy Really Is Foreign
to
Mitt Romney
John Nichols
Mitt Romney’s just not
that into foreign policy.
The hapless Republican
nominee for president spent most of the only foreign-policy debate of the 2012 fall campaign
mumbling lines like:
“I want to underscore
the—the same point the president made…”
“That was something I
concurred with…”
“I supported his—his
action there…”
“I don’t blame the
administration…”
“…do as the president has
done…”
“… and feel the president
was right…”
“I congratulate him for
what he has done.”
On drones, on Syria , even on Libya
~~~
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
PLAN FOR HIS SECOND TERM
By
President Obama
This election is a choice between two fundamentally different visions for America
·
FORWARD
·
·
President Obama has a long-term economic plan to invest in
education, small businesses, clean energy, infrastructure,
and tax cuts for companies that bring jobs back to the U.S.
·
·
Under President Obama, we've seen 31 straight months of job growth, adding
5.2 million private sector jobs, including nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs –
the most growth since 1997.
·
·
"All
of the above" strategy to develop every available source of
American made energy—including oil, gas, clean coal, wind, solar, biofuels,
nuclear - and taking steps to protect our climate.
·
·
Set a goal to cut tuition growth in half over the next decade with a plan
to double campus based student aid and incentives for schools that are
successful at keeping tuition growth down.
·
·
Responsibly ended the war in Iraq , is bringing our troops
home from Afghanistan
·
·
100 million Americans saw lifetime caps on coverage lifted, so that
families have the security of knowing that their insurance will cover them when
they need it most.
·
·
Believes a woman’s health care choices are personal decisions, best made
with her doctor—without interference from politicians.
·
·
Improved Medicare by adding free preventive care, closing the “doughnut
hole” saving seniors an average of $600 last year, and extended the life of
Medicare by 8 years by eliminating $716 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse.
·
·
Is lifting the shadow of deportation from young, hardworking immigrants who
were brought here as children, and is committed to comprehensive immigration
reform.
·
NOT BACKWARD
·
·
Mitt Romney’s plan would add $5 trillion in tax cuts skewed to the rich,
either increasing the deficit or requiring tax
increases on the middle-class.
·
Mitt Romney wants to return to the failed top-down policies that crashed
the economy.
·
·
Could require raising taxes on middle class families with kids by $2000 to
pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
·
·
Let Big Oil advisers and donors write a drilling-centered energy policy for
America
·
·
As governor, Romney made deep cuts to higher education - by the end of his
term, college costs had skyrocketed, with fees at state colleges and
universities increasing 63%.
·
·
Mitt Romney criticized the end of the Iraq war as
"tragic," and has offered no plan withdraw our troops from Afghanistan
·
·
Go back to the days when more than half of all insurance plans included
lifetime limits on the care they would cover.
·
·
Give employers and government the authority to limit women’s access to
common forms of birth control.
·
·
Would end Medicare as we know it, eliminating guaranteed benefits and
turning Medicare into a voucher program — which could increase costs for
seniors more than $6,000 each year by shifting costs to seniors.
·
·
Pledged to veto the DREAM Act, and refuse help for many immigrants who came
here as child.
~~~
TAXES
GO UP NEXT YEAR
NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT
By STEPHEN
OHLEMACHER,
The Associated Press
Published 10-20-12
President
Barack Obama isn't talking about it and neither is Mitt Romney. But come
January, 163 million workers can expect to feel the pinch of a big tax increase
regardless of who wins the election.
A
temporary reduction in Social Security
payroll taxes is due to expire
at the end of the year and hardly anyone in Washington
Even
Republicans who have sworn off tax increases have little appetite to prevent
one that will cost a typical worker about $1,000 a year, and two-earner family
with six-figure incomes
as much as $4,500.
Why
are so many politicians sour on continuing the payroll tax break?
Republicans
question whether reducing the tax two years ago has done much to stimulate the
sluggish economy. Politicians from both parties say they are concerned that it
threatens the independent revenue stream that funds Social Security.
They
are backed by powerful advocates for seniors, including AARP, who adamantly
oppose any extension.
"The
payroll tax holiday was intended to be temporary and there is strong bipartisan
support to let that tax provision expire," said Sen. Orrin of Utah
The
question of renewing the payroll tax cut has been overshadowed by the
expiration of a much bigger package of tax cuts first enacted under President
George W. Bush. The Bush-era tax cuts also expire at the end of the year, and
Congress is expected to try to address them after the election, in a lame-duck
session.
The
payroll tax cut could become part of the mix in negotiations that could go in
many directions. But lawmakers in both political parties say they doubt it.
"I
think there's a growing consensus that Congress and the president can't
continue to divert such a critical revenue stream from Social Security,"
said Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas House Ways
Before
he was named as Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., disparaged the
payroll tax cut, calling it "sugar-high economics" that wouldn't
promote long-term growth.
Social
Security is funded by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to $110,100, rising to
$113,700 in 2013. Half is paid by employers and the other half is paid by
workers. For 2011 and 2012, Congress and Obama cut the share paid by workers
from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.
A
worker making $50,000 saved $1,000 a year, or a little more than $19 a week. A
worker making $100,000 saved $2,000 a year.
The
beauty of the tax cut is that is shows up in weekly paychecks, giving workers
more money to spend or save. The downside is that some workers may not notice a
$19-a-week increase in pay, making them unlikely to credit
the politicians who made it
happen.
Under
the law, Congress is reimbursing Social Security for the lost revenue,
estimated at $103 billion in 2011 and $112 billion in 2012. But Congress didn't
cut spending or raise other taxes to offset the lost revenue, so the payroll
tax cut is being financed with borrowed money, adding to the national debt.
Democrats
are more willing to defend the tax cut, saying it helped prop up the economy
during a rough stretch while providing what amounted to a 2 percent pay increase
to millions of middle-income workers. But they, too, are concerned about
maintaining Social Security's source of revenue.
"I
think people realize that was a temporary thing," said Sen. Mark Begich,
D-Alaska.
Rep.
Richard Neal of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the Ways and Means
Committee, said he thinks there is evidence that the tax cut helped the
economy. But, he added, "I'm not sure that it met expectations."
House
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said she, too, wants to let the tax
cut expire.
Larry
Summers, Obama's former economic adviser, is a lonely voice in Washington
Obama
pushed for the tax cut in late 2010 as a way to increase workers' take-home pay
to help boost consumer spending and provide a spark for the economy. Economists
were divided on the economic benefits
. Many said it probably helped
increase consumer spending but there was no consensus on the magnitude.
The
initial tax cut was for only a year, and many Republicans in Congress wanted to
let it lapse at the end of 2011. But Obama and Democratic lawmakers
successfully fought to extend it through 2012.
Obama,
however, didn't include the tax cut in his 2013 budget proposal, and Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress this year that he saw no reason to
extend it again.
White
House spokeswoman Amy Brundage wouldn't rule out an extension but wouldn't
commit to one, either.
"The
president fought extremely hard last year in the face of Republican opposition
to ensure that the payroll tax cut was extended," Brundage said.
"There are a number of tax issues that Congress will have to deal with at
the end of the year, this being one of them, and we will continue to evaluate
all of the options available to us at that time."
Romney's
campaign hammers Obama almost every day for proposing to let Bush-era tax cuts
expire for individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples making
more than $250,000. But Romney's tax plan would let the payroll tax cut expire,
an issue he doesn't mention on the stump.
Romney's
campaign declined to discuss the issue.
THE
ROMNEYS, COULD DECIDE THE
ELECTION IN OHIO
Could a voting machine
company with deep financial ties to the Romney family help Republicans steal
the presidential election in Ohio
It could happen. If this year's presidential election comes
down to the electoral votes in Ohio
A 2007 study conducted
by Ohio
At polling stations, teams
working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use
hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of
election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers.1
Hart Intercivic is
majority owned by H.I.G. Capital which controls two of the five seats on the
Hart Intercivic board. An investment fund with deep ties to the Romney family
and the Mitt Romney for president campaign, H.I.G. Capital was founded by Tony
Tamer, a major bundler for the Romney campaign, and it is one of the largest
partners of Solamere Capital, an investment fund founded by Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, Mitt Romney's chief fundraiser from the
2008 presidential campaign.2 This makes the Romney family part owner
of the voting machine company, through it's interest in H.I.G. Capital.
What's more, three
other H.I.G. Capital directors are major fundraisers for the Romney campaign,
and H.I.G. Capital is the 11th largest contributor to the Mitt Romney campaign.3
Two of the company's directors, Douglas Berman and Brian Schwartz, were even in
attendance at the Boca Raton
"There are 47 percent of
the people who will vote for the president no matter what... who are dependent
upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government
has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to
health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it... These are people who pay no
income tax...[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never
convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their
lives."5
And as if the ties
between Tagg Romney's Solamere, Romney contributors at H.I.G. Capital, and Hart
Intercivic weren't astonishing enough, two members of Hart Intercivic's
5-member board of directors made direct contributions to the Romney campaign.
That's right. Directors of the company that makes touchscreen voting machines
that could decide the presidential election in Ohio
It is disturbing and
dangerous that Hart Intercivic, the company that makes the machines that will
count many of the votes in Ohio
Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are locked in a tight
election race which could very well be decided by
~~~
The U.S.
The boom has surprised
even the experts…The Energy Department forecasts that U.S. U.S. and just below Saudi Arabia Middle East .’”
Jonathan
Fahey in The Associated Press.
~~~
PARTING
THOUGHT
I am not going to let a box camera, now an antique, or any thing or
person tell me whether or not I am an antique.
I will decide, and I'm not ready yet.
My idea of an antique is that it has to be at least 150 years old, which
gives me a little breather.
Eda LeShkan
If the good Lord is
willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again next Tuesday,
October 30, 2012 if not before.
God Bless You All
&
God Bless The United States Of America
Floyd
No comments:
Post a Comment