See--did I lie?
Have not heard much from North Korea lately--now have we?
That should be a routine job. why did they make it a news of "mystery missile launch" ?
742. Re-election of Obama (10/24/2012)
About that Gallup poll: Is Romney really up by 7? And will Obama win the election anyway?
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 19, 2012
According to Real Clear Politics, Mitt Romney is, on average, up by one point in the polls. According to both Nate Silver and InTrade, President Obama has a better-than-60-percent chance of winning the election. I think it’s fair to say that the election is, for the moment, close.
But not according to Gallup. Their seven-day tracking poll shows Romney up by seven points — yes, seven — with likely voters. But he’s only up by one point with registered voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-by-7-and-will-obama-win-the-election-anyway/
The Gallup poll is just a gimmick to cheat people. This election is pre-decided. Obama will win his second term. It is not politics. It is a plot of the Feds. They need Obama’s Health Reform that they forced Chief Justice Roberts to change his mind in June to pass the “Healthcare Reform”. (see #726)
To keep Obama to stay in his seat, the Feds have to create an economic situation that favors him. Two months ago- in early September, we saw European bank chief Draghi said they would buy the bond with no limit. Why?
Draghi helps out Obama campaign
By Robin Harding in Washington September 6, 2012
Barack Obama’s chances of re-election as US president rose on Thursday and the words that did it were not his but Mario Draghi’s.
Long before Mr Obama stood up to accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina, the head of the European Central Bank had sketched out a new plan to buy the bonds of troubled eurozone countries.
That will not move the polls; it will not move a single vote. But Mr Draghi has lowered the gravest of risks to Mr Obama: a pre-election meltdown in the eurozone that would have blown up banks, pulverised Wall Street, and routed a fragile US economy back into recession.
If that happened, it would not be Mr Obama’s fault, but he would get the blame. Just as the failure of Lehman Brothers doomed his rival John McCain in 2008, a eurozone implosion would create economic odds too great for Mr Obama to surmount.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bc1cf132-f831-11e1-bec8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz261Uy9nmA
Within days, Federal Reserve Chief Bernanke announced another QE which would push up economy temporarily but hurt it in long term with inflation. The timing of issuing QE3 obviously helps Obama. Republican feels it immediately.
Fed risks political fallout from QE3
By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington September 14, 2012
Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b7de9070-fe77-11e1-8028-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26Vualgix
QE3 will produce another housing bubble.
Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption
Source: BI-ME , Author: Constantine Gardner Fri September 14, 2012
"Asset prices will go up and the money will flow to the Mayfair Economy," he said, defining the latter as an "economy of the rich people whose assets prices go up and whose net worth increases" without any trickle down benefit to the real economy.
What you have is a small economy that is booming and the majority of the economy is being damaged by QE, Faber explains.
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...) leading to the subprime crisis in 2007. "The money printers and the neo-Keynesians interventionists are responsible for the crisis, reckons Faber, and people should know this."
Dr Bernanke's attempt to boost growth and reduce unemployment will end up, according to Dr. Faber, in a fiscal Grand Canyon with never ending deficits, the majority of the economy being damaged, the man in the street facing higher prices and losing his job.
http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=59324&t=1&c=62&cg=4&mset=
Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years responsible for the Nasdaq bubble and the following housing bubble. I talked about these two bubbles from #733 to #739. And the Federal Reserve now is going to create the third one at the purpose to help the Feds to remove the hot potatoes in their hands to the ordinary people.
743. Unusual drop of unemployment rate (10/29/2012)
The unemployment rate was still highthree months before the voting date. It made the re-election unlikely for Obama.
What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?
By: Jon King | August 5, 2012
Many pundits (including this one) have made the point that if the unemployment rate is at 8% or higher that the president will have an uphill battle to win the election.
The reason why 8% is such a hurdle is that no modern president has ever won re-election when unemployment was over 8%. Actually, if one wants to take an even more skeptical view, they could say that no president since Roosevelt has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.
http://newstalkkgvo.com/what-does-8-3-unemployment-mean-for-the-election/
It’s difficult to convince people the unemployment rate could drop below 7.2% from 8.3% in two months. But the Feds still could manage to get a figure of 7.8% in order to make Obama’s re-election more reasonable.
[quote ] Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions
by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012
Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls.
The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.
One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.
In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...or-Secretary-Solis-as-Jobs-Numbers-Questioned [/quote]
Nobody can verify the figure. The Feds have kept a war criminal (who activated a war with a lie) to stay on his second term, what’s the problem for another puppet? Just create a hoax of a better off economy for the time being then blame everything on the coming financial cliff.