Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, January 17, 2026
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 1024)

The markets climbed on Monday, pushing the Dow above the 16000 mark for the first time in history. Though the economy continues to slug along, Wall Street is riding high on easy money.

At 9:32 AM ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 48.1 points, or 0.3 perent to 16011, while the S&P 500 inched up 2.9 points, or 0.17 percent to 1801, and the Nasdaq Composite edged up 4.6 points, or 0.11 percent to 3991.

The news will stay focused on the Federal Reserve this week, as several prominent officials are slotted to speak and minutes from the last FOMC meeting will be released this Wednesday.

New York Fed chief William Dudley, is expected to speak at 12:15 PM ET, with traders paying close attention to any indication on when or if the central bank will begin scaling back its massive money-printing, bond-buying program.

The National Association of Home Builders released their latest reading on homebuilder sentiment at 10 a.m. ET. The housing sector, which was both the cause and the victim of the financial crisis, has leveled out in October. Higher mortgage rates have put some pressure of the segment recently.

In corporate news, Boeing (BA) shares rallied after the aerospace giant revealed $95 billion in orders for its 777X plane — representing the largest commercial jet launch in history by dollar value, according to the company. Tyson Foods (TSN) posted quarterly profits that narrowly beat analysts’ expectatins.

On the commodities market, U.S. crude oil prices fell 36 cents, or 0.38 percent to $93.48 a barrel. And Wholesale New York Harbor gasoline fell 1.1 percent to $2.628 a gallon. Meanwhile, Gold ticked down $8.80, or 0.69 percent to $1,279 a troy ounce. Gold is adversely affected by the new highs in the Dow, because the climb is fueled with easy, inflation-inducing easy money.

The markets climbed on Monday, pushing the

Republican Liz Cheney ramped up her criticisms of Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and pulled no punches on whether or not President Obama lied about ObamaCare.

When asked whether or not the President lied Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney said plainly, “Yes. I do. There was no way” the president was unaware that some Americans would lose their health-insurance policies, despite claiming otherwise.

“No question he lied,” Cheney told Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday.”

Cheney also took a shot at the liberal media, stating that Obama administration officials falsely assumed the liberal media wouldn’t hold them accountable because, “they never do.”

Cheney is looking to draw attention to what is expected to be a hotly contested Senate race in Wyoming, in which she is posing a primary challenge against the three-term Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi. But the primary, alone, is more than 20 months away.

However, whatever brief excitement that may have followed her announcement this summer has quickly faded, with available polling showing Senator Mike Enzi with a commanding lead.

Poll Date Sample Enzi Cheney Spread
PPP (D) 7/19 – 7/21 780 RV 54 26 Enzi +28
Harper (R) 7/17 – 7/18 422 LV 55 21 Enzi +34

As seen above, it appears that for now, at least, Wyoming approves of Senator Enzi, who has indisputable conservative credentials. As Chris Wallace noted, Enzi has a 93 percent voting record according to the American Conservative Union, a 100 percent record with pro-life groups, and an A+ rating from the NRA, or National Rifle Association.

As far as votes, Enzi opposed all of the bailouts, the president’s stimulus, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and so on. Senator Enzi also pledge not only to defund ObamaCare during the effort, but also pledged and did oppose the cloture vote. The cloture vote was the vote that mattered, which many conservatives say the establishment used to tank the effort.

Cheney on Sunday attacked Senator Enzi for being a part of the “Gang of Six” back in 2009, which was involved with Obama and Democrats during health care reform.

“We’ve got the code of the West in Wyoming,” she said. “And Rule No. 10 is: ‘Know where to draw the line.’ ”

Cheney did acknowledge that Obama and the Democrats eventually passed the legislation without a single Republican vote, but argued Mike Enzi and gave the president “cover” and “running room” simply by talking about proposals that Republicans to this day, still support as a means to replace ObamaCare.

When asked about those who have accused her of being a “carpetbagger” for returning to Wyoming from northern Virginia just to run for the Senate seat, she said they are “people who don’t want to talk about Sen. Enzi’s lack of” legislative success.

Republican Liz Cheney ramped up her criticisms

MSNBC suspended Alec Baldwin along with his month-old interview show on Friday after his latest confrontation with reporters in which he hurled homophobic slurs.

“Up Late” was not on telecast Friday night, and now the network has said that it would not be shown next week, either.

Friday night, Alec Baldwin issued a formal apology through a statement only after news of the suspension leaked to the media. The statement read:

I did not intend to hurt or offend anyone with my choice of words, but clearly I have — and for that I am deeply sorry. Words are important. I understand that, and will choose mine with great care going forward. What I said and did this week, as I was trying to protect my family, was offensive and unacceptable. Behavior like this undermines hard-fought rights that I vigorously support.

The latest confrontation came on Thursday when a photographer trying to get pictures of Mr. Baldwin leaving his Manhattan apartment with his wife and baby was met with vulgarity and, yet again, another gay slur. Video from the website TMZ caught the actor in the act, using at least one vulgarity.

Of course, as is typical of Alec Baldwin, he denied using the gay slur. However, by Friday after widespread condemnation Baldwin conceded via Twitter that he had used an offensive word. “I apologize and will retire it from my vocabulary,” he said.

This was not the first time progressive Alec Baldwin was accused of making homophobic comments, and many say it won’t be the last. Last summer, Baldwin apologized after calling a male reporter a “toxic little queen” and also threatening to beat him up.

Typically, the actor is given a pass for his vial comments, because of his known progressive, leftist leanings. However, numerous representatives of the gay community have spoken out against Mr. Baldwin, including the organization GLAAD, which hammered the actor for having a history of speaking out against discrimination, yet at the same time having a history of speaking gay slurs. GLAAD said: “Mr. Baldwin can’t lend his support for equality on paper, while degrading gay people in practice,” and added: “It’s clearly time he listens to the calls from so many L.G.B.T. people and allies to end this pattern of antigay slurs.”

This week, Baldwin testified against a woman accused of stalking him. The woman was convicted and sentenced to 7 months in jail.

MSNBC suspended Alec Baldwin along with his

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of the few Democrats still perpetuating proven ObamaCare lies, continuing to do so on “Meet The Press” Sunday.

Nancy Pelosi told Michael Gregory that Americans are not seeing their health plans canceled because of ObamaCare, which she refusing to call by anything but the Affordable Care Act, but instead have been canceled due to insurers.

Except, the grandfathered argument has proven false, with even President Obama forced to concede last week that it simply wasn’t true, yet still offering a half-hearted apology to the American people via NBC’s Chuck Todd.

When asked by Michael Gregory if “Democrats are losing confidence in the president’s ability to make ObamaCare work,” she quickly replied, “no,” then proceeded to condescendingly suggest that the American people are being irrational about losing their policies.

“What I love about health care professionals is that they are calm, and we must remain calm when we talk about the health of our country,” Pelosi belittled. In other words, unlike you stupid irrational people, we smart, clam elites will handle it, so put your animal back in its cage.

Nancy Pelosi went on to say, “the rollout of the website, that’s terrible. But the fact is that will be fixed, and that is the instrument of enrollment as you know.” As far as the five million Americans who have received notice of canceled health plans, “the law does not demand that all these cancellations go out,” Pelosi again lied, “the law says that if you had your plan before the enactment of the law, you can keep it, and that’s what the president said.”

But again, Nancy Pelosi is either a bold-face liar, or too stupid to know the law or the fact that all of America knows she is lying. Neither or those claims are accurate and, in fact, no one is even disputing if that is accurate anymore. There is widespread agreement that the president did not add a quantifier onto his promise, which makes it a broken promise.

Second, as to the former statement, it is the law that is the cause of the cancellations, not the insurers. Insurers are merely complying with the Essential Health Benefit Standards that were written into regulation in 2010, which systematically eliminated grandfathered plans, altogether. Again, this is not even debatable anymore, as ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, all have reported that to be the case. This is no longer some Fox News, right-wing conspiracy.

Eventually, Michael Gregory decided to turn back the clock and throw up a video of the former speaker herself making the very same lie that the president made. Yet she continued to argue that there is nothing wrong with what either of them have said being untrue, because there is nothing in the law that causes these cancellations.

This woman is living in an alternate reality. Whether it is one where ignorance reigns or dishonesty reigns, is irrelevant.

ObamaCare, which is a more appropriate name considering that the law makes health insurance anything but affordable, despite what Nancy Pelosi refuses to call it, was designed to disallow those who liked their plan to keep their plan. As revealed in our PPD study, ObamaCare is designed to throw those people into the high risk pool in order to keep premiums at just unaffordable prices, as opposed to extremely unaffordable.

The so-called “fix” that the president proposed under political pressure from Democrats and his own approval ratings, was viewed by insurance experts and state officials as a one way ticket to the death spiral. People’s Pundit Daily previously reported that many of the state commissioners and insurers have already decided that they will opt out of the president’s “fix,” because it will cause further chaos in an already chaotic sector.

The longer Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, though they are few and far between these days, continue to perpetuate the ObamaCare lies, then the more likely it is that the Republican Party will be in control of the Senate the day after Election Day, 2014.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one

In an interview Sunday during “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley on CNN, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a stern warning for the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Germany, who accept the deal over Iran’s nuclear program.

Netanyahu has always said that he prefers a diplomatic solution to war, but the framework of the deal being negotiated, which even the French pulled back from, will not work.

“This is a bad deal,” he told Crowley. “And in fact, if you do a bad deal, you may get to the point where your only option is a military option. So a bad deal actually can lead you to exactly the place you don’t want to be.”

The deal allows for loosening economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for the supposed suspension of part of its nuclear program, and Netanyahu already sees and hears related businesses gearing up to exploit the Iranian economy for the benefit of the regime and business, but to the detriment of the U.S., Israel, and the western world.

“I think, if you want a peaceful solution, as I do, then the right thing to do is ratchet up the sanctions,” Netanyahu added.

Representatives from Tehran have been meeting this month with their counterparts from the United States, the four other permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. The latter are known as the P5+1. Talks are slated to continue this week in Geneva, Switzerland, even though the last round of negotiations ended with each side blaming the other for the lack of an agreement.

Despite pushback from Israel and other western European nations, the U.S. and other countries are supposedly “getting close” to an interim deal with Iran that would prevent its nuclear program “from advancing, and roll it back” in key areas, a senior U.S. administration official said.

But Netanyahu isn’t buying what Tehran or the Obama administration is selling. The deal is widely believed by experts to not have the teeth to truly stop the Iranian nuclear program, and loosens sanctions that Netanyahu and others have said were just beginning to take affect.

Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will visit Israel to further discuss the Iranian nuclear negotiations, Netanyahu said.

“Iran is practically giving away nothing. It’s making a minor concession, which they can reverse in weeks, and you endanger the whole sanctions regime that took years to make” and that has effectively prevented Iran from pursuing nuclear ambitions, he said.

“If you continue the pressure now, you can get Iran to cease and desist,” he added later. “You see, the options aren’t really a bad deal – and this is a bad deal – or there’s a third option. Sanctions. Increase the sanctions.”

After he dismissed the “bad deal” repeatedly, he was asked by Crowley on whether there was any daylight between his position and that of U.S. President Barack Obama, who’s not calling for an immediate boost in sanctions as preferred by Netanyahu.

“The best of friends can have different opinions. We agree on a lot of things, and some things we disagree on,” he said, later adding, “We all want the same thing.” He insisted that it was not a partisan issue whether or not Iran should be allowed to pursue its nuclear program.

Part of the challenge that Netanyahu faces is that some are still holding the narrative that the Iranians are pursing their nuclear program for peaceful reasons, such as energy. However, it has never been the position of Israel, or the U.S. for that matter, to be fooled into believing that is the case. As far as Netanyahu is concerned, Israel retains the right to defend Israel by any and all measure.

Netanyahu also stated that everyone “wants real peace, which means they recognize the Jewish State.” His comment was an answer to Crowley’s question on whether or not Israel will recognize the Palestinian State. The Israeli Prime Minister said, “how about recognizing the Jewish State?” He added that the Israelis have always been willing to recognize the Palestinians, but the hangup has always been the Palestinians’ unwillingness to reciprocate.

In an interview Sunday during "State of

The 50th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy is being marked with a plethora of new books and documentaries. The new National Geographic documentary Killing Kennedy, broke the channel’s rating record for the most watched program, appropriately enjoying the same success as the book it was based upon.

When studying the tenure of President Kennedy at great length, one quickly realizes that the differences between public opinion and scholarship surrounding our 35th president, are vast. As is typically the case in politics and scholarship, I find it more than possible that the Ivory Tower may be blind to something the American public is not.

A recent Gallup poll found Americans give President Kennedy the highest marks out of any modern U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. If we honestly look at the history of Gallup polling on this question, then the 50th anniversary no doubt had some sway. The last time President Kennedy enjoyed the top spot was in 2000, when he surpassed Reagan, Roosevelt and Lincoln.

Since 2000, though President Kennedy consistently scores high, he has lagged behind in Gallup’s open-ended question to name the greatest U.S. president in American history. On average, the conservative standard-bearer President Ronald Reagan has enjoyed the status as the perceived greatest U.S. president, with a comfortable margin separating Reagan with Lincoln and Kennedy. Interestingly, in every Gallup survey from 2000 to 2013, President Bill Clinton has assumed the other top four slot, bumping out President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Although his status as the only modern American president to suffer the fate of an assassins bullet helps his historically high numbers, as the Gallup trend shown below clearly shows his approval was heading into familiar territory for other U.S. presidents, the brief tenure of President Kennedy still matters.

president-kennedy-approval-gallup

President Kennedy transformed American presidential politics, raising the standard for charisma, likability, and more familiar considerations presidential candidates before him didn’t have to concern themselves with. Yet aside from the typical, oft-mentioned lessons Americans can learn from the brief tenure of President Kennedy, there is one last lesson Camelot is burning to give the people.

Isn’t it ironic, indeed a bit suspicious, the Democratic Party leadership and talking heads have been completely silent over the anniversary of our slain 35th president?

While it is true that President Kennedy was a Democrat, you certainly haven’t heard the modern Democratic Party invoke his very popular name throughout the 50-year anniversary of his assassination. And that is telling, because as we all know, the modern Democratic Party lives by the mantra “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

So, why not a Cuban Missile Crisis?

Unlike his successor, Lyndon Johnson, President Kennedy had no realistic plans for a “Great Society,” nor was he as eager to let “the best and the brightest” escalate troop movements in Asia. What he did have plans to do, however, was dismantle the Central Intelligence Agency. When modern Americans think of President Kennedy, they most often remember that it was he who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” during his inaugural address on January 20, 1961.

This is a far cry from the modern Democratic Party. For the now-young, once-fresh Democratic President Barack Obama, the conditions couldn’t be more different. President Kennedy was elected by the slimmest of margins, but quickly united the American public and enjoyed the highest average approval rating throughout his brief tenure, higher than any other modern president.

On the other hand, Barack Obama was elected in 2008 by a comfortable margin, flipping red states blue and turning purple states solid blue. But Obama quickly divided our nation, winning reelection by becoming the only president to do so with a smaller margin, even unlike the man whom he shares historic lows in second term approval ratings, George W. Bush.

Unlike Barack Obama, who uses the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens, President Kennedy was planning to dismantle the out-of-control CIA and other elements to the national security apparatus, a bold plan that many believe our youngest elected president paid for with his life.

As was the case with Barack Obama, at only 43-years old many Americans were doubtful of his ability to manage a dangerous and uncertain world. However, unlike Barack Obama, President Kennedy demonstrated a hidden humbleness, which enabled him to adapt and learn from his mistakes.

Following the Bay of Pigs, when President Kennedy cut back an already limited air support that proved detrimental to the failed invasion, as well as his disastrous meeting with Nikita Khrushchev that was widely regarded as a moment of presidential weakness and naivety, Kennedy took responsibility for his failures and changed course.

When it became apparent that the “quarantine” established by the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis was the right call, Secretary of State Dean Rusk said, “We’re eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked.” On the other, far less heavy hand, President Obama has been blinking throughout his entire presidency.

President Kennedy was also the last Democratic president who didn’t force central policy to actively harm the foundation of the traditional American family. Whether you agree with “Great Society” reforms or not, scholarship — including my own — has thoroughly proven the harmful implications they have had on family composition.

Though a Catholic, he was also the last Democratic president who didn’t actively attempt to subvert the American mainstream Protestant ethic, which has been the secret ingredient in America’s recipe for unmatched productivity and strength.

When we compare the public opinion of President Kennedy over time, as well as his actions during those brief few years as president, two considerations become apparent.

First, the modern Democratic Party is no longer the party of President Kennedy. Second, the American people do not hold the values and leadership of this new Democratic Party is such high regard, yet they seemingly haven’t come to make the connection. Perhaps that is now changing with the failure of liberalism being on full display due to ObamaCare, but the variables are there, nonetheless.

If Ronald Reagan is the standard-bearer for conservatism, then Franklin D. Roosevelt or even Lyndon B. Johnson are the standard-bearers of progressivism. Yet none of them are on or near the top of the list, with Roosevelt being dropped for the man who famously said, “the era of big government is over.” Furthermore, President Clinton is topped only by two others, one of whom is personified in his immortal proclamation, “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Atop them all now sits the king of Camelot, screaming an immortal, anti-modern Democratic Party philosophy that commands we all, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

And for no less-significant a reason than those previously mentioned by others, for millions of Democratic voters who identify ideologically with JFK more so than Roosevelt, Johnson, and Obama, that is why the brief tenure of Kennedy still matters.

On the 50 anniversary of his assassination,

WASHINGTON — The New Republic magazine was, appropriately, the stimulant that last week gave the Democratic base a frisson of anticipation about a possible Elizabeth Warren presidential candidacy in 2016. Now in her 11th month as a Massachusetts senator, she is suited to carry the progressive torch that was fueled 99 years ago this month by The New Republic’s founding.

Its first editor was Herbert Croly, whose 1909 book “The Promise of American Life” — Theodore Roosevelt read it, rapturously, during his post-presidential travels — is progressivism’s primer:

“The average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat,” so national life should be a “school.” “The exigencies of such schooling frequently demand severe coercive measures, but what schooling does not?” And “a people are saved many costly perversions” if “the official schoolmasters are wise, and the pupils neither truant nor insubordinate.”

Today the magazine, whose birth was partly financed by a progressive heiress, Dorothy Payne Whitney, is owned by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. Warren, a scourge of (other) economic royalists, and especially of large financial institutions, is a William Jennings Bryan for our time: She has risen from among Harvard’s downtrodden to proclaim: “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of derivatives.”

Before she sank to a senator’s salary, she was among the 1 percenters, whose annual incomes now begin at $394,000. Hillary Clinton recently made more than that from two speeches, five days apart, for Goldman Sachs, a prowling Wall Street carnivore that Warren presumably wants to domesticate. Between Warren, hot in pursuit of malefactors of great wealth, and Clinton, hot in pursuit of great wealth, which candidate would be more fun for the kind of people who compose the Democrats’ nominating electorate?

Such people are in politics for, among other satisfactions, the fun of it. Americans profess detestation of politics and its practitioners, but their behavior belies their rhetoric. Last month, a poll reported that 60 percent of Americans favor voting out of office all congressional incumbents, including their own representatives. But just 11 months before this poll revealed the electorate’s (supposedly) extraordinary dyspepsia, voters re-elected 90 percent of representatives and 91 percent of senators. Most Americans most of the time have better things to do than feel strongly (aggrieved or otherwise) about politics. They are not as angry about goings-on in Washington as they say they are, or imagine themselves to be, or think they ought to be when a pollster takes their emotional temperature.

Since Andrew Jackson, with his collaborator (and presidential successor) Martin Van Buren, displaced the politics of deference to elites with the politics of mass mobilization by parties, the electoral scramble has been popular entertainment. Analyses of Chris Christie’s appeal are neglecting something: He has fun seeking and wielding power, and his fun is infectious.

Can Democratic activists, for whom politics is catnip, cheerfully contemplate the uncontested nomination of someone who will be 69 on Election Day 2016, who will have been conspicuous in the nation’s life for a quarter of a century, and who cultivates nostalgia for the last decade of the previous century? Can forward-leaning, clench-fisted MSNBC viewers really work themselves into a lather of excitement about the supposed feminist triumph of smashing the ultimate “glass ceiling” for a woman whose marriage took her to the upper reaches of politics? Do Democrats, ankle-deep in the rubble of Obamacare’s paternalism, really want to nominate the author of Hillarycare? Before a Democratic-controlled Congress spurned it, she explained her health care plan this way (a delicious quotation excavated by The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins):

“We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won’t get the care for their children and themselves that they need. … The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better.”

Come 2016, Clinton may be the one thing no successful candidate can be, and something Warren (or some other avatar of what Howard Dean in 2003 called “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”) would not be: boring. The social scientist Robert Nisbet called boredom “one of the most insistent and universal” forces that has shaped human behavior. It still is. So, all those who today regard Clinton’s nomination as it was regarded in 2008 — as a foregone conclusion — should ask themselves: When was the last time presidential politics was as predictable as they think it has become?

George Will’s email address is [email protected].

Columnist George Will asks how much of

Nov. 16. 2013: Visitors to the forbidden city carry children holding the Chinese national flags in Beijing, China. (Credit: AP)

The effects of loosing the age-old China one child policy will reverberate as far as the fields and processing plants of the “bread basket of the world,” the U.S. farm belt. The United States farm belt has already been shipping a growing share of its soybeans, pork and other products to feed rising, red China.

The extent to which the loosening of the three-decade-old population-control policy will change Chinese demographics — which in turn, affects U.S. farmers and agriculture companies—is difficult for economists to forecast. China’s ruling Communist Party said in a broad blueprint for reform issued Friday that it will loosen the China one child policy by allowing couples to have two children if one parent is an only child.

The latest move will add to existing exemptions conducted by piecemeal, pertaining to rural dwellers and certain ethnic minorities, as well as couples who were both only children in their own respect.

In truth, as is typically the case in communist countries, those who are either wealthy or party officials always had options to skirt around the law. Thus, data is difficult to accurately assemble, and the impact will still depend on how the policy is implemented, and how couples choose to respond.

Yet economists say any growth in China’s population — which is expected to top off at approximately 1.4 billion in 2020 — is most likely going to add to an already sharp demand for U.S. farm goods. China will need more corn, wheat, soybeans and meal made from the oilseeds to feed chickens, hogs, cattle and dairy cows it will need to produce to feed its large population, according to Bruce A. Babcock, who is a professor of economics at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.

Dan Kowalski, an economist at Greenwood Village, Colorado-based CoBank, which provides loans, leases and export financing to agribusinesses said, “More children will mean more dairy products and as those children age, meat consumption will rise.” “China will not be able to meet all its corn and soybean needs so it will rely on more imports. The U.S. is a prime supplier to China and that trade will become more important as time goes on.”

The economists forecast that China will import roughly 7 million metric tons of corn and 69 million tons of soybeans in the year that started on October 1. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, both of those figures will represent new records.

Where are those goods being allocated?

According to the USDA data, the vast majority of corn was used to fatten animals consumed by China’s middle class, which ate about 13.5 million tons of chicken and 52.7 million tons of pork, amounts that are also USDA records. But they won’t be for long, as China will import 775,000 tons of pork in 2014, which will represent the most pork ever imported.

Unlike the Untied State, China’s gross domestic product rose 7.8 percent in the quarter that ended on September 30 from the same three months a year earlier. However, some economists are skeptical of that pace being maintained in the future.

Two citigroup economists Nathan Sheets and Robert A. Sockin, both said in an October report that China’s “deteriorating demographics,” an aging population due to the three-decade-old China one child policy, may knockoff 3.25 percentage points off China’s annual growth rate between 2012 and 2030, which is a statistically significant decline from the double-digit growth China realized in past decades.

If leftists in American are weary of the wealth gap in the U.S., they would cringe at the gap in China, which will be further exacerbated by such a drastic reduction in gross domestic product.

An older, aging population has been largely responsible for the reduction in economists’ outlook for China’s workforce, as many who are having children today will soon become less productive as they grow older, said Danny Klinefelter, a professor of agriculture economics at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. If China hopes to remain competitive globally, they will need to increase the size of its workforce or face declining productivity. Rising incomes in the country will also further boost food consumption, Klinefelter said.

“Any time you increase population, particularly in country that has ability to buy, then food consumption is going to go up,” he said. “Africa has lots of population growth but not the wherewithal to pay for it all. China does.”

The effects of loosing the age-old China

Amid mass cancelations due to ObamaCare regulations, President Obama announced that he will allow insurance companies to keep offering consumers plans that would otherwise be canceled under the federal health care law. Aside from critics who challenge he even has the constitutional authority to unilaterally change a law, the “fix” could lead to an increase in premiums and an insurance death spiral, according to insurance industry experts and state regulators.

The main industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents more than 90 percent of insurers across the country, said Obama’s “fix” comes a day late and a dollar short, because it will lead to higher premiums. Companies have already set 2014 rates based on the assumption that many people with individual coverage would be canceled due to the Essential Health Benefit Standards written into regulations, which would shift over canceled Americans to the new so-called “markets” that were created under the law.

“Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers,” Karen Ignagni, president of the industry group, said in a statement in reaction to Obama’s plan.

“If due to these changes fewer younger and healthier people choose to purchase coverage in the exchange, premiums will increase in the marketplace, and there will be fewer choices for consumers.”

In a letter sent by the Obama administration to state insurance commissioners Thursday, they make reference to the risk of ‘‘unanticipated changes in premium revenue.’’ The letter promised to provide assistance through other ObamaCare regulatory provisions.

The main problem insurers foresee are that changing the rules at this stage of the game and allowing people to renew cheaper, lower-premium policies will tip the financial balance that the insurance industry was trying to strike, which will inevitably result in higher premiums for Americans. Put simply, as is in all collectivist government policy, the basic premise is to have able people pay for those unable, and the individuals who have had their insurance plans canceled were needed in the high risk pools.

Insurers also say that there are logistical challenges for companies attempting to contact customers who have already received cancellation notices, insurance commissioners reassessing rates, and reassessing plans for 2014; which again, had already been set.

By Friday it was still unclear whether or not state officials, who would have to implement the “fix,” would even go along with the president’s “fix.”

Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon, said that the idea “may lead to higher premiums and market disruptions in 2014 and beyond,” while speaking for the organization.

One commissioner made up his mind almost immediately. Washington state Insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler, literally within hours of Obama’s press conference, told media reporters his state would not be making any changes.

“I know that many people who buy their own health insurance have struggled to keep their coverage. That is why we have worked so hard to make these significant changes,” he said. “I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington.”

Arkansas and Vermont are also in agreement with Washington state’s assessment and are not allowing canceled Americans to reinstate their old plans. Ohio, Florida and Kentucky will allow residents to keep plans that they like if insurance companies will let these policies be reinstated. As of Friday mid-morning,  Utah, Colorado, Oregon, the District of Columbia, Indiana, Mississippi, South Dakota and Nevada are still weighing the administrative “fix.”

Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John D. Doak mocked the president’s decision, and called Obama out on what state commissioners believe he is really doing, saying he’s “just passing the buck” off to the states.

Others announced Friday they will not be implementing the “fix.” State officials in Rhode Island said Friday they won’t be adopting Obama’s late in the game proposal, stating that its 2014 plans have gone through a “rigorous review process” designed to ensure they meet the Essential Health Benefit Standards mandated under ObamaCare.

In Nevada, one of the GOP’s Hispanic upcoming rock stars Gov. Brian Sandoval, urged Congress to reconsider ObamaCare, altogether. He argued that the president’s last minute “fix” to allow people to keep their old health insurance policies has made the law unworkable.

“As a state, Nevada’s only choice was whether to let the federal government control the process or manage the process ourselves. We rightly opted for the latter,” Sandoval said in a statement to media.

“Now, despite our best efforts to comply with this ill-conceived law, the failure at the federal level has made this effort in Nevada significantly more difficult or even impossible.”

Friday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to let insurance companies sell individual health coverage to anyone, even if the policies do not meet the Essential Health Benefit Standards mandated under ObamaCare.

The vote tally was 261-157, with 39 Democrats breaking ranks and supporting the legislation (View Vote By Lawmaker). The measure would typically face a doomed fate in the Senate, which blocked every House measure during the shutdown to prevent Americans from being canceled, but Democrats seeking re-election in 2014 have been moving for a piece of similar legislation.

President Obama has promised to veto the House bill if it makes it to his desk, despite pleas from Democrats who supported the bill and are up for reelection.

Aside from critics who challenge he

George Soros, the billionaire financier who creates financial crisis for fun and profit, is also a socialist and ardent supporter of the Democratic Party. People’s Pundit Daily has learned that Soros has pitched in $2.5 million to help Democratic groups data mine American voters.

In an effort to change the expected outcome of the 2014 election, which is widely believed to be a favorable political environment for the Republican Party, Soros is backing Democratic PACs that hope to recreate a GOTV organization that propelled President Obama to reelection. President Obama’s campaign spent tens of millions of dollars in 2012 data mining voters to identify supporters, then targeted and made sure they got to the polls.

But George Soros and the Democratic groups he is supporting aren’t trusting in President Obama these days, and they hoping to keep the fort as quiet as possible with little mention of Obama or George Soros.

The effort, which is thus far unnamed, is based at Catalist, the for-profit group founded in 2006 by Harold Ickes, the a former aide to Hillary Clinton, and other leftists.

The battle plan for the initiative was laid out this week at a Washington conference of the Democracy Alliance, which is nothing but a collaboration of America’s elite leftist donors.The group decides when and where to steer money through various advocacy groups, who then direct ground organizational efforts. George Soros and other elitist were in the effort at Catalist from the beginning, and many of the groups funded by the alliance now purchase their data from the group.

On Thursday, extreme leftist at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel rubbed elbows with rising and established radical Democratic stars. The voters in Texas may be interested to know that Wendy Davis, the Democratic candidate for the Texas governor’s race, was eagerly in attendance.

Even more radical leftists, such as freshman Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has recently been circulated as a possible challenger to Hillary Clinton and is being urged by some supporters to run to her left, gave a speech supporting the new agenda to “remake the judicial system.” She railed against Republican efforts to filibuster Mr. Obama’s judicial nominees, which the New York Times outrageously reported as a “drive to bring intellectual diversity to the federal bench,” and the elitist ate it up.

“She’s been a darling here since the first time she came,” said Rob McKay, the alliance’s chairman.

The president is attempting to appoint far, far left justices to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the second most-powerful court in the land, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. George W. Bush attempted to appoint more moderate justices to those vacancies on a seat-by-seat basis rather than three at once, but hypocritically the Democratic minority in the Senate filibustered the nominees.

Another celebrated conference attendee is Gara LaMarche, the President and CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies from April 2007 to June 2011, who will named the alliance’s new president. During his tenure at The Atlantic Philanthropies, LaMarche was responsible for a $25 million boon to advocacy groups who were dedicated to supporting health care reform between 2008-2010, when ObamaCare was rammed down the throats of the American people.

In an interview, Mr. LaMarche said the alliance aimed to expand its donor base and optimistically hoped to double donor contributions over the short-term.

It isn’t only the 2014 midterm elections or even national elections the Soros-backed group is targeting, however. Funding is being used for a significant new effort to entrench the collectivist, political machine’s infrastructure at the state level, a level where conservatives and Republicans have been implementing successful political and policy reforms.

“There is a lot of feeling in this room that the states are where the focus should be,” Mr. LaMarche said. Though LeMarche talks with a bit of innocence in his voice, the group was well aware of the Republican strategy post-2008 elections, when Ed Gillespie ingeniously convinced the Republican National Committee to focus on winning down-ticket races.

The group Catalist, which has made significant headway completely under the radar, has been acting as a data hub for labor unions nationwide, leftist advocacy groups, and now super PACs. They have been maintaining an already massive and ever-growing shared national voter file that is always being updated with both commercial and consumer related data.

Victories Catalist can tout their involvement with includes the Virginia governor race this month in Virginia, where McAuliffe barely eked out a win over Cuccinelli despite outspending him in the closing days by 10 to 1. But the successful campaign of soon-to-be Mayor Bill de Blasio in New York City, is the most disturbing accomplishment to-date. Virtually no attention was paid to the fact that de Blasio is an open socialist, a Sandinista sympathizer far to the left of anything Anthony Weiner could have dreamed up on his own.

Leftists are kicking up efforts, though George Soros has supported these efforts since the beginning, because the Republicans have been racing to narrow the technology gap currently enjoyed by Democrats.

In fact, chief executive of Catalist Laura Quinn, said in the interview that the prospect of the Democrats’ data advantage dwindling away was already weighing on her mind. Because the Obama campaign was translated into Organize for America, used to help push the president’s agenda, Democratic groups independent of the Obama people are afraid that Republicans can catch them absent that expertise.

“Jumping into the technology and data arena late is a recipe for failure,” said Laura Quinn. “We want to continue to be successful in building data infrastructure and staying ahead of Republicans and conservatives.”

But that may just be smoke and mirrors, a ploy to hopefully turn Republicans racing to close the gap complacent in their efforts. The electorate in 2014 will almost surely favor Republicans more than Democrats if the ObamaCare rollout remains a disaster and the president’s approval remains abysmal.

Catalist isn’t the only group on the left data mining in search of voters, but they are the only group backed by George Soros that we can confirm. And while the left isn’t the only player in the game, they are the only player with a president who has already proven he is ready and willing to pull the levers of government to suppress opposition to collectivist ideologies, i.e. IRS targeting Tea Party and conservative groups, tapping AP journalists, and naming James Rosen a co-conspirator to persuade a judge to violate the First and Fourth Amendments.

People’s Pundit Daily recently reported on the Obama administration taking the NSA spying to a whole new level. Programs are in place that could be used to mine significant amounts of data, which could then be used for the benefit of these leftist groups, including the especially extreme Catalist and their nationwide database.

Reince Priebus had the foresight following the 2012 election to direct the Republican National Committee to dedicate a substantial amount of energy and money into shrinking that technology deficit, including opening an office in Silicon Valley. The network of donors and advocacy groups are overseen by Charles and David Koch, conservative philanthropists and wealthy elites in their own respect, but at least they aren’t anti-American statists. The Republicans have leaned on a separate nonprofit group — unlike the leftist group that is for profit — called Themis.

As the Obama campaign twice pioneered, the goal of Catalist is to coordinate an effort by liberal groups to push beyond the traditional methods of winning elections and affecting politics, such as TV ads, direct and indirect mail solicitations and automated or “robo” calls, and into newer technologies and methods. The future, as shown by the Obama campaign, is in the use of social media, mobile devices and beyond.

Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Mr. Soros, said Mr. Soros’s interest in the project was obvious, with no underlaying motive. “The smart use of data and analytics is essential to winning the political and policy battles that are important to liberals,” Vachon said.

Anyone familiar with George Soros, even the liberal economist Paul Krugman, will shiver at the prospect. Paul Krugman once wrote of George Soros:

“[N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is ‘Soroi’.”

Socialist and ardent supporter of the Democratic

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial