Bob Cesca published Nate Silver‘s graphic projecting the election winner which appeared in the NY Times. I’d like to reproduce it as well since it seems to show the start of a legitimate bounce for Obama after the last debate.
Here is Nate Silver’s most recent projection:
Monday’s debate (the last one) may give another push to Obama if he pulls of a victory as he did in the second round. And remember, the election is only 18 days away. Focus on both campaigns will become very tight in the next few days.
- NATE SILVER: Obama’s Odds Of Winning Have Climbed Back To 66% (businessinsider.com)
- NATE SILVER: Here’s The Truth About That Gallup Poll Showing Mitt Romney Miles Ahead Of Obama (businessinsider.com)
- Nate Silver, Jon Stewart And The Power Of Polling (pinkbananaworld.com)
- About that Gallup poll: Is Romney really up by 7? And will Obama win the election anyway? (washingtonpost.com)
Women are forced to put their careers and financial future at risk simply because they want to have children. During their pregnancy, they face being fired unfairly or not being able to properly care for themselves. They should not have to worry about making ends meet without paid maternity leave on top of that.
And where do Republicans stand on this outrageous situation?
As Bob Cesca says:
“…Republicans would rather ban abortion, ban contraception and make it super-expensive to be pregnant. Because they care about kids.”
Wouldn’t it be better if they supported paid maternity leave as an effort to avoid abortions without making it terribly expensive for working mothers? Don’t count on it.
- Maternity Leave Issues (jillwillrun.com)
- Penalised over maternity leave (todayonline.com)
- New bill passed on 98 days maternity leave for females (fmnnow.com)
- Why you should support paid maternity leave? Because I already have it (bluemilk.wordpress.com)
- Maternity leave basics: Canada vs. the U.S. (theglobeandmail.com)
- Maternity Leave: Don’t American Moms Deserve Better? (non-toxickids.net)
Thanks to Bob Cesca:
“I’m not the first president to call for this idea that everybody has got to do their fair share. Some years ago, one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was ‘crazy’ — that’s a quote — that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.
“He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we’re calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule.”
You can find out where you would stand with the application of the Buffet, er Reagan Rule to your taxes HERE. By it’s calculations, my household’s tax rate would be 19.5% if the rule was applied.
BTW, in 2010 Romney’s tax rate was 13.9%, which is exceedingly low considering America’s 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay an average rate of 18.1%. How does Romney dip that low?
Under the Buffet Rule, if someone’s income (in a Married household like mine) was $1,000,000.00, the tax rate would be 20.6%…compare THAT to Romney.
- Fox News Prepares Audience for Sharron Angle’s Defeat (crooksandliars.com)
- “ACORN Press Release: The end of an era: ACORN files Chapter 7 bankruptcy” and related posts (nolandgrab.org)
- Michael Kieschnick: 10 Steps to Take Now After a Brutal Election (huffingtonpost.com)
- “ACORN files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy” and related posts (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)