Custom Search

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Credit Reporting Agency Monopolies Destroy Lives! Millions Held Hostage! (Videos)














Credit Error? It Pays to Be on V.I.P. List

The credit rating bureaus, whose reports influence everything from credit cards to mortgages to job offers, have a two-tiered system for resolving errors — one for the rich, the well-connected, the well-known and the powerful, and the other for everyone else.

The three major agencies, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, keep a V.I.P. list of sorts, according to consumer lawyers and legal documents, consisting of celebrities, politicians, judges and other influential people. Those on the list — and they may not even realize they are on it — get special help from workers in the United States in fixing mistakes on their credit reports. Any errors are usually corrected immediately, one lawyer said.

For everyone else, disputes are herded into a largely automated system. Their complaints are often electronically ferried to a subcontractor overseas, where a worker spends, on average, about two minutes figuring out the gist of the matter, boiling it down to a one-to-three-digit computer code that signifies the problem — “account not his/hers,” for example — and sending a dispute form to the creditor to investigate. Many times, consumer advocates say, the investigation translates to a perfunctory check of its records.

“The legal responsibility of the credit reporting agencies and of the creditors is well established,” said Leonard Bennett, a consumer lawyer in Newport News, Va. “There is a requirement that they do meaningful research and analysis, and it is almost never done.”

Consumers who have trouble fixing errors through the dispute process can quickly find themselves trapped in a Kafkaesque no man’s land, where the only escape is through the court system.

“You are guilty before you are proven innocent in a situation like this,” said Catherine Taylor, 45, of Benton, Ark., who said she had been denied employment and credit because her filing was mixed up with a felon who had the same name and birthday.

Judy Johnson of Bossier City, La., was confused with a less creditworthy Judith Johnson, with a similar address and Social Security number. For nearly seven years, Judy Johnson, a 63-year-old credit manager for a building supply company, said she tried to remove the black marks from her credit report. But when she was denied a credit card, she knew the problem had returned — a third time. “This time, I was livid,” she said.

She ultimately brought a suit against one of the bureaus, and recently settled for an amount she cannot disclose. But the problems still linger. A deputy sheriff recently came to her door to serve her papers for a debt she says she does not owe.

The credit rating bureaus, private-sector companies that each attempt to track all American consumers’ credit use, have grown much more powerful over the last couple of decades as credit has become a crucial cog in the nation’s financial system. Their reports are used to formulate the all-powerful credit score, which lenders use to determine creditworthiness.

But as the bureaus’ work has become more important, consumer advocates say, regulation has not kept up, in large part because their overseer, the Federal Trade Commission, lacks broad authority. That could change once responsibility for the credit bureaus shifts to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will be able to write rules and examine the credit agencies’ policies.



The bureaus, meanwhile, do not have an economic incentive to improve the system, consumer advocates say, because their main customers are the creditors, not consumers.

“There is no neutrality in the credit reporting agencies,” said John Ulzheimer, who has been an expert witness in more than 80 credit-related cases and is president of consumer education at SmartCredit.com. “They work for the lenders who buy credit reports from them, and anyone who suggests otherwise is not being intellectually honest.”

When asked about the V.I.P. category, TransUnion said all consumers “have the ability to speak to a live representative.” Equifax said consumers who received a free copy of their credit report were provided with a number for customer service.

Experian denied that it had V.I.P. lists. But a spokeswoman did say that prominent people deemed high risk — like politicians in an election year — might have their credit files taken offline so that creditors or other companies making inquiries could not get access without the bureau’s permission. Experian said those people did not receive any other special handling.

David Szwak, a consumer lawyer in Shreveport, La., who has handled dozens of credit cases, said that the V.I.P. designation and preferential treatment did exist at Experian, and he provided sworn testimony from former Experian employees that the category existed.

Estimates of credit reports with serious errors vary widely, anywhere from 3 to 25 percent. A recent study, paid for by the Consumer Data Industry Association, the trade group for the bureaus, found potential errors in 19.2 percent of reports, but said that less than 1 percent of them had disputes that, when settled, resulted in a meaningful increase in scores. Even 1 percent translates into millions of consumers, since there are at least 200 million files at each of the bureaus.

The F.T.C. is expected to deliver a nationwide study on credit report accuracy next year that could provide more clarity. It could also include recommendations for legislative action.



The volume of disputes has been rising as consumers borrow more and gain greater access to credit reports. The automated system was a response to that. A spokesman for the trade group said most consumers received an answer within 14 days.

Experian is the only bureau that still processes disputes in the United States, experts said, though most complaints wind their way through the same online system — unless the dispute involves a V.I.P.

“They get a lot more high-end treatment,” said Mr. Szwak, the lawyer, who has read the bureaus’ internal procedure manuals and deposed or cross-examined employees. The biggest difference at TransUnion and Equifax, lawyers said, is that V.I.P.’s disputes are specially handled domestically. Regular consumers’ files, meanwhile, may get priority treatment if they involve a time-sensitive issue, like a mortgage pending, or if the consumer is represented by a lawyer or dealing with fraud.

Last year, new rules went into effect to strengthen existing regulations on the accuracy of reports. The rules also allow consumers to dispute errors directly with the creditor. But critics say the rule lacks any teeth because consumers don’t have the right to sue the companies. (Individuals can, however, sue the bureaus and creditors after lodging a dispute through their system.)

But the problem, advocates say, is that consumers cannot vote with their feet. “They cannot remove their information from the bureaus,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff lawyer at the National Consumer Law Center, who wrote a report on the automated dispute process in 2009, “or take their business elsewhere.”



View Larger Map

Sources: NY Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Bank Of America & Countrywide's $8.5B Settlement Jeopardizes Homeowners (More Foreclosures)






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



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




Bank of America settlement could speed foreclosures


Investors who bought bonds backed by shaky loans scored a major victory Wednesday with the announcement that Bank of America will pay more than $8 billion to make up for some of their losses.

Homeowners on the other end of those shaky mortgages — especially those most at risk of foreclosure — may have less to cheer about.

In the largest settlement to date related to the rogue mortgage lending wave, Bank of America said Wednesday it would pay $8.5 billion to settle claims with investors holding about $100 billion worth of mortgage-related securities sold by its Countrywide unit. The winners include 22 large investors such as Pimco, Metropolitan Life and BlackRock, as well as the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Aside from their claims that Countrywide sold them bonds backed by faulty loans, the investors argued that by continuing to service bad loans rather than speeding up foreclosures, the Bank of America unit ran up servicing fees, profiting at the expense of investors.

As a result the settlement includes a promise to hire additional “subservicers” to speed up the foreclosure process for high-risk loans. That means Bank of America borrowers whose foreclosure have been on hold may now see the process accelerated.

“Living with the uncertainty of foreclosure can’t be a pleasant experience,” said Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski. “The sooner we can deal with that overhang the better for the economy.”

Bank of America also faces considerable uncertainty as it continues to try put its mortgage woes behind it.

While the bank said its settlement would resolve "nearly all" its exposure related to mortgages issued by Countrywide, only holders of about a quarter of the securities have agreed to support the deal. Hundreds of investors holding an additional $300 billion worth of securities have yet to agree to the settlement, which also is subject to court approval. There are no guarantees that the remaining investors will go along.

“It is not possible to predict whether and to what extent challenges will be made to the settlement or the timing or ultimate outcome of the court approval process,” Bank of America said in its press release announcing the settlement.

At the height of the boom, rising home prices allowed mortgage originators to replace failed loans with freshly written performing mortgages. Lenders, investors and borrowers all assumed that there was little risk in churning out new mortgages — even if they were based on flawed information — because even if a loan defaulted, the rising value of the home securing it would minimize any potential losses.

But when home prices began falling, many of those bad loans came back to haunt the companies that had underwritten them. With demand for new mortgages drying up, there weren’t enough new loans to replace the ones that were going bad.

Now investors holding bad mortgages are demanding that lenders buy them back. Those investors include government-controlled lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In January, Bank of America paid $2.8 billion to Freddie and Fannie to buy back mortgages.

Bank of American concede in its press release Wednesday that that it “is not currently able to reasonably estimate” how much more it may have to pay to the two entities for losses on mortgage investments.

It’s also still not clear just how big the mounting losses on mortgage investments will be. With home prices still falling and mortgage defaults rates high , losses on foreclosed homes are hitting even those investors holding top-rated bonds. The ultimate cost of the claims will depend on how many more homes are lost to foreclosure and how much further home prices fall.

Bank of America also faces a potentially large payout to all or some of the 50 state attorneys general, who have been investigating abuses by the biggest mortgage servicers. The state officials are pressing the largest banks, including Bank of America, to pay up to $30 billion in fines and penalties. If a unified settlement can’t be reached, Bank of America could face multiple legal challenges from states that decide to pursue claims on their own.



View Larger Map

Sources: CNBC, MSNBC, Google Maps

GOP Chided For Filibustering On Debt Ceiling, Jobs & Taxes!









Obama Comes Out Swinging

Who was that combative president? The guy who came out swinging against tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, for big oil companies, for hedge fund managers, for corporate jet owners?

The Barack Obama we saw at an East Room news conference on Wednesday—drawing sharp distinctions and demanding concessions from Republicans—is the kind of partisan fighter that liberals have craved for the last two-and-a-half years. Gone was the conciliator-in-chief patiently trying to see all sides; in his place was an amped-up leader determined to pressure his opponents.

The transformation, however brief, was undoubtedly born of necessity. Obama is looking at a looming debt-ceiling deadline August 2, the budget talks are going nowhere fast, and there is a great sense of drift in Washington. It’s no coincidence that Obama, who began his administration with a string of prime-time pressers but soured on the format, chose this moment to hold his first full-dress session with reporters in nearly four months.

Obama had sort of receded into the background, allowing Vice President Biden to take the lead on the budget talks until Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican, bailed out. Now the president seems to have concluded that he has to use his rusty bully pulpit to take his case to the public—something he has done only sparingly since taking office.

His argument: The two parties have agreed to more than $1 trillion in spending cuts, but that’s not enough and revenue is needed as well. It makes no sense, he contends, to endlessly whack away at the 12 percent of the budget that pays for education, weather forecasting, and food inspections.

Instead, the president strafed some of the Democratic Party’s favorite targets: wealthy people, oil conglomerates, and Wall Street. They should sacrifice a bit before we ask seniors to pay more for health care, Obama said: “I don’t think that’s real radical.” And in case anyone missed the point, he chided congressional leaders for a “selfish” approach.

Obama positioned himself as a teller of hard truths, denigrating Republicans who insist on no new taxes as people trying “to satisfy their base or get on cable news”—then expressing hope that they could “rise to the occasion.” He even took a swipe at Congress taking frequent recesses while he has been working nonstop on the economy and war and Osama bin Laden.

Even while ratcheting up his rhetoric against the GOP, Obama also engaged in a bit of Clintonian triangulation. “Democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our constituents,” he cautioned, even if it causes his liberal base to “give me a hard time.” The country “will have to tackle entitlements”—meaning reductions in Medicare (and possibly Social Security) that his party has been denouncing with its withering attacks on the Paul Ryan voucher plan. Democrats on the Hill won’t want to cede that 2012 issue so easily.

But the little two-step enabled the president to cast himself as requiring adult behavior from both sides. “If everyone else is willing to take on their sacred cows,” he said, the Republicans can’t very well refuse to do a deal while defending tax breaks for Big Oil and corporate jets.

And he hammered home the importance of the August 2 date, saying the impact of even a technical default “will be significant and unpredictable” and that the Treasury can’t pick and choose whether to pay for, say, Social Security checks or other expenses. And the market reaction could mean higher interest rates for everyone.

One made-for-TV sound bite that is likely to be replayed is Obama’s reference to Sasha and Malia finishing their homework a day in advance rather than pulling all-nighters—again, a belittling of congressional leaders for “playing games” with the budget.



Obama’s forceful tone carried over to other issues. He brushed aside a question about whether he should seek congressional approval for the military intervention in Libya, saying Muammar Gaddafi is “one of the worst tyrants in the world” and, with a tone of derision, asking why the War Powers Act has become a “cause célèbre” on Capitol Hill. The only question he sidestepped was on gay marriage, where Obama said he was not going to make news “today.”

The president has done this before: made headlines with a bold burst of rhetoric or soaring speech, only to let the moment pass and defer yet again to squabbling congressional leaders. This time, he has a powerful incentive to keep up the pressure: the very real possibility that in little more than a month America will be unable to pay some of its bills.






Obama pushes GOP on taxes in debt ceiling talks


President Barack Obama called on lawmakers Wednesday to overcome the "selfish" norms of politics and "do their job" in order to strike a deal on raising the federal government's current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by the start of August.

People shouldn't get "spooked," but "the yellow light (is) flashing," he warned. "This is urgent."

Top economic analysts have warned of potentially catastrophic repercussions if the ceiling is not raised by August 2, including skyrocketing interest rates and a plummeting U.S. dollar.

The president blasted congressional Republicans for refusing to consider raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans as part of any deal. Congress needs to be willing to "take on their sacred cows and do tough things" while moving away from "maximalist positions," he said.

He said Congress should cancel upcoming summer vacations if a deal isn't struck by the end of the week.

"I want everybody to understand that this is a jobs issue. This is not an abstraction," he said. "If the United States government, for the first time, cannot pay its bills -- if it defaults -- then the consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable. And that is not a good thing."

Obama made his remarks during a wide-ranging news conference covering the state of the economy, the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, and hot-button social issues such as same-sex marriage. It came at a time of rising questions over Obama's ability to maintain control of the political narrative and boost public confidence in his stewardship in the run-up to next year's presidential election.

GOP leaders have shown no signs of yielding in their opposition to higher taxes as part of any grand bargain with the White House. Recent bipartisan talks led by Vice President Joe Biden collapsed over the tax disagreement.

"The president is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the (Republican-controlled) House," Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after Obama's news conference.

"A debt-limit increase can only pass the House if it includes spending cuts larger than the debt limit increase; includes reforms to hold down spending in the future; and is free from tax hikes," Boehner added. "The longer the president denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, insisted earlier in the day that Republicans will "refuse to let the taxpayers take the hit when it comes to reducing the debt."

The debate is "about holding Washington accountable for a change," McConnell said. "It's about refusing to subsidize the Democrats' irresponsible spending habits another day."

For his part, the president ripped Republicans for protecting "millionaires and billionaires," oil companies, hedge fund managers, and owners of corporate jets.

The wealthy, he said, can afford to pay higher taxes.

"You can still ride on your corporate jet. You're just going to pay a little more," Obama said.

At the same time, the president pushed Congress to act on a series of pending measures to help strengthen the economy faster, including easing the ability of entrepreneurs to get patents, providing loans to private companies for infrastructure development, and approving free trade agreements.

Obama noted that America's economy has gone through a series of major structural changes.

As a result, the country's economic problems are "not going to be solved overnight," he stressed.

Turning his attention overseas, Obama dismissed criticism that his administration failed to obtain clear congressional approval before committing U.S. military forces to the NATO-led campaign in Libya.

Some representatives and senators on both sides of the aisle argue the White House has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives a president 60 days to get congressional approval for sending U.S. forces to war, followed by a 30-day extension to end hostilities.

The combined 90-day period ended last week.

Obama insisted that the War Powers Resolution does not apply in the case of Libya.

The law was intended to avoid a repeat of a Vietnam-style war, he said. In contrast, "this operation is limited in time and in scope."

"We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world," the president said. "A lot of this fuss" over the U.S. intervention in Libya "is politics."

It's become a "cause celebre for some folks in Congress," he asserted.

"We have done exactly what I said we would do" in Libya, Obama argued. America's allies "have carried a big load when it comes to these NATO operations" while "we've sent reams of information" to Capitol Hill.

"The noose is tightening" around longtime Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, he asserted.

The president reiterated the administration's stance that Gadhafi's removal from power is "the primary way that we can assure that the overall mission in Libya of people being protected" is successful.

Obama's claims regarding the War Powers Resolution echoed those made Tuesday by Harold Koh, a top State Department legal adviser, who argued before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the law does not apply to American forces in Libya because the U.S. mission is limited in terms of its scope, means, exposure of forces, and chances of escalation.

In short, administration officials believe the U.S. role in Libya does not meet the law's definition of hostilities.

Obama, however, overruled contrary legal opinions put forward by both the Pentagon and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in declining to seek congressional authorization, according to the New York Times.

On Afghanistan, Obama insisted that the United States and its allies "can be successful in our mission, which is narrowly drawn."

The president, who recently announced the withdrawal of 33,000 American "surge" troops by next summer, declined to use the word "victory" in reference to winding down the Afghan military mission. He instead stressed the success of U.S. forces in dismantling al Qaeda and preparing Afghan forces to assume responsibility for the country's security.

Noting this week's bombing of Kabul's Inter-Continental Hotel, he warned that the violence in Afghanistan will likely continue for "some time."

Turning to the debate over same-sex marriage, Obama refused to provide new specifics about his personal opinion. A supporter of civil unions, he has indicated in the past that his views on the matter are "evolving."

He noted, however, that his administration has stopped defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges.

Obama argued it is up to states to determine if they will legalize same-sex marriage, as New York recently did.

"The president, I've discovered since I've been in office, can't dictate precisely how this process moves," the president said.

The nation is "moving toward greater equality," Obama added. "I think that's a good thing."



View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Daily Beast, Google Maps

Bill Clinton Predicts Obama's 2012 Re-election: I Agree!










Bill Clinton: Obama will win despite 9% jobless rate

Former president Bill Clinton says he would be "surprised" if President Obama doesn't win re-election next year, even given today's 9% unemployment rate.

In an upbeat assessment of Obama's political future and the U.S. jobs picture, Clinton told reporters Tuesday afternoon that several years worth of economic stimulus, bank and auto bailouts, and business incentives are paying off.

The ex-president is trying to do his part. His Clinton Global Initiative will hold two days of meetings in Chicago Wednesday and Thursday in an effort to get hundreds of new commitments from the public and private sectors for job-creating endeavors.

"There is enough money in the banks and the corporate treasuries to get not just the United States but the entire world out of the economic doldrums that we're in," Clinton said during a conference call. "There's more than enough there to stimulate not only an American recovery but a global recovery."

While extolling the potential for new initiatives to come out of the tw0-day confab, the nation's 42nd president couldn't resist offering his views on Obama, the deficit-reduction talks going on in Washington, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and other topics:

On Obama's re-election chances: Once Americans are made aware of his efforts to boost the economy and create jobs, Clinton says, the president will win -- particularly because most of his Republican opponents are trying to "cut taxes and eviscerate the government."

"If people know what he has done and what he is trying to do, I think that he can be re-elected," Clinton said. "I expect that he'll win. I'll be surprised if he doesn't win."

On deficit-reduction negotiations: The president who presided over two major deals that slashed red ink in 1993 and 1997 warned that too much, too soon this time could harm the economy.

After the 1993 deal that cut nearly $500 billion from the deficit over five years, interest rates went down and investment went up, Clinton recalled. This time, following a financial collapse, it's not so clear that would happen.

He recommended agreeing on the broad outlines of a deficit-reduction package "but not let it bite so soon that you actually could slow the recovery."

On the 2009 stimulus law: Despite charges from Republicans that it didn't work because unemployment remains above 9%, Clinton said the law signed by Obama prevented the jobless rate from being 1.5% to 2% higher.

At the time, he said, the country had lost about $3 trillion from the economy, companies' market wealth and higher unemployment. "Nobody can fill a $3 trillion hole with $800 billion," he said.

"I think the stimulus did as well as it could have done," Clinton said. "There just wasn't enough of it."


Sources: AP, Indy Star, USA Today, Youtube

Grover Norquist Hates Taxes & Grandma! (Video)








Sources: Comedy Central, The Colbert Report

Obamacare Scores 4th Federal Court Win! Declared Constitutional!













Federal Appeals Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law

President Obama's controversial health care law got a major boost Wednesday when the first ruling by a federal appeals court affirmed that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.

A conservative law center had challenged the measure, arguing on behalf of plaintiffs who said potentially being required to buy insurance or face penalties was subjecting them to financial hardship. They warned that the law was too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.

The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.

The government countered that the measure was needed for the overall goal of reducing health care costs and reforms such as protecting people with pre-existing conditions. It said the coverage mandate will help keep the costs of changes from being shifted to households and providers.

The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a long opinion with disagreement on some issues.

"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling.

A George W. Bush appointee concurred; a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.

An attorney for Thomas More said the center expects to appeal. It could ask for the full circuit court to review the case or go on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More than 30 legal challenges have been filed over the health care overhaul, some focusing on different issues.

The White House celebrated the ruling on its blog.

"Today the Affordable Care Act, and the millions of Americans and small businesses benefitting from it scored another victory when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is constitutional," wrote Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to the president and deputy senior advisor.

"We're gratified by today's ruling, which came from judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents who agreed that the law's individual responsibility provision (sometimes called the minimum coverage provision) is constitutional," she wrote.

Supporters of the law also took a victory lap.

"Today's decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of health coverage to tens of millions of people is a victory of common sense," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

"Every step of the way the health care debate has been polluted by partisan politics," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now (HCAN). "Today's decision, made by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, is immune to that criticism. The court ruled on the merits, and it's as simple as that."

The Justice Department also cheered the ruling, saying it will continue to "vigorously defend the health care reform statue in any litigation challenging it."

"Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed," Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement. "We believe these challenges to health reform will also fail."



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, White House, Youtube, Google Maps

Rick Perry Vs. Obama In 2012: Polls Say Obama!


























According To Recent Polls If The 2012 General Election Were Held Today, Pres. Obama Would Still Beat Rick Perry.

So Much For Conservative Maximalism & Nixon's Obsolete "Southern Strategy".

RE-ELECT OBAMA IN 2012!!

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




Texas lukewarm on Perry bid

A potential Rick Perry Presidential bid has been getting oodles of attention in the last few weeks. There's one place where voters aren't real into the possibility though- Texas. Only 33% of voters in the state think he should make a bid for the White House compared to 59% opposed to him running. More surprising than that? Perry actually trails Barack Obama 47-45 in a hypothetical match up in the state.

Perry's trailing Obama certainly has nothing to do with the President being popular. Only 42% of voters in the state like the job he's doing to 55% who rate him poorly. Texas is a Republican state to begin with him and Obama has a lot more Democrats (14%) who disapprove of him than GOP voters who approve (6%) and beyond that he's on negative ground with independents at 46/47.

Perry, however, is almost as unpopular. Only 43% of voters approve of him with 52% giving him bad marks. Most striking in Perry's numbers is a horrible 33/62 standing with independents. He also has 21% of Republicans disapproving of him while only 12% of Democrats cross over to give him good marks. Perry may prove to be a strong Presidential candidate but his numbers in Texas are nothing to write home about.

The only potential Republican candidate for President in Texas who does as bad as Perry is Sarah Palin. She has a 37/55 favorability breakdown and trails Obama 46-44 in a head to head. That's just more confirmation that the GOP nominating her could lead to a 400+ electoral vote landslide reelection for Obama.

Most of the rest of the GOP field leads Obama. Mitt Romney fares the best with an 8 point lead at 50-42, Ron Paul is up 5 at 45-40, Michele Bachmann has a 3 point advantage at 47-44, and Tim Pawlenty's up by a single point at 44-43. Herman Cain ties the President at 43%.

Before Democrats get too excited about the prospect of winning Texas this needs to be noted- the vast majority of undecideds in all of these match ups disapprove of the job Obama is doing. For instance in the match up with Perry 88% of undecideds disapprove of Obama's job performance to only 8% who approve. If you allocate the undecided voters based on their assessment of Obama that shifts the numbers 7 points and puts Perry ahead by 5.

The undecideds break down similarly in most of the head to heads between Obama and the various respective GOP candidates, something that would seem to reflect a lot of voters disliking the President but having their doubts about the GOP field of candidates as well. When push comes to shove those folks are not likely to be in the President's corner.

One thing that would definitely help Obama's prospects of winning the state though? If everyone who thought Texas should secede from the union just stayed home from the polls next year. 18% of voters think the state should secede to 71% who are opposed to the idea with 11% unsure.

The 18% who want to secede are 61% Republicans and only 13% Democrats. So the voters left over would almost surely put Texas into the blue column- with the 71% who oppose secession Obama leads Romney by 6, Paul by 12, Pawlenty, Cain, and Bachmann by 15, Palin by 17, and Perry by 19. Demographic change may make Texas winnable for Democrats in the long run but in the shorter term successfully encouraging the secessionists to stay at home would be a winning strategy.

One final note on Texas- we did an analysis a couple weeks ago finding that most of the Republican Presidential candidates had upside down favorability numbers in their home states and backers of Ron Paul were very mad we didn't have Texas numbers for him. Now we do- 30% of voters rate him favorably to 46% with a negative opinion. So he's as unpopular on the home front as all the rest.



View Larger Map

Sources: Public Policy Polling, MSNBC, TPM, Google Maps

Obama's Debt Ceiling Press Conference: Congress "Shellacked" On Taxes & Jobs!






















Where Is The Obama From 2008 Campaign Trails?

HE'S BACK!

Except Today He Sounded Like A Bold U.S. President Who Knows Exactly Where He's Headed & Knows Exactly What To Do!

This Morning's White House Press Conference Also Proved That Unlike Most GOP Congressional Leaders & Some Democrats, Pres. Obama REALLY Does Care About The American People NOT Just Winning Another Campaign.

Obama Proved He's Sincere & NOT An Opportunist!

Attention GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill:

The Ball Is Now In Your Court!

But Beware Because American Voters Are NOT Stupid!

We Are Watching & Waiting.

If GOP Leaders Continue To Protect Billionaires & Millionaires By Playing Around With The American Economy & Continue To Filibuster Badly Needed Jobs Bills, They Will Pay Big Time In November 2012!

Bye Bye GOP!!!

RE-ELECT OBAMA IN 2012!


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






Obama: Republican Leaders Must Bend on Taxes

President Obama said Wednesday that he believed Republicans would concede to tax increases as part of a deficit reduction package in time to avoid a default on the nation’s debt, and voiced exasperation at the lack of progress in negotiations between the administration and Congressional leaders.

“Call me naïve,” he told reporters at a midday news conference in the East Room of the White House. “But my expectation is that leaders are going to lead.

He accused the Republicans, who last week dropped out of negotiations on the budget, of avoiding tough decisions and said they were playing a dangerous game that could significantly affect the nation’s struggling economy and capital markets and slow down private efforts to create jobs.

Mr. Obama repeatedly mocked tax breaks that he said were for “millionaires and billionaires, oil companies and corporate jet owners,” saying that voters would not look kindly on Republican lawmakers who defended such breaks at the cost of cuts in popular programs like health care, education and food safety.

But he did not explicitly say that he would reject a deal that did not eliminate such breaks, saying that he believed his adversaries would eventually agree to what Democrats have called a “balanced approach” that included trillions of dollars in spending cuts along with tax increases.

“If you are a wealthy C.E.O. or hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They are lower than they have been since the 1950s. And they can afford it,” Mr. Obama said. “You can still ride on your corporate jet. You’re just going to have to pay a little more.”

Questions about the looming debt deadline dominated the early part of the news conference, the first in several months for the president. But Mr. Obama was also asked about a series of other domestic and foreign policy issues.

On the American intervention in Libya, Mr. Obama defended his administration’s actions against Congressional critics who say the military activities there violate the War Powers Act, which requires Congress to give its formal approval.

“We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world,” Mr. Obama said, deflecting a question about whether he believes the War Powers Act is constitutional. “This suddenly becomes the cause célèbre for some folks in Congress? C’mon.”

On the issue of same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama declined to say whether he had changed his mind about his personal opposition. But he said New York’s decision to legalize same sex marriage was a “good thing.”

“That’s exactly how things should work,” he said, noting that different communities will come to different conclusions on the issue. “I think we are moving in a direction of greater equality, and I think that’s a good thing.”

Mr. Obama said his administration had done more than all of his predecessors combined to advance the rights of gay men and lesbians in America. Mr. Obama is scheduled to host a gay pride event at the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

But his remarks are likely to disappoint gay activists, who were hoping that Mr. Obama would say that his personal opposition to gay marriage had ended. In the past, the president has said his position is “evolving.”

On the economy, Mr. Obama sounded dire warnings about the consequences of delaying a resolution on the debt negotiations, and expressed exasperation with Republicans in Congress, saying they needed to “do their job” instead of blaming him for a lack of leadership.

In a remarkable display of frustration, Mr. Obama said he was “amused” by Republican comments that he had not offered a clear direction in the effort to cut the budget and increase the nation’s debt ceiling.

“They are in one week, they are out one week,” the president said, in a week that the House is out of session. “You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and Bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done. All right, I think you know my feelings about that.”

Mr. Obama compared the lack of resolution in the debt talks to his daughters’ ability to get their homework done a day early.

“They’re not waiting til the night before. They are not pulling all-nighters,” Mr. Obama said. “They need to do their job. They need to go ahead and make the tough choices.”

Mr. Obama also mocked Republicans in Congress who have questioned whether the Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department for a default on the debt has been hyped for political reasons. He said the people making those claims would force the government to pick and choose who they would pay and who they would leave hanging.

“This is not a situation where Congress is going to say we won’t buy this car or we won’t take the vacation. They took the vacation. They bought the car. And now they are saying, maybe we don’t have to pay,” Mr. Obama said. “If the United States government, for the first time, cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, then the consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable. And that is not a good thing.”

In his opening statement, Mr. Obama said his administration was making efforts to spur job creation, but challenged Congress to pass bills that would help private companies add to their payrolls. He cited bills that would make it easier to get patents on inventions, expand loans to private businesses for hiring and pass long-delayed trade deals.
“I urge Congress to act on these ideas right now,” he said.

On the debt talks, Mr. Obama said he was open to extending payroll tax cuts and other tax breaks that would help spur economic growth in the short term. “I think that it makes perfect sense for us to take a look at can we extend the payroll tax cut another year?” the president told reporters. “What we need to do is to restore business confidence and the confidence of the American people that we are on track.”

The president declined to comment on a controversial decision by the National Labor Relations Board to go to court to contest a decision by Boeing to build a nonunion plant in South Carolina. The decision by the independent agency has been criticized by Republicans as an infringement on right-to-work states and on the right of corporate managers to decide where to do business. The case is before a judge in Seattle.

But the president acknowledged the political sensitivities of the issue at a time when people are clamoring for the kinds of jobs that the Boeing plant would create. “If they are choosing to relocate here in the U.S., that’s a good thing,” Mr. Obama said. “What defies common sense is the notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can’t come to an agreement.”

Asked about concern in the military that the policy on how to handle terrorist suspects captured abroad was unclear, Mr. Obama said that his “top priority” was “to make sure that we are apprehending those who would attack the United States, and that we are getting all the intelligence that we can.”

But he said that “frankly, there are going to be different dispositions of the case depending on the situation.”

Pressed a second time on his personal views of same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama declined to elaborate, saying, “I’m not going to make news on that today” and telling the reporter who asked, Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal, “Good try, though.”

Later, Mr. Obama added: “I’ll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one. And that won’t be today.”



View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NY Times, Google Maps

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Obama's 2nd Term 2013 Cabinet Picks: He Will Win Again!













Its Time For Pres. Obama To Begin Thinking About Choices For His New Cabinet In 2013.

Except This Time I Really Hope His 2nd Term Cabinet Will Be More Diverse.

This Includes Cabinet & Executive Office Picks Who Will Be Able To Reach Out To The LGBT Community.

Just Because I'm A Born Again Christian Doesn't Mean I Don't Love Gay People Because I Do.

Yes I Do Believe Pres. Barack Obama Is Slated To Win A 2nd Term.

Why?

Because Obama's Administration Has Done More In 2 1/2 Years To Help Fix The HUGE Economic Mess His Predecessor George W. Bush Left Behind Then Most U.S. Presidents Did In 8 Years. Including Capturing & Ordering The Death Of Osama Bin Laden!

So What If Obama Wasn't Perfect!

Please Show Me One, Just One U.S. President Who Was Perfect! Just One!

And NO! It Wasn't Ronald Reagan!

In Fact Last Time I Checked ONLY God Is Perfect NOT Human Beings!

And While Its True I Don't Agree With ALL Of Pres. Obama's Political Decisions, Considering The GOP's CRAZY, Unfair, Unequal, Obviously Racist Agenda I Would Rather Take My Chances By Keeping Barack Obama In The White House For Another 4 Years.

Yes Barack Obama Is Going To Win A 2nd Term!

Why?

All During 2010 GOP Leaders & Candidates Campaigned On Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

Yet After The November 2010 Elections, It Became Quite Clear Their TRUE Agenda Consisted Of ONLY Getting Rid Of Our Nation's First BLACK President & Nothing Else!

NOTHING ELSE!!

How Do American Voters Know This To Be True?

4 Reasons:

1) NONE Of The Current GOP 2012 Presidential Hopefuls Are Prepared Or Qualified To Beat Incumbent Pres. Obama.

What Have Those GOP Presidential Candidates Talked About? NOT Jobs! Not Tax Reform! Just Getting Rid Of Barack Obama! Nothing Else!

i.e., Congressman & 2012 GOP Presidential Hopeful: Michelle Bachmann.

2) In Today's 21st Century Society, NO American Politician Can Win U.S. Presidential Elections Solely Based On Racist, Unfair, Unequal Platforms. i.e., Tax Cuts For The Rich & Agendas Which ONLY Help America's Wealthiest Citizens Versus Helping ALL Americans.

3) Since Last November's Elections, NOT One Elected GOP Leader Has Introduced Any JOBS Bills. NOT One!

Instead GOP Leaders Have Introduced Bills Which Kill Jobs Or Filibustered ALL Of Pres. Obama's Attempts To Jump Start More American Jobs Creation Programs.

4) It Also Appears As If GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill Are Pushing To Default The Debt Ceiling Versus Keeping It From Defaulting.

American Voters Are NOT Stupid!

We Know What Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor & Michelle Bachmann Are Intentionally Trying To Do To Our Economy! Crash It!!

Why?

Just To Get Rid Of Pres. Obama.

How Sad!

That Said YES I Do Believe Pres. Obama Not Only Deserves A 2nd Term But Will Actually Be Re-elected In 2012 Despite Republican Filibusters & Opposition.


Here Are Some Of My Choices For PRES. OBAMA'S NEW CABINET PICKS IN 2013. INCLUDES NEW POSITIONS:

(An Incomplete List)

U.S. Attorney General: Eric Holder (EXCELLENT CHOICE!)

U.S. Treasury Secretary: Tim Geithner (I Don't Really Like Him But Over Time He Has Proven To Be Extremely Qualified As Treasury Secretary & He Knows Wall Street Well.)

U.S. Secretary Of State: Senator John Kerry (EXCELLENT CHOICE!)

U.S. Secretary Of Education: Dr. Michelle Rhee

U.S. Secretary Of Transportation: Ray LaHood (EXCELLENT CHOICE!)

U.S. Secretary Of Labor: Jennifer Granholm (EXCELLENT CHOICE!)

White House Communications Director: David Axelrod

White House Social Secretary: Julianna Smoot

U.S. Secretary Of HUD: Congresswoman Barbara Lee

U.S. Surgeon General: Howard Dean Or Tom Coburn (EXCELLENT CHOICES!)

U.S. Health & Human Services Secretary: Kathleen Sebellius (EXCELLENT CHOICE!)

U.S. Secretary Of Veterans Affairs: General Colin Powell (EXCELLENT CHOICE!)

U.S. Secretary Of Agriculture:

U.S. Secretary Of Interior: Ken Salazar

FCC Chairman: Julius Genachowski

E.P.A. Administrator: Lisa Jackson


NEW POSITIONS:

(Incomplete List)

Senior Advisor Of Women's Affairs: Hillary Clinton

Senior Advisor Of LGBT Community Affairs: Rachel Maddow

Senior Advisor Of Deficit Reduction: Congressman Paul Ryan

Senior Advisor Of Tax Code Reform: Robert Reich

Senior Advisor Of American Jobs Council Affairs: Jeff Immelt & Deval Patrick (If The State Of Mass. Will Allow Mr. Patrick To Also Sit On This Advisory Board While Still Serving As Governor.)

Senior Advisor Of Medicare/ Medicaid Reform: Howard Dean (EXCELLENT CHOICE!) (To Focus On Saving These Programs By Combining Both Agencies To Eliminate Waste & Fraud).

Senior Advisor Of Voting Rights Affairs: James Clyburn

Senior Advisor Of Early Childhood Education Affairs:

Senior Advisor Of Technology & Internet Affairs: Omar Waslow & Mark Zuckerberg

Senior Advisor Of For-Profit Colleges Affairs:

Senior Advisor Of Religious Affairs: Pastor Rick Warren

Senior Advisor Of U.S. Prison Affairs: Mayor Cory Booker (Due To His Current Excellent Record Of Helping Ex-Offenders Successfully Re-enter Society).

Senior Advisor Of U.S. Government Contractor Affairs:

Senior Advisor Of U.S. Organized Labor Unions Affairs: Richard Trumpka

Senior Advisor Of Senior Citizen Community Affairs:

Senior Advisor Of Alternative Energy Affairs:

Senior Advisor Of Homeless Prevention Affairs: Douglas Lasdon or Mitchell A. Lowenthal

Senior Advisor Of Urban Community Renewal Affairs (Urban Enterprise): Russell Simmons

Senior Advisor Of Hispanic Community Affairs: Rosario Dawson & Juan Sepúlveda

Senior Advisor Of Muslim Community Affairs: Nihad Awad


Senior Advisor Of Native American Community Affairs:




Obama's a Lock in 2012

Sure, things look grim for the Dems this fall. But the base will rally, the economy will turn up, and the GOP will shoot itself in the foot—ensuring the president a second term.

Arnold Schwarzenegger made headlines this week by declaring that “Obama will get a second term in office,” especially if Republicans win the House. You’ve got to hand it to the grand Teuton. Even when he says something blindingly obvious, he makes news.

Of course Barack Obama is likely to be reelected. For starters, American presidents usually get reelected. In the last 75 years, incumbents have lost a grand total of three times: in 1976, 1980, and 1992. And what did Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush all have in common? They had serious primary challenges within their own party (from Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, and Pat Buchanan, respectively). The last president who lost reelection without a major primary challenge was Herbert Hoover in 1932.

A president who isn’t challenged in his own party can usually count on a decent turnout from his party’s base. (If party activists aren’t alienated enough to throw up a primary challenger in the spring, you can usually drag them to the polls in the fall.) A president without a primary challenger also has the space to move to the center to neutralize political weaknesses: That’s what Reagan did in 1984, when he toned down the Cold War rhetoric that was frightening moderates; it’s what Bill Clinton did when he signed welfare reform in 1996; and it’s what George W. Bush did when he signed a prescription-drug bill in 2004.

There’s only one Democratic pol who could keep Obama up at night, and she’s safely tucked away at the State Department.

I doubt Obama will move as sharply to the center over the next two years as did Clinton, but he can do so to neutralize key weaknesses if he wants, because there is zero prospect that he’ll be seriously challenged in the primaries. No challenger would have any chance of stealing the black vote, of course, and even among white lefties, for all their grumbling, Obama has no national rival. In 1996, Clinton was petrified about a primary challenge from Jesse Jackson. But there’s only one Democratic pol who could keep Obama up at night, and she’s safely tucked away at the State Department.

The second reason Obama will likely win reelection is, oddly, the economy. Historically, when voters evaluate a president for reelection, they judge the economy not against some abstract standard but against the economy he inherited. That’s why Franklin Roosevelt could win 48 states in 1936 with the U.S. still mired in depression, and Ronald Reagan could win 49 in 1984, even though unemployment on Election Day was still 7.5 percent. Obama doesn’t need the economy to be booming in 2012 to win reelection, he just needs voters to feel that it is better than it was when he took office and heading in the right direction. If that’s the case, and most economists seem to think it will be, Republicans won’t get very far by harping on the deficit. In 1984, you may remember, a presidential candidate told voters to ignore the nation’s nascent economic recovery and focus instead of the country’s swelling debt. His name was Walter Mondale.

• The Daily Beast’s Election Oracle Forecaster Finally, Obama’s third big advantage is his opposition: the GOP. The party has had great success in mobilizing older white conservatives, who weren’t particularly fond of Obama in the first place, and in a midterm like this one, in which younger and minority voters don’t turn out, their rage will loom large. But this very short-term success is preventing the GOP from grappling with its deeper problems attracting the Hispanic and “Millennial” generation voters who tilted heavily to the Democrats in 2008 and will comprise an even larger share of the electorate in 2012. As Schwarzenegger suggests, a GOP victory this fall will likely exacerbate the problem. With the Tea Party shaping the congressional GOP, the party’s immigration views will further alienate Hispanics.

The Tea Partiers will also put pressure on the party to attack popular government spending, as the Gingrich Republicans did after 1994. It’s worth remembering how Bill Clinton clobbered Bob Dole in 1996: He tied him to Gingrich’s assault on spending on education and health care. Obama could do something similar in 2012, proving that while Americans hate government in theory, in practice they demand it, especially in bad economic times.

It’s hard to recognize it now, with the economy in the tank and Democrats running for cover, but take a step back and you can see that we’re still probably in the early stages of an era of Democratic dominance. It’s going to be a while before another Republican wins the White House, and when they do, I bet they have less in common with Sarah Palin than with Arnold himself.



View Larger Map

Sources: Daily Beast, Huliq, MSNBC, The Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps

Michelle Bachmann Vs. Hillary Clinton: Hillary! (Better Communicator)














Michele Bachmann, evangelical feminist?

If Hillary Clinton, the woman who came closest to becoming a major party presidential nominee, is a feminist icon, could something similar be said of Michele Bachmann, who officially launched her presidential campaign on Monday?

Bachmann is seldom described in those terms; the conservative Minnesota congresswoman and Tea Party darling might cringe at the feminist label.

But some religion and politics experts say that she exemplifies an evangelical feminism that is producing more female leaders in Christian nonprofits, businesses, and education and politics, even as more traditional gender roles prevail in evangelical homes and churches.

“It’s not that evangelical feminism is entirely new,” says R. Marie Griffith, director of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University in St. Louis. “But this lack of fear going into top positions of power is new and astonishing and exciting for this segment of the population.”

Though evangelical women have long been involved in political activism, including helping to lead the temperance movement and campaigning for and against women's right to vote, seeking the White House is a more recent and dramatic step.

“It’s a trend that was started by Sarah Palin,” Griffith said, referring to the former Alaska governor, who was the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008.

D. Michael Lindsay, a scholar who has studied evangelical leaders, says that evangelical feminism largely followed the trend in secular feminism, even if it was delayed by a decade or so.

“Evangelicals are not traditionally the innovators in gender roles, so they’re not going to be at the vanguard,” says Lindsay, who was recently appointed president at Gordon College and who wrote the book Faith in the Halls of Power. “But they also don’t trail too far behind.”

Lindsay says that evangelical feminism took off in the 1980s, pointing to Ronald Reagan tapping Elizabeth Dole, a Christian with strong connections in the evangelical world, to be his secretary of transportation as one example.

George W. Bush, meanwhile, appointed evangelical women to top roles in his presidential administration, including Karen Hughes as a top adviser and Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

At the same time, there are distinctions between evangelical and secular feminism. Many female evangelical leaders, for instance, talk of being called by God to pursue professional careers.

“This idea of women being out in the world when they’re doing God’s work – that’s the key,” says Griffith, who is author of God's Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission. “You have to be called.”

Bachmann, an evangelical Lutheran, has talked of being called to run for president.

“When I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer, and so that’s what a calling is,” she told CBS News on Sunday, explaining that she had prayed about her decision to seek the presidency. “If I pray, a calling means that I have a sense from God which direction I’m supposed to go.”

Another difference between some evangelical and secular feminists is a public emphasis on motherhood. Bachmann’s political identity is constructed largely around her role as a mother of five kids and her experience of taking in 23 foster children.

Palin, who was raised in the Pentecostal tradition, has also emphasized her role as mother, frequently discussing her children and famously using the term “mama grizzlies” to describe female political candidates for whom she campaigns.

Lindsay says that the motherhood angle could be refreshing to evangelical voters, who constitute a majority of the Republican electorate in early states like Iowa and South Carolina.

“A lot of male evangelical politicians have trumpeted family values, but we’ve seen time after time how many break their marriage vows and have tense relationships with their kids,” he says.

“When you’re the mother of four or five kids up there talking about how their commitment to politics stems from your commitment to kids, which is true for both Palin and Bachmann, that resonates with people who are skeptical of American politics.”

The emphasis that some women evangelical leaders place on motherhood appears to be connected to women taking on more prominent roles in the antiabortion movement, which is closely tied to the evangelical subculture.

“There were a lot of women who were representing the old guard abortion center feminism and there were very few pro-life women who were credentialed in state legislatures and running at the federal level,” says Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List, describing the organization’s founding 20 years ago.

Dannenfelser’s group works to elect women candidates who oppose abortion rights, raising roughly $11 million in the 2010 election cycle.

“The constant line from Jane Fonda and Barbara Boxer on abortion was ‘You can’t possibly know how a woman feels - how dare you speak on an issue you have no knowledge of,'” says Dannenfelser, referring to the pro-abortion rights actress and U.S. senator.

“Now we have women communicating the truth of the matter, which is that abortion is really destroying a lot of women,” she says.

Though Bachmann is widely considered to be a long shot for the GOP nomination, a weekend poll from The Des Moines Register had her running second only to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among likely Republican caucus-goers, with 22% support.

Even as more evangelical women pursue top jobs in politics, there is little sign that they will be invited into similar roles in evangelical churches, which continue to be led by men, with some exceptions. Some evangelical denominations, including Southern Baptists, have recently moved to put more restrictions on women serving as pastors.

“It seems to me that most evangelical congregations make a sharp divide between the sacred and secular realms,” says Lindsay, “so that church is the last context where you’ll see women in ordained roles.”



View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, TMPTV, The Uptake, Youtube, Google Maps