-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

umbrella boForget about the IRS, AP, and Benghazi. They all pale in significance to umbrella spUmbrella-Gate. President Obama asked White House Marine guards to hold umbrellas for the President and the Turkish Prime Minister during an outdoor press conference. Male Marines are not allowed to use umbrellas while in uniform, except when they are “perform[ing] such other duties as the President may direct“. Female Marines are allowed to use umbrellas. Sarah Palin tweeted: “Mr. President, when it rains it pours, but most Americans hold their own umbrellas.”

73 thoughts on “Umbrella-Gate”

  1. ap,

    Since none of them seemed interested in the real scandals, I lumped all the baby scandals under one umbrella 😉

  2. “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) now disapprove.

    Today’s figures include 26% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.”

    He was at -4 on Jan 20/2013. Approval rating was 55%. Approval rating has fallen 7% points and approval index has fallen 9 points.

    Did I mention Rasmussen and Gallup had Romney ahead by 4-5% points toward the end of October?

  3. “the umbrella scandals” -Blouise

    What!!!???? There was more than one, Blouise. 😉

  4. Side note … Republicans have a problem:

    Obama’s approval rating rose 5 percent in Gallup’s Daily and 2 in CNN/ORC rating thanks to the umbrella scandals.

  5. Mike S:

    What do overseas banks do with the money? I may be wrong but they make loans. So the money is working to produce jobs. Because this is a global economy it does help in this country and others. Which is an argument for free trade among nations.

    The reason the rich are sending money overseas is to avoid taxes, put money to work here by reducing taxes.

    I disagree with David Stockman, if I make $10 million per year [I wish] I only need $3 million to live [arbitrary for example and which creates/sustains jobs], I have $7 million left. If I am smart, I will invest that $7 million in real-estate, precious metals, stocks, bonds and I might even put 2 or 3 million aside for venture capital.

    Every one of those investments creates or sustains jobs, although I guess it depends on the bond type. So I am not sure how David Stockman is able to argue against lower taxes. If the government takes $4 million of my money that means I only have $3 million to invest or I reduce my level of personal spending which reduces the amount of money to spend on restaurants, travel, a new car, a second or third home, adding an addition to the house, redecorating, hiring a cook, buying a new entertainment system or any of 1,000’s of choices I can make.

    Government spending is only about consumption, it is not about production. Production creates wealth, consumption does not.

    I have not read Stockman’s book but if he is arguing against production, he is fundamentally wrong.

Comments are closed.