The unexpected reference to birth certificates drew a surprisingly enthusiastic response from the DNC crowd. The context was Presdent Obama talking about his ancestors in Kansas, who settled there 200 years ago, and may not have had birth certificates.
Birth Certificate as unifying theme
I was surprised at the strength of the reaction to Obama’s words. Maybe a chuckle, I would have thought. Obviously Obama and his speechwriter had a better handle on the crowd’s sentiment than I. The crowd knew that Donald Trump was a birther, and they resented it. It perhaps tied into the experience of some of them with racial profiling, and the new voter ID laws which solve no real problem, but place a burden on minorities and the elderly. Barack Obama humiliated Donald Trump in 2011 on this issue, and he is not letting Trump off the hook now in 2016. We may just see the birth certificate issue as one of the things that pulls Democrats together in support of Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump.
Watch the video, starting around 36:40.
What a piece of S*** speech. I can’t wait until the debate when Donald Trump takes apart Hillary Clinton piece by piece and chops her down lower than low energy Jeb.
“It perhaps tied into the experience of some of them with racial profiling, and the new voter ID laws which solve no real problem, but place a burden on minorities and the elderly.”
The prohibition of racial profiling lead to death of over 3,000 Americans on 911. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7117783/ns/us_news-security/t/ticket-agent-recalls-anger-attas-eyes/#.V5ocqoMrIdU
Go with your GUT not what is POLITCALLY CORRECT.
Don’t hold your breath. The expectations of Birthers have been demolished, one after another, for eight years.
If a failure to racially profile airline passengers led to 9/11 attacks, then the fact that we do not racially profile passengers now, would mean we should have experienced many similar attacks. Your argument is irrational.
When a birther like john says “go with your gut” what he means is, “go with your fears, your primal hatreds, your basest desires, and most ignorant assumptions.”
The 9/11 hijackers carried boxcutters, which were completely legal to bring on board at the time. A racially profiled search would have found the boxcutters and told them, “Have a nice flight.”
8 years ago, Barack Obama’s honorable Republican opponent John McCain shouted down and instantly corrected a supporter who said that Barack Obama was not born in America.
Now we have a Republican nominee who actively supported that birther nonsense.
It’s sad.
Trump’s successes in the earlier Republican-only debates stemmed from 2 things:
1) He caught people off guard and got off to a pretty strong early lead.
2) His opponents were trying to entice the same pool of right wing voters and were thus afraid to go hard after his xenophobic, racist rhetoric for fear of alienating them.
In the upcoming presidential debates, Hilary Clinton will be much more on guard and prepared. Further, she doesn’t have to hesitate to go for the jugular and call Trump out on his crap because the only people she would risk alienating are people who aren’t going to vote for her anyway. In fact, going hard against Trump would be an absolute boon. The things that served him well in the primaries are weaknesses here. Because let’s face it, only the biggest democracy nerds actually vote in primaries, and anyone who voted for him back then was already inclined to vote for someone in that general ideological spectrum.
So far the Donald has refused to respond to questions on his birther history.
But I’d like to see someone ask Mike Pence if there’s any doubt in his mind about where the president was born or whether he is constitutionally eligible for the office.
he looks down when he’s lying. hillary does that too. watch the benghazi videos.
I have sent off an email to DC Police on the Vince Foster murder. If they respond….IF….you may see new life in the birther movement. For the record, I, not Hillary Clinton, am the original birther.
I would be curious to know, john, who in the current scene you think is a good speaker. If you look at the rhetorical structure of his speeches and the delivery, Barack Obama is a master with few equals in his generation. I happen to agree with much of what he says, but my opinion of his speaking ability would be the same if I didn’t.
That’s if you can even spell it.
Pence says Obama was born in Hawaii.
So why do you think Hillary lied? Surely you are not saying that you know she lied because she looked down, and you know she lies when she looks down because she was lying when she looked down.
I don’t know which videos you are talking about, but I’m guessing it’s Congressional testimony. I don’t recall her being cited for perjury, and surely if she had lied, the Republican majority would have called for a special prosecutor or something like that.
I had a strange little “small world” moment whilst watching the DNC speeches yesterday. Turns out the guy Mrs. Crusty dated before she met yours truly is the brother of Tim Kaine’s wife, Anne Holton. Anne and her brother made the nightly news in 1970 when their father, Virginia governor A. Linwood Holton, Jr., enrolled them in Richmond public schools as part of his effort to encourage desegregation.
My, how the Republican party has changed!
If you didn’t listen to Michael Bloomberg’s speech last night, take 12 minutes and look at it. He eviscerates Trump, one businessman to another.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4615520/former-mayor-michael-bloomberg
Politically correct is a weasel phrase used by people who don’t have the testicular fortitude to admit they’re a racist.
Not surprised to see you using it John.
Your constant butthurt over your consistent losing streak must be getting to you.
Let me put your mind at rest: they won’t.
Thanks. Still, that was 2009 — I’d like to see if he would be so definitive now.
Birthers write things on the internet; they’re lying.
So, john, tell us…..given the opportunity to address the Democratic convention what exactly would you have said to them?
c’mon man, lied ? i think the mister might have too (lied). do you honestly believe there is no pattern here ? is the stuff in the anonymous video true or not ? any of it ?
the body language thing gets more interesting as we go along.
they all, look at the floor especially hillary..and says ahh alot.
geez… pollyanna party…… he was cited for perjury, why she lies is because that’s what transports her to where the power is.
Considering how seriously messed-up your values are, that’s a ringing endorsement.
I once had a guy who worked for me who had a PhD in neurophysiology and was a student of microexpressions. He once told me that I dropped my eyes when I lied, The thing is that I never lied to him, or anybody else at that company. He had expertise, and even now I would take his opinion seriously. You, a biased observer? Yawn.
What “anonymous video”?
He looked down occasionally because the teleprompter was in the podium. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that.
Nancy and “for the record” are mutually exclusive concepts.
‘Birtherism’ Is Back and That May Be Bad News For Trump
NBC News
Birtherism — the repeatedly debunked conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama is not a legitimate American citizen — has made a comeback in the political discourse, and oddly enough it’s the first couple resurrecting it.
In her acclaimed address before the Democratic National Convention on Monday, first lady Michelle Obama talked about encouraging her daughters Sasha and Malia to “ignore those who question their father’s citizenship or faith.” On Wednesday, the president himself made a quip about his Kansas ancestors’ emigrating without their birth certificates in tow during his DNC speech.
Neither mentioned Donald Trump by name during those moments, but anyone who followed the now-GOP presidential nominee’s relatively recent crusade on behalf of the birther movement would recognize who they were referencing. Although Trump has teased a potential foray into politics for years, his aggressive attacks on the president’s personal history vaulted him into a prominent position in Republican party politics.
As the New York Times reported earlier this month: “The more Mr. Trump questioned the legitimacy of Mr. Obama’s presidency, the better he performed in the early polls of the 2012 Republican field, springing from fifth place to a virtual tie for first.”
Trump spent several weeks questioning the president’s birthplace, his religion, even his academic performance — at one point offering a hefty financial reward for dirt on his past and allegedly sending investigators to Obama’s home state of Hawaii to unearth proof of any illegitimacy.
When Obama begrudgingly released his longform birth certificate, which confirmed his American citizenship in a surreal press conference in April of 2011, Trump claimed victory and praised himself for forcing the president’s hand. Still, he never has expressed regret for his actions or publicly acknowledged that the president is indeed an American citizen.
[EXCERPT]
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birtherism-back-may-be-bad-news-trump-n618731
I noticed it the first night.
After tonight’s DNC session, after Hillary Clinton spoke, I turned over to Fox News to see what they had to say. Sean Hannity said right out that he did not want Hillary Clinton to be president. They said Clinton’s speech was platitudes. Commenter after commenter dissed the speech, and said how masterfully Donald Trump was responding point by point. It made me sick.
I watched most of it with my daughter, and wife, and I consider HRC under-educated economically , my daughter loved it, and my wife was none commenting!
You can not run the government for very long is you took all of the money away from every millionaire, you can not provide free college education for all people, you can not eliminate debt by allowing refinancing of debt, the USA is not the best army in the world, and we sure as hell don’t want to challenge Russia over some trivial action somewhere in the world, and you can not offer a living wage to all workers because as soon as you do that the price of goods goes up and the worker need more money to live, but you can inflate the money so everyone looks like they are getting more money, but the real cost of goods goes up.
Reminds me of Plato’s “the republic” as to the eventual results from a democracy and it desire to give free stuff to get votes.
But she is a good speaker and reads the prompter’s well
,
But, as with most things, he still likes to lie about it. After being chastised for responding poorly to a conspiracy nut at one of his rallies, and refusing to answer questions about whether he was still birfering, he said this on Faux News last September:
Of course, the real reason nobody talks about it is that the only thing she ever said was that, as far as she knew, there was nothing to it. Except, of course, for the birfoons, who keep trying to read something into the “as far as I know” part…
You’re not the only one disturbed by what is happening. Here is an interesting piece from tonight’s Talking Points Memo with critical and concerned comments from……Republicans:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conservatives-agree-dnc-was-disaster-for-gop
The Germans and pretty much the rest of the developed world seem to be able to provide free college. And anyway, nobody is proposing free college for everyone, only for the academically qualified.
And you think Hillary Clinton is “under-educated economically”? Wow.
No one is talking about taking “all of the money away from every millionaire”.
We already provide free education for 12 years. Why can’t we afford another four?
Your comment about debt doesn’t make any sense.
Same with Russia.
As far as a living wage is concerned you might want to consider the old adage “a rising tide lifts all boats” and do a little reading. Most economists disagree with you.
I liked this comment left on that page:
“We’ve spent forty years on talk radio, Fox News, in books, newspapers and pamphlets, on billboards and on websites saying everything Trump says, and it turns out when a person actually runs on those ideas at the national level they just come across as buffoonish and egomaniacal. Who knew?”
There’s a third factor I think is even more important.
Sometime around last September, someone did a poll in which 69% of GOP respondents said it was more important to nominate someone who reflected/represented their values/issues (I forget the precise wording) than someone who could win the election. The GOP base is furious that the “establishment” has been screwing them for years by promising to do something about outlawing abortion, bringing back school prayer, and other theocratic wishes, then often not even making symbolic gestures when they get to D.C. Plus promising economic prosperity they couldn’t deliver, but had some success in blaming on the Evil Libruls™.
Trump rode that wave of anger by dissing the “establishment” candidates, and tossed out some platitudes about some other, more legitimate, issues (like the way free trade has pitted unskilled and low-skill manufacturing workers against foreigners who are sometimes little better than slaves) that attract other unhappy folks.
There are a lot of dissatisfied people who think there are simple, easy answers to complex problems, and Trump is promising to deliver them (ambiguous antecedent intended).
Come on ,, Doc, who is going to tell the unqualified that they are not qualified for college education.
everyone is entitled to the benefits of anyone else, right?
Well, I am an old man and did graduate from Berkeley and majored in PolySc/Eonomics after ww2,
There is , apparently, over 1 trillion dollars outstanding in student debt, and, believe it or not, the balance does not go down when you refinance the loans.
AYou simply get a lower payment, perhaps with longer term, but that good old debt is in your credit report.
As to Russia, as long as there are hydrogen bombs around there is no equality in armed forces.
Under modern weapons, without usage of big bombs , we have little chance to hurting Russia militarily, and economically the Russian can survive with their allies in the world
Neither they, or we, can do anything about invading and taking over any nation at all, no, I take that back, as they can easily invade a number of country as they are all on the same continent, and can easily be invaded.
Tell that to the ghettos of USA as they seem to have not had the same wage increases that have been floating our boat for the last 40 years.
And look at how hard it is to buy a house now , even with the low interest rates.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
What i find utterly sad is not that Trump says and does all kind of horrible unprecedented things; it is that nearly 50% of the American public enables him & supports him despite that.
There is virtually no political price to pay anymore for behaving like a Mussolini.
If you don’t autocorrect by relegating him to its natural 27% habitat your entire democratic system will be in peril.
Speaking as a former banker and an MBA this is simplistic b*llsh*t. Your knowledge of macroeconomics is, at best, cartoony.
Yes there is room for disagreement between various “schools”, but nothing as naive and simplistic as yours. I’d suggest you start by reading Keynes. Krugman is a good read too, very accessible.
I don’t think the Dems can run a campaign by just pointing out how truly ghastly Trump is. Mrs Clinton needs to borrow a page from Mr Sanders (or FDR) and propose a set of doable Keynesian policies which in many ways would be a continuation of the Obama policies.
Europe unfortunately continues to be locked into a set of ridiculous and inappropriate Friedmanesque (or Austrian school) policies (known as “austerity”) which are exacting both a political and economic cost.
Your country has been luckier and benefited from Obama’s bailout measures etc and, even if not everything was done in the best manner, you’re in a better shape than we are.
A Trump presidency would be (economically speaking) a ghastly tragedy, especially (ironically) for his clueless supporters. The image of chicken acclaiming Colonel sanders comes to mind.
john, I don’t know what you do in life but you don’t strike me as a rich guy. A Trump presidency would ruin you, possibly make you homeless. (But of course you’d still have the minorities to look down upon.)
He was quiet and courteous about it. I can’t recall ever hearing him raise his voice, even when angry (though I only know him through TV and Youtube clips, so my knowledge is limited). It would only slightly surprise me to hear that the last time he shouted was when the Forrestal was on fire 😉
The GOP cut Trump miles of slack during the debates because they were terrified he go third party or independent on them, letting him turn the whole thing into a bumper sticker- and insult-flinging contest.
If this year’s general election debates are even half as disciplined as previous ones, Manafort will be begging for a towel to throw into the ring before they finish the first hour of the first debate.
Thank you for making my point.
The tide has risen unevenly in America for too long.
Earth to Jack: Real wages aren’t increasing.
She has. You should look at her website. Infrastructure is very much stressed. The problem is that without a Democratic Congress that will be hard to achieve.
I would call them Austrian, more than Friedmanesque. Friedman would probably not see a problem with stimulus when inflation is close to non-existent, as it is today.
Not everyone wants to go to college. Offer good programs to train people in skilled trades. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters can make very nice livings if they are any good. Try getting one to come to your house. The ones I call are booked for weeks.
As always, enjoy the cascading and contrasting candor of Domestic Bliss with the totes of Foreign Felicity thrown in.
Doc wrote: “..surprised at the strength of the [reaction] to Obama’s words”
So unwise for the Obama’s ( Both Barack & Michelle) to continue In their valedictory speeches to assail the “grace’ of Obama’s Constitutional Qualification.
I’m not sure “Why” Doc was surprised at the reaction. It was not a “cheer of a champion”, something recognized in the Valor or Honorable Department of Character one might suppose circumstantial for the Convention purpose, nor a laugh at Donald Trump who never filed a single legal brief or ballot challenge about it.
It was the laugh of “You got away with it alrighty” , that implicates a wrong-doing or cheat that was covered up.
You short- cut that Clip play it over and over, it’s unmistakable.
The reason Doc shouldn’t be surprised is that is who the Delegates and SuperDelegates are , especially given the H.Clinton’s recent FBI Criminal Investigation highlight real by Director James Comey, and the purge of Sanders Delegation from the Arena.
The audience of Obama’s like Obama’s is thrilled the highest office was usurped . . But Main Street is not.
The Economy like Politicians is thrilled with the Mantra BIGGER is BETTER until it goes Bust leaving the SMALL standing TALL.
Main-street survives without Wallstreet much more easily then the opposite. Politics is local is a hard thing to rationalize away from.
Besides the point that the Convention was suppose to be about the nomination of Hillary, Obama’s third term was interjected quite disdainfully by the Obama’s with the personalization of their victim hood of [natural born Citizenship] they labeled [Citizenship] again conflating the binding Constitutional Qualification and doing a dis-service to Americans in the mired quagulation.
Laughing with Bonnie and Clyde is exactly what we saw, far from the Cheers of John and Jacque.
If Obama had in himself “respect and grace” the same might be afforded to him, but he can’t help himself. He uses every opportunity he can to blow his foot off while he recognises he needs it to walk.
And the fact he’s done it continually for seven and a half years speaks volumes to the merit of his not being Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of President. He still hasn’t become President.. he’s still trying to qualify.
It’s really obvious and sad which is typical for clowns and comics. Only the Truth will set him free of the painful hole he’s dug.
As usual CRJ you use a lot of words without actually saying anything at all.
Cody, maybe you would like to try for my $100 challenge. You claim you are broke, so you could use the money, right? Here it is from another thread:
Explain why having a President whose father played no role in his life, but was a citizen of a friendly, though globally insignificant country, is a grave threat to the US, but having a President who urges an unfriendly country with several thousand nuclear warheads, a great many aimed at the US, to hack the emails of US citizens is not.
Some of you may like this:
http://newsthump.com/2016/07/19/life-was-hard-as-a-black-woman-growing-up-in-america-says-donald-trumps-wife/
The admissions office, of course.
California charged no tuition for its public universities until the mid 1970s, but that didn’t mean that everybody got to go. Students still had to apply and be accepted.
A funny thing – I watched all four nights of the Democratic convention, and I didn’t hear Judy’s name mentioned once.
There was a time when CUNY automatically accepted anyone in New York with a high school diploma, but that is no longer the case and hasn’t been since the NYC fiscal crisis of the mid-1970s
And he makes up his own words, such as “quagulation” – whatever that is supposed to mean.
Looks like Hillary Clinton’s speech was a success with the people it was designed to reach:
CNN/ORC Poll. July 28, 2016. N=455 registered voters nationwide who watched Hillary Clinton’s Democratic convention acceptance speech.
“What was your overall reaction to Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or very negative?”
Very positive: 71%
Somewhat positive: 15%
Somewhat negative: 7%
Very negative: 5%
Both/Mixed: 1%
I agree with that. But, sad to state, there would be a big incentive to go to college is college would be free, assuming that would mean that the student would be under scholarship for room , board, and tuition, otherwise it would not be free, would it.
Given a choice between having to go to work at hard labor, and attending a college for 4 years or more, what to you think that the average young person would do?
And then you would have the problem of maintaining grades and having to kick them out of the college, for failing the program.
What kind of mess would result as the parents complain of biases or discrimination against their child?
It appears to me that there should be twice as many trade schools as colleges, and , by golly, maybe they should be free and the colleges not.
Hack emails happens in all of the technical countries as it is just another way of spying. You don’t have to encourage spies to hack, that is part of their jobs.
Look at the NSA which hacks everyone , every where!
Well, having been in college in the late 1940’s in California, I beg to differ.
My wife paid tuition, and I had mine paid by the VA as a veteran benefit.
And that was a Cal Berkeley.
Moody’s Analytics estimates that if the Democratic presidential nominee’s proposals are enacted, the economy would create 10.4 million jobs during her presidency, or 3.2 million more than expected under current law.
The pace of GDP growth would also accelerate to an annual average of 2.7%, from the current forecast of 2.3%.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/economy/hillary-clinton-economy-jobs-moodys/index.html?iid=surge-story-summary
Here’s how it works. If Wal-mart raised its wages, the employees would spend much of the increase at Wal-Mart. That would increase demand for products and drive up Wal-Mart’s sales. Wal-Mart would then meet the increased demand by ordering more inventory from its suppliers. The suppliers in turn would have to hire more employees in order to fulfill the increased orders.
That’s what they mean when they say that “a rising tide lifts all ships.”
Before I believe that ridiculous story, I will need to see:
1. Your application
2. Your transcripts
3. Signed letters from at least 3 professors
4. Your military discharge papers
5. Your birth certificate.
6. Hospital records of your birth
And once you provide those, i will have a whole list of further demands.
It’s not for lack of trying.
Obama WAS born in Hawaii. Allen Owens, aka Pres. Obama, and I stole his identity.
Ok, Feel free to look them up, as they are public records as I am over 75 years old.
Tuition was free for California residents, although students had to pay some fees. This changed in the 1975-1976 school year, when resident students had to pay $630 in tuition and fees.
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since-1868/
Don’t get me started about their out of state tuition.
Well, the lectern, or they’d all be shoegazers.
He’s apparently quite well known for losing it during meetings. However, that night he was, no doubt about it, dignified, measured, and magnanimous in the way he responded:
Woman calls Obama an Arab at Rally – McCain condems talk
This is where the standard of decency for the GOP nominee has come from in just eight short years.
A point that Clinton explicitly made during her speech last night.
Be careful what you throw in your totes. You could get in a lot of trouble.
Please post your full name, date of birth, place of birth and your Social Security number so we can do just that.
Thanks.
The story says nothing about wages being an issue.
The stores involved are mostly smaller Walmart Express stores which are located within 10 miles of Walmart Supercenters. Most people prefer to shop at the Supercenters, for obvious reasons. They are simply shutting underperforming stores, which all retail businesses do.
the straw that broke the camels back is what It is called. If you raise the wages 50%
. and the salary bumps for $22,000 a year to $33,000 a year per employee , it does not take genius to see that the net income might grow to negative amounts on net profit, now figure it out how much the raise would cost the company for 16,000 employees and you might be able to figure out why raising wages might no be a good idea for some employees.
,
<blockquote cite="comment-376487"
Also, Trader Jack, your fear is overblown that every young person not otherwise inclined to attend college will do so anyway to delay having to enter the world of work. Keeping up in college requires more than a modicum of work. If someone wants to laugh and play for four years, the reality of the first semester’s grade report might well disabuse him. People who don’t enjoy school are usually pretty happy to be done with it after 12 years, and might well find that learning a trade and making a little money at age 20 can be much more rewarding.
To the point that California charged in-state residents no public college tuition until the mid 70s: I remember reading this back in the day. So your statement about the GI bill paying your tuition at Cal Berkeley in the late ’40s — does this mean you were not a California resident?
Anyone — did California institute tuition-free college attendance sometime after the late ’40s, or was it always tuition-free until the mid-70s?
You know I don’t really know what it was because the GI bill took care of it. My wife paid $600 a semester, but she was from New York.
Ah I went to San Diego State for two years and transferred to Cal for then next two years, and, San Diego State was not a UC campus, and that my be where I got the tuition information from
However, it was inexpensive at Cal!
No. Most of them are not. Most no longer exist. And I doubt your real name is “Trader Jack” so I couldn’t look them up even if they did.
Now prove what you say is true. Stop lying.
—-
My question for you, John:
With Russian/KGB support, who you gonna call “commies” now?
Please refer to the site editorial policy, item 15.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/visitor-guide/editorial-policy/
Oh, never fear, Doc. I wasn’t expecting an answer and I certainly wouldn’t have posted the information if I had it on my own.
Two Words- [The Law]
You see we live in a Constitition Republic. What that means is we live under a Standard which is The Supreme Law of the Land.
We don’t live under a Standard of [Popular Personality] or [Popular Prejudice]
We have a process of Amending the U.Supreme. Constitution. Since 2003 eight attempts were proposed but failed. That is the will of the people through their Representatives and Senators.
Americans reserved the Office of President in a Standard Qualification excluding any foreign Citizenship by place of birth or inheritance by Parent.
The exception was [Citizen] at the [Time] of the Adoption. Obama did not qualify for that [Time].
The SHOCKING REVELATION at Democratic National Convention
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1240077479360366&id=510896692278452
@SCOTUSblog #SCOTUS #Birthers
https://t.co/s9zwHPoeTz
As to the reference about Trump.. the Server is down and was confiscated. The FBI has it. Can’t believe you fell for that.
CarlOrcas:
While I haven’t seen the text of The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, the various descriptions on the net indicate that the Bureau of Veterans Affairs paid the veteran’s tuition directly to the college or university. Of course, if there were no tuition due, as in California at the time, the Bureau would not have to pay anything. It would appear to a veteran such as Trader Jack that his tuition was being paid but that would be his mistake.
According to many philosophies we all lived throughout time and are continually reborn. Therefore, you don’t know.
The rest of what you wrote is complete gobbledygook.
No wonder you are broke…
You should know that The Law is not random stuff printed from the internet. That’s birther law.
For more information, refer to Doc’s quote of the day.
Walmart’s net income in 2015 was $121.15 BILLION. If the company gave every employee a raise of $11,000 and nothing else changed, its net income would be a paltry $106 BILLION. But much of that would be recouped through higher sales, better employee retention, better employee morale, etc.
My goodness, do you think that Walmart makes the money it makes by being stupid?
Any good business man wants to maximize their net profit, and if it requires that they layoff people they will lay off as necessary.
Heck, most people feel that the government should lay off half of the government’s employees so the government would have more money to provide health and welfare for the poor.
If you raise the salaries of lower level employees then you have to raise the salaries of the levels above that, so, in effect, a 50% raise in entry level results in 50% higher labor cost in all labor costs in higher levels of labor employment.
And, then, you move the company to Mexico, China , Indonesia, or where-ever.
Now the government loves to encourage higher wages as it results , usually, in higher taxes being paid on the higher selling prices of the produced goods, and in the end ,more taxable income.
When I was first hired many years ago, my income, plus wife’s income, allowed us to buy a house, but the income taxes we paid were in the low hundreds of dollars, where as today, my retired income taxes are in the $10,000 range, slightly less than
10K, and that figure is more than our total income in the 1950’s
So be prepared in the future for higher and higher taxes,
I have never heard anyone say that.
If you pay that much in income taxes, you are in the top few percent of retirees or you need a better accountant. Either way, I’m not crying for you, nor do I believe anything you say…..
10K in 1950 is about 100K in 2016 dollars. Your 10K taxes now would have been 1K taxes then.
Let’s take somebody in a lower rate in 1950. If you made 2,500 back then it would be 25K or sok now. However, your marginal tax rate would have been 22% in 1950 but in 2016 would have been 15%, If paid the full marginal rate, would have paid around 500 back then or about 5,000 now. Paying the full marginal rate now would be 3,700.
In short, we pay less of our income in taxes now then we did in 1950.
Let me get this straight: You’re saying if Taco Bell gives $10 an hour employees a $5 raise they will have to raise the CEO’s compensation ($22 million in 2013) by $11 million?
They taught you this at Cal when you were studying economics there?
In my example, everybody employed by Walmart gets a raise of $11,000. If you were making $12,000, you are now making $23,000. If you were making $100,000, you are now making $111,000.
the bottom level gets minimum salary with experience raises, the next level get 5% above minimum top salary plus experience raises.
b = base
o=overtime
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2016/GS_h.pdf
1 B $ 8.79 $ 9.08 $ 9.38 $ 9.67 $ 9.96 $ 10.13 $ 10.42 $ 10.71 $ 10.72 $ 10.99
O 13.19 13.62 14.07 14.51 14.94 15.20 15.63 16.07 16.08 16.49
2 B 9.88 10.12 10.44 10.72 10.84 11.16 11.48 11.80 12.12 12.44
O 14.82 15.18 15.66 16.08 16.26 16.74 17.22 17.70 18.18 18.66
3 B 10.78 11.14 11.50 11.86 12.22 12.58 12.94 13.30 13.66 14.02
O 16.17 16.71 17.25 17.79 18.33 18.87 19.41 19.95 20.49 21.03
4 B 12.10 12.51 12.91 13.31 13.72 14.12 14.52 14.93 15.33 15.74
O 18.15 18.77 19.37 19.97 20.58 21.18 21.78 22.40 23.00 23.61
5 B 13.54 13.99 14.44 14.90 15.35 15.80 16.25 16.70 17.15 17.60
O 20.31 20.99 21.66 22.35 23.03 23.70 24.38 25.05 25.73 26.40
6 B 15.10 15.60 16.10 16.60 17.11 17.61 18.11 18.62 19.12 19.62
O 22.65 23.40 24.15 24.90 25.67 26.42 27.17 27.93 28.68 29.43
If you look at the hourly pay schedule here you will note that $15 an hour is the starting wage for GS 6
In other word it would shift the pay schedules up 4 grade levels for all grades
Put perhaps you might think that is a good idea
I trust you can see what could happen in big organizationsl
“For one, the average income in 1948 was $3,120 (SOURCE). There was a standard 10% deduction for those not itemizing (those itemizing could subtract union dues, high health care costs, work clothes, etc.). Lets assume you took the 10% because if you itemized lower than 10%, you would be an idiot not to take the 10%. Your taxable income dropped $312 to $2,808. Now we get to the tricky part – each family is different, and you were allowed a standard deduction was $600 per person. A signle person would only deduct $600, but lets assume a “Beaver” home (stay at home Mom and two kids). So a family of four, being supported on the average income automatically removed another $2,400 from their taxable income. This now drops their Federal taxable income to $408. At 16% they paid $65.28 (or 2.09% of their gross wages).
My income in 1948-49 consisted of my wife’s salary of 1,800 a year and my GI benefits which were non taxable, which I believe was about $65 a month.
Trader Jack just makes it up as he goes along, rather like CRJ.
Has to be his whine about the DC court denying his application to release the information he shouldn’t have to begin with. I don’t think he had anything else still alive.
“Rich people pay nearly 87% of all federal individual income tax in America
Income level Share of total federal
individual income tax paid Average income tax bill
per person
Lowest 20% -2.2% -$643
Second lowest 20% -1.7% -$621
Middle income 4.2% $1,743
Second richest 20% 12.9% $6,285
Richest 20% 86.8% $50,176
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24
that might interest you , but probably not!
The important number missing from your chart is what the income level is at those breaks. To be in the richest 20%, annual income is about $100,000 or greater. Or to put it another way, when I was working, Bill Gates and I were in the same quintile. That’s hardly meaningful, and indeed hides what’s going on.
It does interest me, but what is the income share of the top 20%? Also, income tax is not the only tax people pay. Even the lowest wage worker pays FICA, they pay various excise taxes on phones, etc. and these are flat taxes. Bill Gates pays the same amount as a minimum wage worker. They pay sales tax and local property taxes (if you rent the landlord includes what they pay in your rent). In some states, income tax hits very close to the first dollar you earn with few exemptions.
By the way, if you raised the minimum wage, low wage workers would pay more taxes, so you should support that.
Trader Jack doesn’t want to talk about the top 1%, who own 38% of the privately owned wealth in the U.S. but pay just 27.9% of all Federal taxes. Upper middle class taxpayers pay three times as much in payroll taxes as the top 1% despite owning only about 10% of the wealth.
The more telling story deals with the distribution of wealth in America…………….
In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
Your point?
More important…..why do you think people making more money is a BAD idea?
You are right, and that was not in the report I read.
But when you consider that a large percentage pay no income tax at all, no matter what their income is. And it looks like the lowest tax payers get money back instead of paying income tax at all.
unless I read it wrongly.
Which leaves the top two levels paying all of the income tax.
Landlords take the taxes paid as a deduction, so the renter pays no property taxes.
My paper in Econ 102 was that we could eliminate all taxes by simply depreciating the money by 10 percent a year which would force money circulation and have a guaranteed return to the government of the 10% all money!
Prof didn’t think much of that idea.
How come none of you mentioned the effect of a $15 minimum wage on the federal wage scales, as you can see, or perhaps don’t want to see, what the effect would be on the government on any large institution.
Just give me more money and the heck with what it does to the economy as a whole
Um, no. The property tax deduction is for your main home, not rental or business property. In addition, some states, like Michigan, have a higher levy on non-homestead properties so renters end up paying more (and often do not see a drop when property taxes go down).
When Michigan passed Proposal A in the 90s, homestead taxes went down and sales taxes went up. Renters ended up paying more.
Actually, a landlord can deduct all expenses on a rental property, mortgage, taxes, repairs, etc. on their federal return.
But where jack is wrong is that is a deduction, not a credit. A landlord who pays $5000 property tax on a rental house and deducts it might save $1500 on his income tax, so jack is correct that the feds pick up that part. Where jack is wrong is that the tenant is paying the remainder, or $3500.
—-
That is ridiculous.
I figure most people feel that Walmart should pay a living wage so its employees don’t have to rely upon the government for food.
Your alma mater disagrees with you.
“The policy [New York’s proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15] will have large positive effects on living standards and very small effects on employment,” concludes UC Berkeley’s team of labor market researchers from the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment in the latest in a series of studies of minimum wage policies under consideration or being implemented by cities and states across the country.
http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/03/10/study-sees-positive-impact-of-raising-new-yorks-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/
5%? Math fail. In reality, if you restructured the salary scale so that each grade’s initial pay step was 9% higher than the previous grade’s initial pay step, instead of the current ~12%, the top salary ranges would only increase slightly.
Oops, my bad. I checked to quickly. Though, as you mentioned, it is only a deduction and in those states where non-homestead properties pay a higher rate, the renters end up paying more then homeowners.
If you can tell, I dislike the “renters don’t pay property taxes’ argument. It is usually used by those who want to remove voting rights of renters.
Yes, it’s kind of like saying that shoppers don’t pay sales taxes, since it’s the seller who has to file the sales tax returns and pay the balance due.
if you can not deduct it from your tax forms it is not an expense for you. In fact if the landlord does not pay his property tax, what are you paying for with rent?
using your theory the renter should be able to deduct it as an expense to his gross income.
the landlord pays the property taxes whether the property is rented or not!
Who wants to stop the renters from voting?
the pay scale jumps 5 levels at once.
If a GS 1 gets $9 and the GS 6 gets $9 now, then the present GS 1 pay scale jumps to the present GS6 level, and that forces the whole scale upward accordingly
How much of a raise would a GS 10 get , using the upward shift in the payscales.as an example?
This guy:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ticonderoga-ny/TKVV176R6PGG15098/p2#c22
As I said, the whole salary scale would get adjusted. There is no reason that we would have to stick to the existing gaps. As the pay grade goes up, the raise would progressively decrease. As an example, you could decrease each increase by half a current grade until you get to no increase and keep the pay the same from there. The new scale would compare to the old scale as follows:
1=6
2=6.5
3=7
4=7.5
5=8
6=8.5
7=9
8=9.5
9=10
10=10.5
11=11
12=12
13=13
14=14
15=15
So to answer your question, a grade 10 employee would see a raise of $1.11 an hour, or about 4%, in this scenario, and no raises for higher level employees. This of course is dependent on the exact adjustment scheme; you could easily set it up so a grade 10 didn’t get a raise at all.
and you can check all sorts of systems, and changes, and adjust the figure to comply with what you think it should be.
Kind of like your work on the birth certificates, right?
Wrong, and your attempt to attack my integrity is noted. Anyone who followed the work NBC, RC, and I did on the birth certificates would know that we did not alter data to to fit our expectations. In fact, on a number of occasions we had to change our hypotheses to account for data that we didn’t expect. But in so doing, our case that a Xerox WorkCentre was used in conjuction with Mac Preview to scan a real certificate was made even stronger.
That is very different from proposing a future policy.
You had to change your hypothesis to account for data that you did not expect?
Your hypothesis changed , or your thesis changed.
Your hypothesis was that the bc was true and correct?
Or was it your thesis that bc was fake?
You do not change a hypothesis which is to be proven true or false by evidence or confrontation.
So what was your hypothesis, which I suspect was that the LFBC was not forged.
And, I suspect, that all changes to your hypothesis was to advance your original hypothesis, and you made no attempt to find out if your hypothesis was false.
If you had to make changes to your hypothesis your hypothesis was false
Hypothesis.
The LFBC must be true and accurate because it is a certified copy of the LFBC
Thesis,
The LFBC is true and accurate!
antithesis
the LFBC can not be considered to be true and accurate because it can have been changed, legally, in the facts of the birth record.
Synthesis
The LFBC may be true and accurate but should be considered as possibly inaccurate is some respect.
That would be an erroneous synthesis because one cannot conclude that a change in a birth certificate makes it inaccurate. A trivial example is when the original certificate has a name misspelled. A less trivial example involves acknowledgment of paternity. When a birth certificate is changed (except in the case of the witness protection program or an adoption) it is done so to make it more accurate as to the facts of birth. And neither witness protection nor adoption is the case for President Obama.
No, of course that was not the hypothesis in the Xerox tests. Don’t be obtuse.
“Synthesis
The LFBC may be true and accurate but should be considered as possibly inaccurate is some respect.”
It was neither. Their objective was to determine if the so-called anomalies in the pdf were evidence of deliberate human manipulation or inherent in the in the copying process which was used by the White House.
They were able to establish beyond a doubt that the layers, etc. are exactly what one would expect to see when a Xerox WorkCentre is used with Mac Preview.
But how would we recognize him?
and you verified that the HDOH had that system installed in 2011 by what means?
and you verified that the MAC Preview and Xerox WorkCentre was in the Press Office?
And would you vouch for anything that has been processed through a Mac Preview without doing the work yourself?
But if it satisfies you, that is all the counts, as anyone who disputes anything about it must be
My problem is that I don’t think a Xerox can make such a bad copy of anything.
Nothing about the experiment relies on any equipment at the Hawaii Department of Health. They said that they copied a paper original onto security paper.
The WorkCenter installation was verified by GSA purchase records.
I personally determined Mac preview was used shortly after the PDF was first released. This is one of the earliest findings.
So “anyone who disputes anything about it must be” ignoring the evidence.
Correct. All the experiments were done with either printed copies of the LFBC PDF posted at whitehouse.gov or by printing the AP jpeg on green security paper. The latter gave better results because the AP image is better than the LFBC and the green basket weave pattern is degraded by the scanning and compression process use to create the PDF file.
The proof that Xerox equipment was used in the Executive Office of the President is two fold. First, the President’s tax returns published by the same office the same mont the LFBC was released show the creator of the PDF files is a Xerox WorkCentre. Second, public records show multiple contracts with the same office for equipment and maintenance covering the same time period.
The theory that a Xerox WorkCentre was used to make the PDF file copy evolved over time as would be expected for any scientific investigation. People started looking at compression algorithms pretty early after the LFBC was released but most were looking at PC based programs. I think the first suggestion that a modern office center machine with builtin compression software might be the ticket was made right here by justlw.
gsgs, nbc, and others started having discussions about the makeup of the LFBC file and different layers on nbc’s blog. Then it was discovered that Xerox patents on MRC and JBIG2 compression described a process that would create a PDF file with a structure and features like the LFBC when a document is scanned. nbc did some test scans on a Xerox WorkCentre to confirm the theory with actual results.
The last piece of the puzzle was to show that a Mac with Quartz/Preview was used to rotate and resave the PDF.
JPotter also made this suggestion early on, and I could KICK MYSELF for not following up on that.,
I think everyone was looking at PC based software. That’s the mistake that Garrett Papit made when he did the work for the CCP and prepared a report claiming MRC compression could not explain the layers in the PDF file.
BTW, whatever happened with the results of the tests Papit was doing with a Xerox WorkCentre?
Trader Jack’s “theory” is that at some point in time, the birth DATA was altered on the Hawaii Obama Certificate of Live Birth. Particularly where the Certificate says “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” it should say “Coast Provincial General Hospital.”
Where the Obama certificate says “Honolulu, Hawaii,” Trader Jack believes the original said “Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya,” et cetera.
Of course the state of Hawaii has found no evidence of alteration, nor has any other credible source, but Trader Jack worships at the feet of Lucas D. Smith.
all good efforts to establish what you think happened, and that is good work
But the original copying of the document was done, according to you, by the HDOH, then the document was certified by Onaka, and handed to the attorney, who flew them to DC, where they went to the press office and displayed by the press person, who then had copies made by the staff, and sent to the news agencies, who then scanned them and put them on the internet for you to look and the pubic to look at
The document went through 2 Mac Previews, then went through the scanners, et. at the news agencies, and processes at the agencies.
And what you inspect had had 3 opportunities to be modified, printed, and all of them must have used Mac Preview and Xerox Workcentres to have you establish that the final virtual document was made the way that you think it was.
And it well may have been, but, to me, it would have been better to actually have worked from the HDOH copy.
Hey, maybe Assuange will have emails covering the actions. LOL
Too many people and computers tend to lessen the validity of a document.
Did he ever get it connected to the network?
None of this discussion will make a bit of difference to the world and I am just trying to present a different point of view.
I don’t think I have ever said the BHO was not born in Honolulu, what I have said is the evidence on the bc seems to be to have been altered.
And I base that on one thing.
The printer make no difference in the dpi for the printed stuff on the form, but it uses different dpi for some of the information entered on the form.
And I can not see a dpi change in the middle of a printed document being normal
Do you believe the higher-resolution “AP” image of the birth certificate was created from the White House PDF?
If you do not believe this, can you explain why the internal format of the White House PDF matters at all?
What I don’t believe is that we’re still having this discussion.
If you used the terms correctly, then a DPI change in the middle of a compressed document from a Xerox machine is normal. The Xerox decomposes a document into objects, and then optimizes them separately. The security paper background, some of the form and a little of the text were put in one layer and saved in JPG format as best I remember as 150 DPI. The rest of the form text was stored as a bitmap at 300 DPI. The rubber stamp was another object.
The problem you have, and this is the problem all birthers who claim the PDF is a computer-generated forgery have, is that they simply do not have the competence to know what is normal. Sure it looks odd to have different DPI in the middle of a document, and it looks odd that you can move the registrar’s stamp around in PhotoShop, BUT it is normal for PDF output of a scanned document on a Xerox machine.
Clark’s Third Law says: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” If the observer is a birther, then “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from fraud.”
The last we heard from Papit was an explanation in an email to Doc the that YouTube video was supposedly made to send to a tech guy because he couldn’t get the NIC card to work.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/08/phoenix-media-attacks-birther-investigation/
I wish I had saved a copy of that video. Sigh.
That makes no sense to me. The original from Hawaii was scanned by the White House, and rotated on a Mac using preview and put on the White House web site. End of process.
Something (either the original birth certificate, or a copy of it) was photocopied for the White House correspondents press kit. End of Process.
Savannah Guthrie and Scott Applewhite photographed the original from Hawaii and published the photos (with whatever processing they did). End of process.
Wrong again.
The pdf copy which is available on the White House website was never processed by news agencies.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
And the State of Hawaii has repeatedly and consistently verified that the information on the White House copy of the birth certificate contains the same information which is on the original HDOH copy.
If LDS ever loses the Steadman support, at least he’ll have a new potential benefactor.
Oh yeah? Then why are there still monkeys?
Oh, I understand the processes, I think, LOL,
But my concern is that a scanner, by definition, scans the page line by line, at whatever resolution the scanner is set at, and the printer, prints at whatever resolution the printer is set at.
Now, to me, says it is set at 75 150, 300 upwards and higher the count the more resolution in the document.
And, here I could be in error, the printed line is printed at that resolution. If you change the resolution in the middle of the word the word stretches or shrinks according to the change in resolution , no that is not right, it changes the appearance of the word by using more or less pixels to form the word making it look different under magnification.
Now , under magnification, the word would show more or less pixels used to form the word
And changing the pixel count during the printing of an extended line of print would be visible under magnification.
Now, it may , indeed , be possible for a Xerox to do so, but, in my opinion, which is worthless to most of you, to have a block change in the middle of a page, would indicate that the section block with different pixel count was , indeed , removed from the page, and re-inserted with a different pixel count, lower count, which would seem to indicate, the the copy would not be a true copy, but a modified copy for some reason.
I do not see how a line of printed material by any printer could have one letter printed with a different pixel count for that one letter in the line of print.
noting that none of the form printing shows any evidence of such pixel changes. It is only in the inserted date placed on to the form .
I would like an explanation of how a single letter in a word could have a different pixel count than the rest of the word
The explanation is rather straightforward. Here’s what the White House PDF looks like when viewed:
Here is the background layer of the upper right of the BC that the Xerox optimized and stored at 150 dpi. Left is from the White House PDF. Right is from RC’s test scans.
And here is the part that the Xerox included in a JBOG2 compressed foreground at 150 DPI:
When RC scanned a facsimile of Obama’s birth certificate, the IDENTICAL decomposition of that number and text occurred.
Images from my article: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/
With respect, Doc, I think you’re crediting trader jack with a basic understanding that he does not actually possess.
The fact that he says things like “[i]f you change the resolution in the middle of the word the word stretches or shrinks according to the change in resolution” indicates to me that he fails to understand the basic concept of MRC. Before sending him to any of your excellent articles on the LFBC, I would first suggest that he look into the idea, perhaps beginning with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_raster_content
OCR with Xerox
“Automatic conversion to searchable PDF, MS Word and Excel documents with world class Optical Character Recognition word accuracy (Professional version only)”
hmmm, seems that OCR is not done in all Xerox workcentres.
OCR was not done on Obama’s birth certificate.
Oh, OCR, MRC; same thing. Next thing you’re going to say is it wasn’t all done with Adobe Illustrator.
After Trader Jack acquires a rudimentary understanding of Mixed Raster Content, perhaps he will be able to move on to grasping the application of that understanding to digitized copies of Barack Obama’s birth certificate by one of the original inventors of Mixed Raster Content, Ricardo L. de Queiroz of the University of Brasilia, the holder of six original patents on MRC.
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/09/genuine-world-class-computer-expert-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/
Folks really don’t seem to understand that to cram an 8 MB bitmap image into a 387 KB PDF you have to do some very clever programming. That’s what Xerox does. They also do it in a way that the average person can hardly tell the difference when viewing the two images.
This is a short explanation of how it works:
First Xerox assumes that most documents scanned are either all text or part text and images. The former are easier to handle because they are usually two colors and made from letters and symbols. A green paper birther certificate falls in the latter group. This is where mixed raster content is used..
The document is scanned at a higher resolution like 600 ppi and 8 color. This bit map image is what goes into the compression algorithm. The way to save bits is to find patterns either by region, color, or symbols. Anything that appears to be color image is pulled into the background layer and compressed as a lower resolution JPEG.
Then the document is scanned for text or geometric patterns of the same color. Text is just another geometric pattern here. This is not OCR. So instead of saving multiple copies of the letter “a” it’s is more efficient to save one copy and note where each one it goes. This is the JBIG2 part of the algorithm. This technique creates multiple bi-level layers that can be losslessly compressed (unlike JPEG). The compression is something like a zip compression for software. The extraction of these bi-level layers is what caused the “holes” in the JPEG background layer.
The file is reassembled by using the bi-level layers as masking layers projected on the JPEG background. In general the LFBC consists of a few main layers. The green background forms the JPEG layer. The certificate form is a separate b-level layer and most text or objects touching the form got pulled into that layer. Objects in the same general region tended to get grouped in a separate layer like the signature and date stamp.
Some of the layers are just plain noise with a few pixels.
That’s right. And notice what trader jack says:
“Now, it may , indeed , be possible for a Xerox to do so, but, in my opinion … the copy would not be a true copy, but a modified copy for some reason.”
He appears not to realize that any digital copy of an analog document, like the one in the DoH archives, is a modified copy — there are no pixels in the original, and the range of possible colors is in fact non-denumerable. Even an unmodified bitmap copy differs from the original document in that it is decomposed into countable pixels, with colors assigned from a countable (albeit typically large) palette. In any non-trivial real-life situation, there is information lost in the scanning process regardless of the resolution and palette chosen.
The file size of the bitmap can be controlled by the choice of the scanner resolution and/or the color palette; if either is sufficiently low, the effect of the lost information will become apparent to the observer.
That’s why more sophisticated compression methods are used. They usually involve further information loss but they are designed so that, as you say, “the average person can hardly tell the difference.”
Of course, bottom line, all of these techniques involve alterations to the image on a pixel-by-pixel basis, whereas the president’s constitutional eligibility hangs not on the appearance of the pixels but on the authenticity of the information. That’s why the DoH Letters of Verification are so significant in this discussion, as they confirm that in spite of the very real differences between an analog document in a book and a reduced digital image file, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961.
That is not true.
The are a number of the form printed text letters that are at a different resolution (pixel sizes).
Here is an example (italicized and bolded letters are same resolution as background layer):
6c Name of Hospital or Institution (if not in hospital or institution give street address)
The same effect is visible in box 1a, 6a, 6d, 7a, 7c 7e, 10, 15,16,18a,19a, and 22.
You don’t even need special software to see it. Just open the PDF and zoom into various printed text.
Other examples are the “R” in BARACK” box 1a, “K” in “Kenya” box 11, and the “S” in “Stanley” box 13. All are fuzzier because they are in the lower resolution JPEG background layer.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/birth-certificate-long-form_Page_1_Image_0001.jpg
Here is a simple explanation of what Xerox does (and you can clearly see this at work if you zoom in on the LFBC PDF):
In a mixed content document what you really care about seeing clearly is text. The graphics and colors are less important. So if you are trying to drastically shrink a file for emailing what you would do is save the bits for the stuff that is likely text. Save the text it in one color (usually back), don’t save thirty copies of the same nearly identical letter or number object, save just one, and compress the hell out of the background pretty stuff at a lower resolution with as few colors as possible. (Usually 8 bit color).
It’s déjà vu all over again.
Not only, but also, we’ve heard it (and said it) all before.