|
Do Away With The Filibuster.
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:37 pm
3372 Views
|
Make no mistake about it, FOX News is the propaganda arm of the GOP. Note that you always hear them using terms like 'the American people don't want this' and 'the American people don't want that'. Do they speak for the American people? Maybe some of them! Still, you wouldn't know that to listen to them. If elections in this country were determined by the majority of Americans, the GOP would be ass out! They'd never win a national election. Never! Besides clever gerrymandering with the House, the Senate is set up in such a way that we have people that represent the few, making decisions for the many. For example, the gang of six. Three republicans and three Democrats that make up the senate finance committee. If you add up the total population of the six states that they represent its about 8.4 million.
Senators like consevadem Max Baucus of Montana, and chair of the committee, were tasked with crafting the senate health care bill. He and republican Senator Chuck Grassley. In that pair you had Baucus announcing from the gate that "single payer" was off the table. Now this is a guy that represents a state that has 950,000, yet he's making decisions for the people in the state where I grew up -California, with a population of 36 million - who by in large support single payer. Grassley's from Iowa, a state with a population of 3 million, making decisions for N.Y. a state with 19.5 million people. Hell, they're making decisions for a nation of 304 million. Then, to add insult to injury you've got to watch a heartless doctor like Sen. Tom Coburn (R of Oklahoma - population 3.5 million) get on the tube and say the American people don't support this. It's a damn shame!
I know that we live in a republic but I'm of the opinion that the senate should not have this filibuster power, particularly when the congress overwhelmingly votes for a bill. They're the peoples representatives. Thomas Jefferson once said that "the senate is the saucer that cools the coffee." Huh!?! All I've got to say is that something needs to be done to stop the senate from shutting down the people's congress by filibustering. I don't buy for one minute that this behavior is being missed by the people. As poorly as you see the right behaving, and as pumped up as I see them getting about the midterms elections, I believe that there's going to be hell to pay for not getting the peoples work done.
|
|
|
13
Comments
|
|
|
Re: Elbman [Economy]
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:29 pm
3001 Views
|
Although I don't believe that we agree on much, I respect you and enjoy the little dialog that we've had thus far. As with all of my readers, I appreciate that notwithstanding our difference in opinion that you still make your way over here to check out what I'm ranting about. This thread is not completely directed towards you. Not as much as it is that you gave me an opportunity to express my views on a litany of subjects. Subjects that I wanted to cover anyway and get my position across to the readers. Unfortunately I don't know how much blogging I'll be doing on here in the future. I just don't have as much time as I once did. I'm not saying that I'm leaving the site. I'll be around for a while more. It's just that I don't have the time to blog or keep up with mail like I once did. I'd like to thank everyone for the beautiful Valentines wishes. Beach, I've worked on a post to address your many comments (thanks) but was not able to finish in time these postings. I'll post it when next I blog. In the mean time something that you said in a comment leads me to ask you to watch the BBC documentary called : "The Power of Nightmares". Its a three part series. Google it and you can either watch it on line or download the iso and burn it to DVD. It might be the most important documentary that you watch all year.
Firstly, the deflection on the Banks, Car Companies, and the Private sector is here to stay unless we adopt measures and regulatory fixes to make sure that we no longer have cooperation's that are "too big to fail." Cooperation's that have the power to bring our economy to its knees. Thus far I'm not encouraged, I don't see the fixes. Unlike some I've always supported the bailing of the car companies and stimulus package. The banks and Wall Street was a whole other matter. Personally I'd love to see another trust buster like Teddy Roosevelt come along. He called them the malefactors of great wealth. And rightfully so. As for the CRA. Boy do I know this one... Am I to understand that your blaming Clinton for the regulatory and legislative changes that happened on his watch some 12 or more years before this recession?
So he shouldn't have made the changes that enabled more working families to become home owners? Do you know that the majority of new home owners during the Clinton administration are home owners to this day. Remember when Bush was bragging that his policy's created more homeownership than the Clinton era. It was during a SOTU speech. Note that the boom in new homeownership that happened during the Bush era fell apart during the time of the regulatory practices that took place on his watch. It wasn't the same thing. Who said this? "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home." - George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002.
George Bush and his financial team inspired a casino economy. Trillions of dollars in phantom wealth drove his economy and it was only a matter of time before we would experience this recession. Bush came into office vowing to spread the dream of homeownership. Oh yeah! To deny that and blame the housing bubble bursting on Clinton amounts to special pleadings and rewriting history. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership with minorities groups as well. He hoped that it would enhance the appeal of the Republican Party to minorities while at the same time satisfy the business interests of some of his biggest donors. Bushes home owner policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards. Just which programs are you talking about that Clinton enacted that would erase growth?
And I'm not saying that blaming minorities is where you're going with this is. But as I said before, I know the argument. Some try to blame the problems with the CRA on Democratic politicians. Suggesting that the root of the crisis is because they made it too easy for minorities to own homes. Thats pure scapegoating! If there's any blame, there's plenty to go around. The truth is that during all of the forecloses that the country experienced in the last two years, new homeowners lost their homes at the same rates - whether they were minorities or not.
|
|
|
2
Comments
|
|
|
Re: Elbman [Carter]
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:26 pm
3222 Views
|
"I would go back to Carter but that's too easy" Easy? Let's give it a shot! Besides, I love cutting through the spin. People that like to blame Carter forget that he inherited Nixon's monumental failure - imposing wage and price controls. RX' comment was on point, Carter did cut deficit spending, where Reagan exploded it. First of all there's never been a perfect president, no more than there's ever been a perfect man. The closest thing that we've ever come to that, is to have a president that was the right man for the time. Lincoln saved the union but he also suspended habeas corpus and shut down some news papers. FDR did get us out of the first republican depression. He helped save the world from Hitler and Tojo. Yet he also locked Americans of Japanese ancestry in internment camps. Still, I would say that both Lincoln and FDR were the right men at the right time.
Jimmy Carter? First of all the president doesn't control interest rates, in case you were going there - the Feds do. Although he gets no credit for his accomplishments, Carter put in place an energy program that if Ronald Reagan hadn't dismantled, would have led us to oil independence by the year 2000. 20% of our power would have been generated by solar power by the year 2000 as well. And that was a pessimistic projection. Carter also engineered a peace between Egypt and Israel that stands to this day.
Although Reagan gets the credit for bringing down the USSR during the cold war, it was two democrats that were instrumental in accomplishing that. It was Carter that tasked the CIA to go into Afghanistan to help support and arm the Mujahedin. The Mujahedin were getting their asses handed to them until a little known democratic congressman from Texas (Joe Wilson - who passed away two weeks ago) who lobbyed for the funds to be allocated by congress to supply the Mujahedin with the "stinger" missiles. That was instrumental in their victory against the Soviets. Reagan did increase spending for the cause when he got in office. But the "stinger's" was completely Wilson's project. Reagan was President and received all the credit.
But while we're on the subject, let's take a closer look at Reagan's record compared to Carter's - on Jobs:
IncreaseCarter-13.0% in 4 yearsReagan-17.5% in 8 yrs = Carter 10,488,000 in 4 yearsReagan 15,935,000 in 8 years. Carter created 218,000 jobs per month to Reagan's 175,000 per month.
If you'd like to compare the first three years of their Presidency we can do that:
GDP: +3.2% with Carter, +1.3% = 59% less for Reagan
Industrial Production: +3.0% with Carter, +.01% = 97% less for Reagan
Rate Capacity Utilization: 83.4% with Carter, 75.9% = 9% less for Reagan
Plant-Equip. Expend. +14.6% with Carter, .8% = 95% less for Reagan
Housing Starts 1.76 million with Carter, 1.28 million = 27% less for Reagan
Domestic auto sales 8.48 million with Carter, 6.25 million = 26% less for Reagan
Business Failures 8461 with Carter, 24,291 = +189% more for Reagan
Civilian Unemployment 6.5% with Carter, 9.0% = +38% more for Reagan
Number Unemployed 6.74 million with Carter, 9.89 million = +47% more for Reagan
Real Disposable Income Growth--+1/9% with Carter, +1/3% = 32% less for Reagan
Prime Rate 10.96% with Carter, 14.94% = +35% more for Reagan
Federal Budget Deficit 48.5 Billion with Carter, 153.billion = +215% more for Reagan
Farm Income +1.75% with Carter, -5.7% = 326% less for Reagan
(Source: CBO Record 3-26-84)
Ronald Reagan got the credit for beating inflation. In reality it was Paul Volcker, who was hired by Carter. He beat inflation at a cost of 5 million jobs. Carter did not have an inflationary policy where Reagan did. Reagan acted in war movies and sold war bonds in uniform during WWII. As President he laid a reef at the graves of Nazi SS officers.
Jimmy Carter's real crime (if you could call it that) is that he was too forward thinking. Apparently the American people preferred to be swooned by a B actor. Kinda the same way that some preferred a president that they'd like to have a beer with when they elected Bush.
|
|
|
7
Comments
|
|
|
Re: Elbman [Reagan]
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:23 pm
3034 Views
|
With all of the ideology purity tests that are being pushed by many on the right, the irony is that neither Goldwater or the sainted Ronald Reagan would pass today's GOP litmus test. Reagan grew the size of the budget as governor in California. He also signed the most liberal abortion bill (at the time) in California history. As president, Reagan cut and ran after a suicide bomber blew up 241 marines, plus another 18 servicemen at our Marine barracks in Lebanon. He believed in amnesty for illegal aliens. He opposed the Anita Bryant bill that would have banned gays from working in the public school system. In fact he hosted a gay couple and let them have a sleep over at the White House. The first and maybe the last president to have ever done that. Google it, its a fact!
The size of the government grew under Reagan, in fact President Johnson (in the 60's) was the last Democratic President that grew government when he implemented his "Great Society" programs. Even then, Johnson didn't come close to Reagan's spending. The republicans have been very successful in advancing the meme that they are fiscally responsible. Nothing could have been further from the truth! Still, by repeating it over and over again and placing the big government tag squarely on the Democrats - it worked to their benefit. I'm going to paraphrase Nixon - Let me make one thing perfectly clear: Ronald Reagan grew government!!! Not only that, look at the last 40 years and there is no doubt that government grew whenever republicans controlled it.
Sure they talk a good game and campaign on how they hate spending but when they get in they never deliver. They're masters at setting the narrative and turning falsehoods and myths in their favor - but history doesn't lie friend. Reagan's legacy gave us what we have today. A society where we have the rich verses middle class America. In the U.S. the gap between the rich and the middle class is wider than that of any other nation on the planet. Because of decline of the middle class in recent years the gap is even wider than ever. Presently, the top one percent own more wealth than the bottom 90%. Would you say that such inequality is right, or even healthy for a nation? I think not. Warren Buffet is quoted as saying: "yes, there is class warfare in my country, and my class is winning!" I agree.
When people talk about the "Reagan Revolution" - it's not a joke! Ronald Reagan's presidency was in fact a revolution. It was a turning point in this country. It was the beginning of the end of "The New Deal". And it was the beginning of a whole new type of politics. It was also the beginning of the fall of the middle class. It launched a move where we as a nation went from a we society to a me society. We've been in a me society now for almost 30 years and are beginning to come to terms with the fact that the revolution hasn't worked. However, if you look at the nations that stayed a we society (particularly in northern Europe), they are doing quite well. Germany for example has also felt the bite of this recession, but not like us. Even with a recession, not since The Third Reich has unemployment been this low. Whereas Maggie Thatcher' revolution in the UK - similar to our Reagan Revolution - has left it as much as a basket case as it has left us! They too have witnessed the quality of life decline for the middle class.
The real question for the powers that be is how are we going to turn this around. How can we (those of us that care) bring back the middle class? Let's look at history. What was the formula that created those prosperous times in the 20th century? Prior to the Reagan revolution. What was the ballast that kept the economy afloat? I'll tell you. You're not going to like it, but I'll tell you anyway. Are you sitting down? You're in front of the computer so I assume that you're sitting down. The marginal tax rate and tariffs!!! The first argument out of a right wingers mouth when I say that is 'if you did that, people wouldn't have an incentive to work hard and make more money'. And, 'if the rich among us have their taxes raised, then they'll no longer be interested in hiring people. That old con of a cliché' that says - I've never seen a poor man give somebody a job.
Thats pretty much a lie because most jobs in this country are created by small businesses, and most small businesses are started by the middle class - not the wealthy. If you own a business, you work because you love the work - it's yours. You want to be a success. Right now, a couple of friends that I know started businesses since the recession and they work twice as hard to keep it out of the red. Besides, the marginal tax rate never caused anyone prior to, or during the golden age of the American middle class to stop working, stop hiring or stop achieving. Evidence contradicts the claim that raising taxes slows growth and cutting taxes stimulates the economy. What's more, we've all been a witness to this theories failure. We recently witnessed George Bush cut taxes twice and the economy went in the tank.
If the marginal tax rate went to where it was during the days that we as a nation really did achieved the promise that Hoover couldn't keep - A chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage. We could turn all of this around and once again be a truly prosperous nation for all its citizens.
|
|
|
5
Comments
|
|
|
Re: Elbman [Taxes]
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:19 pm
2906 Views
|
The people that created our present economic dilemma believed in "objectivism". Reagan's economic team was full of folk's that brought into Ayn Rand's objectivism. I'm talking Milton Freedman, Alan Greenspan and Author Laffer. Greenspan was initiated into her cult during the sixties. When she died (in 1984) Greenspan brought a huge dollar bill shaped reef to her funeral. They were of the belief that because money moved very rapidly through the market, the market would always have an intuitive intelligence that would be greater than any government or bureaucracy. Yeah, but they took it to also mean that markets should not be regulated or intervened in any way. Let laissez faire capitalism do its thing. They allowed an already under staffed and anemic SEC to become even more impotent.
The effects of laissez faire capitalism on the middle class meant nothing to these people. Look, capitalism can be a good and rewarding thing. But when capitalism becomes the cancer stage of capitalism, it destroys both business and society. Perhaps worst of all, it corrupts democracy! That is what we have happening now with all of this money involved in our politics. The influence from these all powerful multinational cooperation's. The keepers of Ayn Rand's flame care nothing about the American middle class. They were all about dog eat dog economics. Their concern is for the wealthy and only the wealthy. Everyone else is serfdom. Its evidenced in the trade policies that they pursued. Reagan doing away with tariffs resulted in the giant sucking sound that Ross Perot spoke about.
There is a direct correlation between hirer taxes and economic growth. I'll prove it to you - Whenever we've had our highest tax rates, we also had the most economic growth. The period of our greatest growth was during WWII and post the WWII years. When the top marginal rate varied between 80% and 94%. Then the Truman, Eisenhower years where the top tax rate hovered between 81% and 92%. It's almost impossible to conceive nowadays, but keep in mind that the people that were being taxed that high were taxed above a certain point of income. A point that would be approximately 3.2 million dollars by today's standards.
We had few dynastic families arising at that time, with even fewer billionaires where the concentration of wealth was exclusively theirs. No new John D. Rockefeller's, or Andrew Carnegie, or Phil Night's or Bill Gates. But who cared. Why? The high marginal tax rate was an expectable norm. When people reached that 90% tax rate they became content with the 3.2 million bucks. That business owner said 'if I take more money out of this company I'm going to pay outrageous tax'. I think I'll leave that money in there and open another company. I think I'll leave that money in there and hire more workers. Contrary to what we've been (mis)led to believe, that high marginal tax rate spawned growth. Growth that made us the number one manufactory and exporter in the world. With an economy and a standard of living that was the envy of every nation. As for the wage earner, he made a good living wage, doing good work that actually created more wealth. Sure, economy's fluctuated but we didn't have bubbles. We didn't have busts, and we had a healthy economy that chugged right along like "the little engine that could." It was nice and steady and strong. It moved right along that way for 40 years, until Ronald Reagan came along with his wrecking ball and disrupted the whole thing. There's a direct correlation between large tax cuts and a sequence of boom, bubble and bust!
Let's look at the big busts of the last hundred years. By the way, republicans controlled the White House during all of them. It happened three times. After WWI we had a marginal tax rate of around 70%, Then we elected three consecutive republican Presidents. In the early 1920's, Calvin Coolidge cut the tax rate to the upper 20 percentile. The result was a boom (known as the roaring twenties). The boom turns into a bubble and then we got the crash of 1929. The crash is accompanied by massive bank failures and then the depression (along with everything a depression brings; foreclosures, unemployment, etc.). By then Hoover was president and he didn't know what to do. Instead he sat on his hands and looked to the private sector to work it all out. That went on for three years before FDR came in and rolled up his sleeves. Immediately he hikes the tax rates on the very wealthy back up and we eventually recover. The marginal tax rate continues at a high rate which gave us decades of prosperity. I'm getting ahead of myself.
Look at the 40 year period between 1950 and 1990. In the fifties you had spectacular growth of the middle class. The top marginal tax rate was 91%. The high tax rates stayed like that until 1964 when Johnson initiated the Kennedy tax cuts. Then it went to 74%. Sure we had civil unrest and Viet Nam, but prosperity was enjoyed by most during the sixties. As for the 70's, if you take the entire decade of the seventies and compare it to the decade of the 80's - the seventies were better. What am I talking about - compare the 80's to the other four decades and we had the slowest growth in the 80's. When Reagan got in office he introduced a series of tax cuts. His first cut brings the rate down from 74% down to 50%. He also introduced deregulation and by the second year into his first term (1982), double-digit inflation was on its way to being defeated. But what happens? A recession hits! Yeah I know that revisionist try to blame it on Carter but give me a break, Reagan was already in office for two years! I find it amusing that the same revisionists like to point fingers at Obama after one year, make the Carter , Reagan analogy as well - can't have it both ways.
Anyway, then he cuts taxes again. Down to 38.5%. What happens then? The stock market crash of 1987. The biggest one since the great depression, it was called "Black Monday." A lot of the bubble that was created by his tax cuts was in real-estate, and there were bank failures. More bank failures than in the great depression! It was called the "S&L crises". Then there had to be a massive bailout. Bush 41 gets in there and he had to raise taxes slightly. Fast forward to Bill Clinton. The 90's did a hell of a lot better under Clinton. When Clinton came in the top marginal tax rate was 31%. To the outrage of the right he raised taxes to 37% and then again to 39%. Result - we had very healthy economic growth and he left office with a surplus. I know that there were other factors that grew that economy but we know that a tax hike sure as hell didn't hurt it. There's no getting around that.
This is what I say: the hell with resending the Bush tax cuts, let's roll back the Reagan tax cuts! Lets once again have the kind of growth that we experienced from 1940 to 1980. We had that growth in part because we had a 71% to 94% top marginal income tax rate.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
|
Re: Elbman [FDR]
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:16 pm
2948 Views
|
When Bush comes along taxes were already low [39%]. Following the Reagan myth and trying to make nice with his money hungry base, he drops the rate down to 35%. But oh no, that wasn't enough, he also cut capital gains and inheritance tax. Result? Not much. Already in a deficit and with two expensive wars raging, he cuts taxes again. What then? We got a repeat of what Reagan gave us - a bubble - a lot of it in real-estate - then a crash! The crash is accompanied by massive bank failures, and a recession. What did we get. The middle class got times that have never been harder since the great depression. Along with grief, bankruptcies, foreclosures and unemployment. However, his tax cuts on the ultra rich resulted in their combined wealth going from 600 billion to 1.3 Trillion. One thing you got to say about George Bush is that he looks out for his friends. Paul Krugman pointed out there's basically been no wealth created under Bush. So please, don't expect me to believe that the GOP or conservatives handle the economy better the democrats. It's just not true. Rethink what you've been led to believe.
Look, Obama does his stimulus package and one third of it is in tax cuts. The GOP acts like it never happened. I think that that was a mistake. He should have used the very same approach as FDR. Plenty of public works programs! That will contribute to growth in the private sector. The same myth makers that created the Reagan myth have also been busy as beavers creating a myth for FDR. No doubt about it. Just do a Google search and type in 'The Great Depression'. What you'll get is hundreds of pages of right wing talking points. There's an entire cottage industry set up by the Reagan ilk, dedicated to making you and future generations believe that low taxes is the way to go. That the 'New Deal" didn't work, and that Roosevelt was a failure. Also, keep in mind that republicans were isolationist prior to us getting into WWII.
Wendell Willkie's platform and strategy to defeat Roosevelt was in part on the grounds of keeping us out of the war. Republicans at the time were quite content with seeing Hitler take over Europe. Many prestigious republicans like Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford expressed that out right. Both of whom were avid Anti-Semites. If the GOP had gained power during that era we wouldn't have had that golden period of the American middle class. Also, in all actuality, even though between the period of 1933 and 1940 the depression was raging and there was a secondary recession in 37, the economy grew by 58%! Yes, 58%!!! (Why a secondary recession? Because Roosevelt listened to some bad advice, as well as some of his detractors, and eased off of deficit spending).
Even with all of that, what does the right wing always say when confronted with these facts? "THE 'NEW DEAL' DIDN'T WORK, IT WAS WWII THAT GOT US OUT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!" This meme is nothing but a thought virus. Now, let's have some intellectual honesty here - In an economic sense, what was WWII? It was The New Deal on steroids!!! It was a massive public works program, with massive public employment. It consisted of massive deficit spending as well. All during a period with a very high marginal tax rate. And you know what? All of that spending was hugely profitable for the US. We emerged from WWII as the only industrial economy left standing!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a masterful job on bringing the economy back and anyone that tells you differently has been duped. Again, the conventional wisdom (more like: the conventional insanity) is that if you raise taxes, you slow down an economy. We've all heard it. It's been the mantra as long as I can remember. The truth of the matter is that Ronald Reagan and the hate (small d) democracy, destroy government, starve the beast, greed is good crowd - Author Laffer, David Stockmann, Grover Norquist - created an economic windfall for the wealthy that would make Ayn Rand smile from ear to ear. If you'd like to read more about the strategy behind high marginal tax rates read some of the writings by Larry Beinhart (who wrote "wag the dog" - later made into a movie, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. Also, check out the writings of Chuck Collins - He's an economist and senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in D.C.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
|
Re: Elbman [Social Security]
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:13 pm
2963 Views
|
With all due respect elb, this drum beat to kill Social Security that's being promoted by people like Michele Bachmann and others in the GOP is pure political suicide. Moreover, the thinking behind it is wrong. Its a move designed to ingratiate the greedy at the detriment of we the people. Just think of where Americans that have paid into the system for years would be right now if Bush had had his way with it. Look at all of the elderly that are living on Social Security right now. They lived in some of the greatest economic times that the modern world had ever seen. Times when jobs were plentiful, when the blue collar worker had good union representation. In their hay day they earned the top of their salaries. Even with that, these people that had everything, were still not able to save up enough to survive in their golden years. Only four in ten were able to save a nest egg independent of Social Security and pensions.
Now we have this mindset that suggests that we need to do away with Social Security. When Herbert Hoover was hoping for charities to come to peoples rescue. As governor of N.Y., FDR became sickened when he heard of the scores of elderly that were living in "Hoover Towns." Some were found dead on the streets and in the alleys of NYC. Many frozen to death. He realized that something needed to be done for the elderly. Something more than just a reliance on charities. When he got into the White House, he made it happen. Now conservatives that have traditionally fought progress want to destroy this progressive program. They fought against the woman's suffrage movement. They fought minimum wages. And they fought civil rights. In fact they continue to fight civil rights with respect to gay Americans. And now they want to go backwards by advocating the denial of a safety net that baby boomers have been paying into their entire working lives.
All I can say is thats wrong. No, I'll say more. There's an evil agenda at work here friend, and they want you and the rest of us to buy into it. Look, Social Security handles over a trillion dollars a year, and they do it at about a 2% overhead. What's really going on behind this Social Security privatization push, is that if this money could be handed over to say, Goldman Sachs, where they can skim 10 - 15% of it off the top, and charge more fees, some big shot CEO can make billions. The same way that United Health Care's Stephen Hemsley made 700 million for five years work. Or Bill McGuire, who use to run United Health Care, walked away with 1.7 billion dollars in salaries and stock options. As it stands now, no one that works at Social Security is making that kind of money. The greedy don't like that, too much money involved. So Social Security is a bad thing in their eyes. They want to attach themselves to it and bleed it like a parasite!
The people that the Social Security administration have working there now are just good old government employees, (in all probability union workers) making a decent wage and a decent pension. They've kept Social Security chugging along since its inception. In 70 years they've never missed a check, and there not going to. Yes Social Security is going to run into a deficit, because its suppose to. Thats why there's a trust fund. There didn't use to be a trust fund before 1983 when Reagan (of all people) saw the wisdom in the program and saved it. In 1983 the Greenspan\ Moynihan commission set up a program to double tax one generation of Americans (the baby boomers). That from 1983 to 2024, people are going to be basically paying two taxes into Social Security. They're going to be paying into their parents and grandparents. Plus they're putting money into paying for themselves. Why? Because there's this population cohort that is like a rabbit moving through a boa, and when it comes out the other end it has to be paid for.
Social Security its self will go into the red and then this trust fund kicks in. The trust fund gets exhausted around 2040 as its suppose to, because thats when the last of the boomers die, more or less. Look, it's running the way its suppose to. Yeah there's some problems around the edges that can be solved by simply lifting the cap. Nobody thats scheming on destroying it is talking about the fact that this is a trillion dollar program. Oh no, that's not what they're thinking - yeah right! If Wall Street can get their grubby hands on it, a whole lot of banksters can make a whole lot more money. Right now, those banksters are shoveling money to politicians - republican politicians in particular - as they have since the 1930's. This is being done in the hopes that they can get Social Security privatized. So that billions can be made and when those politicians leave congress they can become banksters themselves.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
|
Re: Elbman [Government]
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:11 pm
2970 Views
|
The old "you can't trust government" speak. The funny thing about this speak is that it's a meme that's been fostered by the very people that grew government! Let's be real, both political parties like government. Only difference is that conservatives want government out of the way if it benefits the masses and scrutinizes the corporatists! But if it imposes *morality* - or their idea of morality is - then government is a good thing. I'm sorry but I totally reject the premise that government is the enemy. There are two things that stand between us and the ENRON's of the world - the Exxon Valdez of the world - the asbestos laden buildings of the world, and the faulty Toyota gas pedals of the world. One is trial lawyers, who will sue on our behalf and whip companies into behaving properly. The other is government!!!
Thats right, government! Our government stands in the way of cooperate and fascist rule! No, I don't want government running our cooperation's (which is not what happened when the government stepped in to prop up cooperation's that would have caused us to fall into a second republican depression). I don't want government telling me what to do or controlling my news and information consumption. I don't want government telling me who I can or can't love. I don't want government telling me that I can't use the advances in science to terminate a pregnancy if that were my choice. There's a lot of places where Government shouldn't be sticking their nose. Agreed! However, there a lot of areas where government can and has done things well in the interest of its citizenry.
I also feel that government is doing a service when it steps in and saves the lives of Americans being killed by profiteers that are suppose to look out for the policy holder but only look out for the shareholder. When I was growing up I was told that America was the greatest country on earth, that we saved the world. That we defeated the Axis powers that threatened to enslave the planet. That we built the nuclear bomb and put a man on the moon. We were the good guys. Unfortunately, now that I'm an adult, I don't know that we're greatest anymore. At least not since the "Reagan Revolution".
On a bright and clear November 19th, 1863, in a little town in Pennsylvania named Gettysburg, my President. Well, my 16th president, addressed the nation in a moving speech in which he told me "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". Those words are both moving and magical to me, as they should be to every patriot. It sickens me when I see and hear these so called tea partiers demonize this nation that is only here because so many gave everything to preserve it. And why? Because a bunch of greedy men and a mediocre president decided that they could make a bunch of money while promoting the idea that it's fashionable to hate government. I couldn't disagree with you more when it comes to our government - my government - of, by and for me!
Lastly, I want to touch on what I call Obama derangement syndrome.
Obama, whose philosophy that the government can do better than the private sector. Friend, this is pure spin! If not, then show me where he's even come close to saying something like this. See, I'm a different kind of chick. I deal in facts - tangible, provable facts! Thats why I reject religion, because it's based on faith. Faith and belief in the word of iron age superstitious men that thought the world was flat. So I've got to have more than belief. When you come at me with stuff like this, you've got to bring more than just words. Moving on...
The current administration's lack of experience in business, not just course work, is very apparent. Really, and how so? I know the first part of this argument and it doesn't make any sense. Not only that, it's based on a big double standard. Okay, I have a question for you... What business experience did Ronald Reagan have? How about Gerald Ford and Dick Nixon? Dwight Eisenhower? None! Unless you count Nixon owning a law firm in Manhattan after Kennedy beat him. We all know that George Bush ran a few businesses, do you have any knowledge of his business successes? Arbusto Energy? How about Harken Energy Corporation? And the Texas Rangers - Sammy Sosa - Good trade or bad trade? I'm sure that you know this but in case you don't, let me pull your coat. When Presidents get into office, they pick an economic team. Usually one full of the best and the brightest in the country. Some with PHD's. They usually have a track record with successes.
That goes for all cabinet positions. Where the president is weak, they help bring him up to speed. Thats what presidents do. And I'm not saying that this president is weak in that field. In fact I think he's got exceptional intelligence. Besides, like myself, he's a southpaw. We're very special folks you know. Prone to unique personalities and sharp minds. I'm just sayin'. But seriously, Sec. of Defense Robert Gates (who was also Bush' Sec. of Defense) said that when he met this President he was impressed with the questions that he asked and his desire to know the details. Gates has never said that about Bush. By all accounts Bush didn't have time for details. Still, the right continues to underestimate this man. Anyway, that's what presidents do, regardless of party affiliation. Honestly, I don't care for the Obama economic team. Too many republicans and too many Clinton retreads.
I would prefer to see someone more forward thinking. Someone like Elizabeth Warren. Get the republicans and the consevadems out of there I say. Considering their track record I have no confidence that republicans know anything about running an economy - other than running it into the ground! Much more creating an atmosphere where all Americans can prosper. They might talk a good game but the evidence shows that they know no more about looking out for the economy than they do keeping us safe. The events of recent years have proved that. Anyway, this right wing speak about having business experience is a misnomer. It's as phony as the teleprompter foolishness. Ronald Reagan wasn't comfortable at the podium without a teleprompter. They all use it. When you're up there giving a couple of thousand word speech, with all that these men have on their heads, it's ridiculous to think that they wouldn't use one. The teleprompter criticism is just desperation. Besides that, we're speaking about a guy that has done 26 debates without a teleprompter. Multiple interviews without a teleprompter as well. Countless Q&A's at town hall meetings without a teleprompter. And unlike Bushes town halls meetings, his are never screened. It's an absurd argument...
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
|
Who's Crazy's are Crazier? Theirs or Ours?
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:06 pm
3055 Views
|
Last Friday in Texas, a 53 year old man (Joseph Andrew Stack) got out of bed, set his 400k dollar house on fire, got into his 150k Piper Cherokee and flew it into an Austin TX office building. Why? Because he was mad at the government. He killed himself and a IRS employee, Vernon Hunter. Hunter was a career military man who served two tours in Viet Nam. His function at the IRS was to negotiate payment terms for delinquent tax payers. Stacks plane also injured 12 people in the building as well. The building housed other federal agencies besides the IRS. Apparently Stack had an ongoing feud with them. He put up a page on his business web site and left a 5,000 word rant about the wickedness of the IRS and the evils of the Federal government. No, I'm not saying that this guy was a right winger, I don't know that, and as of now its still a matter of contention. What I do know is that his daughter called him a hero for taking a stance against the government. Many in the tea party movement are claiming him as one of their own. One right wing-nut launched a 'face book' page designed to honor him, hours after the incident. The site had the familiar yellow "Gadsden flag" which is a symbol of American independence. You know the one, with the words "Don't Tread On Me" on it. They seem to believe that this flag represents them, but I think not.
Anywho, people left quotes on the site. quotes like Thomas Jefferson' famous: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants". Which I find personally offensive, as I have a great love and admiration for Jefferson. Another comment read: "the government should fear the people... not the other way around." No doubt left by some wing nut, possibly bluesin' over his imaginary tax hike. Incredibly a recent poll suggested that two thirds of Americans believe that President Obama has raised their taxes and not that he actually cut them for 95% of working Americans. Way to go FOX News! What's striking to me is that the guy [or person(s)] who put the site up, was honoring a man that had just killed an innocent human being and hurt a dozen others - two of them critically. Is he worthy of praise? I would like someone from the tea party movement that whishes to defend this, to please comment or write me personally.
The site honoring Stacks was taken down later on Friday after it was brought to the attention of the sites operators that in the diatribe he wrote: The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. He followed up with - The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. Kind of makes you wonder: who's more crazyer? There crazies or ours? I mean, during the Bush years I didn't like him and didn't like the fact that he sent our guys into a war based on a lie, against a nation that had nothing to do with 911. I'm convinced that he did it for oil and because he and his cronies were on a mission to attack Iraq from the day that he sat in the Oval Office. 911? That was only the excuse. I remember watching people like Cindy Sheehan protesting and feeling that that wouldn't change anything. I watched groups like "Code Pink" disrupt house and senate hearings and say to myself 'useless!' I remember Coulter speaking at an event and someone trying to throw a pie in her face. But for the most part the left was angry at Bush. But my friends (on the left) and I didn't hate him.
What I see going on today with Obama is pure hate. And with hate inevitably comes violence. What we see going on can be compared to what Kennedy went through in the early sixties. The right had an intense hatred for Kennedy. On the day of his assassination a Dallas news letter was being circulated that had his face on it accompanied by a wanted logo. Ironically it was a nut from the left the killed him - or so we are to believe. Here in Vegas there is a dangerous right wing movement called The Oath Keepers. It's made up of a group of far right extremists. What makes them particularly dangerous is that they're made up of present and former law enforcement officers and ex-military. They're a paranoid group that often brings up the specter of concentration camps existing here in the U.S. Obviously Glen Beck fans. They claim to be dedicated to upholding the tenets of the constitution. Only thing is who's interpretation of it? We have a Supreme court that rules on that continually. It has been referred to as a living, breathing document. This group sees President Obama as a domestic enemy as set forth in the constitution.
Within the tea party movement there are many extremists as well as individuals that can't described as anything other than the lunatic fringe. We all saw them making asses out of themselves, some armed, showing up at town hall meetings that were set up to discuss health care. Some claim that they have democrats among them that voted for Obama. I seriously doubt that. Democrats that voted for Obama are upset because as a senator he supported 'single payer' health care. As a president he announced that single payer was off the table. That it would "disrupt things." Shit, we elected him to disrupt things! To shake things up! Thats what we're upset about. Even with all of that no Obama supporter is going to join a right wing group because they're upset that he hasn't pushed for 'single payer'. Or equal rights for gays in the military. Or that thus far he hasn't gotten the troops out of Iraq. Or that he put forth cap & trade legislation.
Obama supporters voted for and expected change. These people do not! Hell, former congressman Tom Tancredo called for a return to literacy tests. You know, that criteria that people of color in the 'old south' had to pass in order to register to vote. Tests that asked questions like how many marbles were in a jar without the benefit of being able to count them. Questions like how many bubbles in a bar of soap. Anyone who claims to have been a former Obama supporter and left to be part of this movement is a bold face liar! I talk politics with people that I meet all the time and I've never met one. Besides that, you only hear that they exist from tea baggers. Still, it's only been a year and lefties have seen some progress even though the right can't see it due to their blinders.
As I see it the bulk of the tea party legions are more or less uninformed malcontents that were oppose and voted against this president from the gate. It's a movement of 'birthers", "truthers", 'tenthers", John Birch society freaks and want to be secessionists. I mention the John Birch society because they were so extreme that they called everyone that didn't agree with them "commies!" In fact in the late 50's early 60's their founder (Robert Welch) said that President Eisenhower was a "dedicated conscious agent of the communist party". Yes, I'm speaking of the same Dwight D. Eisenhower that was the Allied commander of the armed forces and led us to victory in WWII. I won't even get into their extreme positions when it comes to race. But here we are 50 years after William F. Buckley and the RNC chased them out of the republican party, and today's GOP has embraced them! I mentioned this because they co-sponsored the CPAC hatefest that was held in D.C last week. YouTube has highlights of some of the speeches at the CPAC. Have a look see and ask yourself if this movement forward or backward? Watch Newt Gingrich and Glen Beck in particular. Whew!
CPAC convention attendee Iowa Congressman Steve King said: Now who are we and I want to define that enemy. Then he said: They are: liberals; they are progressives; they are Che Guevareans, they are Castroites, theyre socialists. More enemies on this list: Gramsciites ring anybodys bell? Trotskyites, Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists, Marxists. Theyre all our enemies. After a moment's pause he said "Who did I leave out..." "How about Democratic Socialists!" Note how he equates Liberals and Progressives with Trotskyites, Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists, Marxists then finally Nazi's (Democratic Socialists were what Nazi's called themselves. Not witrhstanding the fact that they were neither. In fact when Hitler came to power in 1932, the first things that they went after was democracy and socialism). Geez, is this where we've come to in this country? I think it's pretty sad when an elected official can't just say he disagrees with the other side, instead, we've got to be the enemy.
I think that today's republican party should no longer be called conservatives, instead they should be called "regressives!" The GOP controlled the government for most of the last 8 years and they almost destroyed it! Now they cry for a return to the old ways. Change frightens these people. They claim that the nation has gone to hell in "the age of Obama". I think it's somewhat revealing that there's this push for "Liberty" and to "restore values". The constant use of buzz words about "going back to a time when
" That somehow we no longer have Liberty or values since this president was elected.
Ironically, the origins of the Boston Tea Party was a protest against the largest transnational cooperation in the world at the time - The East Indian Company. It was a protest against a tax cut! Thats right, A TAX CUT!!! When the British government cut the East Indian Company's taxes in an effort to undermine and put tea sellers in the colonies out of business. That is testimony from George Robert Twelves Hughes. The only survivor of the Boston Tea Party that actually wrote about it. The movement was started against corporations, and here we are today with so-called tea partiers that are funded by corporate shills. My poor, poor founders fathers.
I'll add that within today's tea party movement there exists a unhealthy component of racists, bigots and homophobes. I know that I'll get some feedback for saying that as I always do. I mean, it never fails that whenever I touch on the case of race in these blogs, I always get mail from some coward that won't challenge me on this blog but chooses to write me directly. I'm not kidding. One could look at my 'views' and how few commenter that weigh in and say what's up with that? Apparently these people don't like a public forum. Supposedly I'm "a race baiter" and repeatedly reminded of the history of the democratic party - of course they always conveniently leaving out the Dixey-Crat aspect of the history and where the Dixey-Crats ended up once they left the Dem's. But I've talked about that already. And oh yes, can't leave out the never ending "nigger lover" references. I'm not kidding - it never fails! Doesn't really bother me, in fact they're ignorance reassures me that my positions are the correct ones.
Let's set the record straight, it's not so much that I am defending any race in particular. As I see it, I'm defending Americans. Be they black, white, Hispanic, gays or whatever. If I see something that I don't think it's right, I'm going to speak on it. Thats why this blog is named "Ginger Says." It's my soapbox! Plus it's about America as I see it. I don't mind slugging it out with them. Be it through the blogs or e-mail. Makes me no never mind. It's just the anger that I can't help noticing. It's funny how so many start off saying something like: "I defend your right to say it but
" Seems that more times than I prefer I end up having to block them because they go too far. I might very well have the biggest block list on this site. One thing that I do whenever I block one is to leave the block off on whether they can view this blog. That way they can continue to read what I have to say. LOL! One of my conservative friends here in town recently told me that he's embraced by today's republican party and the tea baggers. He said that he's never seen the party so "full of crazy's" - and he's 63!
Not only has this President not raised taxes (except on cigarettes) but he hasn't embraced socialism either. Anyone with a brain in their head who is aware of the political ideology of socialism knows that his relationship with the banks as well as how he approached Wall Street was ideologically contrary to socialism. Obama's economic team is in no way socialist. To the contrary, its full of republicans and republican types. A bunch of Wall Streeters and corporatists. Much to the dismay of liberals like myself. However, even though the market was already in free fall when Obama took office, that didn't stop propagandists (and accessory to the murder of Dr. George Tiller), Bill O'Reilly, from announcing one month into the Obama presidency that: "the market doesnt like Barack Obama". Now that the market has rebounded, what does Bill O' have to say about it - crickets!
Vernon Hunter' son Ken, gave an interview to the press yesterday. In it he asked that if any of us know a veteran or see a soldier in uniform, go up to him (or her) and thank them for their service...
|
|
|
3
Comments
|
|
|
RE: Birdman [Part 1]
|
Feb 23, 2010 5:00 pm
2959 Views
|
I have to address your comment once again. Not only because of what you said but because of some negative mail that our exchange generated. My how I do get them riled up! It's nothing new for me to get hate mail from one lame or another that can't handle truth telling. Anyway I need to clarify a few things.
Rush Limbaugh is a lowly bigot and a liar! If you doubt me, do a quick Google search and type in Rush Limbaugh - racist, or Rush Limbaugh - liar. The search result will be pages of direct quotes from him confirming what I just said. As for me, I'm none of those things. Thus there's no comparison between Rush and myself. So your claim that I'm the "Democrat Rush Limbaugh" is unfounded. Look, as I've written before, Rush has a great set of pipes. He speaks as if he knows what he's talking about, even when he doesn't! As far as "dido heads" are concerned that isn't important. He's made a ton of money creating the kind of negative political discourse that this nation has never seen since the Civil War. All that you have to do is speak to an old timer that has followed politics and they'll tell you that they've never seen it this bad. Besides, I'm not a democrat. I've got more balls than them, and I don't physically possess a pair!
Furthermore, unlike myself, Rush is a complete idiot! After getting out of that Hawaiian hospital last month, he gave a press conference at which time he spoke about how good our health care system is, and that Hawaii confirms it. He said that if "Obama-care" had passed, and he had been admitted then, he might have died. Apparently he's ignorant to the fact that Hawaii's health care system is the most progressive in the country. It's a health care for all system that mandates that all Hawaiians must be covered.
Then there's Rush on Sarah Palin. No, I'm not talking about the excuses that he made for her after cameras caught her using a hillbilly teleprompter (her hand). I'm talking about when Sarah Palin's book (Going Rogue) came out he praised it. He said that it was the "most substantial policy book" that he's read in years. What the!?! I haven't read it and wouldn't waste my time, but I've read reviews on it. It's a hit job that's all about settling scores. Be it McCain campaign staffers, her detractors, or David Letterman. It's all attack and no vision! It's not about policy at all. So to paraphrase Al Franken - Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot!!!
Moving on...
As for your usual negativity and obvious hatred for this President, I'd like you to put your finger on exactly what he's been so bad about. Be sure to consider the records of other presidents within their first year as well. Now, I'm talking your finger, not FOX News'. I'd like to suggest a documentary for you to watch if you have both the time and the inclination. Its name is "OutFoxed." It was made in 2004 and if you have Lime-Wire you can down load it for free. It can be obtained on line as well. It has former FOX News staffers giving the skinny. It also illuminate's FOX' policies and the way Roger Ailes strictly controls the narrative over there. Check it out - gives you an inside look at their so-called "Fair and Balanced" reporting! Fox News Cable is a propaganda network, pure and simple.
Getting back to the president. Sure he's has made some missteps as they always do. My beef is that he shouldn't have led with Cap & trade. He should have put that on the burner until 2011. I believe that had he led with health care first, it would have been passed already. I also believed that he allowed the liars and disinformation artist to get control of the narrative. That he should have called them out about their lies as he did at the republican retreat, from the onset. As for the (so-called) war on terror. There's no doubt that he's fought it much smarter than Bush had. In many cases, making more progress in one year than Bush did in seven. As General David Petraeus pointed of on Meet The Press Sunday morning - they did it without sacrificing our principles by using torture.
Furthermore, he accomplished what both Johnson and Nixon were unable to do in Viet Nam - he's won the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban is being beaten back and losing the areas that they had controlled for years. Presently they only have the support of 6% of the population. They've captured the biggest poppy field in the country. A strip of land that generated the money that they used to finance the war. Thats big progress! Also, in Pakistan he's gotten real results from the government there. Unlike the foot dragging that Bush received even after giving Pervez Musharraf wheelbarrows of US dollars. The government there has finally jumped in with both feet to defeat the extremists. I wouldn't be least bit surprised if this strategy produces the Bin Laden capture (if he's alive). Wouldn't that be a blow to the naysayers. As for the phony GOP argument as to where to try the terrorist. Not only is he continuing the very same policies as Bush with respect to tiring terrorist. Trying them in federal courts have achieved the best conviction results. Keep in mind that Bush only tried three terrorists in Military tribunals. Two of which they had to release and the other received only a few months in prison.
Moving on...
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
|
RE: Birdman [Part 2]
|
Feb 23, 2010 4:57 pm
3025 Views
|
As for the economy. Progress is slow but it has progressed nonetheless. We went from a 6.5% negative GDP to a 6% positive. From the loss of 700k jobs a month to a loss of 20k a month. Never mind the lies that are being floated, the stimulus package did create jobs. Two republican Governors (Schwarzenegger and Crist) were honest enough to admit it. We're not in the black yet but we're getting there. Tell me, which President has ever made those kinds of gains in that short a period of time during a recession or depression? Not Reagan or FDR. Republicans offer nothing to get us out of this, just what they always offer - tired ass tax cuts! They are void of ideas! So, when you look at the facts and put aside the spin, I don't understand what your major beef with this president. You don't have to like him but if you look at the numbers he's accomplishing. It couldn't be that he put mustard on his hamburger as Sean Hannity pointed out?
Could it be something far deeper than that. If you've got the time and the inclination, I'd like you to check out a couple of YouTube videos. The first is: Moving Keith Olbermann Special Comment About Race. He made some people mad with that one and followed up the next day with asking his detractors the only question that mattered: where are the people of color at the tea party rallies? I just looked and so far no one has put that one up yet but it's priceless. Next, take a look at Republican hypocrisy at its finest. Do a YouTube search and check out: Rachel Maddow Shows Up Republican Hypocrisy For What It Is......BS. Yes, yes, I'm aware that these two videos are from MSNBC news people but there factual nonetheless. Besides that, I think if more people would get there news from a wider source they would be better served. Personally I watch and read what both the left and right have to say. In fact I even have an inspiring video for you or any reader to watch that might move a hardened heart. It was made by Reverend Dr. James Merritt. Check it out. It's on touchinglives-org, The beautiful thing about looking at all angles is that it broadens your perspective.
As for you saying that this President is "shoving something down our throats." I would have to say that that is complete nonsense. That has not happened and he has had little input on what the congress has crafted. I wish he would have but thus far he has not. From what I hear, that might all change after Thursday the 25th. For the most part he set up some guide lines, handed them a mission and asked them to get it done. Are you aware that 160 republican requests were adopted to the bill and the party of no still wouldn't get on board. Are you aware that the public option polls very well and a bill without it polls disastrously. Are you aware that polling shows that most people want health care reform than don't. They just don't want this crappy bill that is nothing but a windfall for the insurance companies.
"shoving something down our throats" is the reason that I said you used FOX News talking points. I've heard that diatribe being repeated on there over and over by the FOX regulars. Look, health care prices continue to raise and they act like its nothing over on FOX. They're controlled by cooperate elites that have a stake in that narrative. Thats the real crises here. Not that this president wants to reform health care. It's what are Americans going to do in the future when costs make it impossible for many Americans to afford health care. I got some hate mail recently from a clown the last time that I blogged about heath care. Check out his augment - he said that I was an ignorant fool (among other things), that didn't know what I was talking about. That if we make health care available to all Americans we won't have enough doctors to go around. That it's quite natural that some people don't get covered, that it's just how it is. This is how many of these people think - I think it's sick!
Tell me, what do you really want to see done about health care? Do you believe that things are fine as they are? According to the World Health Organization our system is ranked 37th in the world. Do you favor the GOP's solution? What is it? I couldn't really tell you. I only seem hear a lot of criticism, void of solutions. Let me correct that. I do hear them purpose two fixes to this crisis. And make no mistake about it, it is a crisis. One, insurance being sold interstate - which the present bills already has. The second is tort reform. Tort reform is a red herring. What they want to do is set a price on what you and I are worth. They'd like to cap how much we can be compensated if a doctor screws up at 200, 250k. If a doctor performs surgery and he leaves a sponge in you and you end up with some wicked infection that immobilizes you and your bed ridden for life. If and when you sue you're life is worth no more than that cap. If they kill you, if they kill your kids - sorry - 250k - take it or leave it! Imagine how much medical costs could reach if your disabled for life. And just how much is a human life worth? Is yours worth more than mine? Well, thats part of their solution.
A few weeks ago I watched Sarah Palin get on a stage and tell a crowd of supporters "what we need is tort reform!" The crowd went wild. This is typical of the GOP mind set. Screw the people in favor of business interests. And dig this, the states where they already have tort reform, where they've caped how much you can sue if a doctor, cooperation or business injures you. Hasn't done a damn thing to rein in the cost of health insurance or product costs. I'd bet you 1k to a Franklin that the same thing would happen if tort reform was legislated nationwide. Basically it says that our lives are of little value. The other result that tort reform would have is that fewer people would be able to sue. Many would have to just suck it up and deal with their injury. It would become harder for someone to receive damages from large corporations and businesses because lawyers would be reluctant to take those cases. They wouldn't see enough money in it for them, considering the fight that they'd have to put up against a well financed plaintive. Bottom line is if you care about the rights of your fellow Americans, tort reform is a bad idea.
What you don't seem to get about me Birdman, as to why I beef with the right so much is that everything that they do is geared to the benefit of the privileged. I'll admit that I haven't been around very long, however, that is what I've witnessed. And it isn't just tort reform either. Its policy after policy after policy. Their policy's lack consideration as to the effects that they have on the middle class. As for the haters. I think that they just levitate to where ever it is that they can disagree with this president. They don't need facts, hate is what drives them. Look, we need health care reform because the system as it is, is too expensive and doesn't serve us. Besides that, it's going to eventually destroy our economy. Quite frankly what we need is a single payer system that runs like Medicare. Where the CEO's don't ride around in cooperate jets with gold plated bathroom facets. Where CEO's don't fly from one mansion to the other, paid for with money that they earned by denying you and I services that in some cases lead to death. I mean, heaven forbid that they should have to take care of sick people! Thats not profitable. This mindset is killing us. In this health care debate, people are actually hurting themselves just due to their hatred for this president.
As for this phony crap about what Hillary said during the campaign. Are you kidding? Thats campaign talk! Politics is rough, in fact its a contact sport! By your logic Hillary thinks he's a liar, yet she joined his cabinet. Does that really make sense to you? And what does that make her? The whole argument is simply ridiculous...
|
|
|
2
Comments
|
|
|
America Without a Middle Class
|
Feb 23, 2010 4:54 pm
2877 Views
|
Can you imagine an America without a strong middle class? If you can, would it still be America as we know it?
Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families can't make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion from pensions and savings, has left family balance sheets upside down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners out on the street.
Families have survived the ups and downs of economic booms and busts for a long time, but the fall-behind during the busts has gotten worse while the surge-ahead during the booms has stalled out. In the boom of the 1960s, for example, median family income jumped by 33% (adjusted for inflation). But the boom of the 2000s resulted in an almost-imperceptible 1.6% increase for the typical family. While Wall Street executives and others who owned lots of stock celebrated how good the recovery was for them, middle class families were left empty-handed.
The crisis facing the middle class started more than a generation ago. Even as productivity rose, the wages of the average fully-employed male have been flat since the 1970s.
But core expenses kept going up. By the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much (adjusted for inflation) on mortgages than they did a generation ago -- for a house that was, on average, only ten percent bigger and 25 years older. They also had to pay twice as much to hang on to their health insurance.
To cope, millions of families put a second parent into the workforce. But higher housing and medical costs combined with new expenses for child care, the costs of a second car to get to work and higher taxes combined to squeeze families even harder. Even with two incomes, they tightened their belts. Families today spend less than they did a generation ago on food, clothing, furniture, appliances, and other flexible purchases -- but it hasn't been enough to save them. Today's families have spent all their income, have spent all their savings, and have gone into debt to pay for college, to cover serious medical problems, and just to stay afloat a little while longer.
Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families.
The contrast with the big banks could not be sharper. While the middle class has been caught in an economic vise, the financial industry that was supposed to serve them has prospered at their expense. Consumer banking -- selling debt to middle class families -- has been a gold mine. Boring banking has given way to creative banking, and the industry has generated tens of billions of dollars annually in fees made possible by deceptive and dangerous terms buried in the fine print of opaque, incomprehensible, and largely unregulated contracts.
And when various forms of this creative banking triggered economic crisis, the banks went to Washington for a handout. All the while, top executives kept their jobs and retained their bonuses. Even though the tax dollars that supported the bailout came largely from middle class families -- from people already working hard to make ends meet -- the beneficiaries of those tax dollars are now lobbying Congress to preserve the rules that had let those huge banks feast off the middle class.
Pundits talk about "populist rage" as a way to trivialize the anger and fear coursing through the middle class. But they have it wrong. Families understand with crystalline clarity that the rules they have played by are not the same rules that govern Wall Street. They understand that no American family is "too big to fail." They recognize that business models have shifted and that big banks are pulling out all the stops to squeeze families and boost revenues. They understand that their economic security is under assault and that leaving consumer debt effectively unregulated does not work.
Families are ready for change. According to polls, large majorities of Americans have welcomed the Obama Administration's proposal for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The CFPA would be answerable to consumers -- not to banks and not to Wall Street. The agency would have the power to end tricks-and-traps pricing and to start leveling the playing field so that consumers have the tools they need to compare prices and manage their money. The response of the big banks has been to swing into action against the Agency, fighting with all their lobbying might to keep business-as-usual. They are pulling out all the stops to kill the agency before it is born. And if those practices crush millions more families, who cares -- so long as the profits stay high and the bonuses keep coming.
America today has plenty of rich and super-rich. But it has far more families who did all the right things, but who still have no real security. Going to college and finding a good job no longer guarantee economic safety. Paying for a child's education and setting aside enough for a decent retirement have become distant dreams. Tens of millions of once-secure middle class families now live paycheck to paycheck, watching as their debts pile up and worrying about whether a pink slip or a bad diagnosis will send them hurtling over an economic cliff.
America without a strong middle class? Unthinkable, but the once-solid foundation is shaking.
By Elizabeth Warren
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
|
Justice Report: CIA Memo Used by Cheney to Justify Waterboarding Was Inaccurate
|
Feb 23, 2010 4:51 pm
2883 Views
|
A crucial CIA memo that has been cited by former Vice President Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials as justifying the effectiveness of waterboarding contained plainly inaccurate information that undermined its conclusions, according to Justice Department investigators.
Cheney has publicly called for the release of the CIAs still classified memo and another document, insisting their disclosure will bolster his claim that the rough interrogation tactics he vigorously pushed for while in the White House yielded actionable intelligence that foiled terrorist plots against the United States.
But a just released report by the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility into the lawyers who approved the CIAs interrogation program could prove awkward for Cheney and his supporters. The report provides new information about the contents of one of the never released agency memos, concluding that it significantly misstated the timing of the capture of one Al Qaeda suspect in order to make a claim that seems to have been patently false.
The memo also omitted any references to a notorious incident in which another high level CIA detainee, Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided false information about Al Qaedas supposed connections to Iraq in order to stop his Egyptian interrogators from abusing him, the Justice report states. (Al-Libi was transfered by the CIA to Egyptian custody under the agency's "extraordinary rendition" program.)
The CIA memo, called the Effectiveness Memo, was especially important because it was relied on by Steven G. Bradbury, then the Justice Departments acting chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, to write memos in 2005 and 2007 giving the agency additional legal approvals to continue its program of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. The memo reviewed the results of the use of EITs which included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity mainly against two suspects Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the report states. One key claim in the agency memo was that the use of the CIAs enhanced interrogations of Zubaydah led to the capture of suspected dirty bomb plotter Jose Padilla. Abu Zubaydah provided significant information on two operatives, Jose Padilla and Binyam Mohammed, who planned to build and detonate a dirty bomb in the Washington DC area, the CIA memo stated, according to the OPR report. Zubaydahs reporting led to the arrest of Padilla on his arrival in Chicago in May 2003 [sic].
But as the Justice report points out, this was wrong. In fact, Padilla was arrested in May 2002, not 2003
The information [leading] to the arrest of Padilla could not have been obtained through the authorized use of EITs. (The use of enhanced interrogations was not authorized until Aug. 1, 2002 and Zubaydah was not waterboarded until later that month.) Yet Bradbury relied upon this plainly inaccurate information in two OLC memos that contained direct citations from the CIA Effectiveness Memo about the interrogations of Zubaydah, the Justice report states.
As Newsweek reported last year, the information about Padillas plot was actually elicited from Zubaydah during traditional interrogations in the spring of 2002 by two FBI agents, one of whom, Ali Soufan, vigorously objected when the CIA started using aggressive tactics. The Justice report faults Bradbury for not pushing the CIA to backup its effectiveness claims. We question whether it was reasonable for Bradbury not to have demanded more specific information before concluding that the use of EITs was both essential and effective in disrupting terrorist attacks, the report states. Given the importance of the CIA Effectiveness Memos conclusions to Bradburys constitutional analysis ... he should have insisted it set forth: the CIAs basis for believing the subjects possessed information about imminent attacks
and any verification or follow up use of that information... Absent this type of information and analysis, we question Bradburys reliance on the CIA Effectiveness Memo to approve the use of EITs going forward.
Bradbury did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday.
Michael Isikoff
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
To link to this blog (classyginger) use [blog classyginger] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
11
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
2313
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
