That's what being one of the privileged Haves gets you: 'Government insurance' that covers care and rehabilitation and holds your job (and pays you as if you've been there, on the job) until you're ready to return or have decided not to. And continues to accommodate you at your diminished pace and capacity.
Nice work if you can get it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Immigration reform works to the benefit of immigrants (non-voters) and the rich and corporate (cheap labor). It does NOTHING for the working class of Americans, and that includes both those workers on the low end and those on the upper end (tech and engineering jobs) who are being aced out of work by foreign workers who are willing to work cheaper than Americans.
So, again, this is both political parties selling out the poor and middle class Americans.
About Latino Politics
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
About Obama's lousy deal-making, and compromising:
Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particularly women's and the pro-choice movement's. And Obama's been particularly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal. [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat", which means he might as well re-register as a Republican.]
One example of how Democrats and Obama are real free and easy "compromising away" a base group's interests is Obama's healthcare legislation which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all abortions). Even after we on the left have compromised, after we have deals, Republicans renege and Democrats still cave some more.
One example of that is the Capps amendment. That was the compromise AGREEMENT on abortion in Obama's healthcare legislation that Republicans reneged on, and in the end, with the StupakAmendment and Obama's executive order, Obama and Democrats have put us firmly on the path of ending all insurance coverage for abortions. More here.
Fairly soon, Roe and overturning it is going to be moot with all that Republicans have managed to get Democrats to "compromise" on, making getting an abortlon impossible. Why bother overturning Roe, outlawing abortion, when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?
We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an abortlon in 92 percent of the counties in the US (and 3 states in the country have only one abortion clinic, and other states heavily restrict a woman's access to abortion, and ban abortions in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, and ban abortion counseling and clinic recommendations) if Democrats and Obama weren't so breezy with women's hard-fought for rights.
And there are no more important issues for woman than these economic decisions.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Those who keep urging "compromise", the left has done all of the compromising for the past 40 years. Deregulation and privatization are two core principles that the left has caved on that have gotten us to this point of destroying the middle class and the nation.
More recently, SinglePayer was a compromise. When that proved not enough for the CorporateMasters of the universe, a PublicOption was compromised. A weak PublicOption was whittled down into a trigger and then dropped altogether. There are no cost controls in Obama's healthcare legislation, but plenty of protections for continued gouging by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
By the way, SinglePayer wasn't our first, best proposal. We'd already been denied our first best proposal: A level playing field where we all could rise and share in the obscene corporate profits that come at the expense of so many people's lives. We've lost to a corporate mentality that it's a 'dog eat dog'-world, where making a living isn't enough (or even possible); only 'making a kiIIing'.
Had Republicans never been in power these past 35 years, had Democrats not crossed over to become the same bought-off corporate tools that Republicans are, free education through college, access to nutritious, clean and safe food and water, abundant clean and green and sustainable energy, and affordable housing and healthcare for everyone would've been the bare minimum standard of living for all Americans. But greedy OILy conservative politicians entered our lives and our government, and we're now on a fast track to the end.
In 2001, Bush's tax cuts for the rich promised to create jobs and wealth for all, and once again the left compromised and Democratic politicians caved. Since 2006, Democrats campaigned on ending Bush's tax cuts when they expired in 2011. And again, Obama gamed it and extended them.
The latest Democratic caving over the budget:
When the budget process began, Republican congressman PaulRyan came out with the first number that Republicans wanted to cut ($32 billion). Then there was a TeaParty revolt in the House, and Republicans in the House said "Fine, you win, $64 billion."
At $64 billion Democrats moved all the way over to where Paul Ryan was when the process began. So even if Democrats got that number (which in Washington would be considered a "win" for Democrats), Democrats went all the way over to where the Republican leadership thought their opening bid would be. Ultimately the cuts are going to be very dramatic, more so than anyone in either party thought was wise a few months ago -- NOBODY is representing the interests of the poor and middle classes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
These comments are from an HP article dated July 28, 2011:
The media pundits are calling an end is at hand -- Democrats will agree to spending cuts ($1 trillion), no revenue increases, and what Obama gets is that this won't come back up again before the 2012 election.
Shorter version: Democrats cave, but not as much as feared.
As are the super rich the masters of the Democratic Party.
Coke = Pepsi
About Joe Biden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It cuts military spending and neither party is about to let that happen.
That's what this is all really about, and why they're so desperate to avoid any break in funding the MIC.
Really.
About Joe Biden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I put comments to you under Pickles and Pops' comment - See it here (it's hung up in moderation 3 comments).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
But what I find worst of all is Obama's deceit and cowardice.
If you believe what he believes, then own it. But he hasn't owned it. He's let people believe that he was on their side, that he believed as they believe, all the while he's been scheming to undo the social safety net.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The list of issues that 'pragmatists' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long.
If 'pragmatists' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.
If 'pragmatists' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menopause, or if they have the means and ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-breakers'.
If 'pragmatists' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significant health problems, if their parents/grandparents are dead, if their parents/grandparents are alive and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., it's not their problem.
If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizing politicians or government, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceutical drugs to manage their stress or recreation), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"
[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatists' and their ignorant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislation (aka The Big Insurance-PhRma Jackpot Act).]
If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, and so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.
There's nothing "pragmatic" about these people. They (and you) are tunnel-visioned, and only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstances. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissistically-inclined". Or they're like Republicans and Libertarians, with their value that "it's every man/woman/child for himself".
But they're certainly not about Democratic values.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama and Democrats into power: The'Pragmatists'.
Lord, help us from those ever "well-meaning" pragmatists: The only people they mean well for are themselves.
We hear about "pragmatism" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonable", or "realistic", or"adult", or some other characterization which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table and out of consideration). The truth is that their "pragmatism" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ignorant minds.
'Pragmatists' have no dog in the race for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off. They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understanding of the legislation); 'pragmatists', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.
'Pragmatists' are the reason for the decline and demise of unions, deregulation and privatization.
Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administration's use of the 'pragmatic' argument were Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod during the months that Obama and the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.
See here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You and I aren't average Democratic voters; I don't know what it's going to take for the truth to get through to the others about the modern Democratic Party. Those who believe he's a liberal continue to make excuses for him. One that I encountered earlier today talked about how Obama was "better than the alternative", refusing to accept that he is equivalent to the alternative.
Anyone who believes that Obama is a liberal is flat-out ignorant about his record and history. Obama's got nothing but contempt for liberals, stemming from long before he ever ran for office in Chicago. In hindsight, it's pretty clear that he's been a cold, calculating character who has lied to a great many people over the years to get to where he is. There are liberals who knew him in the early days, at Harvard Law Review and then later in Chicago, and questioned his intent, his philosophy and commitment to people's issues, but found him to be slippery and hard to nail down.
Our nature, of giving others the benefit of the doubt, has been our undoing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I don't think this is going to sink in to the average Democratic voter - Look at how this article has been written. As if it's Republicans who proposed chained CPI.
About Fiscal Cliff
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You mean compassion like this?
About wiretapping
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Coca-Cola = Pepsi.
The "alternative" was no different. The fact that you can't see that is what enables Obama's signing legislation like this into law.
About AP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
In the VP debate with Paul Ryan just weeks ago, Joe Biden - "Who do you trust with Social Security? Obama or Romney? Use your common sense...who do you trust?"
I guess it was a trick question.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
There's Only One Way To Fix The Deficit — And Actually It's Totally Painless
People who insist that the US has a gigantic "spending problem" are ignorant of what really drives the deficit and the national debt, as Henry Blodget easily demonstrated in a series of charts.
Closing the deficit is not just about lowering spending, relative to GDP, but also about increasing revenue from our very low levels.
So how is that accomplished?
When people talk about the deficit, they almost always use the "pain" metaphor.
In almost any op-ed extolling the wisdom of the Simpson-Bowles plan, it's pointed out that we're going to need to take some pain. Obama has said that the Federal Government needs to tighten its belt, which is something that is painful. Conservatives say the government needs to go on a diet. Diets are painful. A recent USA Today headline was very standard: "Nation's soaring deficit calls for painful choices."
It's understandable why the pain metaphor is so popular. One, it's logical to think that the answer to big deficits is cuts, and cuts are painful. More importantly, it appeals to an innate sense that pain is frequently a long-run redeeming thing to experience. You go to do Crossfit, and you feel pain. But then pretty soon you're a beast that's never felt better. Some religious people used to mutilate their own flesh to show proper respect to The Lord.
So this is just a popular idea: Take the pain now, be redeemed.
The good news is that in economics and when talking about the deficit it doesn't need to work that way! Fixing the debt is painless!
That's because the primary driver of deficits is a lack of growth.
A chart that everyone needs to have seared into their brains is this one, which shows the deficit as a percentage of GDP (red line) vs. the unemployment rate (blue line).
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/closing-the-deficit-is-painless-2012-12#ixzz2GTqFc2nR
Just as Democrats did when Bush "asked" Democrats to pass his legislation to cut taxes and go to war in Iraq?
Or when presidents Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 "asked" Democrats to pass all of the deregulation, privatization, anti-union, anti-choice legislation that have us teetering on the edge of third worldism?
Do you elect Democrats to cave to whichever majority party is controlling the White House's desires? Do you believe that other Democratic voters do? Do you believe that Republican voters do?
Members of Congress have to win elections (in the House it's every 2 years and in the Senate it's every 6 years) and they don't do it by supporting legislation that the voters that sent them to Washington don't like. In that, I'm sympathetic with Republican politicians' plight and only wish that Democratic politicians had not been so ethically-challenged.
FWIW, Clinton's budget passed with not one Republican in the House voting for it and a 50-50 tie in the Senate that the vice-president (Gore) was brought in to break.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
There should be tax HIKES on corporations and the rich. There should be massive cuts to the military. Banks should be threatened with nationalization unless they begin lending to small businesses. There have been more than 3.5 million home foreclosures but there are 11 million more in the pipeline — There must be principal write-downs.
Democratic politicians should be beating this drum, loudly, constantly, and pushing the People’s Budget instead of working off of a set of corporate lobbyists’ plans.
Why aren’t Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Democrats talking about the Progressive Caucus’s budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama’s AND Republicans’ plans.
As Krugman has said, the Progressives’ budget:
“balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security’s solvency forever)... and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense.”But Obama already is broadcasting he's willing to put safety net and entitlement programs on the table for cuts. He takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power before negotiations even begin.
"President Barack Obama, with his latest fiscal cliff offer, proposes extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone earning less than $400,000 a year, and paying for it by increasing taxes on the middle class and cutting Social Security and Medicare."
Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corporate legislation) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituents come election time.
Those in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and kill liberal legislation (like a public option or access to abortion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.
Here's an example of how they tag team us - Progressive Congresswoman Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressive Marcy Winograd
That never got reported in Woolsey's district, so her credibility as a liberal anti-war congresswoman was safe as far as her constituents were concerned.
About Harry Reid
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama already has caved, with his cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid benefits, among other things like changing the top threshold to $400,000.
About Harry Reid
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Speaker Pelosi passed 400 pieces of legislation in her tenure but that wonderful legislation got stalled in the Senate by the historic number of GOPTea-McConnell-led-filibusters.
Thank you.
"No matter how cynical I get, it's impossible to keep up." -Lily Tomlin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obviously I can only speculate as to motive(s). I don't think it's one motive, or that they all share the same motive. A number of them are motivated by the Republican Party's policies' philosophy (that links all their policies, e.g., business owners over workers, white men's rights over women's and minorities' rights, military spending and might over diplomatic and UN and domestic spending, unregulated capitalism over union workers and job safety and working conditions, etc.
There is a herd mentality (particularly in the House of Representatives), it's not unlike high school, with a deference to authority (to their party's leadership, the hierarchy within government, the monied interests that sent them to Washington, et al), and a good number of them really are not any smarter than a box of hammers (Louis Gohmert from Texas is one example). When it comes to Obama's motives, I think he's sympathetic to banking interests (I think Obama's a DINO, a Trojan horse, and was never interested in governing as a populist - His record in the White House, in the Illinois State Senate and biography inform me of that).
I can give you some links (that include other links) that can help show you what forms my thinking on the matter:
This is the one that nobody but a very few talk about, and the one that may best explain the economic catastrophe bearing down on us and what's motivating the powers that be -
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2008-03-10/finance/30753760_1_derivatives-bubble-subprime
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/climate-change-president_b_2341543_216251777.html
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bridge-Barack-Obama-Vintage/dp/037570230X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1356396259&sr=8-2&keywords=david+remnick
There are other citations that I regularly include in my comments - Click on the colored text. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli?action=comments
Happy Holidays and the best of luck to you and yours.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Real US unemployment: More than 15%:
While the official US unemployment rate lies just above 8 percent, real jobless rates are almost three times that high in some states, with the national “real” unemployment rate lying at 15 percent in July.
The US government’s official unemployment rate, now at 8.1 percent, only takes into consideration those who have no job and are looking for work. This number is called a “U-3” rate. It does not count those who have stopped looking for work or who are working part-time.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics takes these other factors into consideration for data it calls the “U-6” – and these numbers are shockingly higher.
U-6 data includes “discouraged workers,” which the Bureau defines as people not in the labor force, but want and are available for work and had looked for a job in the prior year.
Those who have not looked for work in the prior month are not included in the U-3 unemployment rate.
The national U-6 rate is 15.3 percent, but some states have a shockingly higher individual rate.
Nevada’s U-6 unemployment rate is 22.1 percent – the highest in the country. The rate is almost three times higher than what it was in 2007, at 7.6 percent.
California has a rate of 20.3 percent, while Rhode Island lies at 18.3 percent.
Only three states have U-6 unemployment rates beneath 10 percent, and only one state (North Dakota at 6.1 percent, the lowest in the country) has a rate lower than the official U-3 unemployment rate.
James Burke of "Connections"-fame produced an excellent program about 30 years ago called "After The Warming" that you can see online. It's done as if it's 2050 with Burke looking back over the history of the world's climate changes and the effect that cyclical warming and cooling has had on the development of animal, vegetation, and civilization. Up until the industrial revolution, and how what's happening is man-made, how we know that it's man-made, and how fast it's happening. In less than one generation, human civilization on the planet is going to irrevocably break down. Mass die-off of species, specifically humans, from a whole host of assaults (famine, drought, disease, pandemics, wars, etc.).
If every Fox viewer saw it, they might be convinced, but it wouldn't matter; it's too late.
What's happening politically now is that the world leaders are arranging for the time when chaos will be the order of the day. The loss of civil liberties, setting up for martial law, endless wars, etc. I think they're giving the 'haves' one last bite at the apple, to amass as much wealth as they can, to move their families to high ground for the coming bad times. The US is positioning itself much like the Roman Empire did, and will take what it wants through military might - Not for we ordinary mortals, mind you, but for the survival of the elites.
I think it's obvious that the decision was made some time ago, like several decades ago, that the US wasn't going to respond and try to avert the catastrophe. Too many people to get on board, too much work, and altruistic work at that. It was a cynical and corrupt decision, with greed controlling it, with the likes of Jim Baker and the Bushes making fortunes by the decision (in oil). War industries were another venue for amassing great wealth, and that's the path that Cheney took.
In the late 1990s, when the bubbles were taking shape, I estimated that those who didn't have a net worth of, at least, $250,000 wouldn't stand a chance, but I'm revising that upwards to $5 million. That's just bare bones, to keep from dying from an inability to purchase food and water, and keep a roof over your head that you don't have to trade watch duty with family and friends to keep marauders out.
Bleak? You bet. But we have to start talking about it and demanding politicians address it.
Watch "After The Warming" with your families and friends. It's somewhere to begin.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama's FDR moment? Obama's a tool of the corporations: Everything that he's done has been to favor corporate profit over people's lives and saving the environment.
James Burke of "Connections"-fame produced an excellent program about 30 years ago called "After The Warming" that you can see online. It's done as if it's 2050 with Burke looking back over the history of the world's climate changes and the effect that cyclical warming and cooling has had on the development of animal, vegetation, and civilization. Up until the industrial revolution, and how what's happening is man-made, how we know that it's man-made, and how fast it's happening. In less than one generation, human civilization on the planet is going to irrevocably break down. Mass die-off of species, specifically humans, from a whole host of assaults (famine, drought, disease, pandemics, wars, etc.).
If every Fox viewer saw it, they might be convinced, but it wouldn't matter; it's too late.
What's happening politically now is that the world leaders are arranging for the time when chaos will be the order of the day. The loss of civil liberties, setting up for martial law, endless wars, etc. I think they're giving the 'haves' one last bite at the apple, to amass as much wealth as they can, to move their families to high ground for the coming bad times. The US is positioning itself much like the Roman Empire did, and will take what it wants through military might - Not for we ordinary mortals, mind you, but for the survival of the elites.
I think it's obvious that the decision was made some time ago, like several decades ago, that the US wasn't going to respond and try to avert the catastrophe. Too many people to get on board, too much work, and altruistic work at that. It was a cynical and corrupt decision, with greed controlling it, with the likes of Jim Baker and the Bushes making fortunes by the decision (in oil). War industries were another venue for amassing great wealth, and that's the path that Cheney took.
In the late 1990s, when the bubbles were taking shape, I estimated that those who didn't have a net worth of, at least, $250,000 wouldn't stand a chance, but I'm revising that upwards to $5 million. That's just bare bones, to keep from dying from an inability to purchase food and water, and keep a roof over your head that you don't have to trade watch duty with family and friends to keep marauders out.
Bleak? You bet. But we have to start talking about it and demanding politicians address it.
Watch "After The Warming" with your families and friends. It's somewhere to begin.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
If Boehner and the right wing were to agree to Obama's plan, there would be cuts in benefits to Social Security, along with Medicare and Medicaid and food stamps and 100 other programs vital to the most vulnerable among us.
Is that what you support?
About State of the Union
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and 100 other programs needed by the 99% isn't the will of the people, but Obama apparently believes it is. He is the one who put Social Security on the table.
About State of the Union
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Not only did I live it, I can provide citations that back it up. From the Bureau of Labor and Statistics:
1970 - 4.9
1971 - 5.9
1972 - 5.6
1973 - 4.9
1974 - 5.6
1975 - 8.5
1976 - 7.7
1977 - 7.1
1978 - 6.1
1979 - 5.8
2008 - 5.8
2009 - 9.3
2010 - 9.6
2011 - 8.9
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
When politicians say that "Social Security is the third rail of politics", they mean it with a hostility that should be reserved for their Corporate Masters. You don't see politicians putting campaign finance and election reform on their agenda from year to year as you do their continuing assaults on social safety net programs for the People.
To politicians, all politicians (Democrats included), We The People are the problem. If only they didn't have to deal with making us happy to get our votes that keep them employed. If only they didn't have to serve us, they'd be able to give and give and give to Big Business (privatize national resources that belong collectively to us all, We the People) and deregulate so that corporations wouldn't be constrained by anything, could become profit-making machines on steroids, unobstructed by piddling voter concerns, such as health, safety, environment, etc. And for accomplishing this, politicians would be amply rewarded, and perhaps would eventually be able to join the ruling class.
You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politicians, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corporate branch), and that Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate (Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constitutionally-required role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administrations -- What little regulating they've put in legislation the last 2 years is ineffective for a whole array of very sneaky moves). As a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractors stealing us blind, insurance companies don't have to comply with healthcare reform laws, banks can continue as huge-profit-making machines for their officers and lead the nation into one bubble and crash after another.
You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy. What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past four years has been in the People's and not the Corporations' interests.
What's gotten lost in the news cycle the past few months are Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties which mean more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas. And then there's the 'Super Congress' (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the Dream Act ticking along (which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages).
We The People are being transformed, from sheep to sacrificial lambs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Politicians WANT a high deficit so that they can create a fiscal crisis that forces us to cut vital safety net programs. It's what Grover Norquist (president of Americans for Tax Reform, and George W. Bush's once-a-week lunch buddy for the 8 years of the Bush-Cheney Administration) meant when he said,"Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub."
During the 2000 election, when Gore was talking about "lock box" and Bush was campaigning on tax cuts ("We gotta get the money out of Washington or else the politishuns'll spend it!"), I was writing about how Bush and Grover Norquist intended to bankrupt the country as a back door to ending the Great Society.
I was writing about conservatives frustration over their futile attempts to end Social Security and other New Dea/Great Society programs, and how even their own (Republican politicians in Congress) would do it directly because it was so popular with the People. It would end their political careers if they went at ending Social Security with a head-on vote. They would have to go about it indirectly, lining up the ducks in a row, for the step-by-step dismantling of the singlemost effective program in the history of the US for lifting people out of poverty.
The way they would do it would be to get the nation into so much debt, into bankruptcy, that there would be no money left in SocialSecurity. That's how they would kill it.
When GeorgeWBush got into the White House after the contentious 2000 election (when Republicans stole the election), when Bush rammed those tax cuts through, no Democrats talked about "what about if we need that money for a rainy day?" Or "find ourselves in a war?"
Around 2006, when Democrats won the election and talk was rampant about Bush's legacy, when even conservatives were repudiating Bush, Bush was saying that he was certain he'd be vindicated in history as " a great conservative".
Even conservatives didn't see what he was talking about (that what Bush is counting on is the end of the Great Society programs, like Social Security and Medicare, vindicating him as both a great president and a great conservative).
By the way, not one journalist asked Bush why he thought he'd be vindicated by history; they still don't, as he's made the rounds of his book tour since leaving the White House.
Democratic politicians aren't stupid, by the way. They knew what Bush and Republicans were up to, and they let it happen.
Why? Why would Democratic politicians want to end Social Security and Medicare?
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This subject is a waste of time because 1) it's members of Congress who set their own salaries, and 2) most of them do not rely on paychecks from their elected offices for support. Most of them are wealthy, independently of their public office. And they're never going to need their Social Security pension to survive, or Medicare or Medicaid for that matter.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
(Reuters) - The U.S. economy grew faster than previously thought in the third quarter, helped by exports and government spending, but a sluggish global demand and belt-tightening by Washington looks set to put on the brakes again.
Other data on Thursday showed factory activity in the mid-Atlantic region picked up this month, while home resales in November were the best in three years, indicating the economy retained some vigor early in the fourth quarter.
However, a rise in first-time applications for unemployment aid last week suggested job growth remains modest.
Bureau of Labor and Statistics:
1970 - 4.9
1971 - 5.9
1972 - 5.6
1973 - 4.9
1974 - 5.6
1975 - 8.5
1976 - 7.7
1977 - 7.1
1978 - 6.1
1979 - 5.8
2008 - 5.8
2009 - 9.3
2010 - 9.6
2011 - 8.9
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This really couldn't get any simpler:
Politicians on both sides of the aisle want to stick the poor and middle classes with the bill for the past years of BS wars, war profiteering, corporate tax breaks that led to insane profits which weren't passed on to us but to the rich, etc. Add to that the costs of both Bush's Medicare Reform and Obama's healthcare legislation, both of which were forced on us instead of what it was that we wanted: Negotiating cheaper prices with the pharmaceutical industry and a single payer system like expanding Medicare to all.
Back when Obama extended Bush's tax cuts, I wrote that the 'Rule of Thumb' about when tax cuts make sense is, "When a nation's bills are paid". When the nation is in surplus. You don't go on vacation when you haven't paid the rent. You don't buy a Rolls Royce when you're living in your parents' garage. You don't buy Godiva chocolates when there's no food in the fridge or the cupboards to feed your kids.
When a tax cut requires a nation to borrow more money, adding to the deficit, increasing the national debt, that's robbing the People to give to the rich. Average Americans, our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, for generations to come, are getting stuck with the bill.
Ten years ago, Bush's tax cuts were sold to us as "job creators" - "They'd stimulate the economy". They didn't then and they haven't since they became Obama's tax cuts. The money for Bush's tax cuts had to be borrowed. The money is all gone. We're now stuck with cleaning up the party that the rich had (investing overseas, in other nations, outsourcing Americans' jobs and closing down US manufacturing). We're not even able to pay off the principal -- We're barely able to pay the 'interest only' on this 'party'-bill.
Working Americans are tired of paying for the parties of the rich. But it's even worse: We're not only paying for their parties, we're taking out loans so that they can stuff their mattresses. If I'm paying for bathtubs full of Dom Perignon, I'd better d@mned well be the one soaking in it.
In an economy like this, you raise the debt ceiling irrespective of a budget, and then Obama and Democrats need to get behind the People's budget plan and barnstorm the nation explaining it (read here). Money has to get into the hands of the people who are most likely to spend it (the poor and middle classes), and not the uber rich again, who park it offshore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
So you believe that there are jobs out there for anyone who wants one?
What is it that you do for a living?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Spending on social programs like Social Security, food stamps, unemployment is the problem? Anything but cutting military spending:
Then-defense secretary Robert M. Gates stopped bagging his leaves when he moved into a small Washington military enclave in 2007. His next-door neighbor was Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, who had a chef, a personal valet and — not lost on Gates — troops to tend his property.
Gates may have been the civilian leader of the world’s largest military, but his position did not come with household staff. So, he often joked, he disposed of his leaves by blowing them onto the chairman’s lawn. “I was often jealous because he had four enlisted people helping him all the time,” Gates said in response to a question after a speech Thursday. He wryly complained to his wife that “Mullen’s got guys over there who are fixing meals for him, and I’m shoving something into the microwave. And I’m his boss.”
Of the many facts that have come to light in the scandal involving former CIA director David H. Petraeus, among the most curious was that during his days as a four-star general, he was once escorted by 28 police motorcycles as he traveled from his Central Command headquarters in Tampa to socialite Jill Kelley’s mansion. Although most of his trips did not involve a presidential-size convoy, the scandal has prompted new scrutiny of the imperial trappings that come with a senior general’s lifestyle.
The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.
The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, some of which are configured with beds.
The list of issues that 'pragmatists' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long.
If 'pragmatists' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.
If 'pragmatists' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menopause, or if they have the means and ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-breakers'.
If 'pragmatists' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significant health problems, if their parents/grandparents are dead, if their parents/grandparents are alive and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., it's not their problem.
If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizing politicians or government, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceutical drugs to manage their stress or recreation), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"
[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatists' and their ignorant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislation (aka The Big Insurance-PhRma Jackpot Act).]
If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, and so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.
There's nothing "pragmatic" about these people. They (and you) are tunnel-visioned, and only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstances. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissistically-inclined". Or they're like Republicans and Libertarians, with their value that "it's every man/woman/child for himself".
But they're certainly not about Democratic values.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I'm not an apologist, just feel like some compromise gets us farther than sitting on our heels.=============================
If everyone was far far left, nothing would get done in this country.
I'm an old OLD liberal Democrat. And I am weary from giving apologist Democrats like you, who have enabled the Democratic Party's radical shift to the right, "a break".
I and many others on the left warned of these days when Tip O'Neill was capitulating to Reagan in the 1980s, but certain Democratic and Independent voters were as starstruck and conflict aversive as they are today.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No, Democrats have kept the people complacent and resigned.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Spending on social programs like Social Security, food stamps, unemployment is the problem? Anything but cutting military spending:
Then-defense secretary Robert M. Gates stopped bagging his leaves when he moved into a small Washington military enclave in 2007. His next-door neighbor was Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, who had a chef, a personal valet and — not lost on Gates — troops to tend his property.
Gates may have been the civilian leader of the world’s largest military, but his position did not come with household staff. So, he often joked, he disposed of his leaves by blowing them onto the chairman’s lawn. “I was often jealous because he had four enlisted people helping him all the time,” Gates said in response to a question after a speech Thursday. He wryly complained to his wife that “Mullen’s got guys over there who are fixing meals for him, and I’m shoving something into the microwave. And I’m his boss.”
Of the many facts that have come to light in the scandal involving former CIA director David H. Petraeus, among the most curious was that during his days as a four-star general, he was once escorted by 28 police motorcycles as he traveled from his Central Command headquarters in Tampa to socialite Jill Kelley’s mansion. Although most of his trips did not involve a presidential-size convoy, the scandal has prompted new scrutiny of the imperial trappings that come with a senior general’s lifestyle.
The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.
The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, some of which are configured with beds.
When politicians say that "Social Security is the third rail of politics", they mean it with a hostility that should be reserved for their Corporate Masters. You don't see politicians putting campaign finance and election reform on their agenda from year to year as you do their continuing assaults on social safety net programs for the People.
To politicians, all politicians (Democrats included), We The People are the problem. If only they didn't have to deal with making us happy to get our votes that keep them employed. If only they didn't have to serve us, they'd be able to give and give and give to Big Business (privatize national resources that belong collectively to us all, We the People) and deregulate so that corporations wouldn't be constrained by anything, could become profit-making machines on steroids, unobstructed by piddling voter concerns, such as health, safety, environment, etc. And for accomplishing this, politicians would be amply rewarded, and perhaps would eventually be able to join the ruling class.
You can choose to believe what you will about Democratic politicians, but the fact is that the DLC controls the Democratic Party (the DLC is referred to as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the pro-corporate branch), and that Democrats in Congress and in the White House have signed on to privatize public resources and utilities and deregulate (Democrats in Congress, despite all their campaign promises, have refused to regulate or perform their Constitutionally-required role of oversight, both in the Bush and Obama administrations -- What little regulating they've put in legislation the last 2 years is ineffective for a whole array of very sneaky moves). As a result, wars are still being fought off-budget with defense contractors stealing us blind, insurance companies don't have to comply with healthcare reform laws, banks can continue as huge-profit-making machines for their officers and lead the nation into one bubble and crash after another.
You can choose to think of Obama and his intentions in whatever way makes you happy. What you can't do is explain how any of what Obama's done these past two years has been in the People's and not the Corporations' interests.
What's gotten lost in the news cycle the past few months are Obama's new NAFTA-like treaties which mean more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas. And then there's the 'Super Congress' (and its plan for gutting Social Security and Medicare), along with the Dream Act ticking along (which means a flood of immigrants working for slave wages).
We The People are being transformed, from sheep to sacrificial lambs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
There's nothing that Republicans have done in the past 30 years that was done without Democrats coming aboard.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Over the course of US history, corporations have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectively that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporations) is good for America (We the People)".
The rich have gotten rich off of the sweat and labor of others and then taken those profits to buy politicians who gamed the system so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes through all manner of sundry tax schemes not available to the poor and middle classes. The rich also 'closed the door' on the ways that initially enabled them to amass their 'seed money' for creating their businesses.
That's the true nature of capitalism: It seeks to eliminate all competition (that's why it need to be regulated). Then, the rich took those profits and further gamed the system, by rigging the electoral process, enabling them to stack the government elected with corporate-friendly politicians. Business interests over the People's interests.
Democrats (controlled by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republicans are corporate tools. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent, Republicans and DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, transnational corporations. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of WeThePeople.
Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for the poor and middle classes, workers and unions, strong regulations on banks, Wall Street, investigations, prosecutions, restitution of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmental clean-up, clean, sustainable renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupationsn, affordable, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislation is not), and more.
The DLC-controlled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations.
I am an old, OLD liberal Democrat. A New Deal Democrat. I've never voted for a Republican in my many years of voting nor will I. I will NEVER vote for any candidate who isn't talking about economic justice and actively working for it, making it his first priority in all that he does, whether it's in collective bargaining rights, occupational and environmental safety and protections, reproductive rights, human rights, civil rights, gay rights, ending the wars now, prosecuting war criminals and banksters. As it stands now, I can't see voting for any Democrat again.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You reference "Corporate Masters." They have NOTHING compared to our GREEDY GOVERNMENT MASTERS.=========================
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
