Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

The Green Party and Ms. Stein are definitely on the right road, but I have to advocate this position: this time around, reelect President Obama

============================

No, 2008 was the last straw for me.

I and many other liberal Democrats have been warning about and fighting the DLC-Democrats (corporate Democrats) for 25 years.  We predicted this outcome, but Democratic voters like you have bought into the fear tactics until what you've gotten is exactly what you're terrified of: Republican legislation and policies.  It doesn't seem to make a dent in your thinking that you're getting Republican policies and legislation from Democratic politicians.  

What is necessary is breaking the lock that both parties have on the process, breaking their control over the discussion and the solutions.  That's only going to happen when third parties are included in the debate, and that is only going to happen when third parties get 5% of the vote.  That's all that's needed.  To be perfectly candid with you, I think it's already too late, but voting third party is really the last best effort and really the least we owe ourselves.

If you fear that that would put Romney in and he's the anti-Chr!st, you probably also believed John McCain would have governed differently than Obama.  There's been analysis of a possible McCain administration and there's really little difference from what we got with Obama.  Obama is Bush-Cheney's third term.  And, in fact, Romney's record as governor isn't much different than Obama's as president. There were even moments of liberalism to Romney's record (gun control, state co-pays for abortion, etc.) - Certainly more progressive than Obama.  

But as I said, I'm going with the longer term plan instead of reacting as frightened voters have for the past 20 years that the DLC has been pushing our buttons: Breaking the chains, the fix, the lock, that the two parties have on our system of elections and government.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateM­asters of the universe. He'll hand the baton off to Republican­s for the fleecing to continue and go on to reap the benefits from his treacherou­s betrayal of the People, i.e., the same sort of corporate payoffs that presidents since Gerald Ford have enjoyed.

Corporatio­ns have managed to game our political system 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 (the People)".

Democrats, controlle­d by the DLC, 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, BigCorpora­tions. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of thePeople.

If you must continue to delude yourself into thinking Obama's a good guy who never would have started those wars, and who has only the best of intentions but got a bad deal (I don't share that opinion anymore), then think of all this as a business plan where the CorporateM­asters of the Universe have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and select the politician­/personali­ty best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­. If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profit­eering, then GeorgeWBus­h is your man to front it (with DickCheney­, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows).

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that. They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust. BarackObam­a.

The truth is that Obama is no better than BushCheney­. Not better, not worse, but the same. His 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better. I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and are prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But that is NOT going to happen under Obama or the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party as we'd hoped when we put them in power in 2008; it's not even on their 'To Do' list.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

Why do you believe that Democrats are opposed to Citizens' United? 

And Democrats haven't "begun regulating" the health insurance industry.  Between Obama's allowing corporations to be exempted from ACA and the insurance companies' gaming of medical loss ratio (Here's just one of several ways they're doing it: Rebates reverting back to employers who can spend it any way they want), all that Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are doing is fooling you.  

If you want the health insurance industry regulated meaningfully, Congress needs to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act.  But more substantially, get the insurance industry out of the medical treatment model.  They add nothing, and just skim.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Tax Cuts Rejected In House

All that Obama's been doing is trying to save unregulated capitalism and the lock that the 1% has on the other 99%.

With Obama's deal to preserve Bush's tax cuts for the rich last year (making it Obama's tax cuts for the rich), 99ers were cut off.  Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployment benefits, Obama's deal covered only 2 million, & many of them will get crumbs from his deal because in spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/territories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, so that's even fewer still.

David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now! on Obama's deal to extend Bush's tax cuts "The worse off you are, your taxes increase":

"The bottom roughly 45 million families in America or households in America—and there are a little over 100 million households—they’re going to actually see their taxes go up.  Republicans got an extraordinarily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiating skills of the President."

The payroll tax 'holiday' in the deal sets SocialSecurity up for its end, and keeps getting extended by Obama.  That's what Bush and GroverNorquist planned and why Bush believes he'll be vindicated as a great conservative in history: For ending the GreatSociety programs, by having bankrupted the nation so there's no way to pay out those benefits.  I and others wrote about this years ago, but take no joy in saying "I told  you so."

Extending Bush's tax cuts was an absolutely wretched deal, but standard for Obama, who has  a long record of negotiating lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf.  If Obama was in private practice and 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he would be sued, successfully, for malpractice.

The purpose of the deal was so that Democratic political operatives could say, "Obama helped the unemployed"; most readers won't know the actual facts of how Obama sold out the American people.  Again.  Obama and Democrats have no jobs plan either.  Both parties are thinning the herd.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Jill Stein Arrested: Green Party Nominee Faces Charges After Bank Protest

The past 4 years hasn't been "progress" by any means; it's been a consolidat­ion of past gains by the corporatoc­racy aims.

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their CorporateM­asters.  

Think of Democratic and Republican politician­s as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. Or like at the annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing".

Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 1percent.  No protesting­, rallying, marching, begging, imploring, wishing, pleading with Obama is going to move him off of that.  If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateM­asters of the universe, and he'll be handsomely rewarded with paid seats on corporate boards for the rest of his life.  He'll just hand the baton off to a Republican for the fleecing to continue.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

David Siegel, Florida Real Estate Mogul, Claims To Be 'Personally Responsible' For George W. Bush's 2000 Victory

Meet the Siegles in the documentary, "Queen of Versailles".

If ever there was a reason for reinstating inheritance taxes, they are it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Kate Middleton Preps For Olympics With Prince William & Prince Harry (PHOTOS)

Speculation about my wealth is rather pointless, since you know nothing about me, and would be unwise to accept any story I told you. These comment boards are rife with false biographies.

=========================================

Just as is your speculation about me - ["Just out of curiosity, you seem to have a problem with inherited income and property. Do you apply that to everyone, or just the people you find objectionable. I believe in the right to private property and the rule of law, including centuries-old agreements, but perhaps you're an anarchist?"].

I think we would both agree that taxes are a necessity to a healthy and functioning democracy, for maintaining the commons, for the public good.  Individuals can't possibly provide common or public goods for themselves.  That means taxes.   

Nobody likes paying them but everybody loves the services they provide.  So we've invented a complicated and varied methods for obtaining money to pay for the Common Good, from taxing incomes to taxing sales.

Since we're also a nation founded on the principle that each of us is born equal, with the same opportunities to pursue our dreams (within reason - if you're born tone deaf, you're never going to be a Pavarotti), we tax inheritances.  You can't take it with you, and why should your children be born with a leg up over everyone else?  

Bill Gates's children may have a leg up over everyone else's children due to (presumably) getting a better education, nutrition, medical care, etc., as a result of coming into the world with parents who could afford the best of everything, what have they done to deserve a fortune falling into their laps on their father's death?  Bill Gates gets it and isn't leaving his fortune to his children, but instead to "the Commons (his foundation)".

Then there are these people.  

But we're not even talking about confiscating money/property from one-generational success stories like Gates and Siegle: We're talking about one family's obscene wealth that comes from what is public property obtained 700 years ago, and for doing nothing.  For posing in front of cameras.  

The value of labor.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...