|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16507 Registered: May-04 | . "Our fundraiser in chief celebrates as the nation flounders. Nero would blush, but it seems as if life is good for some more than others... is that fair ???" Fox's ... "Brainroom" Attacks Obama For Birthday Fundraiser On his Fox News show tonight, Sean Hannity attacked President Obama for hosting a birthday fundraiser, claiming that Obama was "turning his back on the American people" at a time when the nation is struggling with debt and a slow economy. During the segment, Hannity aired a graphic prepared by the "Fox News Brainroom" that claimed Obama had headlined 37 "re-election fundraisers" "to date," while President George W. Bush had only headlined three fundraisers "as of June 2003". First of all, the numbers shown for Bush are simply untrue. In June 2003 - shortly after Bush had declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, but with fierce fighting still going on in the country - Bush headlined re-election fundraisers on June 17, June 20, and June 23. Bush then capped off the month with two fundraisers on June 27. Note to Fox's "Brainroom: That's five fundraisers in June 2003 alone. And these are just the events in which Bush made a speech that was posted on his White House website ... There is also the question as to why Fox did not look at Bush and Obama fundraisers for a comparable time period. Perhaps this explains it: The Washington Post reported on August 3, 2003, that Bush landed the day before at his Texas ranch "for a month of fun and fundraising" (retrieved via Nexis). The Post also reported that "[b]etween them, Bush and Cheney plan to travel to 13 of their own fundraisers during August, and each plans to make a fundraising stop for another Republican candidate." The Post added: A CBS News tally shows this is Bush's 26th presidential trip to Crawford. He has spent all or part of 166 days at the ranch or en route - the equivalent of 5-1/2 months. When Bush'' trips to Camp David and Kennebunkport, Maine, are added, according to the CBS figures, Bush has spent 250 full or partial days at his getaway spots - 27 percent of his presidency so far. In August 2003, 35 Americans were killed in Iraq and another 181 were wounded. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108040002 . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2483 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan wrote: Riders generally are not subjected to hearings or extensive debate, and many would not survive on their own. They are often written in such a way that most people, even many Capitol Hill insiders, need a guide to understand them. They are, in short, bad policy pushed forward through a bad legislative process. Sure, why not? No line item veto to 'check' this nonsense, either. I'll bet NONE of this existed in the recent health care bill which was as straightforward and concisely written as humanly possible. except for several million waivers. Let's see. Coal power? Really awful. Air pollution. Water pollution. Enviromental holocaust when digging it up. Off the table. Nuke? Really awful. Too many potential downsides to list. Enviromental holocaust when trying to dispose of the reaction products. Wind? Not even Washington eating Mexican food can generate enough wind to power the country. Solar? Huge support infrastructure needed. Would need to cover Texas in cells to provide enough power for country. Manufacturing cells requires a lot of power and resources and is itself an enviromental problem. Water power? Hoover dam is currently OVER 100 feet below the top. New turbine designs are being tested which work well with the reduced head pressure. Save the fish....don't build a dam. Even micro power sites are in short supply. Ethanol? Still takes more energy to MAKE than it eventually liberates. Drives up price of corn. As for the FAA, I'm sure that NO examples of the democrats holding legislation hostage for some point exists. I'd call 'em all back from vacation. (legislators) and put 'em to work 24/7 until this....and a few other things.....got straightened out. You love to 'blame' republicans for something which is clearly a systemic problem. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16508 Registered: May-04 | . To begin with, leo. I was not the person who wrote, "Riders generally are not subjected to hearings or extensive debate, and many would not survive on their own. They are often written in such a way that most people, even many Capitol Hill insiders, need a guide to understand them. They are, in short, bad policy pushed forward through a bad legislative process." For the sake of expediency, let's let Wiki do the research on "riders". "In legislative procedure, a rider is an additional provision added to a bill or other measure under the consideration by a legislature, having little connection with the subject matter of the bill.[1] Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision that would not pass as its own bill. Occasionally, a controversial provision is attached to a bill not to be passed itself but to prevent the bill from being passed (in which case it is called a wrecking amendment or poison pill)." So, am I to assume you are in favor of passing controversial legislation which has insufficient value to pass on its own merits? Or to wreck good law with bad riders just to keep good laws from reaching the books? Neither party has supported line item veto power for the Executive Branch, leo. Maybe that's why Bush II never vetoed a spending bill during his first seven years in office, eh? Riders are most often the manner in which the very pork you say you want out of government is inserted into absolutely unrelated bills which must pass, say, funding the military in a time of war - that was a favorite of the Repubs when George was in office. This is how earmarks, pork and "bridges to nowhere" are inserted into bills which should have nothing to do with earmarks, pork and bridges. You're not offended that the Repubs are claiming the Dems to be bad people while they themself are inserting requests for millions in pork into unrelated bills? That's hypocrisy, leo, both on their part and your own. Be consistent in your objections, leo. "I'll bet NONE of this existed in the recent health care bill which was as straightforward and concisely written as humanly possible. except for several million waivers." You're more than welcome to do the research and indicate which riders were inserted into the bill and signed into law. "Several million waivers"? Really?! Do you have any facts to back up the claim the bill contains "several million waivers"? If not, please don't make a fool of yourself. Waivers are not riders. That's a fact. For instance, any state which can create a better health care devilery system which will cover more people and lower the costs beyond the projections of the Health Reform Bill will be provided a waiver to bypass most of the bill's legislation. So far, while they have tried on numerous occasions to repeal the Health Reform legislation, not one Republican Governor - and not one Repub Presidential candidate other than Romney - has come up with any real world viable plan to do so. Lots of talking points but no hard and fast plans. Several waivers have been granted which will allow for time to negotiate such plans but no Republican plan exists. That is - to the best of my knowldege - a fact. That's what this thread is about, facts, and not just betting you know something you might not really know at all. One thing I know for a fact is Boehner stood on the floor of the House and shouted "He11 no!" when the question was whether the health care reform bill was negotiated in the open. That made it bad legislation in that case. Is that not correct? My question would be, why then did Boehner engage in negotiations completely behind closed doors on the debt ceiling issue? "Last-minute deal gives transparency a beating"; { http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/aug/03/last-minute-deal-giv es-transparency-beating/ Wouldn't that be considered even more hypocrisy from the Speaker who pledged transparency? I fail to see what your list of possible energy sources has to do with any objections you might have to the riders which keep the EPA from doing its job - which is to keep the public safe. What exactly do you have against keeping the public safe, leo? Could you please explain your objections to keeping the public safe? Are you in favor of tainted water supplies? Do you wish to see more children with life long disabilities from lead poisoning? Shall we cut Medicaid funding to those families - tell them to pull themself up by their own bootstraps? - just to satisfy the "cut spending" binge the House Repubs demand? Where exactly does fairness exist in your plan for how government should work, leo? Are you brushing off your copy of "Atlas Shrugged"? Who exactly would you label as "parasites", leo? The disabled? The poor? The Hispanic cutting your neighbor's lawn in 104 degree heat? Limbaugh particularly likes to label teachers and the elderly as "parasites" and "non-productive". Whaj'ja think, leo? "As for the FAA, I'm sure that NO examples of the democrats holding legislation hostage for some point exists." Well, once again, you are making claims which have no factual basis other than you prefer to not look at facts as they are presented. Don't operate like squid, who has never met a real fact. Post facts, leo, and links to the information source. Do not rant about what you wish to believe despite the facts which exist. Is that so difficult? I get the feeling it is for your side of the debate. "You love to 'blame' republicans for something which is clearly a systemic problem." No, I find facts which are indisputable. Find a fact which disputes the words of Hannity or the House Repubs and we can talk. Until then all you have is yet another leo-rant. For, it is a fact those things were said by Hannity (did you watch the videos in that link?) and the language exists in the FAA bill. That these things are so offensive to you leads me to believe you really don't "blame both sides" as much as you say you do. The thread is about facts, leo, not about rants which are only make believe because you think something happened when you have no ability to prove it did. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16510 Registered: May-04 | . Poll: Debt deal bad for John Boehner http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60704.html |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 581 Registered: Mar-04 | Jan the debt deal is bad for the country. I know both sides want to point the finger and their supporters likewise. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16514 Registered: May-04 | . The debt deal was what was needed for the country. What is bad is the idea another commission is needed to come up with more ideas on how to reduce the debt. First, the Simpson-Bowles Commission took about 13 months to come up with rough ideas which were not ready to be put into formal language when their allotted time had run out. Then the Gang of Six worked another six months to come up with more ideas which were not ready to be put into formal language when their time ran out. This new "super" commission has ten weeks before the triggers kick in. Anyone paying attention can begin to predict the result of this commission. I'm just wondering how many Repubs will storm out of the meetings and how many times. If Boehner had been able to control his tea party freshman members, none of this would have had to happen. The debt ceiling could have passed as is - a clean bill wrtitten in one sentence just changing this figure for that figure as it has dozens of times before - and the negotiations would have taken their time to work out a much larger and more effective deal. No behind closed door meetings. Everything could have - and should have - been done through budget and appropriations committees as any other negotiations of this proportion always have. What really stinks is how this bill was pushed down everyone's throat - Oh, gee! where have I heard that before? All the while the actual crisis for the nation is a lack of jobs and the fact no one in Washington wants to allow anyone else to do anything to actually kick start legislation which would create an environment in which small businesses can start adding jobs and corporations can get off the $2.5 trilllion they are hording. Obama has passed several tax cuts which should have had small business moving - but they wanted to do away with uncertainty. Well, the Repubs insisting on four months of risking default on our loans and the subsequent consequences of such actions by being horse's *sses over the debt ceiling certainly took care of that, didn't it? The Bush tax cuts have been in place for ten years and have not resulted in private sector job growth. As you can see in the Politifact quote above, private sector jobs actually declined during George's eight years in charge as he added to the size of government in order to show monthly job growth. The unemployment rates remained low since you have to have been in the work force at some time in order to be counted as "unemployed". One third of the 2009 Obama stimulus bill was given - due to Repub demands - as additional tax cuts which have been in place for over two years and they have not created jobs at their predicted rate. If European stock markets sink for a day, the corporations claim uncertainty in the market. If government sheds jobs and the employment numbers don't suit them, they claim uncertainty. If it clouds up and the hot dog vendor is out of mustard, they claim uncertainty. Meanwhile worker productivity is at its peak while none of the record profits are being passed on to the workers themself. The CEO's and the hedge fund managers get richer and pay fewer taxes. Now there is a suggestion being kicked around which would allow corporations which have unpaid taxes over the last six years to repay their debts at $0.05 on the dollar. This would be the second time this was done as George did a similar deal in 2005 I think it was. It's essentially how George got to say revenues went up when he cut taxes. They did, but only because the corporations rushed to avoid litigation at $0.05 on the dollar. Even bad corporate lawyers are more expensive than that. The new commission is already being talked about as the most partisan members of Congress getting together to not agree on anything. No wonder 82% of the public does not approve of the way Washington is doing its job. The Repubs say government can't work and, when they get a little power, they set about proving they have no ability to run an effective government. . |
|
Gold Member Username: SuperjazzyjamesPost Number: 1714 Registered: Oct-10 | Definition of president of the US for AT LEAST the last 111 years: PUPPET! That's right folks, since 1900, probably earlier, the president has had no real power. He' just a high paid scape goat. You're not going to find that out, at least not easily online though. That sort of info is suppressed. I'll explain more about this soon. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2485 Registered: Oct-07 | Corporations which should have paid taxes and didn't should be charged a PREMIUM not given a discount. Your first paragraph of your last post will be read again tomorrow, after a cup of coffee......I will provisionally agree. And add that sheer politics of brinksmanship and destruction are killing this country. My conclusion is different than yours, however. I advocate a return to founding principles, not the 'for sale' sign clearly posted at Washington DC 'city' limits. Really? ONLY 82% of the people don't like 'The way Washington is doing its job'? I guess 18% of everybody COULD be stupid enough to not notice how ill they are being served. The next election cycle will be the ugliest in the history of this country. And, far and away the most expensive..... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16515 Registered: May-04 | . "Your first paragraph of your last post will be read again tomorrow, after a cup of coffee......I will provisionally agree. And add that sheer politics of brinksmanship and destruction are killing this country". This is only one writers opinion but I would say he has the overall facts correct. Is the U.S. Credit Rating a Victim of GOP Sabotage? ... It has long been obvious to all observers -- to economists, to politicians, to anti-deficit groups, to the ratings agencies -- that closing fiscal gaps will require tax increases, or the closure of big tax loopholes, or significant tax reform that will raise significantly larger sums of tax revenue than the system does now. Today, taxes as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Marginal rates on income and investments are at historic lows. Corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are at historic lows. Perhaps taxes don't need to rise this year or next, but they do need to go up in the future. Otherwise, the math of deficit reduction simply doesn't work. And that's how the deficit reduction deals signed off on by Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush came about ... http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/u-credit-rating-victi m-gop-sabotage-021622372.html . |
|
New member Username: JonoPost Number: 2 Registered: Aug-11 | The Quote of the Decade "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." -- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006 Seems we still have leadership failure in BHO and his teammates |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2487 Registered: Oct-07 | And at the same time O'bama was spewing THAT gibberish, Boehner and others were voting FOR every debt limit increase BushII requested. the perfect 'switcheroo' |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16526 Registered: May-04 | . "And at the same time O'bama was spewing THAT gibberish, Boehner and others were voting FOR every debt limit increase BushII requested. the perfect 'switcheroo'" Obama did what many legislators in the opposition party have always done on the numerous occasions the debt ceiling has been raised over the last six decades. He protested the action when he knew full well his vote would not stop the bill from passing. That is far different than the demagoguery and brinksmanship of the Tea Party freshmen. Nothing Obama did was about to send the financial system of the entire US if not the world over a cliff from which there was no hope of return. I really wish you guys would stop getting your information from Fox News. The Repubs had by 2006 voted through a one sentence bill to raise the debt limit six times under GWB. And, as leo points out, they had more than given away trillions in tax cuts, made good on the nickle on the dollar scheme to increase revenue, passed legislation (Medicare D) which was completely unfunded and wrangled through the House in ways which are illegal and which will ultimately cost a projected $7 trillion in money we don't have. K Street and Abramhoff were in full swing doing things which would ultimately get Abramhoff and Bob Ney sent to prison and DeLay indicted. Two wars were being waged without a thought of paying for them other than to constantly borrow more. Bush was about to pass his "stimulus" bill - remember getting $300 apiece from your Uncle? - which was once again unfunded to the tune of half a trillion dollars. Not a thing came of that hair brained stimulus scheme. No roads were repaired, no teachers and firefighters jobs were saved and not one bit of increase in personal spending resulted from that chunk of wasted change. It simply dug us deeper in debt and decreased the value of each dollar everyone held. What exactly did the Repubs pay for while Bush II was in office? You do remember which party was in charge of the WH and the full legislative branch at that time, don't you? Obama was not the only one who was rather upset by that point. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16527 Registered: May-04 | . I would say the "quote of the decade" still belongs to George when he told us in 2003 we would have a balanced budget by 2009 if Congress passed his second wave of tax cuts to the wealthy. But "Mission Accomplished" is still a contender. VooDoo Economics indeed! . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 582 Registered: Mar-04 | "they had more than given away trillions in tax cuts". How can you "give away" peoples income by not taking it away ? I just don't get your logic Jan. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 583 Registered: Mar-04 | I would say the "quote of the decade" still belongs to George when he told us in 2003 we would have a balanced budget by 2009 if Congress passed his second wave of tax cuts to the wealthy. But "Mission Accomplished" is still a contender. VooDoo Economics indeed! So the deficit is not so much spending as it is not collecting/confiscating enough from the people ? |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 584 Registered: Mar-04 | That is far different than the demagoguery and brinksmanship of the Tea Party freshmen. Ah, I see so the Tea party freshmen who campaigned and were elected upon reducing the size of the federal government attempt to follow through on their words... Now they are smeared by the left wing guttersnipes in Washington and their acolytes in the media. I mean what else can they do, run on Pelosi and Reid's 2007-2010 record or Obama and his weak record and incoherent speeches ? Not everybody can stumble, stammer, and assume any position given the situation like our community organizer in chief. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16530 Registered: May-04 | . I have no intention of this thread diverting away from the concept of posting facts rather than getting into rather dumb to highly stupid arguments such as, "How can you "give away" peoples income by not taking it away ? I just don't get your logic Jan." If I provide a service or a product, am I not meant to have compensation for my efforts or products? I am. That's logical. right? Look around you, folks, the government provides services and products. Mostly they are termed "commons" as we all use them and benefit from them in some way or another. You do not individually get to choose whether you want to pay a small amount of tax monies for a service everyone else uses and which, truth be told, you actually use or expect you might use. No more than you can badger the clerk at McDonalds to reduce the price of the quarter pounder if you don't want ketchup. The people of the US have grown accustomed to a certain level of government services and products. Numerous polls have shown this desire for services and products and for paying for them; http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/03/paul-krugman/paul -krugman-said-average-republican-favors-includ/ Liberals laughed when the Tea Party people showed up with signs reading, "Keep your goverment hands off my Medicare". Polls indicate even the TP's expect their government services to be there for them. However, people have become so accustomed to these services and products being there that many of them don't even recognize they originated in the government. I had a firefighter tell me his job was not socialized and his pay only came from local government so he was not receiving pay from the "socialized" Obama government. In fact, his job is socialized government at work and about a third of his wages are supplied by the Federal Government. Do any of you even remember when Clinton put an additional 100k police and firefighters to work in the cities? We all paid a small amount of our taxes for that. And when GWB took them away? Those are socialized government jobs which fall under the loose term "commons" because we all expect them to be there for us when we need them, no matter who we are and no matter when we need them. In case you truly do not understand the system we live under in the US, it is a combination of widely accepted socialism, a little bit of communism and a good dollop of free market capitalism. It's just that so many of you have been told 24/7 that government is bad that you have come to think of government as ineffecive and something to hate. This is not how this nation grew up. Understand just who - or "what" - would want you to think of government as bad and why it would be beneficial for you to think that way. And, if you have no facts, just empty headed BS that had ben put in your head by someone else, then you are a pawn. How soon in the game do pawns get sacrificed? If you have the service or product provided to you - whether you use it or might only use it in the future, you must pay for it. OK? The govrnment has been paying for these goods and services since the Union was founded and they have been doing so through tariffs, taxes and fees. Some politiicans want you to believe they can cut taxes and still provide the same level of services. You are a fool if you believe that. They will increase fees and you will be paying exactly the same if not more for the same services and goods - if you're lucky. Take that from someone living in Texas who has seen Governor Good Hair do exactly that and still end up with a $27 billion dollar short fall even after the Obama stimulus funds bailed him out of hot water. "the deficit is not so much spending as it is not collecting/confiscating enough from the people ?" Squid, why don't you read the thread? You would easily find two things; first, the Bush tax cuts are the major factor in the deficits and debt going forward and have been for several years. Obviously, the spending which has not been funded is a factor in the debt. What is just as important is the cost of borrowing the money in the first place when you have no plan for paying it back. Find out how much of each dollar the US was spending to cover its debt when Clinton left office and then find out how much we are paying right now. Greenspan actually warned Congress about paying down our debt too quickly back in 1999. Don't believe me? Look it up. Find a fact for a change. That is partially why the debt ceiling continues to rise. The point you will find should you ever decide to either read the thread or actually look at a fact not provided by Hannity, Fox, Limbaugh, etc is simply had we not had all of the increased, unfunded spending of the GWB/Repub years plus the reduction in revenues which resulted from the tax cuts, the economy would actually be not that much more in debt than when Clinton left office. Keep in mind before you start with your "facts" which are actually lies, Obama inherited a 2009 budget deficit which was the creation of George W. Bush. Think about this, if you were in debt up to your eyeballs, what would you do? Cut spending where possible and frugally reasonable and you would increase revenues. You would get another job or not buy things you don't need but the end result would be you would increase revenues. If you do not realize that due to the high unemployment which came from the Bush recession we are lacking billions in revenue, then you really shouldn't be allowed to post on a political thread of any kind. The best way to get the added revenue we need right now is to put people to work, not to spend months arguing over how to cut spending. I'll ask once more, what have the Repubs done since taking office in January to create a bill or even an environment where jobs could be created? Would you please read the thread and read the web pages linked to within the thread. Politifact, Factcheck.org, Politico, Media Matters are all non-partisan sites which will do their best to tell the truth about a subject. They have all won awards for their reporting. You can fact check virtually any public, political figure on Politifact's site. they, Politico and Factcheck.org are willing to take on all sides in any debate. Get rid of the BS partisan crap that you have in your mind and that you post here as if you were a little parrot. That is the purpose of this thread, not to engage in mindless, no one wins banter about things which cannot be proven or which never actually occurred. Do some real research and find facts. Otherwise, you are exactly the sort of mindless schlub they want you to be. "Ah, I see so the Tea party freshmen who campaigned and were elected upon reducing the size of the federal government attempt to follow through on their words... Now they are smeared by the left wing guttersnipes in Washington and their acolytes in the media. I mean what else can they do, run on Pelosi and Reid's 2007-2010 record or Obama and his weak record and incoherent speeches ? Not everybody can stumble, stammer, and assume any position given the situation like our community organizer in chief." First, after GWB there is no Republican, Tea Partier, conservative, Libertarian or independent who should claim Obama is a stumbler and a stammerer. Second, I know you weren't paying attention to anyone other than Fox and Rushbo, but did you not hear what the Democratic party ran on in 2006, 2008 and 2010? Squiddy, if you want to make the argument the Tea Party should hold to their political promises then you also need to understand that the Democrats also won positions - wiping out the Repubs in 2006 and 2008 - and those winners on the Democratic side are, in many instances, still in office by way of those victories. By your logic, they should hold fast to their campaign promises which are, for the most part, diamtetrically opposed to those of the Tea Party. I suppose you've never heard any Dem say we need to reduce the spending and cut the deficits and debt? Squiddy, you are looking as though you are truly too ignorant to live. Read the d*mn thread! . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16531 Registered: May-04 | . One more thing, squiddy, cut the crap about the name calling and insults. If you do it again, there will be no response from me and you'll be ignored just as any disruptive child would be ignored for the betterment of the rest. The thread is about facts and civility. If you have neither, you don't belong here. Sure Cure for the Debt Problem: Economic Growth ... Economists agree that in the long run, fiscal discipline is good for growth. When the budget is in order, the country isn't weighed down by the burden of paying down burgeoning entitlements. Companies can worry less about being surprised by, say, higher taxes, and proceed to hire new workers. More manageable federal debt also helps to keep interest rates low, which is generally good for growth. And, again, what's good for growth is generally good for the debt. The problem is that reducing spending or raising taxes just now would hurt the already fragile economy. Another recession would not only be painful for ordinary Americans but would actually worsen the debt problem by reducing tax revenue ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/business/economy/sure-cure-for-debt-problems-i s-economic-growth.html?pagewanted=all Read something for a change, squiddy. Get an education. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2488 Registered: Oct-07 | ID, The current bill to the future is over 14,000 billion dollars. 'We' just added another couple trillion and that won't be the limit. right now it's at...45,000$ per PERSON in the US and goes up about 3000$ for every trillion borrowed. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Everett Dirksen (Dirksen was Senator from Illinois, of all places) Interest must be paid on that debt, and as the US credit rating just dropped a tick, that bill will in the future be higher and higher of less valuable dollars. The problem is, IMO, that many people TALK about debt reduction, but the net result of hacking away at one another (dems / repubs / teas / ???) is that the COUNTRY suffers. Nobody is willing to step back from the brink. During this entire BS 'debate' I don't think I heard a single mention of the Debt Commission report, which is at least as good a place to begin a Civil Discussion as any...... http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMo mentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 585 Registered: Mar-04 | There are no real cuts in this "deal". With baseline budgeting there are built in increases. Funny the community organizer in chief didn't mention the S&P downgrade in his weekly radio address. I think what would show even better leadership is sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling la la la... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16537 Registered: May-04 | . " During this entire BS 'debate' I don't think I heard a single mention of the Debt Commission report, which is at least as good a place to begin a Civil Discussion as any...... " IMO to be fair, leo, the Commission somewhat shot themself in the foot - or, to be more precise, the two co-chairs shot the entire Commission's work in the foot, when the two co-chairs announced weeks before the report was published what "their" plan was. Their proclamations grabbed all of the attention which successfully sucked the air out of the room for a few days in the 24/7 news cycle and then the report was dead meat upon actual arrival. What was actually in the report and what was actually agreed to and signed off on by 13 of the 18 Committee members was "old news" depsite being substantially unlike what the two co-chairs had announced earlier. Had they waited until the entire report was complete, I think the reception afforded the information might have been somewhat unlike what greeted the grandstanding of the two co-chairs and the "Ho-Hum" reception afforded the actual work. That said, we saw how quickly the suggestions put forth by the Gang of Six faded into the woodwork during the recent "negotiations". After six months of (mostly) bi-partisan effort and weeks of build up, they too were completely swept under the rug as if they were not to be seen by the rich relatives. There is a decided lack of willlingness to confront the possibility any legislator might upset their base and be "primaried". Why "primaried"? Because the constant jerrymandering of voting districts over the last thirty years has made it a near impossibility that 85% of legislators running as incumbents might face a less than friendly consituency. And because that is the point at which our political system has arrived. The echo chamber continues on unabated. Personally, I'm not in favor of term limits but I am in favor of tilting the playing field back towards representing some degree of competitive platform. Until voting citizens begin to hear ideas contrary to what they prefer to believe as truth - when in fact they are merely hyper-partisan lies promoted largely by un-elected mouthpieces, there is no hope for breaking the deadlock we see on display with every huge, all consuming battle over every word spoken. Great facts there, squid. Get with the program. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2493 Registered: Oct-07 | I'm not a big fan of term limits, either....but I have trouble figuring a way to maintain what would appear to be 'original intent' which would imply 'citizen legislatures'. Serve a few terms, than return to your home and continue your life is expected. California's troubles began when we went to what is apparently a full-time, professional legislature. Dems have been 'in charge' since 1970 or so and also rule the redistricting plan (census driven?) I have a few things I'd like to see implimented. ALL campaign money sources listed. For sums above a certain amount or when names repeat more than a few times..... Campaign spending limits at all levels. All amounts are 'per registered voter' and go up as the #of voters goes up and the area to cover increases. So, the per voter limit for President would be highest. Put redistricting in the 'hands' of a computer. All districts are to be drawn ONLY with population equality and minimal border area in mind. The linked wiki has maps of a pair of California districts drawn to favor one party or another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California Presidential 2-fer? The VP is supposed to be the person who got the 2nd number of votes for President. This is the revision of the 12th amendment. This isn't the most important thing to fix and I'm still mulling this over. Direct election of Senators? Is that a good idea? The 17th amendment made that the law of the land and I'd look into that, too. Why were the above 2 tweaks deemed necessary? Were they driven by the politics of the time or a rational rethink of original procedures? Who were the winners and losers in the changes? |
|
New member Username: JonoPost Number: 4 Registered: Aug-11 | The only solution to America's Ever-growing Debt is to throw every politician out of office! The only reason we're in this deep is because of POLITICIANS! I never voted for any of these absurd budgets or the outrageous spending by both parties. The politicians themselves have changed the name of the game. America now has a government by the government for the government and not a government by the people for the people. ALL of these politicians DO NOT CARE about the people except to get re-elected. They will do ANYTHING to get your vote! Lie, cheat, steal, beg, borrow, perjure, flip-flop, commit felonies, even murder are not beneath any of them. I'm tired as hell of all this Dem. vs Rep., Lib vs Conserv., BS of blaming each other. THE POLITICIANS ARE ALL TO BLAME!!! Certainly, the only blame you can pin on the American people is that they have bought into all the BS and voted for one party or another. It is time for a revolution by Americans for an American government for Americans. We need a third party. I suggest the "American Party". First order of government is to gain super majorities in both the Senate and the House and the Presidency. Second order of government is to have term limits on Senate, House and Superior Court seats. Third is to limit campaign spending. Fourth is NO earmarks in ANY Bill. Fifth, all legislation must be passed by 100% of the Senate. (If we can't get a mere hundred people to agree, then it isn't in the best interest of the American people). Sixth, all politicians (town, state, and federal) must be licensed to run for office and any of them caught lieing, cheating, stealing, guilty of perjury, committing a felony, or murder, will have their licenses revoked permanently and must step down from office immediately. Seventh, anytime the deficit exceeds three percent of GDP, all members of Congress shall have their licenses revoked permanently and step down from office immediately. Eight, all members of Congress and the President shall have a nominal medical plan paid by the taxpayers during their time in office only. Nine, Congress and the President may not exclude themselves from any laws. Ten, Congess and the President are not entitled to a pension plan and must pay into their own retirement as other Americans. Eleven,...............the list goes on! We (Americans) need to take back our country. We absolutely need to hold these politicians accountable for the crap THEY'VE made of this country. The government didn't make this country great, the American people made it great through hard work (not handouts), love of your neighbor (not piss on him before he pisses on you), and a willingness to serve others and make the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedoms of other Americans (not take away freedoms from one and give to another). Sounds like a tall order! Perhaps we could be a little less agressive, but what the hell. If we (Americans) are serious about taking back our government and changing the direction of this great country, why not make sure that the weasels don't somehow find a way to screw it up all over again. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16544 Registered: May-04 | . Wow! Jonathan! I had thought it would have been impossible to exceed the amount of verbage spilled while supplying as few facts as squiddy provides. But, there you go! You've proven me wrong. "We (Americans) need to take back our country." Love the (parenthetical) addition. I think you've missed the point of the thread. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2496 Registered: Oct-07 | Point being that people are ANGRY. They see this massively disfunctional system and want answers. People never blame themselves for non-involvement and don't keep close enough eye on elected officials. I can see why somebody would want to give 'em all the boot. I feel that way, too, sometimes, but realized you'll only get in another set of hacks. Any solution must be constructive. I'll float the idea that politicians cannot lobby after losing or resigning from office. I think that time limits are currently in place, but these guys are hired and put into a 'holding pattern' until the times up and they can get to work essentially buying legislation for paying customers. 3rd party? If they get any traction at all, any good ideas they have are absorbed by one of the 'majors'. 3rd party as spoiler? Ask Ross. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2497 Registered: Oct-07 | http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/amended_lda_guide.html Lobbying disclosure guidlines: |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16547 Registered: May-04 | . Paul Ryan's claim of 'vindication' by S&P The Facts The S&P downgrade should not have come as a surprise to anyone who had read its report issued in April, "Fiscal Challenges Weighing On the 'AAA' Sovereign Credit Rating on the Government of the United States." That report warned that the growing divide between the parties was making the agency nervous about the prospects of a budget deal that would actually contend with the nation's rising debt load, especially when compared with the handful of other nations with AAA ratings. The report listed four ways that deficit-reduction prospects could improve: The economy could perform better than expected; lawmakers could allow the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire, resulting in more revenue; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could end more quickly and cheaply than expected; and proposals made by President Obama and Ryan could form the basis for a bipartisan solution on the deficit. The Pinocchio Test Ryan is being too cute by half. Even taking Ryan's claims about his budget at face value - which we have found dubious in the past - Chambers did not endorse the Ryan plan specifically but also mentioned Obama's proposals and the Bowles-Simpson commission. All Chambers endorsed was the notion of a $4 trillion deal, not a particular plan. In fact, Ryan appears to be missing the point about S&P's bombshell. The agency warned in April that political compromise between the parties was necessary to make a deficit plan viable in the long-term, whereas a GOP-only or Democratic-only plan would not have credibility. The House budget plan never made it past the Senate because it had virtually no Democratic support. As S&P put it: "Some compromise that achieves agreement on a comprehensive budgetary consolidation program - combined with meaningful steps toward implementation by 2013 - could lead us to maintain the rating where it is." In other words, it was the failure of Republicans and Democrats to demonstrate they could work together that led directly to the downgrade. That is not a "vindication of our actions;" it is a repudiation. Three Pinocchios http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/paul-ryans-claim-of-vindic ation-by-sandp/2011/08/08/gIQAKy5J3I_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 586 Registered: Mar-04 | http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576495932704234052.html Obama ignored the deficit commissions recommendations. His pep talk yesterday was embarrassing. I understand share the wealth and share the blame is the strategy. Obama looks weak and lost because he is weak and lost, and it is evident to all but the kool-aid gulpers. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 587 Registered: Mar-04 | http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60921.html I guess Barry isn't going to run on his record and focus on his challenger.... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16555 Registered: May-04 | . "Heatsteria"; http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394240/august-09-2011/hea tsteria I notice Rushbo has given up on telling us "hot" is normal in summer and no records for heat have been broken this summer which only proves what a hoax all this "climate stuff" is. That after a dozen states reported their highest average temps on record for July. I've been in Dallas since 1978 and in the last five years have seen three of the warmest years on record. This summer looks like we will break the all time "'hottest" year if we stay above 100° through Saturday - as they are predicting. 1980 was the previous record holder and we did hit 113° that year with above 100° temps for 42 staight days. This year our highest temp at DFW airport has been a mere 110°. However, the humidity was much lower in '80 and we are looking at Saturday to be the 43rd day of 100° plus with more on the way through next week. It's not at all uncommon for the last ten Septembers to have 100° temps for a few days. There are also record breaking droughts across all of Texas with some cities shutting down water supplies and many running low enough to ration water. One reservoir in San Angelo had water which turned blood red after a bacteria bloom killed off the fish. Of course, the Evangelicals immediately called it a sign of End Times. http://www.livescience.com/15346-texas-lake-blood-red.html So within my time in Dallas and mostly within the last five years, I've seen the two worst summers and the two worst winters along with the two worst droughts. No one is talking much about "La Nina" weather patterns today. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 588 Registered: Mar-04 | Na zdrowie Wisconsin. The unions bullies and their followers just couldn't get it done.. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/unions-los e-big-wisconsin |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16556 Registered: May-04 | . The Washington Examiner blog? Yep, that's a "newspaper of record". You don't get this thread at all, do you, squiddy? . . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 589 Registered: Mar-04 | Yea Jan, as algore "the crazed sex poodle" as described by his masseuse says.... b#lls#it. Time to turn the EPA loose and save the planet !!!! But wasn't it "smokin/snortin" Barry who said when he was elected that "this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planted began to heal"..... Perhaps he smoked the wrong cigarette before that speech. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 590 Registered: Mar-04 | I know Jan, facts are only facts that you agree with. You are a tool and you don't even know it (or perhaps you do) ??? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16557 Registered: May-04 | . As usual since you teamed up with fishy, you do not play well with others and have no concept of "civility". Squiddy, I can change my personality anytime I please. You, however, cannot alter your genetically stupid, crude self. Why don't you head back over to fishy's fourms? As I remember he was always on the look out for more ignorant people he could convince of his genius. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 591 Registered: Mar-04 | State Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsins 73rd assembly district. He was on Americas Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin. Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others. The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns? The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions. But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didnt want to be part of a union could find other work. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2504 Registered: Oct-07 | Why not a simple law whereby Union employees could 'opt out' of that percentage of there dues which would ordinarily go to political action and instead be redirected to some other, non-political use. You stay employed, in the union, and the unions political activity would be curtailed to the extend the membership declined to fund it. Some provision of the law may cover coercive behavior where union officials or others put the 'screws' to members to continue or discontinue such funding of political activity. Any problems? http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/ohio-teachers-class-action-08052011 |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16563 Registered: May-04 | . "The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?" Then the question was misleading. "Taxpayer" funded dues? Hardly. What that implies is money is being taken out of taxes paid directly federal funds, coming directly from federal funds and going directly into campaign donations. That is not what's happening in anyone's convoluted imagination. The workers are - hopefully - tax payers but the money is not originating from their tax monies. Ever wonder why Dems dislike the way Repubs spin "facts" into things that are anything but? Geez! Union membership is not mandatory to taking a job. Where did you get the idea it was? From some conservative talking head who wants you to think union dues are coming out of your tax dollars? The Congressman is correct, this is a free market, capitalist system we work under in the US. No one is forcing anyone into a union job. If you dislike the rules of the employer, you have the opportunity to not accept the job offer or to move on to a different job. The same applies to a job which is highly unionized. If you don't want to work in a union shop, you can find other work. No one is forcing a job upon anyone. Right? This is the free market at work. Exactly what the Repubs tell us we need more of. Have the unions been secretive about their existence? Have they hijacked the employee, held them down and pulled money from their wallet? No, not at all. Why did the employee join the union if what the union does doesn't suit the employee? Possibly because they see other benefits to be had from the union's efforts? Ya'think?! No one is being forced into a job or into a union. That is a fact! There are how many "right to work states" in the US? 22-23? Are you trying to suggest the job an individual wants can only be found in one of the other 27 states and only in a unionized workplace? If that would be the case, then they know going in they are going to be met by a union presence. They have the free market capacity to select a different type of work. What's the Repub objection to that? Which bridge was it you wanted me to buy? Oh, yes, the one the Repubs won't invest money in to fix. They'd rather wait until it falls down and kills a few dozen people. No, I think I'll just pass on your offer of how things work. With union particpation now at about 7% of all workers in the US, how often does this "union dues issue" actually become a problem and for how many workers? How many Republican union members are complaining about this? I hear partisan talking heads and mindless bloggers doing all the complaining. How about, it is a "problem" with a small minority of Republicans only because the unelected Repubs wish to make it a "problem". If someone works for a Republican owned business - which I have done many times - is it a problem that the owner's are taking some portion of what could go to higher wages, better benefits or a safer, more comfortable work environment for their employees and giving that money instead to the Republicans? I haven't heard anyone complain about that. The "problem" is the Repubs want to take away Democratic funding. This comes down to not much more than yet another attempt by the Repubs to suppress the Democratic vote. Lee Atwater would be proud. Study after study indicates the Repubs have seven of the top ten campaign contributors in their pocket. Romney's PAC just received a $1 million donation from a private corporation which existed for only a few months and, by all appearances, only to anonymously contribute money over the $25k limitation which is imposed upon individual donors. Yet unions or anything else favoring the Dems, anything that levels the playing field in any way, is seen by the Repubs as a danger that needs to be stomped out. What exactly do you have against free choice? What is it that would actually please a Republican even if what they scream about wanting is exactly what they get? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16564 Registered: May-04 | . "Some provision of the law may cover coercive behavior where union officials or others put the 'screws' to members to continue or discontinue such funding of political activity." See any union members with busted knees, leo? C'mon! "Coercive behavior"?! . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 592 Registered: Mar-04 | Members of Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, asking them to support workersrights by putting up a sign in their windows. If businesses fail to comply, the letter says,Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.. Jim Parrett, a field representative of Council 24 for Southeast Wisconsin, confirmed the contents of the letter, which carries his signature. But he added that the union was also circulating letters to businesses thanking them for supporting workers rights. [ Parrett said he believed the letter campaign was going on in other parts of the state. His region includes Racine and Kenosha counties, as well as parts of Waukesha and Walworth counties. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 593 Registered: Mar-04 | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpXF4uoF0o SEIU, just doing right by the people. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 594 Registered: Mar-04 | "Then the question was misleading. "Taxpayer" funded dues?" "As the ethically-challenged judge in Wisconsin holds up Scott Walkers union-reform law again (for another two months) and AFSCME bullies local businesses and think tanks receive death threats, the fight in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) is becoming clearly about union power, nothing more and nothing less. On Friday, to reconfirm just how much is at stake for union bosses, near the bottom of a Wall Street Journal piece came this juicy tidbit: Union chiefs like Mr. Parrett know what that means for their political clout. After taking office in 2005, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels used an executive order to end collective bargaining for public workers a power granted by former Governor Evan Bayh. The number of state public employees has since fallen to 28,700 from 35,000. But more important, the vast majority of those employees stopped paying union dues. Today, 1,490 state employees pay union dues in Indiana, down from 16,408 in 2005. Similar declines have played out in Washington State and Utah, when those states gave members the freedom to choose. This is the prospect that has Wisconsin labor leaders so furious these days furious enough that they'll even threaten the livelihoods of local business owners who won't join them at the barricades. This is the nasty modern reality of government union power. So, with government employees having the right to choose whether or not to pay union bosses in Indiana, union bosses coffers lost over 90% of the dues going in. This, more than anything, likely has unions so worried and why the United Steelworkers stated in a press release: So far in Wisconsin, conservatives have granted only government workers the right to freeload the ability to benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues. In nine other states, from Main to Missouri, conservatives are pushing right to freeload legislation to cripple all unions. Of course, with substantially less money coming into their coffers, union bosses have plenty to worry aboutas do their Democrat puppets. " |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2512 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, You need to look at the rules of the California Teachers Association. The hookups with NEA and CTA are pretty thick. The CTA keeps pretty good track of the 'membership' and is a pretty large contributor to political causes. I'll find the rules again and post 'em. And since teachers are a captive audience, California being a state in which you MUST be a dues paying member of the union to teach, they are guaranteed a pretty good financial base. The dues are going up, too. No, I've not seen too many kneecapped teachers hobbling to school on crutches. The pressure is more coercive and dare I say, subtle. I know a teacher speaking out against union spending will certainly never hear a discouraging word from the Union. LOL. But if you think that some teacher speaking up against where his dues go is NOT subject to some pressure, than it's you who is in dreamland. An article of potential interest: Stats need checking, as usual. http://teachersunionexposed.com/dues.cfm Would anyone NOT be in favor of allowing teachers or any union member to have dues NOT go to politicial activity of which they don't approve? Come'on, Yourself, Jan. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2513 Registered: Oct-07 | One additional point / question. What possible harm could it do to include a provision in a law allowing teachers to opt-out of having a portion of there dues go to political causes to have a provision making illegal any coercive behavior on the part of the union of which they are a member to compel the apportionment of such dues? I'd be curious as to which logical falicy I have committed? If it will NEVER happen, what is the problem? Don't make me go find a list of wacky laws to post. too late! Would you put the law provision I propose on THIS list? http://www.jimella.nildram.co.uk/laws01.htm |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16568 Registered: May-04 | . Let's begin this with a few issues. First, squiddy, for the third time, learn how to make an operative link on this forum. Second, if you quote from a source, post a link to the source. Third, just to repeat it once again, this thread is about facts, not about blog posts or talking heads' crap. Statements made by bloggers or unsubstantiated quotes or incidents which cannot be verified are unwelcome here. It is no more difficult to find facts than it is to find BS. It's just easier to use BS information to work in favor of a BS idea. What you've posted is exactly the sort of crap Politifact, FactCheck.org, Mediamatters, Politico, etc. were established to root out of the discourse. Learn how to use them to know what actually happened, not what someone who wishes to keep you from thinking for yourself wants you to accept. Finally, just because of what you are trying to engage in here, squid, I have no interest in a running debate with anyone who has no use for checking their information. The thread is about facts, not arguments that go on and on and have no real point other than someone trying to score points against another person they consider their enemy. "Members of Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, asking them to support workersrights by putting up a sign in their windows. If businesses fail to comply, the letter says,Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.. " I have no idea where this information comes from. Judging by all the other things you've posted, it is from some talking head conservative who wants you to believe they are providing you with facts when they are not. What exactly do you find offensive about this, if it is indeed true? The letter is "asking them to support workersrights by putting up a sign in their windows." Wow! What a display of rampant socialism, eh? They are asking them to put up a sign. What is this country coming to? More importantly, how stupid are you, squid? If no sign is in the window the union - with their 7% of workers - will boycott the business? That has you upset at their tactics? You have to be kidding. What exactly do you have against free choice? What is it that would actually please a Republican even if what they scream about wanting is exactly what they get? What part of "free market principles" do the Repubs clearly not understand? What laws or morals have the unions violated with their request? You obviously have no concept of what occurred in this Nation when the Unions were first formed. You have no idea of most things that matter. You have no facts and you do not wish to find facts. You are stupid and wish to remain stupid. You allow someone else to think for you and you just follow along because that's pretty d*mn easy to do. And that is where the vast majority of Repubs who want to jabber mindlessly on forums are at, they don't care if what they post is a lie. And that is sad. "This is the prospect that has Wisconsin labor leaders so furious these days furious enough that they'll even threaten the livelihoods of local business owners who won't join them at the barricades. This is the nasty modern reality of government union power." You have really got to be kidding me now!! ! " ... threaten the livelyhoods of local business owners who won't join them at the barricades." Geeezus! Where are the proofs this actually occurred? Where are the proofs the union did any of this? You have none. Where has the union demanded business "join them at the barricades"? The "barricades" to what? Where have the unions threatened anyone's "livelyhood"? They've asked them to post a letter. How in the world do you go from that to " ... Wisconsin labor leaders so furious these days furious enough that they'll even threaten the livelihoods of local business owners who won't join them at the barricades. This is the nasty modern reality of government union power"? This is exactly what this thread was meant not to engage in. These are not facts, they are propaganda from one partisan hack. Plus you have no supporting links where this can be checked out. Plus, the conclusion the writer wants you to buy into is only meant to fool those who already agree with his BS position and who have no need to think through the illogical reasoning the writer has made. The writer is appealing to sheep. The conclusion is not logical nor is it factual. Figure it out. Get with the program, squiddy, this is BS. Your youtube video? Read the thread like I've told you to do since you started yapping here. Looks like the same thing leo posted several months ago. If it is, it's fake. Whether it is the same video or not, it has been editted and the story you want to believe - the story the talking heads and the Repub bloggers want you to believe - is not the whole truth. This is the sort of crap that just isn't wanted here, squiddy. Why can't you get that through your head? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16569 Registered: May-04 | . "And since teachers are a captive audience, California being a state in which you MUST be a dues paying member of the union to teach ... " What part of my previous post did you not understand, leo? If you ant a job, you usually have multiple skills you can rely on. You do not have to accept one job as the only thing you can do. If you want to teach, you have numerous opportunities throughout this land. If you want to teach in California, you can teach in a school which is not affliated with the unions. Ever heard of parochial schools, leo? Ever heard of charter schools? How about private schools and private colleges? This is the free market at work. Exactly what Repubs tell us we want more of. I'm really tired of having to repeat all this stuff multiple times. You are making the assumption all teachers dislike the unions. That is your logical fallacy. You are assuming all teachers in CA can only teach where the unions exist. That is not logical but it is a fallacy. You are assuming any Repub teacher will disapprove of how their dues are spent. Do they not know where their dues are spent before they join the union? Before they take the job? Do they not have other choices? What laws or morals have the unions violated by this conduct? Why would a union donate their money to the political party which is trying to destroy them? What unions do the Repubs support? Do the top 0.05% have their own union? I don't get you guys at all. You are provided with exactly what you say you want - the free market - and it still doesn't satisfy you because there might still be a hope for a Democrat to exist. No, leo, this is a "problem" because the Repubs want to make it a problem and because the mindless drones accept what they are told 24/7 without ever thinking for themself. Move on. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 595 Registered: Mar-04 | "If it is, it's fake. Whether it is the same video or not, it has been editted and the story you want to believe - the story the talking heads and the Repub bloggers want you to believe - is not the whole truth." Ok Norma, because as we have established the truth is what you say it is. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 596 Registered: Mar-04 | Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others. The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns? The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions. But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didnt want to be part of a union could find other work. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 597 Registered: Mar-04 | Hey Norma, what % of political contributions by the NEA and the ATF go to the the Democratic party ? |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 598 Registered: Mar-04 | The persuasion of power Asked about his organizing philosophy, Andy Stern summed it up this way:[W]e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesnt work we use the persuasion of power. Stern and his shock troops have bullied companies from private equity firms to Burger King to food management company Aramark, who have resisted SEIUs attempts to organizer their workers. The Purple People have organized aggressive protests and a War on Greed campaign to pound the employers into submission. One of the besieged targets, security provider Wackenhut Services, battled SEIUs attempts to gain exclusive representation for its employees. The company already ten other unions representing its workers. Initially unbowed by a massive, malicious negative publicity campaign against them, Wackenhut blew the whistle: The SEIU seeks membership growth through aggressive corporate campaigns that have a blunt message to employers, Let us unionize your workforce or we will destroy your reputation. This tactic has been used against a number of organizations to include Wal-Mart, Kaiser Permanente, Advocate Health Care, Catholic Healthcare West, and Sutter Health. SEIU is attempting to coerce The Wackenhut Corporation and WSI to recognize it as theexclusive collective bargaining representative throughout Wackenhut. Wackenhut declined to enter into such an agreement. The SEIU responded with a corporate campaign that is intended to damage WSIs reputation and relationships with our clients. Their campaign tactics include distributing misinformation, distortion and omission of fact through the media, conducting demonstrations in proximity of work sites in an effort to disrupt normal client operations, and aggressively attempting to intimidate or influence clients. But after filing a racketeering lawsuit against the SEIU, a weary and drained Wackenhut entered into an agreement allowing its employees in nine cities to choose SEIU as its bargaining representative. Behold the persuasion of power. Showing an appalling lack of concern for the well-being of its members, the SEIU upped the ante in a representation battle with the University of Miami in 2006. The union fought tooth and nail against a true, democratic unionizing election for campus janitors using a secure, federally monitored secret ballot. Stern personally escalated the dispute, joined the fasters, and demonized then-university president Donna Shalala (yes, that Donna Shalala of Clinton yore). She lashed back: We are devastated that the union is risking the health and well-being of our students and the Unicco employees by sanctioning an activity as drastic as a hunger strike. Hunger strikes have never been used in this country to oppose an election. We have urged both parties to continue daily discussions until this issue is resolved. A free election for or against unionization is a federal statutory right. In the end, the SEIU relented to a federally monitored election. But at what price? Five SEIU members were hospitalized, one with a minor stroke. Wackenhut Corporation chief operating officer Paul Donahue, expressing sympathy for the University of Miamis plight, saw the big picture: The bullying, protesting, harassment, contrived events and demands will continue indefinitely because the union has millions of dollars in dues money from hard working janitors and other service workers which can be spent on ruining the reputation of businesses instead of bettering the lives of those workers that contributed. Indeed, no one has felt the blunt force and physical danger of Sterns persuasion of power more than workers themselves. In Oakland, Stern and his Washington crew imposed a trusteeship on a 150,000-member local that had publicly opposed SEIU strong-arm tactics. The D.C.headquarters (knee deep in ethical mud) accused the loca known as SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (UHW West)of financial malpractice and misconduct. The local fought back, charging the Beltway union leaders with manufacturing the allegations to retaliate and to distract from Washington mismanagement. The UHW West president, Sal Rosselli, quit the SEIU Executive Board, and formed a new union in February 2009, which declared: tired of SEIUs hostile tactics, threatening phone calls, their collusion with employers and governors like Blagojovich, and the corruption of Sterns appointees like Local 6434 head Tyrone Freeman in Los Angeles, disgraced SEIU Executive Vice President Annelle Grajada, and the appointees who have just taken over what had been our local. We dont trust them with our contracts, we dont trust them with our dueswe just dont trust them. In Philadelphia, Stern engineered the hostile takeover of a 150,000-member union representing garment and hospitality workers. Workers United had broken off from the national UNITE HERE union of 450,000 workers. Progressive New York Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez, citing SEIUs agreement with Workers United, called Stern hellbent on using classic corporate raider tactics to bring a huge portion of the U.S. labor movement under his absolute control. The pact included discounted member dues and legal and financial assistance to aid the breakaway groups efforts to take control of the Amalgamated Bank, the nations only union-owned bank. One union official called the power grab a breathtaking form of imperialism. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 599 Registered: Mar-04 | Mrs. Norma Bates (née Spool) is a fictional character in the novel Psycho by Robert Bloch and the Universal Studios Psycho franchise starring Anthony Perkins, Psycho, Psycho II, Psycho III, Psycho IV: The Beginning and the TV spin-off Bates Motel. After the death of her husband John, Norma raises her son Norman Bates with cruelty, teaching him sex is evil and that all women except her are wh#res. In Psycho IV (which retells much of Norman's and his Mother's past from the original Psycho film), it is implied that "Mother" suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, which Norman inherits, although Bloch's novel doesn't mention such a plot point. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16572 Registered: May-04 | . " ... we have established the truth is what you say it is." You clearly have no interest in anything other than being an unsulting idiot just because the rules of the forum allow it without any concern on your part. We have been trying - up to the time you showed up - to establish what is the truth through the use of facts. Facts which are provable and verifiable. Facts which do not present a headline stating "Obama's thugs ... " do anything. There are no "Obama's thugs". Any video or report which begins with that as their take away isn't welcome here. The use of any post to present highly partisan BS is not wanted here. Post facts or post nothing. If you make no attempt to research facts and to present them as verifiable, no attempt to find out whether the video you've posted is identical to another video which leo posted several months ago and which was proven to be false, then you aren't welcome here and you won't be acknlowledged. If you simply refuse to see how this thread operates and why it is important to know facts rather than crap and to establish the truth through proofs, you simply don't belong here. The rest of the BS you posted? It is just that, bullsh*t. You are a very small child who refuses to grow up. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 600 Registered: Mar-04 | Hey Norma why is this ? Union chiefs like Mr. Parrett know what that means for their political clout. After taking office in 2005, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels used an executive order to end collective bargaining for public workers a power granted by former Governor Evan Bayh. The number of state public employees has since fallen to 28,700 from 35,000. But more important, the vast majority of those employees stopped paying union dues. Today, 1,490 state employees pay union dues in Indiana, down from 16,408 in 2005. Similar declines have played out in Washington State and Utah, when those states gave members the freedom to choose. This is the prospect that has Wisconsin labor leaders so furious these days furious enough that they'll even threaten the livelihoods of local business owners who won't join them at the barricades. This is the nasty modern reality of government union power. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2515 Registered: Oct-07 | In California, CTA members can reclaim the portion of their dues which is NOT directly related to contract negotations and other legitimate union activities. This is about 60% of dues collected. The remaining 40% can be reimbursed BACK to the member by filing a simple request: http://www.nrtw.org/special-legal-notice-california-teachers-how-get-least-300-r efund-cta-nonbargaining-expenses You need to, as a first step, RESIGN from the union. This apparently works out to about 300$ per year. Nice Rant, BTW, Jan. Free Market, indeed. You checked several boxes including the 'attack' box and the 'don't answer the question' box. Well Done. However, I'm satisfied with the current 'opt out' provisions. And that also answers the question of why there is not more press about teachers feeling put upon to have dues money going where they don't approve. I'd like to know how many teachers do indeed OPT OUT. Also, if all those alternative schools are so good, why did the CTA raise so much kane about Vouchers? Question for ID. Don't unions have to be voted in by the work group / bargaining unit in question? So why the change of heart? IF unions is say......Indiana were indeed voted IN by a majority of the bargaining unit, then why the change of heart? |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 601 Registered: Mar-04 | "Question for ID. Don't unions have to be voted in by the work group / bargaining unit in question? So why the change of heart? IF unions is say......Indiana were indeed voted IN by a majority of the bargaining unit, then why the change of heart?" Perhaps the union wasn't voted in by the current group of employees. If said employees felt their dues were doing them a service why would they be inclined not to pay them ? Perhaps they would like to take that money and invest it because it is theirs to do with as they please. Look if they do not want the "protection" that the union offers, then let them go on their own. If they fall on their faces then so be it, at least they choose their own path. Another sign that many union members likely aren't happy with their forced unionization is the difference between union-membership rates in states with right-to-work laws, under which employees can refuse to join their companies' unions or pay dues (though they're still covered by the union contract), and in states without such laws. In right-to-work states, 6.5 percent of workers belong to a union, according to 2010 data from the Bureau of Labor. In the remaining states, the unionization rate is over twice that: 13.8 percent. Take Utah, which passed paycheck protection in 2001. In the following year, donations from the Utah Education Association declined by 75 percent, while the Utah Public Employees Association donated nothing that year, according to the Utah Taxpayers Association. In 2005, the UEA reported that only 6.8 percent of teachers were donating to the political arm of the union, down from 68 percent before the law. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 602 Registered: Mar-04 | Congress just approved the highest debt ceiling in American history, allowing the government to carry over $16 trillion in national debt â€" prompting the credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's to downgrade America's multitrillion-dollar debt for the first time in 70 years. Unemployment is still over 9 percent. Private-sector businesses may have more than $1 trillion in cash, but they will be scared into not hiring or buying as long as they fear a new tax, a new regulation, a new entitlement obligation, a new plant shutdown â€" or a new harangue. The gross domestic product is almost static. Every classical Keynesian remedy â€" massive government borrowing and spending ("stimulus"), near-zero interest rates, public works, expanded federal entitlements â€" has been tried, failed and is turning a modest recovery into another recession. Neither the example of the socialist European Union nor that of big-spending blue-state America suggests that massive government spending and entitlements lead to collective prosperity. In response to this depressing news, President Barack Obama still offers the same predictably stale sermons: George W. Bush did it. The Tea Party fiscal reformers are to blame. Government will fund "millions of green jobs." His political opponents want to destroy Social Security and Medicare. But imagine if President Obama simply stopped diverting blame and tried something different. Vast new finds of natural gas, oil and tar sands have been discovered offshore, in the American West, the Dakotas, Pennsylvania, New York and Alaska. This natural wealth represents hundreds of billions of dollars of savings in imported-energy costs and millions of new American jobs. Instead of lecturing about tire pressure, car tune-ups or trading in clunkers, the president could rally the country to go all out right now to develop its burgeoning fossil-fuel resources as a way to transition to future green energy. Ever since he began campaigning for the presidency, Obama has hectored the private sector â€" talking nonstop of higher taxes, "spreading the wealth," "fat-cat" bankers, paying your "fair share," "millionaires and billionaires," "corporate jet owners" and "unneeded" income. Such share-the-wealth tirades were matched with redistributive vendettas. Vast new financial regulations and red tape followed. A new trillion-dollar health care entitlement was imposed on employers. The National Labor Relations Board is attempting to shut down a new Boeing aircraft plant. The federal government took over private businesses â€" and on occasion reversed the order of payment to private creditors. New environmental regulations have curbed energy and agricultural production. Lifelong academics and government functionaries, not businesspeople, staff the Obama Cabinet and head its agencies. But imagine that the president had instead promoted profit-making â€" by cutting red tape, praising entrepreneurs, promising no new taxes or burdens on businesses, and offering incentives to open new plants inside the U.S. In other words, what if small businesses and large corporations believed Obama to be a friend and partner, a leader who wanted them to make big profits, hire millions of workers and enrich the country in the process? In the past three years, the president has increased the national debt by almost $5 trillion. But what if the president were to promise an end to the gargantuan spending and borrowing by accepting the tax reforms and budget discipline offered by his own Simpson-Bowles Commission, so far neglected by the administration? The United States should be in a renaissance. In a food- and fuel-short world, we have vast agricultural and energy resources. While there are riots, strikes and unrest from Europe to the Middle East, America remains quiet. Foreign depositors even now still believe that the United States is the least-likely nation to either confiscate their capital or renege on the interest owed on it. China, Russia and India have enormous environmental, demographic and social challenges ahead of the same sort the United States dealt with decades ago. Our military is far superior to the competitors. After nearly three years of blaming, apologizing and explaining what America cannot and should not do, it is past time for a confident President Obama to remind the country that we can do almost anything we wish. Instead of lecturing some Americans about why they owe their old wealth to others, why not inspire them to create even bigger new profits to enrich everyone? And in these tough times, let the first family give up vacationing at Vail, Costa del Sol and Martha's Vineyard; trim White House entertainment expenses; and set an example of thrift for the country to match new budget frugalities. In short, President Obama could end the current psychological depression and acrimony by promising to lead from the fore rather than continually harping from far behind. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 603 Registered: Mar-04 | An article in the New York Times by Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University and a specialist in political messaging, summarised the dismay at Mr Obama's performance and was rapidly circulated online by liberals. "Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president," he wrote. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16577 Registered: May-04 | . Interesting Politifact main page today; When Standard & Poor's "dropped our credit rating, what they said is, we don't have an ability to repay our debt. ... I was proved right in my position" that the debt ceiling should not have been raised. Michele Bachmann False Says that under President John F. Kennedy, "government took up" 27 percent of the economy, and today it "consumes 37 percent." Mitt Romney Technically right, but lacking important context "The country's bankrupt." Ron Paul False The Republican National Convention "is a Super Bowl times four." Reince Priebus False "We're inches away from no longer having a free economy." Mitt Romney Pants on Fire in June, Pants on fire now "Obamacare was patterned after (Mitt Romney's) plan in Massachusetts." Tim Pawlenty True, Very similar plans GOP Pledge O Meter; Update Nuclear Warheads In the works GOP includes funding for "Nuclear warheads"?!!! But wait ... GOP Pledge O meter; Promise: Establish a hard cap on new discretionary spending Discretionary spending caps included in debt-ceiling deal Still no plan for dealing with nuclear waste. In the '80s, Democrats promised spending cuts, but delivered only tax hikes. Ron Paul False "President Obama and Democrats' spending addiction has driven our national debt to historic proportions, maxed out our national credit card and has now led to the Democrat Downgrade of our country's AAA credit rating." Kevin DeWine; Ohio Republican Party Chairman Mostly False Romney’s Run-in on Social Security http://factcheck.org/2011/08/romneys-run-in-on-social-security/ Republican debate strains some facts AP newswire Fact checking the GOP debate in Iowa http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker Fact Check: The Republican Debate http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/fact-check-the-republican-debate/? scp=1&sq=fact%20checking%20GOP%20debate&st=cse Rating their promises Campaign promises of GOP leaders 7 Promise Kept 1 Compromise 1 Promise Broken 5 Stalled 12 In the Works 31 Not Yet Rated Campaign promises of Barack Obama 142 Promise Kept 42 Compromise 43 Promise Broken 72 Stalled 207 In the Works 2 Not Yet rated http://www.politifact.com/ . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 604 Registered: Mar-04 | Polls also show that many union members disagree with Big Labor on politics. A March Rasmussen poll showed that 27 percent of public-sector union members consider themselves conservative and 17 percent Republican. The same month, a Gallup poll showed that between 24 and 27 percent of unionized government workers identified as Republican. Yet public-sector union PACS gave 92 percent of their federal donations last year to Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16579 Registered: May-04 | . "Polls also show that many union members disagree with Big Labor on politics. A March Rasmussen poll showed that 27 percent of public-sector union members consider themselves conservative and 17 percent Republican." Repubs and conservatives join unions for the benefits of union membership but then disagree with the union's policies? So they want what they feel are only the things the union can do for them and screw the rest? I'll ask again ... "What laws or morals have the unions violated by (their) conduct? Why would a union donate their money to the political party which is trying to destroy them? What unions do the Repubs support?" And, didn't the Repubs and conservatives know about unions before they joined? What was their reason for joining a union if they only wanted to complain about how the union operates? My takeaway from all of this - other than this is simply another Repub juiced up faux "issue" - is this is another point where Repubs have no concept of how organizations from which they directly benefit actually operate. It boils down to the unionized version of the infamous Tea Party protestors carrying signs which read "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". Conclusion: A) Repubs and conservatives aren't very bright B) Repubs and conservatives are only concerned about themself and no one else C) Repubs and conservatives are extremely greedy but not at all openhanded D) Repubs and conservatives complain alot but actually accomplish little E) Repubs and conservatives perpetually vote against their own best economic interests F) All of the above . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 605 Registered: Mar-04 | In the past decade, unions have become increasingly desperate to obtain new dues-paying members. An example of how desperate can be found in a 70-plus-page intimidation manual from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which only recently came to light in a pending court case. The new union tactic is to use pressure on corporate boardrooms as a means of organizing entire companies nationwide rather than recruiting workers on a site-by-site basis; in short, to organize employers rather than employees. To create this pressure, unions attempt to push businesses to the edge of bankruptcy, with little regard for the welfare of employer and employee. They attempt to strong-arm businesses into agreeing to take away the secret ballot for employees in union-organizing elections via card check. They also try to force employers to restrict their own speech on union issues so that workers will not get both sides of the story on unionization. Among the SEIUs demands is that employers agree to bargain only with it, to the exclusion of all other unions, regardless of what workers want. SEIU is in federal court defending itself against charges of racketeering and extortion filed by one of its unionizing targets, the catering company Sodexo Inc.Sodexo's court discovery recently revealed an SEIU Contract Campaign Manual on â€Pressuring the Employer. Union pressure is nothing new, but what SEIU recommends is not limited to organizing drives and strikes. Rather, the pressure takes the form of a so-called corporate campaign, whereby the union allies itself with outside third parties to raise intimidation to a new level. SEIUs manual details how outside pressure can involve jeopardizing relationships between the employer and lenders, investors, stockholders, customers, clients, patients, tenants, politicians, or others on whom the employer depends for funds. The union advises using legal and regulatory pressure to â€threaten the employer with costly action by government agencies or the courts. It details the use of community groups to damage an employers public image and ties with community leaders and organizations. SEIU recommends going after company officials personally. Not mincing words, SEIU states, may be a violation of blackmail and extortion laws to threaten management officials with release of dirt about them if they dont settle a contract. But there is no law against union members who are angry at their employer deciding to uncover and publicize factual information about individual managers. The dirt includes charges such as racism, sexism, exploitation of immigrants or proposals that would take money out of the community for the benefits of distant stockholders. SEIU recommends leafleting outside meetings where [targeted managers] are speaking, their homes, or events sponsored by community organizations they are tied to are some ways to make sure their friends, neighbors, and associates are aware of the controversy. Putting this into practice, in May SEIU drove 14 busloads of protesters to the quiet suburban home of Bank of Americas deputy general counsel, Greg Baer. Fortune magazines Washington bureau chief, Nina Easton, Mr. Baers neighbor, reported on the hordes of invaders shouting into bullhorns and waving signs. Ms. Easton wrote thata more apt description of this assemblage would be mob. Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise. Only Mr. Baers teenage son was home. Terrified, he locked himself in the bathroom, pleading with Ms. Easton, When are they going to leave? In some areas, the manual blatantly advises breaking the law, stating, Union members sometimes must act in the tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King and Mohatma [sic] Gandhi and disobey laws which are used to enforce injustice against working people. How do SEIU and other unions plan to get away with this? With help from the Obama administration. Though their corporate campaigns are not new, they are becoming more prevalent with the help of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In fact, this was the subject of a May 26 hearing by the House Education and the Workforce subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions. Chairman Phil Roe, Tennessee Republican, noting the acceleration of corporate campaigns, said that the NLRB recently has taken steps to expand the arsenal of tactics available for a corporate campaign, including moving to uphold union elections tainted by intimidation because the board said the intimidation was originated by nonparties, and removing restrictions on boycotts of neutral employers. Organized labor is losing members at a rapid rate. In the private sector, union membership stands at less than 7 percent. In attempting to hang onto its money and power, Big Labor has produced some documents that make for interesting reading and, as we may find out at a July 22 hearing in the Sodexo case, for legal fireworks as well. F. Vincent Vernuccio is labor-policy counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and editor of Workplacechoice.org. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16580 Registered: May-04 | . The PolitiFact report card on Gov. Rick Perry; Says the state's budget shortfall is "not that much different" than it was in 2003. False Says the federal government restricts "how much salt we can put on our food." False Says Texas has been waiting for two years for the federal government to act on a proposal to allow the state to "create insurance opportunities for those that are uninsured today." False "We've got a 1,000 National Guard troop request that's been in front of this president for over a year and no response." Half true "Everyone in this country has access to health care." Mostly False "I vetoed more than $3 billion in spending. Lawmakers and I cut taxes for 40,000 small businesses. Now Texas is No. 1 in job creation. The nation's five best housing markets are right here in Texas. We balanced five state budgets and we cut state spending." Half true "We lowered the business tax from 4 percent down to 1 percent." Half true "We don't get a lot of calls from this White House, " I have, frankly, never had a call from them." Pants on Fire Says the state's Medicaid waiver proposal "has languished in a file cabinet at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for more than two years." Pants on Fire As you can see, Gov. GoodHair has a problem distinguishing - and telling - the truth as he sees it and the truth as everyone else sees it. The Texas Unmiracle By PAUL KRUGMAN As expected, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, has announced that he is running for president. And we already know what his campaign will be about: faith in miracles. Some of these miracles will involve things that you'e liable to read in the Bible. But if he wins the Republican nomination, his campaign will probably center on a more secular theme: the alleged economic miracle in Texas, which, it's often asserted, sailed through the Great Recession almost unscathed thanks to conservative economic policies. And Mr. Perry will claim that he can restore prosperity to America by applying the same policies at a national level. So what you need to know is that the Texas miracle is a myth, and more broadly that Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment ... In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was less than unemployment in collapsed-bubble states like California and Florida, but it was slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York, and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts. By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance, the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state's small-government approach. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has near-universal coverage thanks to health reform very similar to the "job-killing" Affordable Care Act. So where does the notion of a Texas miracle come from? Mainly from widespread misunderstanding of the economic effects of population growth. For this much is true about Texas: It has, for many decades, had much faster population growth than the rest of America, about twice as fast since 1990. Several factors underlie this rapid population growth: a high birth rate, immigration from Mexico, and inward migration of Americans from other states, who are attracted to Texas by its warm weather and low cost of living, low housing costs in particular ... Many of the people moving to Texas; retirees in search of warm winters, middle-class Mexicans in search of a safer life bring purchasing power that leads to greater local employment. At the same time, the rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low - almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average - and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State. So Texas tends, in good years and bad, to have higher job growth than the rest of America ... What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is "Well, duh". The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs - which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice - involves a fallacy of composition: every state can't lure jobs away from every other state ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html?nl=todayshead lines&emc=tha212&pagewanted=print In the total number of uninsured citizens, school funding, assessment of academic achievement, infant mortality, teen pregnancy, number of people living beneath the poverty line, etc, etc, etc. Texas is in the lowest ranking of all US states and we have seen a steady decline under Perry's "leadership". We faced a $27 billion dollar shortfall this last budget year - worse even than California's and predicted by the state auditor when Perry announced his scheme of swapping taxes for fees and much of that had already been absorbed by taking billinons from Obama's stimulus funding which Perry criticized but signed the bill after the Legislature insisted we needed the cash. Gov. GH refused to allow any money to be taken from the Rainy Day Fund and refused to increase any taxes Instead he cut funding to schools and education systems by hundreds of millions, cut funding to public hospitals, health care and low income support systems, cut funding for police. firefighters and other first responders, cut funding for infrastructure construction and maintenance, cut funding for Planned Parenthoods services in Texas, and whittled away at all the traditional Repub targets. Instead he made a state emergency out of a bill which mandated a woman must be shown a sonogram of her fetus and maintain a 48Hr waiting period before having an @bortion. This in the state with the highest number of teen pregnancies and one of the lowest average income earning states even after you account for the many millionaires and billionaires living in Texas. He said nothing as the State House of Representatives introduced a bill which would make it illegal to hire an undocumented immigrant unless they were going to work as a nanny/housekeeper, landscape worker or other assorted low wage "service" jobs. He has pushed a bill which would mandate each pre-teenage female recieve a controversial vaccination for a type of cancer typically associated with having multiple sexu*l partners. He was financially linked to the company which produced the vaccine. He was also the person pushing the hardest for a Trans-Union highway running through the center of Texas which would have declared emminent domain on large chunks of private property and turning the land over to a Mexican corporation. Gov. GH has made two "jokes" about Texas seceding from the US to once again become a sovereign nation and is an unbashed critic of President Obama. While Texas is still burning and suffering through the worst drought in memory, when the North Central Texas fires consumed hundreds of thousands of acres and dozens of homes, rather than pull from the Rainy Day fund, Gov. GH applied for Federal Emergency Assistance grants. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16581 Registered: May-04 | . Stop Coddling the Super-Rich By WARREN E. BUFFETT OUR leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest", thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors. These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places. Last year my federal tax bill - the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf - was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine - most likely by a lot. To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation. Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion - a staggering $227.4 million on average - but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent. The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.) I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering. Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality. Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get. But for those making more than $1 million - there were 236,883 such households in 2009 - I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more - there were 8,274 in 2009 - I would suggest an additional increase in rate. My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?nl=t odaysheadlines&emc=tha212&pagewanted=print . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16582 Registered: May-04 | . National unemployment is at 9.1%. Number of uninsured Americans rises to 50.7 million http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-17-uninsured17_ST_N.htm "I don't get you guys at all. You are provided with exactly what you say you want - the free market - and it still doesn't satisfy you ... " * Kansas governor sends back "early innovator" HHS grant * Brings returned grants amount to some $90 million * HHS likely would have to set up Kansas exchange By Alina Selyukh WASHINGTON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - Kansas became on Tuesday the second U.S. state to return a large federal grant meant to help it create a prototype health insurance exchange as part of the Obama administration's healthcare overhaul. Republican Governor Sam Brownback said the state would give back the $31.5 million it received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to become an early leader, along with six other states, in establishing health insurance exchanges that other local government could use as a model. Exchanges are meant to provide an open marketplace of competing insurance plans that allow uninsured people and small businesses to band together to negotiate cheaper rates. Kansas's move brings the total amount of the returned exchange-related federal grants to almost $90 million as Republican governors seek to block implementation of the healthcare law supported largely by Democratic lawmakers. Experts warn that many states are falling far behind schedule for a smooth and timely roll-out of the reform. States are facing a deadline of Jan. 1, 2013, to submit detailed plans for their exchanges or see HHS come in and build one itself. Returning grants increases the likelihood that HHS would have to do the work. "It could come around to hurt the state in the long run," said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at the nonpartisan Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University. "The more states that say: 'Forget it, let's have the Feds run it,' the more likely the (federal government) is going to have a one-size-fits-all solution. They're not going to be able to customize it for 30 states." In April, Oklahoma returned its $54.6 million early innovator grant, the largest of the batch of seven issued in total. Kansas followed suit on Tuesday after months of internal wrangling between Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger and the conservative governor and legislature. "Every state should be preparing for fewer federal resources, not more," Governor Brownback said in a statement. "To deal with that reality, Kansas needs to maintain maximum flexibility. That requires freeing Kansas from the strings attached to the Early Innovator Grant." Commissioner Praeger, also a Republican, learned of his decision in an 8 p.m. phone call that came unexpectedly on Monday. "I don't know why now," she said in an interview. "Right now, we can't really move forward. Whatever we do going forward is going to require the governor's office signing off on it. It's not looking real optimistic." FIGHT AGAINST HEALTHCARE LAW Kansas also received $1 million for planning the exchange like virtually all other states. Some $400,000 of that money has already been spent with another $200,000 pending approval, Praeger said, but both of those installments are meant for the state's effort to update its Medicaid program. Because the Medicaid effort is supported by the state's executive branch and has to connect to the insurance exchange whenever one is set up, Praeger had pinned on it some of her hopes for having Kansas's own health insurance exchange. "I'm disappointed," she said, but added that the steering committee and other local policy efforts already underway to customize the exchange for Kansans will nonetheless continue and the state will keep its $1 million planning grant. Along with most Republican governors, Brownback has long rejected the notion of supporting President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, despite the possibility of opening his state healthcare systems to more federal scrutiny if he refused to set up exchanges. Kansas is also one of a number of states challenging the very notion of the healthcare reform in court. "There is a feeling among the more conservative elements around the country that if they pursue any efforts to establish exchanges, it will undermine their effort to get the law repealed," Praeger said. So far, just over a third of U.S. states have enacted legislation or made other steps toward establishing an exchange. Legislation is pending in three other states and the District of Columbia. The first wave of federal guidelines gave states flexibility in setting up the exchanges' infrastructure. But a number of crucial details have yet to be determined, including enrollment and eligibility requirements and the essential benefits that plans would have to provide. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/usa-health-exchanges-idUSN1E7781U72011 0809 April 29, 2011 New Jersey Must Return $271 Million Spent on Hudson Tunnel, U.S. Insists By PATRICK McGEEHAN The next stop for New Jersey in its debt collection fight with the federal government may be federal court. On Friday, the Transportation Department flatly rejected the state's arguments for refusing to repay $271 million that was spent on a project, canceled last year, to build a pair of rail tunnels under the Hudson River ... The dispute dates to last fall, when Mr. Christie, a Republican, chose to halt construction on the tunnel project, known as Access to the Region's Core, or the ARC tunnel, which had just begun and was projected to cost $8.7 billion. The federal government had pledged to pay $3 billion of that cost, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had committed $3 billion more ... When federal transportation officials demanded that New Jersey repay money already spent on the project, Mr. Christie hired Patton Boggs, a Washington law firm, to challenge that demand. The lawyers, who reportedly have billed the state and New Jersey Transit about $800,000, argued that the state stopped the project because of unforeseen costs that were beyond its control. But in his letter, Mr. LaHood said Mr. Christie had affirmed his support for the project a year ago when New Jersey Transit officials knew that the cost of the tunnel could rise as high as $12 billion. Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Menendez, both Democrats, issued a joint statement criticizing the approach taken by Patton Boggs. "We worked hard to get the parties to negotiate a fair resolution of this conflict," the senators said. "However, the state's outside lawyers pursued an all-or-nothing approach, which brings substantial risk to New Jersey taxpayers." A federal official involved in the dispute said the state could have offered to repay as little as $1 and the government would have been obligated to negotiate a settlement, a process which could have dragged on for years. All the while, no interest would have accrued on the debt, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/nyregion/new-jersey-told-to-repay-us-for-hudso n-tunnel-project.html?pagewanted=print Christie Says New Jersey Won't Repay U.S. $271 Million in Tunnel Funds New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said he won't return $271 million in federal funds for a canceled commuter-rail tunnel to New York, a decision that may cost the state $52,000 a week in interest ... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-03/christie-says-new-jersey-won-t-repay-u- s-271-million-in-tunnel-funds.html Florida governor rejects US high-speed rail funds Feb 16 (Reuters) - Florida's Tea Party movement-backed Governor Rick Scott on Wednesday said he was rejecting federal funds to construct a high-speed railway project in the state ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/florida-rail-idUSN1629082420110216 Florida rejects child-abuse prevention funds tied to health care law Read more at http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/21/2323996/florida-rejects-child-abuse-prevention.html#ixzz1V74Bp5ID Ohio and Wisconsin's loss of $1.2 billion in federal stimulus money for rail projects will be California, Florida and 11 other states' gain. Ohio and Wisconsin sought and won the stimulus money this year to build new rail lines to create jobs, ease traffic and help the environment. But both states elected new Republican governors last month who vowed to kill the train projects, arguing that they were boondoggles that would require annual state subsidies to operate http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/10rail.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1313423347-FC0USkFygUfYNobYAafQeA Governors reject stimulus money for unemployment http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-15-unemployment_N.htm Taxpayers on the Hook after State Rejected for Federal School Funds http://repcafero.com/?p=659 Rejection of federal health care money leaves Osceola community centers out millions http://www.floridaindependent.com/42314/rejection-of-federal-health-care-money-leaves-osceola-community-centers-out-millions etc, etc, etc ... . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 606 Registered: Mar-04 | Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obamas administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosis Northern California district. Thats in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obamas Department of Health and Human Services approved. Pelosis district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didnt have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosis districts waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare. For instance, Boboquivaris restaurant in Pelosis district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivaris advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners. Then, theres Caf des Amis, which describes its eating experience as a timeless Parisian style brasserie which is located on one of San Franciscos premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street, according to the restaurans Web site. Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin, the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the laws first year requirements. The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from annual limit requirements. The applications for the waivers are reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver. The waivers dont allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacares stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014. Caf Mason, a diner near San Franciscos Union Square, got a waiver too. When The Daily Caller asked the manager about the waiver and how the presidents new sweeping federal health care law was affecting his restaurant, he hung up the phone. The Franciscan Crab restaurant on Fishermans Wharf in San Francisco got a waiver. Its menu features entrees ranging from about $15 to $60. The Franciscans general manager didnt return The DCs requests for comment. Four-star hotel Campton Place got one too, as did Hotel Nikko San Francisco, which describes itself as four-diamond luxury in the heart of the city. Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine rated the best day spa in San Francisco, received an Obamacare waiver as well. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 607 Registered: Mar-04 | The nations capital is freaking out over a winter snowstorm. But everyone else should be up in arms over the real snow job in Washington this week. While the Democrats continued to extol Obamacare and the president defended the behemoth law during the Date of the Union, HHS was quietly presiding over a massive Obamacare Waiver-mania explosion. When last we examined the growing list, privileged escapees topped 222. Now: The list now at 729 plus 4 states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee). Among the many new union refugees are 4 new SEIU locals : -SEIU Health and Welfare fund, 2000 with 161 enrollees -Service Employees 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund* representing 7,020 enrollees -SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund representing 2,000 enrollees -SEIU Health & Welfare Fund representing 1,620 This is in addition to the three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees. Which brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare escapees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals. HHS puts the total number of union waiver recipients at 182: Collectively-Bargained Employer-Based Plan Applicants: Most of the other health plans receiving waivers are multi-employer health funds created by a collective bargaining agreement between a union and two or more employers, pursuant to the Taft-Hartley Act. These union plans are employment based group health plans and operate for the sole benefit of workers. They tend to be larger than other typical group health plans because they cover multiple employers. There are also single-employer union plans that have received a waiver. In total, 182 collectively-bargained plans have received waivers. The rest: Of all the waivers granted to date: * Employment-Based Coverage: The vast majority 712 plans representing 97 percent of all waivers were granted to health plans that are employment-related. o Self-Insured Employer Plans Applicants: Employer-based health plans received most of the waivers 359. Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs): HRAs are employer-funded group health plans where employees are reimbursed tax-free for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount for a coverage period. In total, HHS has approved 171 applications for waivers for HRAs. * Health Insurers: Sixteen waivers were granted to health insurers, which can apply for a waiver for multiple mini-med products sold to employers or individuals. * State Governments: Four waivers have gone to State governments. States may apply for a waiver of the restricted annual limits on behalf of issuers of state-mandated policies if state law required the policies to be offered by the issuers prior to September 23, 2010. *** A snort-worthy new escapee: Obamacare sympathizers at The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, whose board of trustees includes Obama health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle. Culture of Corruption DeParle flashback: Former Kansas Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius won Senate confirmation as Health and Human Services Secretary. But the real power lies with with newly-created health czar Nancy-Ann Min DeParle. Her official title: Director of the White House Office for Health Reform. DeParle ran the behemoth Medicare and Medicaid programs under Bill Clinton. She parlayed her government experience into a lucrative private-sector stint. Over the past three years, she made nearly $6 million from her work in the health care industry. Despite President Obamas loud denunciations of the revolving-door lobbyist culture in Washington, DeParles industry ties didnt bother the White House. She served as an investment advisor at JP Morgan Partners, LLC; sat on the board of directors at Boston Scientific Corporation; and held directorships at Accredo Health Group Inc., Triad Hospitals (now part of Community Health Systems), and DaVita Corporation. In all, she sat on at least ten boards while advising JP Morgan and working as managing director at a private equity firm, CCMP Capital. From 2002 to 2008, while holding all those titles, DeParle also served as a member of the government-chartered Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC), an influential panel that advises Congress on what Medicare should cover and at what price. Last month, former MedPAC member DeParle cozily announced that Obama was open to making recommendations of [MedPAC] mandatory unless opposed by a joint resolution of Congress. Obama famously signed an early executive order requiring appointees to pledge not to participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to any former employer or former clients for a period of two years from the date of his or her appointment. But its hard to imagine any health care reform-related issue that wont involve one of DeParles former employers, clients, and corporate boards in the health care industry. She earned at least $376,000 from Cerner Corporation, for example, which specializes in health information technology. As health czar, DeParle has unmeasured clout in directing $19 billion of federal stimulus money earmarked for, yes, health information technology. Last week, a Washington, D.C. citizen watchdog filed suit to force the White House to disclose which health care lobbyists and executives it had met with this year to discuss insurance takeover legislation. White House counsel Greg Craig refused to disclose which administration officials attended the meetings. But at least two of the industry visitors have ties to DeParle. William C. Weldon is chairman of Johnson & Johnson, which paid DeParle $7,500 for a recent speech. Wayne Smith is chief executive of Community Health Systems, which merged with Triad Hospitals where DeParle served on the board of directors. DeParles options were converted to cash payments worth $1.05 million. Despite Obamas lip service to transparency, the public is in the dark about which assets DeParle has divested and how many times, if any, DeParle has recused herself from policy matters and meetings. Czardom has its privileges. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16583 Registered: May-04 | . I see you still can't pull youself away from the Repub blogs, squiddy. They're the only ones writing about "waivers" and "unions". And you still can't figure out how to make a working link to your source. Kinda what I expected from you. You were going to do what to me? "Call me out?!!!" ROTFLMAO!!! squiddy, you're a riot! Waivers were written into the law and only bloggers and other idiots care about waivers. They are time extensions which go to compliance but whoever obtains a temporary waiver is still going to have to comply with the law down the road. All the states have been offered waivers but most can't quailfy since none of the current crop of Tea Party obssessed Repub governors can come up with a better plan - or dare to. Heck! read what I posted above, they're even wasting taxpayer dollars to try to get out of providing those "Big Brother" intrusions like accepting funds for prevention of abuse. Good move, squiddy, good move by your side. "Florida lawmakers have rejected more than $50 million in federal child-abuse prevention money. The grants were tied to the Obama administration's health care reform package, which many lawmakers oppose on philosophical grounds. The money, offered through the federal Affordable Health Care Act passed last year, would have paid, among other things, for a visiting nurse program run by Healthy Families Florida, one of the most successful child-abuse prevention efforts in the nation. Healthy Families' budget was cut in last year's spending plan by close to $10 million. And because the federal Race to the Top educational-reform effort is tied to the child-abuse prevention program that Healthy Families administers, the state may also lose a four-year block grant worth an additional $100 million in federal dollars, records show. "This is just crazy," said Gwen Wurm, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Miami, and a board member of the Our Kids foster care agency. "This is the model for what you want in a prevention program. They have proven results." Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/21/2323996/florida-rejects-child-abuse-prevention.html#ixzz1V8VaRZ7E Repubs are against caring for abused children just to get at Obama?!!! Really, you're still going after Nancy Pelosi?!!! Who ya'gonna a pick on next? James Carville? Jimmy Carter's secretary?!!! . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 608 Registered: Mar-04 | So Obama is on his magical mystery tour in his 2.2 million dollar bus (just a man of the people).. Today he said that with "modest adjustments" Social Security would be solvent for the next 75 years. Of course he didn't mention what these "modest adjustments" are. But I am wondering why he didn't propose and push through the adjustments when he had both houses, including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate ? He was able to jam through the (not so) affordable healthcare act, but not the adjustments necessary to preserve and protect Social Security. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2520 Registered: Oct-07 | Means testing is in the works. Contribute? Absolutely. Collect? Sorry, you're too rich. Privatize even 5% of SS assets? NoCanDo. It's too big a cash cow for the Government. Raise salary limit for contributions? For Sure. In the mean time, Buffett says it'd be OK to raise taxes on the wealthiest people. No problem, but if he's that convinced, he can always just cut 'em a check. Much more leverage pretty much leaving tax rates alone, but closing many of the bought-and-paid-for loopholes. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16584 Registered: May-04 | . Blinded by the facts; "Much more leverage pretty much leaving tax rates alone ... " I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation. - Warren Buffett . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16585 Registered: May-04 | . "Twenty-five states have lower unemployment than Texas" which is "tied with Mississippi for more minimum-wage jobs than anywhere in the United States." Lloyd Doggett (US Rep., TX) on Thursday, August 11th, 2011 in an interview with ABC TV. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/aug/16/lloyd-doggett/lloyd-dogge tt-says-texas-has-worse-unemployment-25/ . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16586 Registered: May-04 | . Rick Perry’s campaign for Texas governor last year criticized his GOP primary opponent’s ties to a lobbyist caught on film apparently suggesting he could secure meetings for a deposed Central Asian politician with top Bush administration officials in exchange for a $250,000 donation to the Bush library. But this summer, as Perry’s allies scrambled to build a fundraising network ahead of his late entry into the presidential race, they accepted help from the very same lobbyist, Stephen Payne. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61451.html . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2521 Registered: Oct-07 | RE Buffett remark about "lower tax rates and far lower job creation." Coorelation is not causation. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 609 Registered: Mar-04 | The countrys automakers should ditch their focus on SUVs and trucks in favor of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, President Obama said Monday. You cant just make money on SUVs and trucks,Obama said during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money. Why do we need lectures on the economy from an economic illiterate ? |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 610 Registered: Mar-04 | Texas Gov. Rick Perry may have forgotten a thing or two about the Al Gore presidential campaign he helped lead in 1988. In an interview with an Iowa radio station on Monday, the Republican presidential contender explained his role as the Gore campaigns Texas chairman by saying that his was Al Gore before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming. But in fact, global warming was already a significant theme for Gore in 1987 and 1988 long before his activism led to several books, a Nobel Prize and a part in an Academy Award-winning film. It was also well before the right gave him the "Mr. Ozone" nickname and talk radio heaped endless mockery on the future vice president. Gore, then a young Tennessee senator trying to break out in a crowded Democratic field, mentioned the warming planet as one of his priorities for his presidential campaign in April 1987, according to news coverage at the time. He laid out a broad list of national objectives, from combating AIDS and Alzheimer's disease to curbing the greenhouse effect the threat to the Earth's atmosphere from the burning of oil, gas and coal,The Los Angeles Times reported in covering Gores announcement. In May 1987, according to The Washington Post, his stump speeches included a call for the nation to confront the emerging problems of the greenhouse effect and the threat to our ozone. Later that summer, Gore joined Republican Sen. John Chafee in calling for urgent action on climate change and the threat of coastal flooding. Such was his reputation for green wonkery that, in a January 1988 profile in the Christian Science Monitor, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund said of Gore: ''I think it would be safe to say that he goes to bed at night worrying about things like stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming.'' So was all this unknown to Perry, who at the time was a Democrat trying to put Gore in the White House? No, Perry spokesman Mark Miner said Monday. They just disagreed. The governor has always been a conservative and didn't agree with Al Gore on every issue, global warming being one of them, Miner said in an email to POLITICO. Perry has, of course, broken with Gore before. In a December 2009 speech to builders in Dallas, Perry said a lot had changed in the years since he worked on Gores campaign: certainly got religion. I think hes gone to hell. In a 2007 speech to Californian Republicans, Perry said: "I've heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I'm starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide." Hmmmmm. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16587 Registered: May-04 | . "Coorelation is not causation." Neither is ignoring the facts to be considered wisdom, leo. Check the facts on the first page of this thread. Historically, higher tax rates go along with higher numbers of jobs created. None the less, the point remains, Buffett has "worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off." As you say, corelation is not causation. But lies are still lies when the Repubs constantly preach the rich and the wanna-be-rich will stop making an effort if they are paying higher taxes. Shouldn't take a genius to figure out. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 611 Registered: Mar-04 | I don't think anybody will stop making an effort I think the argument is that it is a disincentive. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16588 Registered: May-04 | . What? A "disincentive" to what? If you do not make the effort, then you have lost the incentive. If you still make the effort, then you still have the incentive to make large financial gains - most epspecially when taxed at 15% capital gains rates - compared to a paultry amount of taxation. Did you read Buffett's editorial? While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest", thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors. These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places. Last year my federal tax bill - the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf - was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine - most likely by a lot. To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. The rich are not required to "work" to make billions. They are only required to hold a stock index future for ten minutes. Could you find a way to spare ten minutes if you were about to make several thousand dollars in that time? For that matter, with the propensity towards electronic dealing on stocks, commodities, etc., your actual presence isn't even required for such a transaction to occur. You could be posting blather on a political thread while the trade takes place without your knowledge until you check your daily balances. What "disincentive" is there to that? You get to keep 85% of what you make. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16589 Registered: May-04 | . This article appeared in Last Sunday's NYT. I'm going to retrieve it from another webpage just to make it more accessible since the NYT has limited the number of articles a non-subscriber can access. Conventional Fed Wisdom, Defied GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: Saturday, August 13, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. NEWS last week that the Federal Reserve would keep interest rates near zero until mid-2013 was welcomed by many investors, but the bleak message about the economy still came through loud and clear. The Fed has spent several years trying to kick start the economy with low rates and other policies, with little success. Which raises this question: Will more of the same help now? Among the doubters is Thomas M. Hoenig, the soon-to-be former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Mr. Hoenig, at the helm of the Kansas City Fed for the last 20 years, has thought long and seriously about the problems facing the central bank, and he spoke with me about them last week after attending his final meeting of the policy making Federal Open Market Committee. He will turn 65 next month, the mandatory retirement age for a Fed bank president. Mr. Hoenig has been pretty much alone among Fed presidents in publicly calling to break up large banks that are too big to succeed. "Extremely powerful institutions, both financially and politically, undermine the long term strength of our system and make us look like a financial oligarchy," he told me. This view, of course, receives little applause in Washington and on Wall Street. Mr. Hoenig has espoused this view for more than a decade, and he has grown accustomed to being ignored or criticized for it. Back in 1996, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he presciently warned about the dangers of expanding the federal safety net to cover financial institutions trading complex derivatives and structured finance vehicles. Pushing for a new regulatory regime that would deny a safety net to institutions engaged in risky activities, he told the attendees: "The threat of failure keeps a bank honest and inhibits it and the industry from trending toward excessive risks. Without this market discipline provided by creditors willing to withdraw their funds when they suspect a bank of being unsafe, banks have an incentive to take excessive risks." Mr. Hoenig's prescription was to bar institutions that engage in risky business from offering government backed deposits and to minimize their access to emergency Fed loans. Although he has been vindicated in this view, big bankers howled and regulators yawned at the time. "I was trying to point out that these kinds of activities are beyond management's control," he recalled, "and that if you want to do this, you cannot have the taxpayers subsidizing it." He added: "It was controversial. It was not well received by some." In 1999, as Congress was finally doing in the Glass-Steagall rules that had separated investment banking from old fashioned commercial banking, Mr. Hoenig made another public warning about big, interconnected financial companies. "In a world dominated by megafinancial institutions, governments could be reluctant to close those that become troubled for fear of systemic effects on the financial system," he told an audience at the European Banking and Financial Forum in Prague. "To the extent these institutions become 'too big to fail,' and where uninsured depositors and other creditors are protected by implicit government guarantees, the consequences can be quite serious." We sure found that out. More recently, in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, Mr. Hoenig has continued to counter the conventional wisdom in Washington. "The Dodd-Frank legislation, for all its 2,300 pages, does not fix the fundamental problem of too-big-to-fail banks," Mr. Hoenig said last week. "I think the post-Depression response was the answer - you break them up. If you are going to have access to the safety net, you are going to limit your activities." ... ... Creating jobs and finding ways to keep American businesses from fleeing abroad is not exactly the domain of the Fed, Mr. Hoenig conceded. But neither should the Fed's actions work against the goals of generating a more productive economy, he said. "The central bank has to be, in a way, a neutral player, and yet we find ourselves trying to stimulate, and the effect is further leveraging," he said. "If I thought zero rates would bring jobs, I'd want it forever. But it distorts the economy." He continued, "In 2003, when we lowered rates and kept them there because unemployment was 6.5 percent - look at the consequences." Those consequences included the nation's mortgage feast, followed by its current economic famine. Another important theme for Mr. Hoenig concerns the mistrust that has arisen as regulators provide favors to powerful institutions while asking other industries, and ordinary Americans, to accept less. Ask farmers to accept fewer federal subsidies, or the housing industry to live without the mortgage tax deduction, or ordinary Americans to contemplate changes to Social Security, and they all push back, he says. And many of these people say the same thing: "Why should I compromise when the largest institutions get bailed out and continue to get their bonuses?" he says. POINT taken. "If there were a sense that everyone, big and small, powerful and weak, would be asked to sacrifice, we might be able to agree on a way forward for the economy," Mr. Hoenig said. "We have to bring a greater sense of equitable treatment," he said. "When we do that Americans will say, 'Yes, we are all in this together.' " http://www.theledger.com/article/20110813/ZNYT01/108133002/1021/life?p=all&tc=pg all . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16590 Registered: May-04 | . And before you even start, squiddy ... don't be a PITA either, the thread is about facts and civility not about how much you can be a smart@ss who proves he knows nothing of the two ... Dodd-Frank Buffeted by Challenges, Limps Forward On the surface, it looks like the Dodd-Frank financial oversight law is in trouble. U.S. regulators are months behind schedule in rulemaking, Republicans have succeeded in holding agency funding hostage, and odds are good that the business community will win its first court challenge to an important provision. On top of that, Republicans and Wall Street titans are selling a doomsday scenario of Dodd-Frank killing the struggling economic recovery ... Republicans employ new tactic to slow Dodd-Frank (Reuters) - Republicans aiming to unhinge the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation have turned to a new line of attack and have told the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve and other regulators to do more due diligence, according to a letter obtained on Thursday Republicans Would Remedy" Unwanted Dodd-Frank Effects (Bloomberg) -- The House Financial Services Committee aims to "identify and remedy"any unintended consequences of the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul, with a focus on rules governing proprietary trading and derivatives, according to a draft of the panel's strategic plan ... Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said last week that Republicans are trying to "cripple regulation by failing to fund it." GOP Tries to Derail Dodd-Frank Express (Newsmax) Two congressional committees led by Republicans approved measures on Wednesday to delay and weaken key provisions of last year's Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, but they were expected to fizzle in the Senate. GOP targets Dodd-Frank financial regulation WASHINGTON : Senate Republican leaders say they will support legislation to overturn the Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law approved by a Democrat-led Congress last year. "This financial takeover will strangle our economy and move jobs overseas unless it is repealed," Senator Jim DeMint, the South Carolina lawmaker who introduced the measure yesterday, said in a prepared statement. The bill offered by DeMint, who serves on the Senate Banking Committee, would set aside the regulatory overhaul that aims to make sweeping changes to oversight of derivatives, consumer lending, and business practices at financial firms such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America Corp. Etc., etc., etc. http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=republicans%20and%20Dodd %20frank&type= And many of these people say the same thing: "Why should I compromise when the largest institutions get bailed out and continue to get their bonuses?" he says. POINT taken. "If there were a sense that everyone, big and small, powerful and weak, would be asked to sacrifice, we might be able to agree on a way forward for the economy," Mr. Hoenig said. "We have to bring a greater sense of equitable treatment," he said. "When we do that Americans will say, 'Yes, we are all in this together.' " . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16591 Registered: May-04 | . Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said last week that Republicans are trying to "cripple regulation by failing to fund it." On Capitol Hill, Regulators Plead for More Money Financial regulators asked lawmakers on Wednesday for more money to enforce dozens of new rules and oversee Wall Street ... Gary Gensler, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's chairman, and Mary L. Schapiro, the S.E.C.'s chairwoman, told a Senate appropriations subcommittee that they needed hundreds of millions of dollars in 2012 to prevent another financial crisis. "In 2008, both the financial system and the financial regulatory system failed the test for the American public," Mr. Gensler said in testimony before the subcommittee that doles out money to financial regulators ... In the wake of the crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires Mr. Gensler and Ms. Schapiro to oversee the $600 trillion swaps market, an industry at the center of the financial crisis. "An investment in the C.F.T.C. is warranted, because, as we saw in 2008, without oversight of the swaps market, billions of taxpayer dollars may be at risk," Mr. Gensler told the subcommittee. The panel is weighing whether to increase regulatory budgets during the government's fiscal year 2012, which starts on Oct. 1. Ms. Schapiro said any cuts would have a "profound impact" on her agency ... But the new money falls short of what President Obama had requested for the agencies and what the Dodd-Frank Act had called for them to receive. As DealBook reported on Tuesday, the agencies are still struggling to fill crucial jobs, enforce new rules and upgrade market surveillance technology. Regulators warn that their money problems have also jeopardized their most important duty: keeping an eye on Wall Street. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission says the uncertainty has forced it to delay some investigations and forgo other potential cases altogether. The S.E.C.'s enforcement division has adopted cutbacks, too, including curbing its use of expert witnesses in some securities fraud trials ... But Republicans are looking to slash the agencies' budgets, as the nation's budget deficit swells. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently approved a 2012 budget plan that would roll back spending to 2008 levels, which would make huge dents in the regulators' budgets. "We're all aware of our budget deficit," said the subcommittee's ranking Republican, Jerry Moran of Kansas. "Simply increasing funding does not ensure that an agency can successfully achieve its mission" ... http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/on-capitol-hill-regulators-plead-for-more -money/?partner=rss&emc=rss . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16592 Registered: May-04 | . "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Adam Smith, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 612 Registered: Mar-04 | July 21 marked the anniversary of the passing of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection act. Unfortunately the law has neither reformed Wall Street nor Protected Consumers. The 3,200 page law has spawned several new regulatory bodies, and has granted 11 separate federal agencies the authority and the legal obligation to create over 400 new financial regulations. Over a year later less than 10 percent of the required regulations have been implemented, but Dodd-Frank is already beginning to have negative effects on the economy. The Dodd-Frank act demonstrates Washingtons commitment to circumvent the free market in favor of a corrupt top-down regulatory system where politicians and bureaucrats pick market winners and losers. Despite President Obamas promise of no more taxpayer-funded bailouts-periodDodd-Frank includes provisions allowing the FDIC to resolve failing financial institutions by borrowing their bad assets with taxpayers money. Consumers will have to pay higher debit card fees when the Durbin amendment placing price controls on debit card swipe fees goes into effect this October. The most dangerous aspect of Dodd-Frank is the massive wave of regulation that it is releasing on an already struggling financial sector. Most of the rules required by the law are still unwritten, but according to the governments own estimates, 2.2 million work hours a year, equivalent to 1,100 full time employees, will have to be devoted to complying with existing regulations. As regulations continue to pile up, small community banks, which lack the resources of huge national banks, will struggle to stay ahead of the ever increasing regulatory burden. No one knows what the regulatory landscape will look like when all 400 required regulations are written. In the face of regulatory uncertainty businesses and individuals are less likely to take risks and make new investments, slowing the already weak financial sector. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 613 Registered: Mar-04 | In his role as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Dodd proposed a program in June 2008 that would assist troubled sub-prime mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Financial in the wake of the United States housing bubble's collapse.[26] Condé Nast Portfolio reported allegations that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide Financial and had received favorable terms due to being placed in the "Friends of Angelo" VIP program, so named for Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Dodd received mortgages from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes.[26] Dodd had not disclosed the below-market mortgages in any of six financial disclosure statements he filed with the Senate or Office of Government Ethics since obtaining the mortgages in 2003.[27] |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 614 Registered: Mar-04 | In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 615 Registered: Mar-04 | PolitiFact, which is run by the St. Petersburg Times Would you like to see the economically-illiterate echo-chamber at work? Politifact reinforced Paul Krugmans leftist logic when they gave him a Mostly True for attacking Texass state government for facing a budget shortfall. Politifacts major sin here was judging Krugmans claim as if it werent loaded with misunderstandings and liberal spin. Based on his own ridiculously biased standard, he gets a Mostly True. But his ridiculously biased standard should have earned him a Pants on Fire. Politifact knows how to misleadingly frame an issue. What was wrong with Krugmans argument that Politifact didnt notice? The number of faulty premises and mis-definitions here is dizzying, so try to keep up. First, Krugmans article contains a huge false assumption, namely, that state government funding is an accurate measure of state economic health. Nothing could be more silly, as a moments reflection reveals. Why, what if Texans gave their government ALL of their money? The government coffers would be overflowing, at least for one year, which would ostensibly earn Krugmans seal of economic super-health! Of course, after that the state economy would cease to exist the private sector would be penniless. Since the public sector lives off the wealth created by the private sector, the public sector would become penniless, too. In other words, since the money used to pay for the government is taken out of the wealth-creating sector, the less money we give the government the better. Said the other way around, the more money we keep in the private sector the more businesses can expand, creating jobs and wealth. For the sake of the economy, we WANT the government to be on a diet. In fact, in the same article Krugman compared apples to oranges when he compared New Yorks 8% unemployment rate to Texas 7.9% unemployment rate. Why do those percentages tell different stories? Because the Texass rate includes 1.78 million refugees from bad-economy states like New York. New Yorks 8% excludes the 847,000 people who left New York, many having given up trying to find a job. Thats over a 2.5 million person head start New York had on Texas and still couldnt post a lower unemployment rate! Secondly, there are many reasons governments can face money shortages. One is reckless overspending. Another is, the citizenry only gives them a little money, then makes them jump through hoops to prove they need more. Texas is the latter, California and New Jersey are the former. Its the difference between being out of money in college because your parents only gave you enough for books, and being out because you already blew your lavish $10,000 monthly allowance on concerts, spas, parties, and clothes. California citizens have needed to scale back their governments opulent lifestyle for some time. Texas has kept its government living reasonably. All money shortages are not created equal. Next, Krugman and Politifact dont know what a budget shortfall is. A budget shortfall is when you make a budget on your $6,000 per month salary, including a house payment, a car payment, and a cell phone bill. Then, you lose your job and take one at McDonalds. The bills keep coming, but the difference between your new salary and your bills is your budget shortfall. When the national economy tanked, the Texas economy turned out smaller than it was expected to be. Since the state government collects a fixed percentage of the Texas economy, when the Texas economy underperforms, the next legislature is likely to face a shortfall. Texas government expenses over the last two years cost $4.3 billion more than Texas actually collected. That is the budget shortfall. The other number we keep hearing about - $27 billion isnt a budget shortfall no matter how many media clowns call it that. Twenty-seven billion dollars is how much money the Texas government lacks if it wants to retain the lifestyle it had on its old salary. The difference is: it knows in advance its new salary and can budget accordingly. This is a reduced salary, not a budget shortfall. Its not a whit different than a Texas family who makes less today than two years ago. We all have to trim expenses sometimes. The Texas government isnt too lean and mean to tolerate cuts. After all, the pay cut of Texas families is what caused the governments pay cut. We figured out how to live leaner. They need to do the same now. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16593 Registered: May-04 | . Once again, squiddy, nice reliance on hyper-partisan sources which you refuse to acknowldege. Since you just don't seem to understand plain English, that means what you posted is BS - not factual, just more blogger BS. "The other number we keep hearing about - $27 billion isnt a budget shortfall no matter how many media clowns call it that. Twenty-seven billion dollars is how much money the Texas government lacks if it wants to retain the lifestyle it had on its old salary. The difference is: it knows in advance its new salary and can budget accordingly. This is a reduced salary, not a budget shortfall." I'd laugh if I wasn't living through our Texas "reduced salary" and the ideologically short sighted cuts made to the needs of the average Texas citizen it entails. What Keeton Strayhorn predicted when Perry pulled his tax stunt is exactly what came to pass - other than she was about $5 billion short in her estimates. Look it up, squiddy. It's public record if you want to actually know the facts. But you've proven time and again facts aren't what you want to hear. Tell me again about how you're going to call me out on all of this. All you know is what someone else has placed in your skull knowing you won't question it one little bit. All you know is wrong. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 616 Registered: Mar-04 | This just in, by way of St. Petersburg Times fact-checking website Politifact: when considering irrelevant and misleading employment statistics, Texas has not, in fact, created more jobs in the past five years than the rest of the country combined. Sure, when considering the relevant numbers - the ones that most honest observers would use - the claim, made by the Texas Public Policy Foundation in a recent ad, is perfectly factual. But through an exercise in pure semantics, Politifact was able to draw out a meaningless retort to TPPF's claims. Politifact rated the statement "half-true" for using data on net job creation instead of gross job creation. In other words, taking into consideration that states can help and hinder job creation (and that doing the former isn't so useful if you're also doing the latter) was enough to penalize TPPF in Politifact's judgment. (Check below the break for further explanation on that score.) Politifact first determined that TPPF's statement, made in the video above, was true, but with some qualifications: So, the foundations figures stand up in the way that such figures are often analyzed, including by PolitiFact. Unsaid is that this gauge defines job creation as a net increase in employment. That means the foundations analysis only takes into account the number of jobs created in excess of the number lost over a five-year period. But gross job creation is absolutely irrelevant to a measure of a state's economic climate as it pertains to job growth. If a state creates 5 million jobs but loses 10 million, it's far worse off from a relative employment perspective than a state that creates two jobs but only loses one. Or, as TPPF spokesman Josh Trevi put it: If it occurred to anyone at PolitiFact that this methodology would enable a state to rack up its employment figures simply by firing the entire population each Friday, and re-hiring them all each Monday, there is no sign of it. So after a lengthy back-and-forth over whether they should consider the relevant data or simply opt for semantics, Politifac apparently couldn't decide. The foundations claim that Texas "created more jobs than all other states combined" stands up considering only those states that had net job gains over five years. Thats the methodology usually used to define job creation in public discourse. But the foundations analysis disregards the 40 states where millions of jobs were created but were outnumbered by losses. And looking at the percentage increase in jobs relative to the size of each states work force another telling statistic two other states experienced greater gains than Texas. We rate the foundations statement as Half True. So by the relevant metric, TPPF is entirely correct. But Politifact deems its claim "Half True" for ignoring data - gross job creation - that has little if any bearing on economic health from the perspective of employment. In fact, beyond the Obama administration's laughable "jobs saved or created" claims, it's hard to find any serious analysis that uses gross, not net, job creation as its means of measuring success in combating widespread unemployment. As Trevi notes: To use created more jobs, or any of its variants â€job creation,created jobs, to signify a net increase in jobs is a de facto universal rhetorical standard. Its so common as to be assumed, and no reasonable person reads or hears otherwise. To pick just a few examples: Here's President Barack Obama doing it. Here's Gallup doing it. Here's Michael Powell of the New York Times doing it. Here's Dennis Cauchon of USA Today doing it. Here's Pietro Garibaldi and Paolo Mauro of the International Monetary Fund doing it. Here's Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doing it. Here's Peter Cohan of Forbes doing it. Here's Reuters and CNBC doing it. Here's Peter Boyer of Newsweek doing it. Is Politifact lying? No, of course not. They've just devised a mostly worthless (from the perspective of public policy) measure of employment and given it rhetorical weight equal to the standard that virtually every serious political and economic analyst or commentator uses. The site penalized TPPF for not basing its employment claims on data that has no bearing on economic policy aimed at creating jobs. TPPF's mission in airing this ad was to support the notion that low taxes and limited government leads to more jobs. Gross job creation is irrelevant to that claim. Concludes Trevi We rate PolitiFacts statement as Half True." |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 617 Registered: Mar-04 | Obama channel sycophant reaches new low ? MSNBCs in-house union organizer, Ed Schultz, went to not-so-extraordinary lengths to portray Texas Gov. Rick Perry as a racist on his program, The Ed Show, on Monday. He edited a speech in which Perry referred to the national debt as a big black cloud hanging over America. Schultz edited the debt part out and played the black cloud part of Perrys speech. When Schultz came back on screen, he whipped up his audience into an agitated frenzy with this rejoinder: That black cloud Perrys talking about is President Barack Obama. Umm nope. Unless you equate Obama directly with the nations debt, which is a lot of folks inclination. In fact, run with that one, Ed. Schultz issued a statement apologizing for the blatant attempt to make the news on Tuesday. "We did not present the full context of those statements and we should've...no doubt about it, it was a mistake and we regret the error, said Schultz. Of course, Schultz was not contrite about it. He said that the full context of Perrys comments were even more damaging.. Sergeant Schultz indeed. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16594 Registered: May-04 | . Schultz admits a mistake and Perry (always) doubles down on his own. What is your problem with posting facts, squiddy? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16595 Registered: May-04 | . I see why you consider yourself a conservative, squid. You get to make up whatever sounds good and pretend you have found the truth. Actual facts and asking questions before you open your mouth are considered utterly unnecessary ... Rick Perry says government wants to require commercial driver's licenses of anyone who drives a tractor across a road Stumping for president at an Iowa dinner on Aug. 14, 2011, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said: "Now you tell me whether this is true or not. But one of my fellas just told me, he said that they're talking about a new regulation that if you drive your tractor ... across one public road, you're going to have to have a commercial driver's license. Get out of here! You're kiddin' me. I mean, what are they thinking?" The former cotton farmer and Texas agriculture commissioner sounded more certain by the next morning, saying in remarks excerpted on CNN's Aug. 15 "Newsroom": "Let me give you just a - "this is such an obscene, crazy regulation. They want to make - " if you are a tractor driver, if you drive your tractor across a public road, you are going to have to have a commercial driver's license. Now, how idiotic is that?" Attention drawn! We looked into who's wanting to impose such a mandate and found that such a proposal popped up this year in Illinois. But after the federal government declared last week that it does not plan new rules affecting farm vehicles, the Illinois plans were shelved, according to Guy Tridgell, a spokesman for the Illinois agency. "That issue is null and void," Tridgell told us ... Hours after he made the statement we're checking here, Perry told the Des Moines Register that he'd based his declaration on information from U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. "Senator Grassley, when I asked him about it last night, "I've got to go with your senior senator," Perry said. The newspaper said Perry's staff, "checking their BlackBerrys, said it might be a recent development that federal transportation officials dropped the idea." The newspaper said Grassley, referring to the federal announcement, wrote in an electronic newsletter last week that common sense had appeared to prevail in the matter. Far as we can tell, the regulation questioned by Perry hasn't even been proposed at the federal level. We rate his statement False.} . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 618 Registered: Mar-04 | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwtf4TsquE4 Hey Jan is Barry going to tell his old buddy from Chicago Louie to tone down the rhetoric ? Frank Marshall Davis, Farrakhan, Rev Wright, Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers are just some of Barrys friends and influences over the years... But I suppose is isn't "fair" to judge a man by the company he keeps these days. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 619 Registered: Mar-04 | I know Jan, as I said the facts are what you say they are... Prepare to be insulted if you wish to express a point of view not shared by President Obama. Agree with him, and he won't even hold it against you that you're a billionaire who owns a credit-rating agency. Mr. Obama's unique brand of political discernment was captured on film yesterday during a town hall event in Atkinson, Illinois. A farmer took his turn at the microphone and, after welcoming the President to town, said that drought conditions had made it an especially tough year in the Midwest. Then he said, "Please don't challenge us with more rules and regulations from Washington, D.C." He added that farmers liked to rise in the morning and start tending their fields, not their paperwork. Related Video Editorial writer Mary Kissel on how Obama's taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" would hurt the middle class. Also, Bartley Fellow Charlie Dameron on Texas Governor Rick Perry's liabilities as a GOP presidential candidate. Mr. Obama asked which rules the farmer had in mind, and the man responded that pending rules on noise pollution, dust pollution and water run-off were of concern. Was this a valuable opportunity for the President to discover more of those unnecessary rules that he claimed to be hunting down and eliminating last winter? No, Mr. Obama quickly made clear that he wasn't on a listening tour of the Midwest. He instructed the farmer, "If you hear something's happening, but it hasn't happened, don't always believe what you hear." He then described how lobbyists in Washington can mislead people like the farmer into thinking that ideas merely under discussion are about to become regulatory burdens. It must have been a thrill for the farmer to have the President tell him in public how he'd been duped and how little he knew about the regulations affecting his own business. More risible than rude was the President's comment that, "If we don't think there are more benefits than costs to [a rule], we're not going to do it." His own White House's recent report to Congress admitted that for most of the major rules the Obama Administration imposed on Americans in 2010, the government had failed to analyze both costs and benefits. Contrast this with the President's frequent approving mentions of billionaire Warren Buffett, who agrees with the White House that taxes should be raised on millions of people who make less than he does. Last week the President also happily quoted Mr. Buffett's dismissal of Standard & Poor's ratings downgrade without even mentioning that Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway owns a large stake in S&P's main competitor, Moody's. How progressive of Mr. Obama. He thinks one of the country's richest men is an oracle but small-town farmers are dopes who've been duped by special interests. The larger pattern is that Mr. Obama dismisses everything said by anyone engaged in profit-seeking business, except when the comments support his policies. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 620 Registered: Mar-04 | Schultz made a mistake.... intentionally editing footage to portray a man as a racist... Ok jan I guess that is just a mistake, much like his calling talk show host Laura Ingraham a 'right-wing sl*t'. Comcast has to start to right that ship because it is in sad shape. I don't see it happening as they have the Rev... al Sharpie as a host. "Comcast also is a key donor to Sharpton's main nonprofit conduit, National Action Network (NAN). So why isn't Comcast more open about its relationship with "the Rev?" It's a question that Comcast top brass aren't answering. " How about this Obama channel sycophant..... Was this just a mistake too, if so then I think we have a pattern of mistakes occurring at MSNBC aka the Obama channel. One day after trashing Rick Perry as "Bull Connor with a smile," MSNBC's Chris Matthews took the statement back. But he also trashed the Republican presidential nominee, saying he probably would have opposed racial integration of schools. The Hardball anchor played a clip of Barack Obama touting bipartisan acts from the late Dwight D. Eisenhower. Matthews brought up Eisenhower's role in desegregating public schools and spewed, "Do you think Rick Perry would be for that? Do you think he'd be cheering for Ike today if he brought the troops in to desegregate the schools in Little Rock? I don't think so!" Just another mistake huh..... Any evidence that Perry was opposed to integration or is Matthews' former boozing days catching up with him again... Wet brain does have it's downsides, what with all that boozing with Tip O'neill. After Giffords was shot I thought Barry told the folks to cool the rhetoric.... Quite original to paint the opposition as racist, intolerant, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or homophobic.... When you have no ideas and everything you have tried has failed (as it did before you) best to kneecap the opposition with the help of a weak and compliant media. So much for a post racial president, the man is too weak to push that forward. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16596 Registered: May-04 | . "Schultz made a mistake.... intentionally editing footage to portray a man as a racist... Ok jan I guess that is just a mistake .. " It's what Breitbart and O'Keefe do except they don't admit to it nor do they apologize. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406070. html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604145. html Because they say what you want to hear, you believe them, never ask for facts, make them heroes of the cause and then vilify Schultz. That's called hypocrisy. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-17-2011/indecision-2012---elephant- stampede-to-the-white-house---black-clouds---red-herrings . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 621 Registered: Mar-04 | You sound like Obama talking to that guy in Iowa. Don't address the issue at hand just point the finger elsewhere. Again the whole MSNBC news organization is in the tank for Barry. While that may be one thing, going about to smear others is another. You mean this Shirley Sherrod.... Why work when you can sue the government... What a joke, nothing Brietbart showed was not said by that creep. "But it's not the first time Sherrod faced off against the federal government. Days before she was appointed to the USDA post last year, her group reportedly won a $13 million settlement in a longstanding discrimination suit against the USDA known commonly as the Pigford case." O'keefe has done great work and I understand why you and your type would like to string him up. Several months later, the charges were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses.[58][59][60][61] The U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. told the defendants that "perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions."[62] When O'Keefe and the others pled guilty on May 26, they submitted a factual basis with their plea, claiming there was no "evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses", and the "defendants misrepresented themselves and their purpose to orchestrate a conversation about phone calls to Landrieu's staff and capture the conversation on video, not to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony."[59] The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana has filed a court document admitting that James O'Keefe did not intend to tamper with the phones at Mary Landrieu's office, or commit any other felony. In this case, further investigation did not uncover evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses despite their initial statements to the staff of Senatorial office and GSA requesting access to the central phone system. Instead, the Government's evidence would show that the defendants misrepresented themselves and their purpose for gaining access to the central phone system to orchestrate a conversation about phone calls to the Senator's staff and capture the conversation on video, not to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony. This news, which O'Connor relayed at the end of a post about Media Matters' dishonesty, is a significant piece of news that deserves its own post. It is especially noteworthy because this paragraph comes from a version of the facts that the Government has agreed to by way of stipulation. The document contains the following language showing the Government's agreement: Both the Government and the defendants, JOSEPH BASEL, STAN DAI, ROBERT FLANAGAN, and JAMES O'KEEFE, do hereby stipulate and agree that the above facts are true and that they set forth a sufficient factual basis for the crime to which the defendants are pleading guilty. |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 622 Registered: Mar-04 | Study finds significant pro-Democrat bias by PolitiFact by In the news Tuesday, February 22. 2011 PolitiFact Biased Study finds significant pro Democrat bias by PolitiFact by Dan Lucas Study finds PolitiFact rates Republican statements false 3 times the rate of Democrats A February 2011 study published by the University of Minnesotas Smart Politics news site, a part of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, finds a significant bias on the part of PolitiFact in favor of statements made by Democrats: That means a supermajority of falsehoods documented by PolitiFact over the last year 76 percent were attributed to Republicans, with just 22 percent of such statements coming from Democrats. A glance at the most recent PolitiFact ratings by the Oregonian would definitely support findings of a pro-Democrat bias. The University of Minnesotas Smart Politics study especially calls out how statements are selected by PolitiFact: there remains a fundamental question of which statements (by which politicians) are targeted for analysis in the first place. A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts. Smart Politics is a non-partisan political news site authored and founded in 2006 by Dr. Eric Ostermeier, a Research Associate at the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance (CSPG) at the University of Minnesotas Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16597 Registered: May-04 | . "One day after trashing Rick Perry as "Bull Connor with a smile," MSNBC's Chris Matthews took the statement back. But he also trashed the Republican presidential nominee, saying he probably would have opposed racial integration of schools. The Hardball anchor played a clip of Barack Obama touting bipartisan acts from the late Dwight D. Eisenhower. Matthews brought up Eisenhower's role in desegregating public schools and spewed, "Do you think Rick Perry would be for that? Do you think he'd be cheering for Ike today if he brought the troops in to desegregate the schools in Little Rock? I don't think so!" You seem to only know what the right wing media wants you to know about Perry. He is not a hero to minorities of any race, color, religion or preference in partners. He had out Tea Partied the actual TP candidate for governor last year by pushing far to the extreme right of even her positions. His appeal is to the far right wing, evangelical whites and to those wealthy individuals who can move his political career forward. (Steve) Perry Homes is his largest contributor though Governor GoodHair has lived in rented housing to the tune of $10K per month - tax payer money - instead of the dowdy ol' Texas governor's Mansion. Rick Perry though has been very good to Steve Perry and a dozen other large scale contributors. He draws the distincton between himself and GWB as one of Bush attending Ivy League schools while Perry went to Texas A&M - the photo of him in his cadets' uniform is quite scary. It's fair to say Perry wants to be known as not as bright as Bush - I don't think anyone in Texas would disagree. But when it comes to pay to play political cronyism - a GWB specialty, Perry is pretty much in a class by himself. Bush had Bob Bullock - a long time Democratic Lieutenant Gov. - to teach him how to play at being Governor of Texas. Perry has made it up as he has gone along with the help of underlings just as hungry for power and favor as he is. PERRY IS PEDDLING TEXAS SNAKE OIL Friday, June 24, 2011 | Posted by Jim Hightower http://jimhightower.com/node/7483 In 2006 Perry won the gubernatorial race with more than six out of ten votes going to other candidates. He has the TP lingo down and his speeches are rife with code words. To that we already have both Ron and Rand Paul - darlings both of the TP's - making it known they would repeal most of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-says-he-would-have-voted-against-the-1 964-civil-rights-act/ We also know most Repubs since Reagan and virtually all TP's want to eliminate the Dept of Education and return all control of schools to the states. For someone who has "joked" on several occasions about Texas seceding from the Union, I don't think it's at all a stretch to think Perry would not be in favor of any Federal laws which didn't politically work to his advantage in the next election or fund raising campaign. Federal intrusion into states' rights would include - by their own admission - any law which mandated integration or, more appropriately, did not allow for the rights of schools and businesses to refuse admission to any minority. This is the world of Objectivism which is being honored by Perry, the TP's and both Pauls. You have read Ayn Rand, haven't you? If Perry wishes to take on the mantle of the Libertarian/TP/get government off your backs candidate which is presently being held by Bachman, Santorum and Paul, then, yes, I would say Mathews' question is quite fair. Perry is extremely transparent in his motives, even more so after you've watched him work for almost twenty years. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16598 Registered: May-04 | .. Why are you even bothering with Perry? He doesn't stand a chance of being the Repub candidate and certainly not of defeating Obama if he's on the ticket in any way, shape or form. He's nothing more than another Trump with better hair. He's at the top of the current Repub polls because they don't have anyone they actually like running for the nomination. First it's Trump, then Cain, then Bachman, now Perry. Each one gets a little more outrageous than the last and the Repubs come flocking to them like hungry ducks running to the whacko, homeless guy tossing out popcorn by the handfuls. http://news.yahoo.com/7-most-controversial-rick-perry-moments-111400809.html Like him or not, the guy most likely to beat Obama only got 69 votes in Ames. You guys are screwed. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 623 Registered: Mar-04 | Actually Matthews question is what he does best, which is support the guy who gives him a thrill by being a guttersnipe towards his opponents. By the way what good has the Dept of Education done overall ? I agree with giving control of Education back to the states. To infer that doing so would support segregation or any such thing could only be the product of a mind (wet brain) like Matthews. The guy is a hack of the first order and I imagine you watch his show. Look you want to bash Ron Paul go ahead. The guy has NO chance at getting the nomination. His social/foreign policy is NOT conservative at all. Please Jan don't bring up the civil rights act because it paints YOUR party in less than a positive light. I see that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a swipe at Republicans this morning, comparing them to those who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for filibustering health reform legislation. Its worth remembering that the longest filibuster of the 1964 act was conducted by a still-sitting senator, Robert C. Byrd, who personally spoke against the legislation for 14 hours and 13 minutes on June 9 & 10, 1964. Heres an extract from my book, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Partys Buried Past, which was published last year. The enormous desire to memorialize the senseless murder of John F. Kennedy, plus Johnsons determination to demonstrate his power and purge his own racist past by getting a substantive civil rights bill through the Senate, proved a formidable combination. The long filibuster of 1964 was only delaying the inevitable. That all the participants knew this only goes to show how deep their racism was. Its one thing to engage in a filibuster if there is even a glimmer of hope that something might be salvaged as a result. But serious commitment is required to take such action when one knows that ultimate failure is the only conceivable outcome. This fact should be kept in mind when thinking about people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, whose individual filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill is the second longest in history, taking up eighty-six pages of fine print in the Congressional Record. Only a true believer would ever undertake such a futile effort. Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the yea votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the nay votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed,In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year. A similar story is told in the Senate. On the critical vote to end the filibuster by Southern Democrats, 71 senators voted to invoke cloture. With 67 votes needed, 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans joined together to bring the bill to a final vote. Of those voting nay, 80 percent were Democrats, including Robert C. Byrd and former Vice President Al Gores father, who was then a senator from Tennessee. Again, it is clear that the civil rights bill would have failed without Republican votes. Close observers of the Senate deliberations recognized that the Republican leader, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, had done yeoman work in responding to the objections of individual Republicans and holding almost all of them together in support of the bill. More than any other single individual, the New York Times acknowledged, he was responsible for getting the civil rights bill through the Senate. |