The revelations of the past few days has shed more light on Mr. Romney. I will admit that I don't like the guy for a variety of reasons.
Tonight's 'interviews' only tend to prove beyond any doubt that this man has his secrets, he will justify everything and is in denial over his past statements regarding Bain. There is no doubt now that he and his campaign staff have decided to play the deflection game because if he exposed the truth, the damage would be worse than not admitting to what he actually did. As long as there is no definitive proof, a smoking gun other than what we already know, he can deny anything and everything and accuse others of speculating.
The question we all must ask ourselves is simply this. Given the secrecy of his past and his unwillingness to produce his tax returns, this should give us pause. Can we trust this man with the fate of 330 million people? Are his other qualifications and other possible intangibles overpowering enough to over ride common sense? I think not. He may claim to know how to fix the economy based upon his business experience, but his whole experience is making a profit. Not job creation, but creating wealth. This is not the President's job, to create wealth. This is all he knows. Government is not a business. Government cannot be run like a business. Imagine 535 members of a board of directors and him trying to accomplish what HE wants. This is not the way the real world works.
The biggest concern we have is simple. Given his propensity for going with the flow means he will succumb to the pressures of the Tea Baggers, just like Mr. Boehner. This is his pattern. To this day, he will flip flop on any subject. Look what happened with the penalty/tax issue of just last week. His whole Presidency will be just like this. He will go with the flow for political expediency.
Is this really the man we want in the White House?
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
President Romney's first week in office....
The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years.
As a recap, what has happened in the last week.
The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things.
A 20% increase in the defense budget.
The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration.
Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level.
The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states.
Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources.
As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed.
Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections.
To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated.
The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue.
There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.
The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President.
And this is just the beginning.......
As a recap, what has happened in the last week.
The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things.
A 20% increase in the defense budget.
The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration.
Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level.
The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states.
Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources.
As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed.
Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections.
To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated.
The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue.
There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.
The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President.
And this is just the beginning.......
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Is the Occupy movement doomed?
The Occupy movement is the latest rant to come to not only America, but it seems the world. We have seen this all before, we have just forgotten or fail to recognize it for what it is. The Occupy movement is nothing more than a Neo-Marxist operation. The only difference between then and now is that they have no central leader. Not having a voice in the guise of a charismatic leader is what will doom them. Oh, I know, there are those who say it's not Marxist or Communist or Socialist at all. Maybe this is a hint...
Of course, there are no similarities at all. Marx called the working class, the Proletariat. In the Soviet Union, they had the Party Congress, where the Proletariat voted on issues, the Occupy has the General Assembly, where the Proletariat 'votes' on issues.
Lets look at some parts of the Soviet Constitution....
The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.
Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves: For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that s Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.
The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.
Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.
The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.
The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.
It is clear that the Soviets took the throw the baby out with the bath water approach to change. One thing is clear from both the Marxist and Occupy movement is the concept of 'exploitation of man by man'. This is the basis for Marxism and the Occupy movement, the system we have today is so flawed that only drastic change will do.
The same thing happened in Cuba, the lack of a middle class, the gulf between rich and poor so wide.
We should be wary of the Occupy movement, we should also be on the look out for an emerging leader who will bring all the different assemblies together to form a Central Committee. Only then will their power be consolidated and we should have plenty to worry about.
Of course, there are no similarities at all. Marx called the working class, the Proletariat. In the Soviet Union, they had the Party Congress, where the Proletariat voted on issues, the Occupy has the General Assembly, where the Proletariat 'votes' on issues.
Lets look at some parts of the Soviet Constitution....
The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.
Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves: For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that s Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.
The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.
Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.
The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.
The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.
It is clear that the Soviets took the throw the baby out with the bath water approach to change. One thing is clear from both the Marxist and Occupy movement is the concept of 'exploitation of man by man'. This is the basis for Marxism and the Occupy movement, the system we have today is so flawed that only drastic change will do.
The same thing happened in Cuba, the lack of a middle class, the gulf between rich and poor so wide.
We should be wary of the Occupy movement, we should also be on the look out for an emerging leader who will bring all the different assemblies together to form a Central Committee. Only then will their power be consolidated and we should have plenty to worry about.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Propaganda and Hate, are you are you as sick of it as much as I am?
For the last year I have been compelled to do battle with those extremists on the right as well as the left. Dr. Goebbels would be more than proud with the multiple propaganda machines in play, Hitler himself coined the phrase, "when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." ".
There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's.
As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.
On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven.
For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe.
Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.
Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact.
Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!
How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?
Now for some political crap.
Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%.
Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill.
Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.
Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists.
Repeal Obamacare.
No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills.
Same sex marriage.
Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?
Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.
False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion.
I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe.
There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's.
As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.
On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven.
For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe.
Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.
Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact.
Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!
How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?
Now for some political crap.
Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%.
Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill.
Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.
Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists.
Repeal Obamacare.
No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills.
Same sex marriage.
Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?
Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.
False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion.
I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
After Iowa
The Iowa caucus finished tonight with 3 leaders. Of the three, only one generally appreciates the responsibility of be President of all of us. The other two are extremist ideologues who have a very narrow moral view and agenda not shared by mainstream America. One must remember, this is a secular nation, with laws created by Congress. It is not the place of a President to wage a religious war upon this nation. It is common knowledge that the term 'family values' is a code phrase for the extremist views of right wing Christians, who wish to foist their values and morality upon the rest of us, to deny us our rights as Americans to choose our own values.
If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.
It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.
What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?
Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?
So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.
As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.
The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.
I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?
If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.
It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.
What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?
Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?
So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.
As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.
The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.
I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Concentration Camps being built in the US as we speak.
For the last few weeks we have been told that the Defense Authorization Bill includes a section which allows for the detention of American citizens, without charge, due process and habeas corpus. I have been frustrated to no end because I have actually read the bill and the section in question and by any rational standard, there is no such language, in simple fact, does just the opposite. For simplicity sake, I will provide here the actual text of the relevant sections AND the anchor law in effect by which sets the standard for ANY detention.
Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.
As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.
As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
- (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the
authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered
persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war.
- (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
- (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.
- (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
- (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include
the following:
- (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.
- (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of
Public Law 111-84)).
- (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
- (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign
entity.
- (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to
limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
- (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or
any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
- (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of
Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for
purposes of subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
- (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4),
the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in
paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
- (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section
1031 who is determined--
- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the
direction of al-Qaeda; and
- (B) to have participated in the course of planning
or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States
or its coalition partners.
- (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the
meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless
consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
- (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of
Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph
(1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that
such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United
States.
- (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States.
- (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to a
lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by
the Constitution of the United States.
- (c) Implementation Procedures-
- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to
Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
- (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
- (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized
to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which
such determinations are to be made.
- (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United
States.
- (C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the
conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the
determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such
ongoing session.
- (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the
custody of a third country.
- (E) Procedures providing that a certification of
national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for
the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if
such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not
otherwise be accomplished.
- (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who
are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United
States on or after that effective date.
- Here is public law 107-40 which serves as the anchor for this section.
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
- Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
A thought about the Tea Party
The Tea Party movement seems to have started in 2009. By it's nature it is a conservative based group or if you will, groups. Some consider it extremist, up until a few moments ago I did to. I suppose I should start at the beginning to bring my thoughts into context.
In 2009 we had just elected the first African American President, we had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. When Mr. Obama took office, the economy was in the toilet. We were losing 900,000 jobs a MONTH. We were paying for 2 unfunded wars. TARP had been approved to bailout Wall Street. The housing market had collapsed, GM and Chrysler were going under. The trillions in deficit spending added to the deficit Mr. Bush inherited. In part the new spending was exacerbated by tax cuts for the wealthy and big business approved by a Republican led administration. When Mr. Bush took office, he had a $273B budget SURPLUS. In the next 8 years, unfunded mandates, tax breaks, 2 off budget wars and additional pet project spending all producing a total of 8 million jobs compared to the 22 million created during the 8 years of Clinton and an additional $4T in debt. Oddly enough, had Bush not instituted the tax breaks and left things alone, the projected surpluses would have paid for that $4T debt. He would have been revenue neutral. So when Mr. Obama took office, he was already saddled with a budget deficit and monstrous debt and a floundering economy.
Enter the Tea Baggers as they were originally called, by themselves. Once it was revealed that the term was pornographic in nature, the Tea Party was 'formed'.
I can appreciate the frustration of some segments of our society. We are stuck with a two party system, and old boy network totally entrenched and beholden to the powers of wealth and influence. Neither party is immune to this accusation. One party spends money like there is no tomorrow, cuts taxes, less regulation telling us that it's good for America. The other party spends money on social programs, maintains taxes, more regulation and tells us it's good for America. Both parties have their agendas and we are not actually part of the equation unless we stand up to them. The problem with standing up to them is that we as people only have the power of the voting booth. Everyone else has cash.
The Tea Party started as a grass roots effort to make a certain segment of our society heard. Many Americans agreed that change must come as this is not just a conservative or liberal issue. If one is ignored, all are, hence the Tea Party. People who did not want to be ignored anymore. As with any rabble (I use this term kindly), leadership is necessary. It is not surprising that career politicians and special interest groups saw an opening. I won't go so far as to say that race was the only motivation, but it definitely is a part of the movement. I suppose the Republican establishment found themselves in Lord Cornwallis shoes when he found himself trapped by the Continental Army in Yorktown, backed up by the French fleet, when he surrendered, the British Army played, 'The World Turned Upside Down". The extreme right took advantage of the failure of the mainstream party to win the White House and found an ally in the new Tea Party. The extremist right found a new base and provided them with extremist candidates to run and speak for them. It was amazing how all of a sudden a disparate group had leadership, campaign financing and candidates, all in the name of the Tea Party. The Tea Party no longer was a grass roots group, it was now a launching pad for the extremist right.
So now we have Tea Party associated Republicans in the House and Senate. I would say this is a miracle. In only a year or so, go from nothing but a bunch of folks with placards, to the most influential and destructive force in the US Congress. How could this have happened without some very powerful and influential force behind it? At first, the Tea Party went after Democrats to weaken a black President, now as of today, there are statements from at least two different national sources, stating with pride how they took down the Democrats and now if they don't get their way, the Republicans are next. An acquaintance of mine just yesterday, who happens to be a Tea Party supporter was ranting about how weak Boehner is as well as the Republican party, that are next. Was it coincidence? There have been rumblings in the House this weak, the threats made to mainstream Republicans by Tea Party folks.
Recent events is some states has indicated an extremist plan is play. Tax breaks for business and wealthy all on the backs of working people and their families, Tea Party families included. Cuts to education being some of the biggest cuts. Changing rules and laws which have been in place for years, denying peoples rights. On the Federal level, a law requiring the IRS to ask if anyone in your house has ever had an abortion? Or denying food stamps to a family who may have a member on strike, but if you get fired for doing drugs on the job, it's okay. Is this what the Tea Party was originally all about? Does the original idea about the Tea party include tax breaks and subsidies for businesses making large profits? Did the original idea include 60 kids to a classroom? Does the Tea Party really want all public employees in Florida subjected to mandatory drug tests every 3 months? What happened to smaller government? Shared sacrifice, more jobs?
I am afraid the Tea Party movement is being used for a biggest bait and switch scheme ever perpetrated. For example, we would all like smaller government and reduced spending, laudable goals for sure. Here is a reality check. Even if the government were to cut ALL discretionary spending, basically shutting down ALL government services, we would still have a $1T deficit to deal with. Now, the people who hijacked the Tea Party know this. So what do they do? They come up with an idea to slash $100B from this years budget, again a good idea, if it were practical. So what do they do? Target specific programs the extremist right has been trying to get rid of for decades, but were unable to do so until now. The plan all along has never been to actually reduce the deficit or debt, this is their battle cry to keep the faithful in line, but the reality is much more insidious.
Talking points aren't coming from a vacuum. The TP (Hijacked) is now being 'run' by paid for politcos who have their own agenda under the TP label. Sadly the original intent of the TP has been lost. The message is now being proffered by the TP (Hijacked). The original hopes for change have been convoluted by the power brokers who before the Tea Party had no hope for effecting the change they wanted. The real power behind the TP (Hijacked) is clearly big business and the religious right. Take a look at some of the riders placed upon bills in Congress, or laws being passed in the states. Defunding EPA, to send us back to the days of no regulation, polluted rivers and skies, toxic dump sites. The issue of Global Warming has been the hot potato, but the TP (Hijacked) claims that EPA is trying to 'backdoor' the Cap and Trade bill. This is totally false. What the TP (Hijacked) knows all too well, but refuses to admit is that EPA has been under SCOTUS order to come up with rules regarding the regulation of GHG, the court ruling that EPA has the constitutional authority to regulate GHG. But try to explain this to a TP (Hijacked) member is a total waste of time. It is unbelievable to me that even when faced with facts, the standard practice for a TP (Hijacked) believer is total silence. SILENCE is ALWAYS their response. I suspect the reason why is that they really do not expect anyone to actually challenge them. I was actually blocked from posting to FreedomWorks Facebook page because I would provide evidence that the TP (Hijacked) was putting out false information. After dozens of attempts on my part break through, silence was always the response. Unless they have talking points, they say nothing. The latest tactic is for them to tell you to 'forget the past'. Everything is Mr. Obama's fault because he is President now, what Mr. Bush did was in the past and isn't relevant. Scary thought indeed.
In 2009 we had just elected the first African American President, we had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. When Mr. Obama took office, the economy was in the toilet. We were losing 900,000 jobs a MONTH. We were paying for 2 unfunded wars. TARP had been approved to bailout Wall Street. The housing market had collapsed, GM and Chrysler were going under. The trillions in deficit spending added to the deficit Mr. Bush inherited. In part the new spending was exacerbated by tax cuts for the wealthy and big business approved by a Republican led administration. When Mr. Bush took office, he had a $273B budget SURPLUS. In the next 8 years, unfunded mandates, tax breaks, 2 off budget wars and additional pet project spending all producing a total of 8 million jobs compared to the 22 million created during the 8 years of Clinton and an additional $4T in debt. Oddly enough, had Bush not instituted the tax breaks and left things alone, the projected surpluses would have paid for that $4T debt. He would have been revenue neutral. So when Mr. Obama took office, he was already saddled with a budget deficit and monstrous debt and a floundering economy.
Enter the Tea Baggers as they were originally called, by themselves. Once it was revealed that the term was pornographic in nature, the Tea Party was 'formed'.
I can appreciate the frustration of some segments of our society. We are stuck with a two party system, and old boy network totally entrenched and beholden to the powers of wealth and influence. Neither party is immune to this accusation. One party spends money like there is no tomorrow, cuts taxes, less regulation telling us that it's good for America. The other party spends money on social programs, maintains taxes, more regulation and tells us it's good for America. Both parties have their agendas and we are not actually part of the equation unless we stand up to them. The problem with standing up to them is that we as people only have the power of the voting booth. Everyone else has cash.
The Tea Party started as a grass roots effort to make a certain segment of our society heard. Many Americans agreed that change must come as this is not just a conservative or liberal issue. If one is ignored, all are, hence the Tea Party. People who did not want to be ignored anymore. As with any rabble (I use this term kindly), leadership is necessary. It is not surprising that career politicians and special interest groups saw an opening. I won't go so far as to say that race was the only motivation, but it definitely is a part of the movement. I suppose the Republican establishment found themselves in Lord Cornwallis shoes when he found himself trapped by the Continental Army in Yorktown, backed up by the French fleet, when he surrendered, the British Army played, 'The World Turned Upside Down". The extreme right took advantage of the failure of the mainstream party to win the White House and found an ally in the new Tea Party. The extremist right found a new base and provided them with extremist candidates to run and speak for them. It was amazing how all of a sudden a disparate group had leadership, campaign financing and candidates, all in the name of the Tea Party. The Tea Party no longer was a grass roots group, it was now a launching pad for the extremist right.
So now we have Tea Party associated Republicans in the House and Senate. I would say this is a miracle. In only a year or so, go from nothing but a bunch of folks with placards, to the most influential and destructive force in the US Congress. How could this have happened without some very powerful and influential force behind it? At first, the Tea Party went after Democrats to weaken a black President, now as of today, there are statements from at least two different national sources, stating with pride how they took down the Democrats and now if they don't get their way, the Republicans are next. An acquaintance of mine just yesterday, who happens to be a Tea Party supporter was ranting about how weak Boehner is as well as the Republican party, that are next. Was it coincidence? There have been rumblings in the House this weak, the threats made to mainstream Republicans by Tea Party folks.
Recent events is some states has indicated an extremist plan is play. Tax breaks for business and wealthy all on the backs of working people and their families, Tea Party families included. Cuts to education being some of the biggest cuts. Changing rules and laws which have been in place for years, denying peoples rights. On the Federal level, a law requiring the IRS to ask if anyone in your house has ever had an abortion? Or denying food stamps to a family who may have a member on strike, but if you get fired for doing drugs on the job, it's okay. Is this what the Tea Party was originally all about? Does the original idea about the Tea party include tax breaks and subsidies for businesses making large profits? Did the original idea include 60 kids to a classroom? Does the Tea Party really want all public employees in Florida subjected to mandatory drug tests every 3 months? What happened to smaller government? Shared sacrifice, more jobs?
I am afraid the Tea Party movement is being used for a biggest bait and switch scheme ever perpetrated. For example, we would all like smaller government and reduced spending, laudable goals for sure. Here is a reality check. Even if the government were to cut ALL discretionary spending, basically shutting down ALL government services, we would still have a $1T deficit to deal with. Now, the people who hijacked the Tea Party know this. So what do they do? They come up with an idea to slash $100B from this years budget, again a good idea, if it were practical. So what do they do? Target specific programs the extremist right has been trying to get rid of for decades, but were unable to do so until now. The plan all along has never been to actually reduce the deficit or debt, this is their battle cry to keep the faithful in line, but the reality is much more insidious.
Talking points aren't coming from a vacuum. The TP (Hijacked) is now being 'run' by paid for politcos who have their own agenda under the TP label. Sadly the original intent of the TP has been lost. The message is now being proffered by the TP (Hijacked). The original hopes for change have been convoluted by the power brokers who before the Tea Party had no hope for effecting the change they wanted. The real power behind the TP (Hijacked) is clearly big business and the religious right. Take a look at some of the riders placed upon bills in Congress, or laws being passed in the states. Defunding EPA, to send us back to the days of no regulation, polluted rivers and skies, toxic dump sites. The issue of Global Warming has been the hot potato, but the TP (Hijacked) claims that EPA is trying to 'backdoor' the Cap and Trade bill. This is totally false. What the TP (Hijacked) knows all too well, but refuses to admit is that EPA has been under SCOTUS order to come up with rules regarding the regulation of GHG, the court ruling that EPA has the constitutional authority to regulate GHG. But try to explain this to a TP (Hijacked) member is a total waste of time. It is unbelievable to me that even when faced with facts, the standard practice for a TP (Hijacked) believer is total silence. SILENCE is ALWAYS their response. I suspect the reason why is that they really do not expect anyone to actually challenge them. I was actually blocked from posting to FreedomWorks Facebook page because I would provide evidence that the TP (Hijacked) was putting out false information. After dozens of attempts on my part break through, silence was always the response. Unless they have talking points, they say nothing. The latest tactic is for them to tell you to 'forget the past'. Everything is Mr. Obama's fault because he is President now, what Mr. Bush did was in the past and isn't relevant. Scary thought indeed.
What has actually hurt the country is the fact the TP (Hijacked) has prevented any semblance of a jobs bill from coming forward. They want to clear their plate for all of their pet peeves before they start governing. The Republicans are being held hostage by the TP (Hijacked) and there isn't anything they can do about it, except give in.
The latest polls show a 32% approval rating for the Tea Party thanks to the TP (Hijacked). It's too late to close the barn door after the horse got out. It was a great idea. It will die in 2012.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Extremist Right Wingers
Today I was blocked by FreedomWorks Facebook page. Guess the idea of trying to have a conversation with the extremist right wing is against their policy. To set the record straight, I was not abusive towards anyone. All I tried to do was correct the falsehoods and outright lies and propaganda being published by FreedomWorks.
I used widely available facts to support my argument against the rantings of the extreme right. I had camped out on the DC's page and ran into the same mentality. I disassociated myself from the DC voluntarily when it was clear, that nothing I could say or prove with irrefutable facts was going to make a difference to the vast majority there.
This all started out as a sort of investigation into the extremist right wing mindset. I was curious as to what made them tick, what their motivations are. In short, I found these people racist, uneducated, myopic ideologues. Not surprisingly they see anyone who does not blindly subscribe to their ideology as a leftist, libtard, progressive, socialist, communist, Marxist or in the case of a recognized Republican, a RINO.
The majority believe our President is a Muslim, a communist, a socialist. They say he should be impeached.
I took three basic approaches to see if I could find a break though. 1) I would try to educate folks to the facts. 2) I would ask them to provide alternative solutions to the issues we face as a nation (when there was an answer it was always the same, impeach) 3) I would ask them to elaborate or provide some proof to support their argument.
Education: One example would be with regards to EPA and Cap and Trade. The extremist right wing believes that EPA is unconstitutionally trying to enforce Cap and Trade through the 'back door'. Here is the truth they absolutely refused to accept, which I think is the reason why I was banned. In 2007 the SCOTUS ruled that EPA has the authority to regulate green house gases (GHG) and instructed the Bush appointed EPA administrator to promulgate rules for enforcement. After nearly 4 years of public hearings and industry input, the rules were published and went into force last January. The argument the extreme rightists make is that we will be taxed and make energy more expensive and will bankrupt small business. This is totally false. In a nutshell the rules are as follows: Permits will be issued by the states for new large polluting plants, such as, power plants..etc. Permits will also be issued if an existing polluter makes major modification to their plants. There is no mandatory retrofitting. Specifically excluded from the permits are small business. Now, I am no tree hugger, but these rules seem reasonable to me. The Republicans have a bill pending to strip EPA of the authority, specifically related to GHG. We all know the Senate and President will NOT approve it, so do they. The thing is, nothing what the extremists are saying is true in any shape or form.
Alternative solutions: I will use the insanity in Wisconsin as this example. As we all know, WI had a budget surplus of $123M at the end of January. Walker called a special session and instituted 4 laws giving tax breaks to business and wealthy. In doing so he ended up with a $140M deficit. To pay for the tax cuts he asked the public employees to pay more of their health care and pensions. I did not think this was fair, if we believe in shared sacrifice. I suggested the better way to go was to give tax breaks equaling the surplus, then work on across the board cuts, not targeting specific groups. Of course, when I mentioned that..all hell broke loose. Get rid of the unions was the mantra. So I asked the question, if you were Governor, what would you do to deal with the deficit? The answer....get rid of the unions. That's it. Over and over again, it's all about unions. I asked the question, if WI got rid of all the unions, what would that solve? How would that balance the budget? The answer? Get rid of the unions. It's like listening to a broken record. When I suggested that by taking between $4 and 9K of take home pay away from 200,000 people, it will certainly impact their purchasing power, sales tax revenue will drop and so will income from income taxes as those dollars are pre-tax dollars. Fiscal insanity. of course, the rant about unions continued. It's enough to piss off the Pope.
Proof: When someone would make an outrageous claim, such as...say that Americare is socialist medicine, government run healthcare, I would ask them to substantiate their claim. Silence. Virtually every time I would ask a person to elaborate on their statement, silence. If a person wanted impeachment, I would ask, what crime has he committed? Silence. Backroom deals? What backroom deals are you talking about? Silence.
To be fair though, not all people who go there are this way. There are a few who will have a discussion with you and both learn from each other.
I did offer an olive branch of sorts in the form of a suggestion. I postulated this theory.
The first warning is the fact there are no credible Republican candidates for President. The reasoning is simple. Any Republican will have to an extremist or the Tea Parties will reject them. That person will have to run against both the Tea Parties and a sitting President. This guarantees a landslide of biblical proportions for Mr. Obama. My suggestion to the extremists is this, tone down the rhetoric. The response? Of course..impeach Obama.
And then there is Americare (Obamacare). Their logic escapes me. If you mention the fact if they drive they have to carry auto insurance by law or pay the price for it. Silence. They don't like the mandate that uninsured people who could buy their own and won't. I would ask, so your saying that if an uninsured 30 something, with a decent job shows up at a hospital with a broken arm from playing softball, can get treatment and walk away with the hospital, government, state, insurance companies and employees future pay raises footing the bill? This is a matter of personal responsibility and the rest of us should not have to pay for their irresponsibility. We are paying for it now, all we are doing with the mandate is shifting the financial burden to the individual who receives treatment, where it should be. So why should a deadbeat not pay for their own health care? I don't get it.
Okay, enough for my rant for the day.
Merry meet ya'll.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Job killing Health Care Law?
I really love this one. Republicans are using a label to 'sell' their justification for repealing the health care law, passed by BOTH Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States of America. Job Killing is actually in the title of this bill. I am curious, what jobs are being killed? If you take a look at your local newspaper, you will see in INCREASE in job opportunities for the health care field. Why is that I wonder. Is it because the new law requires insurors (not the government) to provide wellness benefits at no extra charge. This means there will be a great need for these types of practicioners. Another benefit for compelling people to pay their own way, by purchasing their own insurance instead of taking advantage of emergency rooms is that they will now be able to see a doctor before a more serious problem pops up. Does that mean we will need more doctors or NP's? You bet. 40+million more insured will also require insurance companies to hire more people as well. A simple by product will also be we will be a healthier nation, increasing productivity in the workplace.
Now, the question I have is, what jobs are being killed? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest jobs being lost. In fact, the teeth of the new law doesn't take effect for another couple of years. The CBO, which BOTH parties have agreed to use as an arbiter in such issues states that over the next 20 years will save over a trillion dollars. So, the deficit is reduced as a side benefit. Where do these savings come from? Well, as it stands now, anyone who goes to the Emergency Room MUST be treated whether they have insurance or not. Why, because the Federal government mandates that if the hospital accepts Federal money, they cannot turn you away. Now, if virtually everyone is insured, the Federal government, insurance companies and states don't have to foot the bill. Who pays now? WE DO, in higher insurance costs, hospital costs and taxes.
Personally, I would like to see Medicare for all, such as with the Medicare Advantage plans. These plans are run as a public/private sector operation. The system is already in place. Everyone pays a premium, based mostly on where they live, but there is a base rate everyone is charged and you have the option to add or deduct benefits. Certainly this is less confusing. The best part is that it comes through payroll deduction and the costs are balanced over the entire nation rather than by state. This what is called the 'public option'.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Obama caves !!!
For three years now I have been an unquestioned supporter of Mr. Obama, until today.
I am not the smartest guy. I am not a politician or economist or a lawyer. I am not rich. I am disabled and a Vietnam Vet. I never made more than $32,000 a year in my life. I am just a regular person. No one special. I am a lifelong registered Republican.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest persons make no fiscal sense. This was personal income, not corporate taxes. We as a nation cannot afford these tax cuts and they have NO bearing on job creation since they are PERSONAL income tax cuts.
The President caved in to the Republicans who held the unemployed hostage. This was just plain wrong.
I can only hope and pray that Congress does not go along with this disaster. Maybe Mr. Obama will grow a backbone, recognize this is wrong and veto the bill.
Mr. Obama, please..stand up for the 98% of us who have already gone on record that this is just plain wrong and unfair.
I am not the smartest guy. I am not a politician or economist or a lawyer. I am not rich. I am disabled and a Vietnam Vet. I never made more than $32,000 a year in my life. I am just a regular person. No one special. I am a lifelong registered Republican.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest persons make no fiscal sense. This was personal income, not corporate taxes. We as a nation cannot afford these tax cuts and they have NO bearing on job creation since they are PERSONAL income tax cuts.
The President caved in to the Republicans who held the unemployed hostage. This was just plain wrong.
I can only hope and pray that Congress does not go along with this disaster. Maybe Mr. Obama will grow a backbone, recognize this is wrong and veto the bill.
Mr. Obama, please..stand up for the 98% of us who have already gone on record that this is just plain wrong and unfair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)