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 Tea Bagger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Bagger. 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.......
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?
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Sitting in my underwear, in my basement..blogging
Not really, I have no basement. Basements in coastal South Texas are probably not good ideas, besides after four heart attacks I am trying to stay above the ground.
The title came from a statement Michael Steele made tonight on The Last Word, with Melissa Harris-Perry filing in. Perry started the segment on a subject near and dear to the hearts of many on Facebook who subscribe to any philosophy other than the Tea Bagger phenomenon. Perry, was speaking of the unsubstantiated 'facts' being bandied about by extremists, presumably the right wing of the GOP. Steele agreed with her assessment, that it has gone too far. As much as I wanted to like the argument being made, it was clear that they were just scratching the surface and the presumption the 'push back' as Steele applauded would help resolve the problem. As we already know, all push back does is create silence in absence of an appropriate 'talking point'.
The real issue as I see it is exposure. As long as candidates and elected politicians make stupid, ignorant statements they will get their 15 minutes of fame, sometimes in 15 minute blocks. If you have a fly in your home, you break out a fly swatter or a can of Raid. In the case of a politician, we have the power of the vote.
We can continue to listen and shake our heads, we voice our opinion and sometimes outrage. In the long term this to me is a waste of time. We will never agree with each other. There can be no compromise. The battle lines have been drawn. 10% are Tea Baggers on the right and 20% are Progressives on the left. This leaves 70% of the rest of us left to relative obscurity. A silent majority? The Presidency is not in question, given the current political climate, there is no chance a GOP candidate can beat Mr. Obama.
What can and should be done is the removal from office of every single member of Congress in 2012. The effort must be made to get out the vote. I could care less who is elected in the long run because three things will happen if they are gone. 1) The entire power base in government will be destroyed. 2) Idealism will replace ideology. The lobbyists will be rendered useless for months, if not years. 3) The message will be sent to all, do the peoples bidding or you will be replaced too. I would rather have 435 incompetent's representing the people than 435 incompetents serving everyone but.
Pay no attention to the ads. Pay no attention to the lies. Both sides lie. Pick a candidate who is not in office now. If no one runs, urge someone you know to run. If the Tea Baggers can do it, so can anyone. This is no time to be silent. This is time for action, time for us to use the one power we have as people to make change, the vote.
The title came from a statement Michael Steele made tonight on The Last Word, with Melissa Harris-Perry filing in. Perry started the segment on a subject near and dear to the hearts of many on Facebook who subscribe to any philosophy other than the Tea Bagger phenomenon. Perry, was speaking of the unsubstantiated 'facts' being bandied about by extremists, presumably the right wing of the GOP. Steele agreed with her assessment, that it has gone too far. As much as I wanted to like the argument being made, it was clear that they were just scratching the surface and the presumption the 'push back' as Steele applauded would help resolve the problem. As we already know, all push back does is create silence in absence of an appropriate 'talking point'.
The real issue as I see it is exposure. As long as candidates and elected politicians make stupid, ignorant statements they will get their 15 minutes of fame, sometimes in 15 minute blocks. If you have a fly in your home, you break out a fly swatter or a can of Raid. In the case of a politician, we have the power of the vote.
We can continue to listen and shake our heads, we voice our opinion and sometimes outrage. In the long term this to me is a waste of time. We will never agree with each other. There can be no compromise. The battle lines have been drawn. 10% are Tea Baggers on the right and 20% are Progressives on the left. This leaves 70% of the rest of us left to relative obscurity. A silent majority? The Presidency is not in question, given the current political climate, there is no chance a GOP candidate can beat Mr. Obama.
What can and should be done is the removal from office of every single member of Congress in 2012. The effort must be made to get out the vote. I could care less who is elected in the long run because three things will happen if they are gone. 1) The entire power base in government will be destroyed. 2) Idealism will replace ideology. The lobbyists will be rendered useless for months, if not years. 3) The message will be sent to all, do the peoples bidding or you will be replaced too. I would rather have 435 incompetent's representing the people than 435 incompetents serving everyone but.
Pay no attention to the ads. Pay no attention to the lies. Both sides lie. Pick a candidate who is not in office now. If no one runs, urge someone you know to run. If the Tea Baggers can do it, so can anyone. This is no time to be silent. This is time for action, time for us to use the one power we have as people to make change, the vote.
TOSS THE 435 IN 2012 - VOTE - NO EXCUSES
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, December 9, 2010
Republican Tax Breaks for the wealthy?
Okay, someone explain this to me in simple terms. When the Repubs were asked to vote for extending unemployment bennies, they said NO, not unless there were offsets, in other words, they had to be paid for without affecting the deficit. The Repubs ranted on about the stimulus law, that it increased the deficit and would produce NO new jobs. Well, it did create or save millions of jobs, clearly it worked, but still the issue of the increased deficit is what they ran on before the last election. Repubs promised to fight for spending reductions and lower taxes to match. When given the opportunity to partially resolve the tax and spend issues with PayGo, which 7 Repub Senators co-sponsored, those 7 Senators would not vote for their own bill. I have heard NOTHING from the Tea Baggers on this latest debacle. Now the Repubs are signing off on tax breaks for not only those making less than $250K in PERSONAL, not corporate income, but for those who fared very well with the tax breaks for the uber wealthy. What makes no sense is this. If they would not sign off unemployment bennies without offsets, why is it okay now? They would not sign off on any spending without offsets, yet now they are willing to do so to the tune of $700B over the next 2 years! This $700B adds to the deficit they want to reduce. A deficit they blamed Mr. Obama for and now they are willing to add to it. I am totally confused. How can you run an election on reducing the deficit, to reduce spending and to have offsets and then turn around and do exactly what they blames the Dems for? They railed against the bank bailouts and the auto maker bailouts, both of which have been successful.
Someone explain this to me so I can understand.
Someone explain this to me so I can understand.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Election Day 2010, A Silver Lining?
The 2004 Presidential election baffled not only me but the rest of the world as well, the only people who weren't were Americans. How can you explain 68 million people re-electing a man who by every standard should have been denied a second term because of his invasion of Iraq after manipulating the American people into believing this was a just war. Remember, Congress did not declare war, the President used the War Powers Act to invade Iraq.
Watching the Rachel Maddow show last week from Alaska vindicated my opinion that we really are a nation of fools and idiots, at least those Americans who are pushing the Tea Bag agenda. There were several people holding up Joe Miller signs, asking people to get out to vote in Anchorage. Joe Miller is the Republican nominee for Senate from Alaska. Mr. Miller is also a Tea Bagger. Mr. Miller has admitted that throughout his career as an attorney, specifically the Borough of Fairbanks, he used borough computers for personal use and tried to cover his tracks. These are minor issues, but it should go to the character of this man. Apparently not in Alaska. Two of the people holding signs were asked a simple question, "Why are you supporting Joe Miller?". The one response totally floored me. The respondent said he was against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US. He said that Mr. Holder and the Obama Administration wanted to take away their guns. When pressed, he went on to add that through out his political career Mr. Holder has voted for gun controls. When the respondent was told that Mr. Holder has never held political office, the respondent finally admitted he knew nothing about Mr. Holder and the issue of taking away gun rights. Now, not only did the man not have ANY facts correct, he also failed to appreciate the fact that a vote for or against Mr. Miller would have no impact on his second amendment rights. What could any politician do with regards to an issue such as this? The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the most LIBERAL interpretation of the right to bear arms, the point is moot. Let me put it another way, the right to carry a loaded weapon into your local bar is NOT a Federal issue, it is a state or local issue, states decide if it is appropriate, not the Federal government. So, lets go back to the question for this placard bearer, the relevance of the question alone is non-existent. The problem is, this man actually believes this nonsense and by his own admission did no research on the subject, he just accepted a lie as fact.
Joe Miller was asked by Rachel what his stand on abortion was. Miller was clearly uneasy with the question. His answer essentially was if there was a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, he would support it. Of course 75% of the states would also have to agree. Again, abortion is NOT a national issue, it's a state's right to regulate and allow or disallow abortions. The Federal issue is if available to a woman, she can, depending on the state she lives in, be allowed to make that choice. If abortion is illegal in your state, Roe v. Wade does not apply. Asking a national candidate that kind of question is also irrelevant. If I were running for national office, my answer would be similar to the President's. Personally I am against abortion, but the right to choose is the law of the land. No man can make that decision for a woman. Only women have that special right, so my opinion carries no weight. Oh yes, the lie that Mr. Obama is for abortion is just that, a lie. Mr. Obama, through his Attorney General MUST comply with the law of the land, regardless of their personal opinion. Mr. Obama does not support abortion. Keep in mind, the right to choose is not the same as abortion being legal or illegal. Tea Baggers and their Republican cohorts holler about smaller government and keeping Federal government out of our personal lives, yet in this case they want MORE intrusion into our lives.
Intrusion into our personal lives is one of the battle cries of the Tea Bag/Republican party by the Federal government. Funny, you don't hear about the individual states infringing on our daily lies, yet that intrusion is more invasive. What kind of Federal intrusions into our daily lives, the rules and laws which are in place today that we really take issue with? Can you name one negative intrusion? I cannot. I can cite a few new rules/laws just in the past 2 years which will make our lives better. How about regulating the banking industry, to stop them from jacking up your credit card rates without proper notifications? What about compelling the banks to maintain a higher cash level in reserve to cover potential losses? What about a Consumer Protection Agency? What about preventing insurance companies from denying medical coverage because of a pre-existing condition or lifetime caps on benefits? Now, these are but tiny snippets of what has been accomplished in 2 years. You must ask the question, why do we need these things? We need them because when left to their own devices, business and industry will do whatever they can to cut corners and make a profit at all costs, in any way their legally can. Why do we have EPA? Because companies were dumping toxic wastes in rivers and streams and lakes, polluting the air we breathe with thousands of belching smokestacks because there were either no rules or no enforcement possible. Over time, US companies decided to build plants offshore to get around EPA and US laws. The results at times have been devastating, Bhopal, India comes to mind, Union Carbide owned the plant and in 1984 a gas leak developed killing 2300-15,000 people.
My Point, "It emerged in 1998, during civil action suits in India, that, unlike Union Carbide plants in the US, its Indian subsidiary plants were not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal."
Today, the new country we run to is China. Again, few regulations and an opportunity to maximize profits at the expense of the environment and people. Do I really have to remind you of the lead based paints or cadmium in jewelry coming from China? What would happen if we did not have the Consumer Product Safety folks?
The Tea Baggers want to do away with all of this. They believe we are all responsible people and don't need to be regulated or controlled. I mean, no one runs stops signs or speeds or cheats on their taxes, right? We can be trusted to ALWAYS do the right thing.
Lets go to another Tea Bag/Republican rant. Deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. Privatizing Social Security is one subject. In Colorado, the Tea Bagger is ranting on the Democrat nominee in an ad claiming that when faced with budget shortfalls, he invested money in 'risky wall street ventures'. Generally speaking, states must balance their budgets one way or another. Usually this includes issuing bonds, which lately have been flat. I don't know what the result of these risky wall street ventures are. What I do know is it seems hypocritical for a Tea Bagger/Republican to lash out at a Democrat for doing EXACTLY what the Tea Bag/Republicans want to do. They want to take the Social Security money and invest it in Wall Street thinking Social Security will reap a greater benefit. Well, that is fine if the market is stable. Just ask those who lost 90% of the value of their 401K's when the market slid how well it works. Your monthly benefit could go up OR go down depending on market fluctuations. My guess is that it won't go up as much as the market because there are predators out there to skim off the top, but if the market drops, you lose your ass. Oh, that's right Wall Street types can always be trusted because they will have fewer regulations because the are honorable people.Do you really think Hedge Fund Managers who make billions in one year would not be licking their chops? Not if the Tea Baggers are to be believed. No one runs a stop sign, do they.
Balancing the budget, now this one is very interesting. Tea Bag/Republicans want to balance the budget. Ummm....10 years ago when they swept in after the Clinton presidency, the budget was not only balanced, but had a surplus. So what happened? Three things. The Republicans went on a spending spree and to make matters worse came up with temporary tax cuts for the wealthy AND created the unfunded Part D Medicare program, Drugs. The tax cuts cost $2 trillion, the Part D?, Though not made public until 2004, the CMS's 2003 estimate was $534 billion for the period 2004 to 2013. In CMS's February 2005 estimate, the 10-year price tag of the drug provision is $724 billion for the period 2006 to 2015.
Untax and spend. The 8 Bush budgets totaled -$3.418 Trillion in deficit spending. The previous 8 years totaled -$321 Billion. The final Clinton budget surplus in 2000 was $230 billion. Ok..lets do some real quick math. Had Bush's crowd maintained the status quo and we extrapolate the final $230B surplus 8 years out and then deduct the cost of Part D (which was unfunded), when Mr. Obama took office our Federal debt would have been REDUCED by $1.306 TRILLION !!! This is a swing of $4.724 Trillion !!! The other silver lining, all things being equal...8 million of the 23 million jobs gained during the Clinton years would have been saved. Based upon these FACTS and my theorizing, all things being equal, would we be in the mess we are in today? The Tea Baggers want to add another $2 Trillion to the debt by keeping the Bush tax cuts which were so devastating to our economy without ANY offsets. Where do you find $2 trillion in offsets and also balance the budget at the same time? It would take 20 years of surpluses just to recover the $4.724 we lost due to the Bush/Republican policies, again..all things being equal. Tea Baggers would have us believe that extending the tax cuts is a job killer. Well, since the tax cuts we have LOST 8 million jobs. The 8 years prior to the tax cuts, 23 million jobs were created. These are the facts, check them out.
In the heading, I have suggested a silver lining in all of this. Yes, we are lemmings. We are a stupid, little people with a very short attention span. The next 2 years, under Tea Bag/Republican control, the House will demonstrate how incompetent they are to govern. Any repeal of any Obama administration will be met with a veto. Tea Baggers will fight more with the Republican establishment and eventually be absorbed and rendered ineffective by the time their terms are up in 2012 thus guaranteeing Mr. Obama's second term. Mr. Obama is a smart man and he knows that the policies he already has in place will turn this mess around without the help of the Tea Baggers or Republicans. The Republicans have gone on record that their number one priority is to destroy the Obama presidency. How un-American is that? We elect these people to work for US, not to focus on destroying a presidency. This in NOT governing, it's petty and treasonous. Our system of government was designed to compel all to work together with checks and balances. There is nothing written that it is the right of one branch to destroy the other, in fact just the opposite.
Second Amendment solution? We are not a Third World country are we? We are a civilized society and to suggest, quite clearly that if the government does not do the bidding of the Tea Baggers, they reserve the option of a Second Amendment solution. We are not Pakistan or India where they shoot their leaders, are we? On the other hand, maybe we are. Look what happened in Kentucky and Alaska. Private security detaining a journalist because he wanted to ask a question of a Tea Bag candidate. Rand Paul's goons attacked a woman, stomped her on the head, sending her to hospital with a concussion. Glen Beck said that we have to fear Democrats and their violence.
All we have to do is look to history on this planet to find examples of the potential danger of the Tea Baggers. Let us revisit the Wiemar Republic after The Great War. Germany was under crushing debt, war reparations, the French. Unemployment was out of control, the country was disintegrating. Through this time a former Corporal and paper hanger emerged as the hope for a new Germany. He struggled in the beginning, spending time in Landsburg Prison where he wrote My Struggle, a book which after it was published actually outsold the Holy Bible. His goal was to restore Germany to her rightful place as the economic and military power house of Europe. From the beginning at beer halls and ending at mass rallies at Nuremberg. His was a grassroots effort to change Germany forever. He started small, but intelligently. National Socialists did not take over the government in a 2nd Amendment fashion, they did it legally, through elections. This is not to say that violence and intimidation were not used to facilitate certain gains, but in the end, they were elected by the masses. The ultimate goal of becoming Chancellor of Germany came by way of negotiating with the business powerhouses of Germany. Not unlike the Republicorp branding Moveon.org has come up with. With business leaders behind him, Hitler could now become the leader Germany wanted. Von Hindenburg gave in and appointed him Chancellor. The pieces were now in place. 2nd Amendment remedies were now used to maintain control and quell any opposition, starting with the brown shirts who helped putting him in power. His first order of business was to keep his promises, within two years unemployment dropped to nearly zero. The Ruhr was retaken and industry awakened. Massive government programs to build a new Germany started. The economy stabilized. Hitler's philosophy was always, the German people would gladly give up some rights to gain safety, security, employment and a stable government. We must be wary of such politicians. Thankfully in our system, it is highly unlikely that this sort of drastic political change can take place, but it could happen if the Tea Baggers are able to make greater inroads. Change like this will not happen overnight, it would be long and insidious. Like any avalanche, once it starts, it's nearly impossible to stop.
Tenthers. Tenthers would have you believe that states rights are being infringed upon by the Federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in EVERY single case against the states. Why? It's very simple and the Tea Baggers just don't get it. It is true that under the Constitution the Federal government cannot compel the states to do certain things, except for one minor detail, which seems to have gotten lost along with the truth. If you as a state accept Federal money for anything, the Federal government can withhold those funds if you do not do what you are told to do. This is LEGAL according to the Supreme Court. The answer is VERY SIMPLE. All the state has to do is ask their Congressional delegates and Senators to add an amendment to any funding bill which excludes their state. This way the Feds have nothing to hold over you. If you have a natural disaster, don't ask for Federal money. If you want to rebuild your infrastructure, don't ask for Federal help. After all, as I recall as a condition of receiving Federal highway or infrastructure monies, the states must pay to maintain those things. The reality is, the states don't in all cases. If you don't want money for education or school lunch programs, don't accept it. The whining is tantamount to biting the hand that feeds you.
Education. Funny. Not only does education make us more competitive, it also makes us a smart people and smart people don't vote Tea Bag or Republican. Enough said.
Jobs. Who in the hell decided that the government is responsible for job creation? The only jobs the government creates is in support of government. The vast majority of business does not have government contracts. The one's that do don't want any funding cuts from the Federal government. The government can influence by job creating in the private sector by giving tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. My feeling is that if you as a business want a tax break by shipping jobs overseas, then do it on a level playing field. I would have no problem with a condition to that tax break such as these. To collect the tax break, you must pay foreign based employees a fair market US wage. You would have to collect Social Security taxes and Federal withholding. These taxes would be collected by American employees to benefit Americans. By compelling offshore employers to pay the same as here does two things, it will provide foreign derived Federal income to help offset the unemployment costs and re-education costs because of the transfer of employment overseas.
In closing, the electorate is going to find out quickly that by electing these nut jobs, the power they will yield will be nothing compared to those they replaced. The Senate and House operate on a seniority basis and if you think these new folk are going to be able to bring home the bacon their predecessors did, they have another thing coming. Harry Reid is a perfect example. By losing him and his power, the state of Nevada will fall into oblivion on a national basis. Anything special he could have provided by virtue of his standing will be gone. Harry Reid could have saved Nevada, Engle will lead it to it's mediocrity and if that is what Nevadans want, then so be it.
Watching the Rachel Maddow show last week from Alaska vindicated my opinion that we really are a nation of fools and idiots, at least those Americans who are pushing the Tea Bag agenda. There were several people holding up Joe Miller signs, asking people to get out to vote in Anchorage. Joe Miller is the Republican nominee for Senate from Alaska. Mr. Miller is also a Tea Bagger. Mr. Miller has admitted that throughout his career as an attorney, specifically the Borough of Fairbanks, he used borough computers for personal use and tried to cover his tracks. These are minor issues, but it should go to the character of this man. Apparently not in Alaska. Two of the people holding signs were asked a simple question, "Why are you supporting Joe Miller?". The one response totally floored me. The respondent said he was against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US. He said that Mr. Holder and the Obama Administration wanted to take away their guns. When pressed, he went on to add that through out his political career Mr. Holder has voted for gun controls. When the respondent was told that Mr. Holder has never held political office, the respondent finally admitted he knew nothing about Mr. Holder and the issue of taking away gun rights. Now, not only did the man not have ANY facts correct, he also failed to appreciate the fact that a vote for or against Mr. Miller would have no impact on his second amendment rights. What could any politician do with regards to an issue such as this? The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the most LIBERAL interpretation of the right to bear arms, the point is moot. Let me put it another way, the right to carry a loaded weapon into your local bar is NOT a Federal issue, it is a state or local issue, states decide if it is appropriate, not the Federal government. So, lets go back to the question for this placard bearer, the relevance of the question alone is non-existent. The problem is, this man actually believes this nonsense and by his own admission did no research on the subject, he just accepted a lie as fact.
Joe Miller was asked by Rachel what his stand on abortion was. Miller was clearly uneasy with the question. His answer essentially was if there was a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, he would support it. Of course 75% of the states would also have to agree. Again, abortion is NOT a national issue, it's a state's right to regulate and allow or disallow abortions. The Federal issue is if available to a woman, she can, depending on the state she lives in, be allowed to make that choice. If abortion is illegal in your state, Roe v. Wade does not apply. Asking a national candidate that kind of question is also irrelevant. If I were running for national office, my answer would be similar to the President's. Personally I am against abortion, but the right to choose is the law of the land. No man can make that decision for a woman. Only women have that special right, so my opinion carries no weight. Oh yes, the lie that Mr. Obama is for abortion is just that, a lie. Mr. Obama, through his Attorney General MUST comply with the law of the land, regardless of their personal opinion. Mr. Obama does not support abortion. Keep in mind, the right to choose is not the same as abortion being legal or illegal. Tea Baggers and their Republican cohorts holler about smaller government and keeping Federal government out of our personal lives, yet in this case they want MORE intrusion into our lives.
Intrusion into our personal lives is one of the battle cries of the Tea Bag/Republican party by the Federal government. Funny, you don't hear about the individual states infringing on our daily lies, yet that intrusion is more invasive. What kind of Federal intrusions into our daily lives, the rules and laws which are in place today that we really take issue with? Can you name one negative intrusion? I cannot. I can cite a few new rules/laws just in the past 2 years which will make our lives better. How about regulating the banking industry, to stop them from jacking up your credit card rates without proper notifications? What about compelling the banks to maintain a higher cash level in reserve to cover potential losses? What about a Consumer Protection Agency? What about preventing insurance companies from denying medical coverage because of a pre-existing condition or lifetime caps on benefits? Now, these are but tiny snippets of what has been accomplished in 2 years. You must ask the question, why do we need these things? We need them because when left to their own devices, business and industry will do whatever they can to cut corners and make a profit at all costs, in any way their legally can. Why do we have EPA? Because companies were dumping toxic wastes in rivers and streams and lakes, polluting the air we breathe with thousands of belching smokestacks because there were either no rules or no enforcement possible. Over time, US companies decided to build plants offshore to get around EPA and US laws. The results at times have been devastating, Bhopal, India comes to mind, Union Carbide owned the plant and in 1984 a gas leak developed killing 2300-15,000 people.
My Point, "It emerged in 1998, during civil action suits in India, that, unlike Union Carbide plants in the US, its Indian subsidiary plants were not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal."
Today, the new country we run to is China. Again, few regulations and an opportunity to maximize profits at the expense of the environment and people. Do I really have to remind you of the lead based paints or cadmium in jewelry coming from China? What would happen if we did not have the Consumer Product Safety folks?
The Tea Baggers want to do away with all of this. They believe we are all responsible people and don't need to be regulated or controlled. I mean, no one runs stops signs or speeds or cheats on their taxes, right? We can be trusted to ALWAYS do the right thing.
Lets go to another Tea Bag/Republican rant. Deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. Privatizing Social Security is one subject. In Colorado, the Tea Bagger is ranting on the Democrat nominee in an ad claiming that when faced with budget shortfalls, he invested money in 'risky wall street ventures'. Generally speaking, states must balance their budgets one way or another. Usually this includes issuing bonds, which lately have been flat. I don't know what the result of these risky wall street ventures are. What I do know is it seems hypocritical for a Tea Bagger/Republican to lash out at a Democrat for doing EXACTLY what the Tea Bag/Republicans want to do. They want to take the Social Security money and invest it in Wall Street thinking Social Security will reap a greater benefit. Well, that is fine if the market is stable. Just ask those who lost 90% of the value of their 401K's when the market slid how well it works. Your monthly benefit could go up OR go down depending on market fluctuations. My guess is that it won't go up as much as the market because there are predators out there to skim off the top, but if the market drops, you lose your ass. Oh, that's right Wall Street types can always be trusted because they will have fewer regulations because the are honorable people.Do you really think Hedge Fund Managers who make billions in one year would not be licking their chops? Not if the Tea Baggers are to be believed. No one runs a stop sign, do they.
Balancing the budget, now this one is very interesting. Tea Bag/Republicans want to balance the budget. Ummm....10 years ago when they swept in after the Clinton presidency, the budget was not only balanced, but had a surplus. So what happened? Three things. The Republicans went on a spending spree and to make matters worse came up with temporary tax cuts for the wealthy AND created the unfunded Part D Medicare program, Drugs. The tax cuts cost $2 trillion, the Part D?, Though not made public until 2004, the CMS's 2003 estimate was $534 billion for the period 2004 to 2013. In CMS's February 2005 estimate, the 10-year price tag of the drug provision is $724 billion for the period 2006 to 2015.
Untax and spend. The 8 Bush budgets totaled -$3.418 Trillion in deficit spending. The previous 8 years totaled -$321 Billion. The final Clinton budget surplus in 2000 was $230 billion. Ok..lets do some real quick math. Had Bush's crowd maintained the status quo and we extrapolate the final $230B surplus 8 years out and then deduct the cost of Part D (which was unfunded), when Mr. Obama took office our Federal debt would have been REDUCED by $1.306 TRILLION !!! This is a swing of $4.724 Trillion !!! The other silver lining, all things being equal...8 million of the 23 million jobs gained during the Clinton years would have been saved. Based upon these FACTS and my theorizing, all things being equal, would we be in the mess we are in today? The Tea Baggers want to add another $2 Trillion to the debt by keeping the Bush tax cuts which were so devastating to our economy without ANY offsets. Where do you find $2 trillion in offsets and also balance the budget at the same time? It would take 20 years of surpluses just to recover the $4.724 we lost due to the Bush/Republican policies, again..all things being equal. Tea Baggers would have us believe that extending the tax cuts is a job killer. Well, since the tax cuts we have LOST 8 million jobs. The 8 years prior to the tax cuts, 23 million jobs were created. These are the facts, check them out.
In the heading, I have suggested a silver lining in all of this. Yes, we are lemmings. We are a stupid, little people with a very short attention span. The next 2 years, under Tea Bag/Republican control, the House will demonstrate how incompetent they are to govern. Any repeal of any Obama administration will be met with a veto. Tea Baggers will fight more with the Republican establishment and eventually be absorbed and rendered ineffective by the time their terms are up in 2012 thus guaranteeing Mr. Obama's second term. Mr. Obama is a smart man and he knows that the policies he already has in place will turn this mess around without the help of the Tea Baggers or Republicans. The Republicans have gone on record that their number one priority is to destroy the Obama presidency. How un-American is that? We elect these people to work for US, not to focus on destroying a presidency. This in NOT governing, it's petty and treasonous. Our system of government was designed to compel all to work together with checks and balances. There is nothing written that it is the right of one branch to destroy the other, in fact just the opposite.
Second Amendment solution? We are not a Third World country are we? We are a civilized society and to suggest, quite clearly that if the government does not do the bidding of the Tea Baggers, they reserve the option of a Second Amendment solution. We are not Pakistan or India where they shoot their leaders, are we? On the other hand, maybe we are. Look what happened in Kentucky and Alaska. Private security detaining a journalist because he wanted to ask a question of a Tea Bag candidate. Rand Paul's goons attacked a woman, stomped her on the head, sending her to hospital with a concussion. Glen Beck said that we have to fear Democrats and their violence.
All we have to do is look to history on this planet to find examples of the potential danger of the Tea Baggers. Let us revisit the Wiemar Republic after The Great War. Germany was under crushing debt, war reparations, the French. Unemployment was out of control, the country was disintegrating. Through this time a former Corporal and paper hanger emerged as the hope for a new Germany. He struggled in the beginning, spending time in Landsburg Prison where he wrote My Struggle, a book which after it was published actually outsold the Holy Bible. His goal was to restore Germany to her rightful place as the economic and military power house of Europe. From the beginning at beer halls and ending at mass rallies at Nuremberg. His was a grassroots effort to change Germany forever. He started small, but intelligently. National Socialists did not take over the government in a 2nd Amendment fashion, they did it legally, through elections. This is not to say that violence and intimidation were not used to facilitate certain gains, but in the end, they were elected by the masses. The ultimate goal of becoming Chancellor of Germany came by way of negotiating with the business powerhouses of Germany. Not unlike the Republicorp branding Moveon.org has come up with. With business leaders behind him, Hitler could now become the leader Germany wanted. Von Hindenburg gave in and appointed him Chancellor. The pieces were now in place. 2nd Amendment remedies were now used to maintain control and quell any opposition, starting with the brown shirts who helped putting him in power. His first order of business was to keep his promises, within two years unemployment dropped to nearly zero. The Ruhr was retaken and industry awakened. Massive government programs to build a new Germany started. The economy stabilized. Hitler's philosophy was always, the German people would gladly give up some rights to gain safety, security, employment and a stable government. We must be wary of such politicians. Thankfully in our system, it is highly unlikely that this sort of drastic political change can take place, but it could happen if the Tea Baggers are able to make greater inroads. Change like this will not happen overnight, it would be long and insidious. Like any avalanche, once it starts, it's nearly impossible to stop.
Tenthers. Tenthers would have you believe that states rights are being infringed upon by the Federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in EVERY single case against the states. Why? It's very simple and the Tea Baggers just don't get it. It is true that under the Constitution the Federal government cannot compel the states to do certain things, except for one minor detail, which seems to have gotten lost along with the truth. If you as a state accept Federal money for anything, the Federal government can withhold those funds if you do not do what you are told to do. This is LEGAL according to the Supreme Court. The answer is VERY SIMPLE. All the state has to do is ask their Congressional delegates and Senators to add an amendment to any funding bill which excludes their state. This way the Feds have nothing to hold over you. If you have a natural disaster, don't ask for Federal money. If you want to rebuild your infrastructure, don't ask for Federal help. After all, as I recall as a condition of receiving Federal highway or infrastructure monies, the states must pay to maintain those things. The reality is, the states don't in all cases. If you don't want money for education or school lunch programs, don't accept it. The whining is tantamount to biting the hand that feeds you.
Education. Funny. Not only does education make us more competitive, it also makes us a smart people and smart people don't vote Tea Bag or Republican. Enough said.
Jobs. Who in the hell decided that the government is responsible for job creation? The only jobs the government creates is in support of government. The vast majority of business does not have government contracts. The one's that do don't want any funding cuts from the Federal government. The government can influence by job creating in the private sector by giving tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas. My feeling is that if you as a business want a tax break by shipping jobs overseas, then do it on a level playing field. I would have no problem with a condition to that tax break such as these. To collect the tax break, you must pay foreign based employees a fair market US wage. You would have to collect Social Security taxes and Federal withholding. These taxes would be collected by American employees to benefit Americans. By compelling offshore employers to pay the same as here does two things, it will provide foreign derived Federal income to help offset the unemployment costs and re-education costs because of the transfer of employment overseas.
In closing, the electorate is going to find out quickly that by electing these nut jobs, the power they will yield will be nothing compared to those they replaced. The Senate and House operate on a seniority basis and if you think these new folk are going to be able to bring home the bacon their predecessors did, they have another thing coming. Harry Reid is a perfect example. By losing him and his power, the state of Nevada will fall into oblivion on a national basis. Anything special he could have provided by virtue of his standing will be gone. Harry Reid could have saved Nevada, Engle will lead it to it's mediocrity and if that is what Nevadans want, then so be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)