The Only Adult In The Room

**ms_m** · 09-12-2011, 11:44 PM

You're better than I am Stephanie because after the cheering over let someone die remark I was done.

If you offer someone help and they refuse the offer, that's one thing but simply walking away from a dying person because they made a stupid choice is barbaric and the audience proved just how barbaric people can be. The night people cheered Perry for executing over 200 people [[which several turned out to may have been innocent after the fact) took my breath away but this was beyond the pale.

This is why I believe libertarianism only works in theory, in practice we don't have the type of culture where everyone looks out for everyone else or truly gives a sht beyond their own circle. ...and even then only for a limited amount of time. Hell, Ron Paul's own supporters will jump all over you and call you every negative diatribe imaginable IF YOU CHOOSE to exercise your LIBERTY and have an opinion or thought that's different from theirs.

In our society a libertarian philosophy would encourage cliques and a survival of the fittest/tribal mentality. You can't erase that type of thinking in 4 years and anyone who thinks they can is naive or simply scamming people.

Huntsman,no longer impresses me and seems to be grasping at straws and looking desperate, Cain is ridiculously clueless, Newt does nothing but whine, Bachmann and Santorum, tried to be relevant but weren't and the two so call front runners just make me want to gag. Neither one would know a principle if it slapped them in the face and even then, they would simply flip flop to an opposite principle.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 12:47 AM

Politics
CNN Tea Party Debate Live-Blog
By ThinkProgress on Sep 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm

9:53: Asked what he’d bring to the White House, Cain said: “I would bring a sense of humor to the White House because America is too uptight.”

9:52: This would have been a good time for Newt to scold the media for asking stupid questions.

9:50: Wolf Blitzer asks the candidate a vapid question about what they would change in the White House. If Rick Santorum was president, he would expand the White House — not for government, but for his seven children who would need lots of bedrooms.

9:50: Neocon favorite Rick Perry, the so-called “hawk internationalist” wondered if U.S. assistance to Afghanistan “is best spent with 100,000 military who have a target on their back in Afghanistan? I don’t think so at this particular point in time.”

9:49: Rick Perry: It’s really important for us to maintain a presence in Afghanistan. When it comes to his Afghanistan position, consistency is not Perry’s strong suit, however: “Time to bring our young men and women home as safely as we can, but important to keep a presence there.” He responded to Huntsman who called for withdrawal — and got best applause of the night for it.

9:48: FLASHBACK: Before it was known as Tea Party Express, CNN’s debate co-sponsor was known as “Move America Forward,” a Republican front group that organized pro-Iraq war rallies.

9:45: One hour and forty-five minutes into the debate and finally a person of color gets to ask a question — an Afghan woman.

9:45: Audience begins to boo Ron Paul when he tries to explain to Rick Santorum why we can’t blame all Muslims for terrorism caused by extremists. Audience again boos when Paul complains of “unfair treatment” of Palestinians.

9:45: another example of the society we live in…liberty and freedom sounds good as long as it your liberty or freedom but if it someone else’s you don’t like or don’t agree with…screw ‘em. In a way, freedom and liberty can be just like greed, once you get a taste of it, you want to hoard it all to yourself while playing some righteous lip service to the idea of freedom for all.

It's a nice and enticing dream this thing call libertarianism …but left unchecked, many of us know how the movie plays out.
The full play by play:
http://thinkprogress.org/

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 02:18 AM

Op-ed
12 Sep 2011 11:40 AM
Republicanism As Religion

The Dish covered the remarkable web essay of Mike Lofgren, but I didn't comment myself because it so closely follows my own argument in "The Conservative Soul" and on this blog, that it felt somewhat superfluous. But I want to draw attention to the crux of the piece, because if we are to understand how the right became so unmoored from prudence, moderation and tradition and became so infatuated with recklessness, extremism and revolution, we need to understand how it happened.

It is, of course, as my shrink never fails to point out, multi-determined. But here is Lofgren's attempt at a Rosebud:

How did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs - economic royalism, militarism and culture wars cum fundamentalism - come completely to displace an erstwhile civilized Eisenhower Republicanism?

It is my view that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism [[which is a subset of the decline of rational problem solving in America) may have been the key ingredient of the takeover of the Republican Party. For politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes - at least in the minds of followers - all three of the GOP's main tenets.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....en-thesis.html

add these thoughts to the article I posted a few pages back [[see below) and what we are dealing with seems crystal to clear. [[at least to me)

Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
Saturday 3 September 2011
by: Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all...ult/1314907779

This isn’t the Eisenhower Republican Party, heck even St Ronnie [[Reagan) wouldn’t make it in this current crop of extremist.

I’m old enough to remember a simpler time and there are some things I miss but I will be dayum if I’m willing to go back to recapture those days. You can’t filter out the bad things from those times to enjoy the good. Life doesn’t work that way.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 03:36 AM

Economy
Despite 600,000 Public Sector Layoffs, Darrell Issa Says Government Shouldn’t Try To Prevent Teacher Layoffs

By Marie Diamond posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Sep 12, 2011 at 6:30 pm

At least 600,000 government workers have lost their jobs since the recession began, but Republicans nevertheless keep scapegoating public employees who have shouldered more than their fair share of economic pain. Rep. Darrell Issa [[R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, became the latest lawmaker to join in this trend during an appearance today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, where he said that government shouldn’t try to save teachers’ jobs because that would be like another stimulus package:

ISSA: Whether or not the federal government borrows money from overseas sources to keep teachers in XYZ state on the payroll seems to be stimulus II. It seems to be something that the states have to decide what the right number of teachers are, and fund that, and not have us borrow money from overseas to keep $30 billion worth of money to try to aid the states. We did that once. It’s time for us to say states have to step up to the plate. That’s a good example where I don’t think that belongs in this stimulus bill. I don’t think we should be maintaining government workers with borrowed money.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-the-payrolls/

The US Government does not borrow money from overseas. We sell Treasury Bonds.
There is a big difference between selling and borrowing. I don’t care how many politicians try to pretend otherwise.

Let’s use a bit of logic for a moment:

1. If you could create your own money, why would you need to borrow money?

2. If the money you created was the exact same form of legal tender the US uses [[USD)why would you borrow a Renminbi [[China), a Yen [[Japan), a Pound Sterling [[UK)?

3. How would that make sense? It’s not as if you could walk into a USA grocery store and purchase food items with a Yen or any other currency from “overseas.”

The same applies to the US. It pays for things with USD....no other currency but USD and we create USD. Not China, not Japan, not the UK, not any other country in the world but the USA, creates USD. [[at least not LEGALLY, I should add)

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 03:49 AM

Interesting analysis….

Political MoJo

→ Elections, Politics
Ron Paul: Mitt Romney's Unlikely Secret Weapon
—By Tim Murphy| Mon Sep. 12, 2011 6:58 PM PDT

If you watched Monday's the CNN/Tea Party debate, you could be forgiven for asking what the septuagenarian Texas congressman Ron Paul has against his home state governor, Rick Perry. It's pretty simple, actually. Paul is channeling the same grievances that tea partiers in Texas have attacked Perry with for years. Specifically, that his executive order mandating the Gardasil HPV vaccine for adolescent girls was an invasive power grab by big government; that he increased spending over his decade as governor; that he's raised the state's level of debt; and that he's raised taxes [[Paul says he's experienced this firsthand).

If this sounds familiar, it's because this is the same line of attack that was launched against Perry in 2010 by Debra Medina, the nurse and former county GOP chair who finished a surprising third in the Texas gubernatorial primary. [[I previewed this line of attack back in August.) There's more there that Paul likely believes but neglected to mention [[the much-maligned Trans-Texas Corridor, which he and others viewed as a harbinger for a future North American Union, for instance.) And it's not the first time; if anything, it was just a more substantive reprise of the back-and-forth between Perry and Paul at last week's debate, which culminated in this photo.

MORE:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/...-secret-weapon

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 04:02 AM

Fox News' Paranoid Alternate Universe
—By Adam Serwer| Wed Sep. 7, 2011 8:27 AM PDT

Two-thirds of viewers who say Fox News is the news source they trust most believe discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minority groups, according to a study released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute. The number, 68 percent, is an exact reversal of the percentage of black people in the same poll who say that discrimination against whites is not as big a problem as discrimination against minorities. The study was based on polling conducted by PRRI.*

The Brookings/PRRI study uses "reverse discrimination"—an unfortunate term that suggests a difference in kind, not in degree—to describe anti-white discrimination. Nevertheless, the revelations about the views of consumers who most trust Fox News are disturbing:

Among Americans who say they most trust Fox News, 26 percent say reverse discrimination is a critical issue, nearly twice as many as say discrimination against minority groups is a critical issue [[14 percent). At the other end of the spectrum, only 8 percent of Americans who most trust public television say reverse discrimination is a critical issue, compared to 27 percent who say discrimination against minorities is a critical issue.

The financial crisis wiped out 20 years of minority wealth gains, and minority incarceration and unemployment rates are far higher than those of whites, but white Americans have nevertheless become more receptive to the idea that whites face as much discrimination as minorities. While the numbers for those who trust Fox News are much higher, a majority of whites in the study, 51 percent, also say they believe discrimination against whites is as big of a problem as discrimination against minorities. That's despite relatively low levels of interaction between whites and minorities. According to the study, "More than 8-in-10 Americans report having a conversation with an African-American person at least once a day [[43 percent) or occasionally [[40 percent)." Most of these exchanges, apparently, involve black people callously turning down whites applying for jobs or home loans. Nevertheless, while opinions of Muslims and immigrants vary by age and political perspective, demographic groups surveyed expressed positive impressions of African Americans across the board. [[Otherwise, they might be racist or something.)
More:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/...noid-alternate

If 12% of the population could “critically” discriminate against 72% of the population, why the heck did we wait so long to implore whatever secret weapon we have to accomplish such a phenomena? [[rhetorical question and rolling eyes)

Lawd love a duck….

**jillfoster** · 09-13-2011, 10:53 AM

Ms. M... somehow I KNEW that we'd be discussing the "Let him die" remark. It was more than one person in that audience supporting that. The damn teabaggers are showing their true colors, and you know what, there were a ton mroe in that audience that WANTED to shout out, but didn't. For anyone who needs it, the videotape:

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 11:33 AM

Jillfoster when I heard it I was totally stunned. The people in the audience definitely showed their true colors.

**jillfoster** · 09-13-2011, 12:42 PM

I think Perry cut his own throat with the social security crap. I don't understand for the LIFE of me, why everyone is having a nuclear meltdown over Social security like it's some evil thing. It was worked just FINE for the last 75 years, and in the future, it will have trouble. Well... we are all living longer due to advancement in medical technology... so all you need to do is raise the retirement age one year a time over time until it becomes solvent again. You don't get RID of it, you just make adjustments when needed. How hard is that? The problem is that people who are against social security have money, their health, and all their faculties. These people need to be told "Ok... suppose you have a car accident tomorrow and sustain brain damage, and can never work again, what would you do? " something tells me they wouldn't have an answer to that question.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 01:02 PM

Jillfoster I was reading an article the other day about SS and the fix is so easy and simple it's crazy....and it's not even something that needs to be done immediately. [[I'll try and find the article)

The Republicans have been trying to dismantle entitlement programs from day one and now they are simply using it all as a red herring pretending it's costing too much money. The one thing that's out of control is Bush's Medicare addition that was never paid for and a joke. Looking back, I'm sure it was deliberately set up to cause problems.

I'm so over these people it's not even funny but what really gets me are the voters who have their heads up their butts refusing to see what's going on.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 01:35 PM

Found it...here you go JillFoster...

Some Gutsy Talk on Social Security
—By Kevin Drum| Mon Sep. 12, 2011 1:57 PM PDT

Just last week Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and a "monstrous lie." This week he revises and extends those remarks in USA Today:

Our elected leaders must have the strength to speak frankly about entitlement reform if we are to right our nation's financial course and get the USA working again. For too long, politicians have been afraid to speak honestly about Social Security. We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come.

Now, I'm pretty sure the Washington Post would have given Perry a little more room on their op-ed page if he'd truly wanted to speak frankly and gutsily about how to fix Social Security, as opposed to merely saying that we ought to speak frankly about it and then calling it a day. But for some reason, Team Perry decided that USA Today, with its vast hotel-bound audience and 300-word limit, was a better bet.

Which is too bad, because of course, we should speak frankly about the financial condition of Social Security. So here's some gutsy talk for y'all: Social Security has a small long-term funding shortfall. It can be fixed easily. The CBO recently estimated that Social Security has a long-term cumulative deficit of 0.6% of GDP, and the table below lists 30 options for fixing this. All you have to do is pick some combination of options that adds up to 0.6% and you're done. It's so easy that even Rick Perry can do it.

Personally, I'd wait and begin phasing in changes starting in about 20 years or so, which would require picking a basket of options that adds up to something like 1.2% or so. But that's just little old coastal left-winger me. Either way, though, whether you make the changes now or later, it's all pretty simple. And that, my friends, is some gutsy talk.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum

Click link to see chart

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 01:49 PM

Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Act

THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT

1. Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow
Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.
A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker [[the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).
Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.
Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

Read All:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...rican-jobs-act

Republican politicians are not fighting for you, I don’t hear an overwhelming number of Dem politicians out there fighting for you, the ONLY person out there stumping is President Obama and VP Biden. This jobs bill is for us, the American people….help them to fight for you!!!!!

Please call your SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES today and tell them to PASS THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT BILL!

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 02:00 PM

Comment of the day:

I've already started, by writing my Representative. My Senators are next. Then, there will be messages to Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Cantor. Emails. Letters. Tweets. I've given them 30 days [[now 29) to put the bill, as is, on the President's desk for signature. If anyone in Congress wants us to take them seriously during the next election, then they need to pass the bill. That is our mantra; that is our motto. Pass the bill. It can be done quickly. It can be done efficiently. All they have to do is pass the bill. But they won't, unless we hound them. They will hem and haw and twiddle their thumbs and exchange barbs, before taking even the simplest action; I expect nothing less with this bill. We must encourage them to change this behavior, to put governance first and party politics last. This is the system the founding Fathers created, a system whereby the American people would be the ultimate arbiters of their governance, but it would require them to be involved. Get involved. Your life, the life of your family, the life of your nation, depends on it.

This is bill is not political gamesmanship. We need stimulus or we are screwed. The economic crisis in Europe is also affecting us. We live in a global economy, we all are connected....tell your Senators and Reps to PASS THIS BILL....three words, that's all it takes.....PASS THIS BILL!

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 07:12 PM

Op-ed

How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans
An insider’s six-step plan to fix Congress
By MICKEY EDWARDS

ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED, American voters went to the polls in November 2010 to “take back” their country. Just as they had done in 2008. And 2006. And repeatedly for decades, whether it was Republicans or Democrats from whom they were taking the country back. No matter who was put in charge, things didn’t get better. They won’t this time, either; spending levels may go down, taxes may go up, budgets will change, but American government will go on the way it has, not as a collective enterprise but as a battle between warring tribes.

If we are truly a democracy—if voters get to size up candidates for a public office and choose the one they want—why don’t the elections seem to change anything? Because we elect our leaders, and they then govern, in a system that makes cooperation almost impossible and incivility nearly inevitable, a system in which the campaign season never ends and the struggle for party advantage trumps all other considerations. When Democrat Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House, the leader of the lawmaking branch of government, she said her priority was to … elect more Democrats. After Republican victories in 2010, the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said his goal was to … prevent the Democratic president’s reelection. With the country at war and the economy in recession, our government leaders’ first thoughts have been of party advantage.

This is not an accident. Ours is a system focused not on collective problem-solving but on a struggle for power between two private organizations. Party activists control access to the ballot through closed party primaries and conventions; partisan leaders design congressional districts. Once elected to Congress, our representatives are divided into warring camps. Partisans decide what bills to take up, what witnesses to hear, what amendments to allow.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ricans/8521/1/

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen such a fair and unbiased article. I think the ideas have merit. In addition to these ideas, I’d like to see campaign finance reform.

As long as “corporations are people my friend,” money will always have a major role at the political table.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 07:15 PM

Voter apathy enemy of democracy
August 13, 2011 7:42 PM
BY GARY KNOX

Letters to the editor as well as conversations with Yuma Sun readers tell me that some folks value what I write. It is equally true, certainly more vociferously, that others challenge virtually every word I put to print, especially disputing various political and economic views.

Such competing voices, however, are the foundation for democratic governance. Rich, competing voices about issues have been a historic source of national pride. This point-counterpoint paradigm at the core of our political system creates respectable opportunities [[but no guarantees) for quality political discourse. Its purpose is to find, if not something close to consensus on critical matters, at least areas between extremes that, when smoothed out, result in workable outcomes.

This give-and-take dynamic shines throughout our iconic marketplace of political thinking. It's how we breathe life into democratic principles and allow for government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” It's a pillar of national strength, predating the Constitution of America's Founding Fathers.

Yet there are times when wholesome political dialogue bogs down, indeed, halts. It happens when contrarians go silent — whether by choice, decree or out of fear. Any silencing of exchanges in ideas runs counter to democracy to the extent that voices across the vast range of competing ideas are hushed.

Such muted environments happen for many reasons. They occur when opponents are shouted down. Voices are unheard when citizens are denied their constitutional right to vote.

But the most devastating crisis for democracy occurs when, as free individuals, we just plain decide not to vote. That simple failure to exercise our hard-fought responsibility undermines every American democratic expectation. Such retreats from civic duty undercut our political system — so much so that non-voters actually leave their futures in the hands of others, contrary to democratic principles.

Non-participants may rationalize their absence at the polls by thinking that those who vote think like they think; they unquestionably don't. Nor should they mindlessly believe that government led by those elected will do as they believe it should. Nor should they expect that those who others elect will seek sacrifices for the things they believe in.

Thriving democracies require that every voice be heard, no matter how dissenting. If not, silence gives the other guy power over those who remain voiceless. Thus apathy is the great enemy of democracy. Apathy degrades America. Each failure to express oneself by voting presents an extreme challenge to the democratic principles for which many forebears literally died on our behalf. By not voting, we mock America.

Voting gets one's voice heard. It is a fundamental civic starting point, though not sufficient for healthy governance. There is an accompanying robust civic duty: voters hold a substantial responsibility to be inquiring citizens. Our burden requires that each of us know for whom we vote and assign our choices to those most likely to carry our values forward in the decisions we elect them to make.

This duty to achieve full civic responsibility requires citizens to do a bit of investigation. We must ask questions. Which of those on the ballot are most likely to reflect the ideals of governance that I expect from my elected officials? What is the vision for our society and community of each candidate? What values does each hold — are they like mine or in major conflict with me? To what extent will each candidate pursue community interests, or do any seemingly hold personal, ax-grinding agendas? Is any beholden to special interest groups? Do candidates actively listen to constituents, or do they come with unshakable ideological positions? Do they seek to look out for the most vulnerable among us? Do they speak in platitudes without providing substance?

Pursuit of these and similar questions is a beginning for getting your voice heard, albeit secondhand. By casting your vote for those who are most aligned in their values, concerns and interests with yours, you know that your voice, even as the sound emits from another mouth, echoes you at the governance table. That is the strength of government founded in democratic principles.
http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/democ...ical-vote.html

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 07:19 PM

The Pragmatic President
By Fareed Zakaria

The air is thick with liberal disappointment. In the days after the debt deal, liberal politicians and commentators took to the airwaves and op-ed pages to mourn the agreement. But their ire was directed not at the Tea Party or even the Republicans but rather at Barack Obama, who they concluded had failed as a President because of his persistent tendency to compromise.

As the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, this criticism stems from a liberal fantasy that if only the President would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry. In this view, writes Chait, “every known impediment to the legislative process—special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion—are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech.”

But the idea abides. On Aug. 9, the MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan raged on TV that Obama should just give such a speech, overriding Congress and taking charge. But the most revealing moment came minutes after Ratigan’s rant, when his panel of experts pressed him as to what specifically he would want Obama to do once he had usurped power. Ratigan’s answer: allow corporations to re patriate their overseas profits [[presumably by reducing or waiving corporate taxes on the money) to fund a national infrastructure bank. So the great liberal dream is that Obama propose something that he has already proposed and fund it by giving multinationals a tax break.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Ar...Failure_2.html

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 07:24 PM

September 12, 2011
American Jobs Act :: Impact by State
Posted by Linda H on 1:15 PM

Click on link and see how your state will benefit from the American Jobs Act

http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/09...-by-state.html

Please call your SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES today and tell them to PASS THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT BILL!

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 07:27 PM

Hyperinflation and the Fed
—By Kevin Drum| Fri Sep. 9, 2011 11:23 AM PDT

The Fed has been pumping billions of dollars of reserves into the banking system over the past few years. This hasn't created any inflationary pressure yet, but monetary hawks worry that it will if the Fed waits too long to unwind its balance sheet. "You cannot afford to get behind the curve on reining in this extraordinary amount of liquidity because that will create an enormous inflation down the road," said Alan Greenspan a couple of years ago.

Karl Smith agrees that this is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. At the same time, it's also an issue that Ben Bernanke has the tools to address. "The Fed has complete power to slow the expansion of lending and hence the emergence of hyper-inflation," says Karl, "and it doesn’t have to remove its reserve injections to make it happen."

Click the link for the full explanation. It's a little long, but very friendly. Basically, the Fed's authority to pay interest on reserves is the hero of the story. But the bottom line is simple: hyperinflation just isn't something to worry about, no matter how many gold bugs tell you otherwise.
More:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...lation-and-fed

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 07:46 PM

Mini Reports

Obama for America launched AttackWatch.com today. Interesting site. Remember “Fight the Smears”? The new site is like the old effort, only this one will likely be better.

Such a no-brainer: “The jobs package President Obama sent to Congress on Monday includes a ban on hiring discrimination against the jobless.”

Shoshana Hebshi is an American citizen, with a Saudi father and a Jewish mother. She’s a wife and a mother, and lives in the American heartland. How she was treated on a flight over the weekend is a national disgrace.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 07:51 PM

Jill Foster you'll enjoy this:

IS SOCIAL SECURITY A PONZI SCHEME?
12 September 2011 by Cullen Roche 206 Comments

This evening’s Tea Party Debate in Tampa Bay is once again running into the whole “social security is a ponzi scheme” argument as Rick Perry and Mitt Romney go after one another on this hotly contested subject. Perry has consistently referred to the program as a “ponzi scheme” – a term which has come under harsh criticism from many on the left and right who claim that the term is misleading and hyperbolic. And they’re exactly right.

First of all, let’s get the definition of a ponzi scheme right. According to the SEC, a ponzi scheme is “an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.” Quite simply, a ponzi scheme involves the promise of future payments that current returns do not justify.
The confusion in the Social Security debate revolves around this idea that there is a “trust fund” that current workers pay into to fund those who are currently receiving the benefits. Due to a multitude of factors, the current beneficiaries are essentially receiving more than they themselves paid into the system. So, this “trust fund” appears deficient. It has the appearance of paying more out than it brings in. But this is a misconception of the way government spending works.
Full Article:
http://pragcap.com/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme

**MotownSteve** · 09-13-2011, 09:48 PM

I heard someone the other day, I think it was a professor who was a guest on Morning Joe saying that Soc Sec is safe for 70 years but does need some tweeking. It can be tough to know where the truth lies but the thing to do is keep questioning.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 09:56 PM

Steve, the more you understand how our monetary system works the better you will be at figuring out what's true and what's not true when it comes to the almighty dollar in this country.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 09:58 PM

Hate Breeds Hate: a righteous rant
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 | Posted by sepiagurlsweetspot @ The People’s View

Just found this Blog Post where a woman says she cannot leave her house because of "the gays":

"The same people who say I shouldn't impose my morality on them, are imposing immorality on me and my children to the point that I literally have a hard time even leaving my home anymore to do something as simple as visit the park. And this is freedom?"

Blog Post:Can't Even Go to the Park.* [[Editor's note: see end if you must click on this link)

This woman is serious. She is not playing. She truly thinks she and her children are being damaged by the mere existence of 'the gays'. This is no different to how people treated blacks in this country when they tried to swim in swimming pools or marry out of their race or, for heavens sake even tried to exist.

I was not surprised and this saddens me. Why? because I have now fully come to accept that hate like this in this country is endemic. This has been the ugly secret that was hidden under a thin veneer for many decades but now it is clear to see. Minorities, especially African-Americans, have known this forever and basically have come to terms with it. However, there are many who seem genuinely surprised that a black President did not bring about the racial harmony that they thought he could magically bring about just by his election. So many have been and are still in denial about the hate that runs through the very fabric of this country.
More:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/0...eous-rant.html

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 10:26 PM

Economy
With Record Number Of Americans Falling Into Poverty, Rand Paul Says The Poor Are Getting Rich

By Tanya Somanader posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Sep 13, 2011 at 8:10 pm

Census data revealed today that a record 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010. But in an aptly-timed hearing entitled “Is Poverty A Death Sentence,” Sen. Rand Paul [[R-KY) flat out rejected the idea that poverty in the U.S is worrisome. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Health subcommittee, Paul offered a dissertation-length statement on how the correlation between poverty and death is only found in the Third World and to claim such a connection within the U.S. is nothing more than “socialism” and “tyranny.”

Stating that “poor children today are healthier than middle-class adults a generation ago,” he even blamed the poor for their own health problems, suggesting “behavioral factors” like a higher incidence of smoking, obesity, or weak family support structures as the only correlation between poverty and health.

Citing the deficit as a primary priority, Paul questioned whether federal low-income programs are “creating unnecessary and unhealthy dependence on government.” He unequivocally declared that “poverty is not a state of permanence” and that “the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-getting-rich/

[...]Politicians…Republican politicians are doing their best to make the White middles class think it’s the fault of Blacks and other minorities.

I don't have any reason to make this stuff up folks. It's starring us all in the face.

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 10:35 PM

The White House Blog
Office Hours 9/13/11 or "We Need the American Jobs Act Now": David Plouffe Answers Your Questions on Twitter
Posted by Kori Schulman on September 13, 2011 at 07:30 PM EDT

Today, David Plouffe, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, answered your questions on the American Jobs Act during a special session of White House Office Hours. See a recap of the Twitter Q&A below, or over on Storify.

If you didn't have a chance to join us live, there are more Office Hours focused on the American Jobs Act this week. Take a look at the schedule and be sure to follow @WHLive for more chances to engage.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/...ers-your-quest

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 11:15 PM

Take Action

Contact Elected Officials - Address, Phone, Twitter, Email
Posted by Linda H on 7:58 AM

A list of websites, email addresses, twitter accounts and phone numbers for the Senate, members of the House of Representatives, and the White House:

White House
President Barack Obama - [[Democrat) Twitter

BarackObama
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20500
Web Form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/barackobama

Phone: 202-456-1111

Comprehensive list of contacts by State:
http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/05...e-twitter.html

Contact your Senators and Reps and tell them to PASS THIS BILL [[American Jobs Act)

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 11:24 PM

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 11:27 PM

Re-Post

The Pragmatic President
By Fareed Zakaria

The air is thick with liberal disappointment. In the days after the debt deal, liberal politicians and commentators took to the airwaves and op-ed pages to mourn the agreement. But their ire was directed not at the Tea Party or even the Republicans but rather at Barack Obama, who they concluded had failed as a President because of his persistent tendency to compromise.

As the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait brilliantly points out, this criticism stems from a liberal fantasy that if only the President would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry. In this view, writes Chait, “every known impediment to the legislative process—special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion—are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech.”

But the idea abides. On Aug. 9, the MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan raged on TV that Obama should just give such a speech, overriding Congress and taking charge. But the most revealing moment came minutes after Ratigan’s rant, when his panel of experts pressed him as to what specifically he would want Obama to do once he had usurped power. Ratigan’s answer: allow corporations to re patriate their overseas profits [[presumably by reducing or waiving corporate taxes on the money) to fund a national infrastructure bank. So the great liberal dream is that Obama propose something that he has already proposed and fund it by giving multinationals a tax break.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Ar...Failure_2.html

NEW LINK

As someone who promotes music, I would never tell you to buy a CD by saying the CD sucks....just an FYI

**ms_m** · 09-13-2011, 11:37 PM

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 12:34 AM

I’ve spoken about Daily Kos on a few occasions but never went into a lot of detail because it’s the type of blog, you really need to be there on a daily basis to understand.

In general terms, I enjoyed my time there, I had never met so many politically knowledgeable and astute people anywhere else on the net…and like here at SDF, I even made friends away from the net.

In specific terms though, it became a nightmare.

Daily Kos was started as a political blog to promote, push and raise money for Democrats. Not progressives, not moderates, etc. but Democratic candidates on a national, state and local level.

Like many places on the net there were disagreements or as they are called on Kos, pie fights, but eventually people made up and moved on.

At one point, I started to notice an ugliness I hadn’t seen before and it became increasingly racial in nature. I finally walked away. Fighting with “liberals” who were comfortable throwing around the “N” word was a waste of my time.

Now as it so happens, I still belong to Kos, not because I want to but because it’s like the Bates Motel, you can check in but you can’t check out…and I mean that literally, you can not delete your account at Daily Kos…..anyhoo, because I have friends there I would often hear about the place and I knew it was getting worse and not better. Recently all hell broke loose and a large percentage of AA’s and their supporters were banned from the site. Banned I may add arbitrarily.

Who cares you may say, no one really [[except for the people that were banned and those of us who understood and were a part of the hate fest going on) but it has initiated a lot of talk in the political blog world and some of it good. The post below is part of that good. Some will like it, some will take offense but I hope most will be open minded enough to at least try and understand.

Sunday, September 11, 2011
White privileged sensibilities

In case you're not aware, the great 2011 Daily Kos purge has been underway this week. Just days after I wrote Whatever it is Markos is doing, it's not working, the big man himself stepped in and started banning people from the site and dishing out other discipline as he saw fit.

To the broader political world, most folks will rightly say, "so what?" But the context should provide us with some lessons to learn. That's because one of the biggest battles going on there was about people of color [[mostly African Americans) speaking up when they heard racist things being said by other commentors. The "OMG you're calling me a racist?" reactions where overwhelming and the pushback was severe. After months of this, some black participants and their supporters got angry and said so. It was in the midst of this that Markos came in and lowered the ban hammer without taking the time to look at the context. As a result, about 1/3 of the punishments were given out to either African American participants or their supporters. You can read about Adept2u's [[one of those banned) experience here.

What I observe is something I've been talking/hearing about on progressive blogs for years now. It comes down to the fact that if we want to have dialogue about the issue of racism, white people are going to have to get used to the idea that its going to make us uncomfortable.

Interestingly enough, the first time I ran into this issue online it was in a discussion between Glenn Greenwald and Nezua from The Unapologetic Mexican back in the summer of 2008. I wrote about it here.

It starts out with a post by Greenwald where he says this:

It is always preferable to have views and sentiments -- even ugly ones -- aired out in the open rather than forcing them into hiding through suppression. And part of the reason people intently run away from discussions of race... is because it is too easy to unwittingly run afoul of various unwritten speech rules, thereby triggering accusations of bigotry. That practice has the effect of keeping people silent, which in turn has the effect of reinforcing the appearance that nobody thinks about race [[which is why nobody discusses it), which in turn prevents a constructive discussions of hidden and unwarranted premises.

And here is Nezua's response to that:

In this analysis [[or this part of his post at least) the problem is the various unwritten speech rules. But guess what? There really aren't any. There are just poor attitudes we keep about people who look different. Or who we've been taught to think of differently. And there is a "White" attitude of deciding for everyone else how they should live, be, self-identify, and do many other things. There are old slurs and old tropes that hurt people. These are the things that are flushed out when people speak: attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, manners of speaking that hint at lurking attitudes.

People avoid talking about race because they are scared of exposing their thoughts and views on race. They are afraid they are A RACIST. They are not afraid of "unwritten speech rules." They are afraid that what they really think and feel will cause them to be ridiculed or ostracized in public, or that they may see a part of themselves they have to feel bad about. So they keep the potential to themselves.

But if we keep the focus on Speech Rules, we miss the opportunity to change ourselves...

I would just end by saying what people have to get over is the shame of admitting they are not perfect as-is; admitting that they soaked up some terrible views and thoughts and ideas while growing up absorbing American culture. We have to get over our idea that the work of becoming a Grownup is over—the work of improving ourselves, of continuing the climb toward being a helpful and healthy human being. We should search out these grains of harmful thoughts in ourselves like joyful detectives. Because when you can find them, you can change them. Just seeing them begins that change. Just wanting to see them is a part of that change. This is my idea of changing the world for the better.

Amen! I thought that was the whole point of being a progressive...changing the world for the better. But to do so we've got to get over this fear of feeling bad about what we might have done/said that was racist and be prepared to deal with some genuine anger on the part of those we've hurt.

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/...ibilities.html

There are also links within the post you can check out as well.

I'm not interested in a conversation on this but I would like to say, thanks for taking the time to listen!

**MotownSteve** · 09-14-2011, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by ms_m

Hate Breeds Hate: a righteous rant
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 | Posted by sepiagurlsweetspot @ The People’s View

I just read the article at the link and found it to be very troubling. I also found that nonsense about can't go to the park troubling.

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 01:08 AM

Steve I agree, the most troubling thing I've seen in the last three years is all the hate and negativity.

I KNEW, electing a Black President would not be some harmonious dream. I KNEW it would not signal the end of racism, bigotry and prejudices. I'm simply too old and have lived through too much, to be that naive but never did I expect the intensity of the open hatefulness that has developed in this country. Never did I expect the ACCEPTANCE of it. It's the latter that has blown my mind the most!

I don't know how this will all end but I do KNOW.....Together we stand, Divided we fall!

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 01:40 AM

Elmendorf: Stimulus Now, Austerity Later

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 13, 2011 at 4:46 pm

CBO Chief Doug Elmendorf testified today before the Supercommittee and said, sensibly, that “[t]he combination of fiscal policies that would be most effective would be policies that cut taxes or increase spending in the near-term, but over the medium and longer-term move in the opposite direction.” In other words, the sort of thing that President Obama proposed in his jobs bill. Higher deficits in the short term when interest rates are low and the output gap is large, followed by lower deficits down the road when [[hopefully) the situation will be different.

Clearly that leaves plenty of room for disagreement around the margins about exactly which measures to adopt. But if members of Congress were willing to broadly accept Elmendorf’s ideas, we’d have an easy time working out a compromise. Instead, we live in a world where compromise is impossible because senior House aides are running around saying “Obama Is On The Ropes; Why Do We Appear Ready To Hand Him A Win?”

A legislative compromise on a bill that has a meaningful positive impact on the economy is, by definition, going to be a “win” for President Obama. It would also be a win for the American people. But if you think that beating Obama is the best thing for the long-term interests of the country, then you’ll quite sensibly work to deny him that win. Thus, no compromise and no recovery.
MORE:
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...sterity-later/

Modern Monetary Theory

[…]The Federal government is the monopoly supplier of currency.
The modern floating exchange rate system helps to maintain equilibrium and flexibility in the global economy.

The currency unit created by the state via deficit spending can only be extinguished by payment of taxes. Therefore, a modern monetary system can best be thought of as a system of debits and credits where government deficit spending credits the private sector and payment of taxes debits the private sector.

Functional Finance

Functional Finance is an economic theory based on the following principles:

The government is an entity created by the people and for the people. It exists to further the prosperity of the private sector – NOT to benefit at its expense. If this entity is allowed to exist for its own benefit or becomes corrupted by a concentration of power, it will become susceptible to dissolution via the populace’s rejection of that government.

Governments should be actively involved in regulating and helping build the infrastructure within which the private sector can generate economic growth. The economy is a complex dynamical system with irrational participants. It cannot be expected to regulate itself or behave rationally at all times. Therefore, some level of government intervention and involvement is not only beneficial, but necessary. But ultimately, it must be the private sector that is the driver of economic growth. While government can aid in this process it cannot be expected to be the primary driver of innovation, productivity and growth.

Money is always created by the state and must therefore be regulated by the state; however, ultimately the private sector must accept this legal tender as the currency unit. Therefore, the private and public sectors should best be thought of as being in partnership with one another and not opposing forces. Government by the people and for the people is not the antagonist in this story, but rather an entity that should be best utilized to maximize private sector prosperity.

Government deficit spending and tax collection should be maintained at a rate that does not impose financial hardship on the private sector. Because the Federal government is not a state or household it should not manage its balance sheet for its own benefit. Rather, taxes and government spending should be managed in a way that most benefits the private sector and encourages private sector prosperity, productivity, innovation and growth.
http://pragcap.com/resources/underst...monetary-syste

FYI: "Private sector" = people

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 05:48 AM

POTUS Pulls Another Rabbit Out Of His Hat
Posted on 09/13/2011 at 4:45 pm by JM Ashby

The Republicans are growing a little worried about the mission they mandated to the “Super Committee” because the Obama Administration is now seeking to use that committee to pass the president’s jobs proposal.

“By asking the Joint Select Committee to increase the $1.5 trillion target to cover the full cost of his plan, the president is essentially tasking a committee designed to reduce the deficit to pay for yet another round of stimulus,” the committee’s co-chair, Rep. Jeb Hensarling [[R-TX) said in a statement last week. “This proposal would make the already-arduous challenge of finding bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction nearly impossible.”

On the contrary, what the president is asking the committee to do is to agree to even more deficit reduction, and just when I thought this administration couldn’t impress me any more with their deviousness, they pull another rabbit out of their hat.

Many Republicans are resistant to the idea of using the joint committee as a vehicle to pass or pay for Obama’s jobs bill, a significant chunk of which they oppose. But the legislation is written in such a way that — if it passes — it will count any extra savings that the committee finds toward the cost of its bill. And at a Tuesday press conference House Speaker John Boehner encouraged the committee to go well beyond its statutory requirement of finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Full Article:
http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/20...f-his-hat.html

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 06:05 AM

Affordable Care Act Working for Young People
Posted on September 13, 2011 by Karina

A report out today from the U.S. Census Bureau finds the percentage of young adults with health insurance increased from 70.7% in 2009 to 72.8% in 2010–despite the weak economy:

A key reason for the increase in coverage is the Affordable Care Act provision allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plans until their 26th birthday [[the provision went into effect for plan years beginning on or after 9/23/10) and it’s expected even more young people will be covered this year. Learn more from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

Affordable Care Act in Action: Fewer insured

Young Adults in America
Posted September 13, 2011

By Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

We know that young adults are the age group most likely to be uninsured and before health reform was enacted, many young Americans lost their health insurance when they left home or graduated from school. This meant that your sons or daughters – who might be college students or in their first job – were often forced to choose between paying their rent or maintaining their health insurance. A policy in the Affordable Care Act changes this, by allowing young adults to be on their parents’ plan until age 26.

Today, a new report shows that the Affordable Care Act is working. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey released today, there was a significant increase in the number of 18-24 year olds with health insurance in the U.S. over the past year.

The report showed that the percentage of young adults with insurance increased from 70.7% in 2009 to 72.8% in 2010. That translates into 500,000 more young people with insurance. We expect even more will gain coverage in 2011 when the policy is fully phased in.

Young people sometimes think they’re invincible, but it’s important for everyone to have insurance. One car accident, one slip in a shower, or one sudden illness can result in months or even years of health care bills that can bankrupt the average family if that son or daughter is uninsured.

This 2% increase in coverage for young people came as the number of Americans under 65 with insurance went down slightly. The Affordable Care Act will help provide coverage at a decent price for millions of uninsured Americans starting in 2014, when millions of Americans will have access to affordable insurance options.

To read more about the health insurance coverage data released today, please visit this page.

http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=4395

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 12:12 PM

From Abstract to Reality: Census Data Shows Why Health Reform is Essential
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 | Posted by Deaniac @ The People’s View

Here comes the Republicans' worst nightmare about ObamaCare: it works! Every single provision of the Affordable Care Act that has gone into effect thus far has worked. First, it lowered premiums of "Medicare Advantage" plans by 1% despite having the government stop subsidizing it to the tune of 14% extra over traditional Medicare. Medicare changes were one of the first to go into effect. As insurance regulations, like beginning this plan year, insurers have to spend 80-85% of premiums on actually providing care, started to kick in, heads exploded and in some market, private insurance premiums headed south. President Obama massively expanded coverage for children through SCHIP before the big health care reform, and since then by stopping health insurer discrimination based on pre-existign conditions against children first.

And? And, beginning September 23 of last year, insurance companies have been required to insure adult children under 26 under their parents' insurance plans. So? So, in a survey just released by HHS, there was only one age group that increased their health insurance coverage. Wanna take a guess which one?

18-24 year olds were the only age group to experience a significant increase in the percentage with health insurance over the past year, from 70.7% in 2009 to 72.8% in 2010. This is a two percentage point increase in the share of adults 18-24 with coverage and represents 500,000 more young adults with health insurance.
Full Article:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/0...nsus-data.html

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 12:34 PM

The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012

If Pennsylvania Republicans and their buddies in other states execute a plan to change election rules, Obama has a one-way ticket to Losertown.

—By Nick Baumann

Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: there's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. [[The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president.

Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top Republicans in both houses of the state's legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. [[Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...eat-obama-2012

I should be shocked but I'm not. Republicans will do anything to keep the POTUS from getting a second term and it's getting to the point, voters from both sides are all too happy to help.

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 12:53 PM

Gosh, Could Obamacare Be Working?
Jonathan Cohn
September 14, 2011 | 10:13 am

Need a reason to believe the Affordable Care Act is starting to work? The Census Bureau just gave you a half million of them.

That’s how many young adults had health insurance in 2010, as compared to 2009, according to the official estimates. Or, to put it another way, the proportion of 18- to 24-year olds without health insurance fell, by roughly two percentage points, last year.

That’s pretty remarkable, given what was happening in the rest of the population. For every other group of non-elderly adults, from 35 through 64 years of age, the proportion without health insurance increased. [[See the graph above.)

That's the sort of decline you'd expect, given economic conditions: When people lose jobs, they also lose access to employer-sponsored insurance. When their incomes fall or their debts rise, they have a harder time keeping up with premiums.

But then why aren't 18- to 24-year-olds suffering the same fate? What makes them so special? Nobody can be certain right now. Health insurance estimates are famously quirky and these data frequently mask critical information. But, as noted yesterday, the circumstantial evidence suggests, very strongly, that the Affordable Care Act is the primary factor.
Full Article:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...are-act-census

Tax Hikes Now? No. Tax Hikes Later? Yes.
Jonathan Cohn
September 13, 2011 | 11:23 pm

President Obama this week did exactly what he promised to do last week: He proposed a way to pay for his jobs bill.

In particular, he suggested raising taxes on the wealthy and then using the money to offset the cost of school building, payroll tax breaks, and other expenditures designed to boost the economy. He also invited the congressional super-committee to come up with alternatives, as long as they generate the same amount in combined savings and revenue.

Republicans were quick to pounce: Obama wants to raise taxes! Instead of saving the economy, he's going to kill it! And even less hyperbolic commentators from the right were unhappy. Here, for example, is Megan McArdle, who has actually said some charitable things about Obama's proposal. "Paying for the bill with tax hikes--any tax hikes--is going to substantially reduce the stimulus this bill provides."

Do they have a case? Most economists would agree that raising taxes right now would slow the economy. But let's be clear: That's not what the administration is proposing. As Budget Director Jack Lew confirmed in yesterday's White House press briefing, the tax increases wouldn't take effect until January 2013 -- i.e., sixteen months from now. That's a significant difference.
Full Article:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...keynes-deficit

It's been obvious to me for awhile Republicans will often attack President Obama's character because they can't truthfully attack his policies.

For all the hand wringing and name calling, he's actually getting the job done and HELPING the American people.

Has everything he's done been a success...no... but he keeps at it no matter what and on the policy front, he's winning ...as a result we're winning and the Republican politicians know that as well.

They also take great pleasure in knowing....the American people as a general rule, don't have a clue.

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 01:14 PM

I like reading comments from articles almost as much as the article themselves. This one was particularly inspiring.

Last Spring I was unhappy with Obama and made some stupid comments. It was a brief phase. I had stated in one comment here last Spring that it would be better if a real Republican won the White House because it would most likely hurry our downfall and the subsequent revolt or uprising. I also said it would be better to take the plunge into the Republican hot water all at once instead of like the proverbial frog in the slowly warming water. Since I made those ignorant comments I have seen them repeated here many times.

Initially, sometimes when I get riled up I will act more on emotion rather than common sense, but in time, I always come back to reality and find center ground.

A Republican take over of both chambers of Congress and the White House would be the absolute worst thing for America and Americans. The middle class will get hammered and the poor will be devastated.

It’s always a plus to see a secure adult who can admit when he/she has been wrong. An adult that understands, you can not change a behavior, you will not admit exist. Bravo, to all the adults in the room!

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 01:31 PM

Random Comments:

We already have a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure program under way…the only problem is that it’s in Afghanistan and Iraq. We just need to give the Pentagon the GPS coordinates for Cleveland…

I couldn’t have said that any better. Build a road or bridge in Afghanistan? THAT is military strategy. And no one, and I mean no one asks how it is being “funded”.

Build/repair infrastructure here, and it needs to “paid” for by cuts elsewhere. But according to Republicans, the biggest injustice would be to pay for any of this off the “backs” of the affluent. Who are not only doing better than ever but are also our job creators. [[snark)

The GOP heavily supports this message, and frankly, I think it is working. Meanwhile, I just can’t stop rolling my eyes.

Ironically, the comments above were in reference to another article....amazing how they both fit in with the article below...

Cantor Voted For Billions To Rebuild Schools In Iraq, Now Opposes Funding School Construction In America

By Judd Legum on Sep 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm

Majority Leader Eric Cantor [[R-VA) voted for over $120 billion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, funds that were used to construct and repair schools, roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure.

Now, Cantor is opposing President Obama’s proposal to spend $30 billion to modernize 35,000 American schools. Reuters has the story:

U.S. House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Monday he will not support President Barack Obama’s proposal to renovate U.S. schools as part of the administration’s bill to spur job growth.

He added that Obama should focus instead on cutting federal regulations that he says kill U.S. jobs…

The president’s proposal is a modest effort. The total maintenance and repair backlog at U.S. schools is estimated at $270 billion to $500 billion. While the funding Obama is proposing is fully offset, Cantor voted to build schools in Iraq and Afghanistan with deficit spending.
Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-iraq-schools/

Are we paying attention?

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 01:40 PM

Take Action

Contact Elected Officials - Address, Phone, Twitter, Email
Posted by Linda H on 7:58 AM

A list of websites, email addresses, twitter accounts and phone numbers for the Senate, members of the House of Representatives, and the White House:

White House
President Barack Obama - [[Democrat) Twitter

BarackObama
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20500
Web Form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/barackobama

Phone: 202-456-1111

Comprehensive list of contacts by State:
http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/05...e-twitter.html

Contact your Senators and Reps and tell them to PASS THIS BILL [[American Jobs Act)
..........

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 02:18 PM

…a glimpse in the world of President Obama…

Blue Dogs Cool To Obama Jobs Vision
Brian Beutler | September 14, 2011, 1:29PM

Blue Dog Democrats are pushing members of the joint deficit Super Committee to reduce the deficit significantly more than they've been tasked with. But they don't want to talk about President Obama's jobs plan. And beneath the surface its clear that there are major differences between the White House and conservative members of his party.

Leaders of the Blue Dog caucus held a press conference in the Capitol Visitor's Center Wednesday to push the Super Committee to "go big." But thanks to an explicit efforts by Democrats and the administration the deficit panel's work has become linked to the idea of job creation, and Obama's jobs bill. But the Blue Dogs didn't really want to talk about it.

After the press conference I asked Rep. Heath Shuler [[D-NC) whether he agreed with CBO chief Doug Elmendorf -- and by extension Obama -- that the wisest economic path involves near term stimulus followed by long-run fiscal restraint.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

I often see people on the left criticizing and ridiculing the POTUS and inevitably the rallying cry will be, he should be more like FDR….

Let’s take a look at a few facts.

We’ll start with the fact that FDR had a super Democratic majority

75th US Congress

Senate
Democratic [[D): 76 [[majority)
Republican [[R): 16
Farmer-Labor [[FL): 2
Wisconsin Progressive [[P): 1
Independent [[I): 1
TOTAL members: 96

House of Representatives

Democratic [[D): 334 [[majority)
Republican [[R): 88
Wisconsin Progressive [[P): 7
Progressive [[P): 1
Farmer-Labor [[FL): 5
TOTAL members: 435

BUT….even with this super majority

FDR wasn’t able to get a National Health Care Plan
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_hi..._us.php?page=2

He didn’t fight for Civil Rights and allowed Jim Crow to continue?
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stru...resident2.html

He allowed deficit hawks to influence his economic policy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...nkin-roosevelt

He cut benefits to veterans, funding for research, education, and slashed salaries of federal employees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

President Obama on the other hand… Success Stories
Posted by Linda H on 3:08 PM

President Obama has accomplished all this without a super majority, [[not anywhere close to one) and while dealing with opposition from Republicans, his own party and even his base.

Are we paying attention?

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 02:37 PM

…and just to check to see if you REALLY are paying attention….

**UPDATED: Barack Obama and the myth of the progressive ‘majorities’
July 16, 2011 • Posted in People, Politics, President Barack Obama, U.S. Senate

To progressives who complain about Barack Obama “squandering” the progressive majorities he supposedly had going for him when he was elected president, I refer you to the following chart [[from Wikipedia):

What the chart shows is the actual number of Democrats and Independents in the Senate from the time Obama was sworn in, in January 2009, through the present, when Democrats hold a slim, 53-47 majority in the upper chamber.

Of the 56 Democrats and 2 Independents caucusing with the Senate majority when Barack Obama took office, [[there were two seats unfilled, due to a disputed race in Minnesota that wasn’t resolved until July, and the former Obama Senate seat in Illinois) —

17 represented red or red-leaning states:

Majority leader Harry Reid [[Nevada)

Max Baucus and John Tester [[Montana)

Ben Nelson [[Nebraska)

Mark Begich [[Alaska)

Blanche Lincoln [[Arkansas)

Jeanne Shaheen [[New Hampshire)

Kay Hagan [[North Carolina)

Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan [[North Dakota)

Tim Johnson [[South Dakota)

Evan Bayh [[Indiana)

Jim Webb and Mark Warner [[Virginia)

Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefellar [[West Virginia)

Claire McCaskill [[Missouri)

Another 27 represented blue or blue leaning states:

Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer [[California)

Chris Dodd [[Connecticut)

Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez [[New Jersey)

Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall [[New Mexico)

Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand [[New York)

Ted Kaufman and Tom Carper [[Delaware)

Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley [[Oregon)

Daniel Inouye and Danidel Akaka [[Hawaii)

Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse [[Rhode Island)

Dick Durbin and Roland Burris [[until November 2009, when the seat flipped to Republican Mark Kirk)

Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders [[Democrat and Independent, respectively, from Vermont)

Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell [[Washington)

Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin [[Maryland)

Ted Kennedy and John Kerry [[Massachusetts [[Kennedy died in August 2010 and his
seat flipped to Republican Scott Brown in February 2010)

The remaining 12 represented swing states:

Michael Bennett and Mark Udall [[Colorado)

Sherrod Brown [[Ohio)

Bill Nelson [[Florida)

Bob Casey [[Pennsylvania, plus Arlen Specter who switched parties in April 2009)

Tom Harken [[Iowa)

Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold [[Wisconsin)

Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow [[Michigan)

Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

*Al Franken didn’t come on board until in July 2009.

In addition, there was Joe Lieberman, who by January 2009 was a reliable vote for the red state caucus on key legislation like healthcare, despite hailing from blue Connecticut.

continued next page...

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 02:38 PM

Even if you generously put all of the swing state Democrats into the “progressive” group, and that’s stretching it when it comes to certain votes, that puts the president at minus 18 reliable “progressive” votes in the Senate.

And because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear from the start that he intended to have his caucus use the filibuster on every piece of legislation, and vote as a bloc, forcing Democrats to always need 60 votes to pass anything, those numbers really matter.

[Sidebar: In the House, Democrats had both a stronger majority and a stronger progressive majority, with the progressive caucus outnumbering the blue dog caucus by something like 83-54 in 2009 [[the blue dogs lost half their numbers in the 2010 elections.)

That's why the House was able to pass something like 400 bills, including lots of progressive legislation, fewer than a third of which ever made it to the Senate floor. The House is where ideological ideals live -- on the left as well as on the right [[witness the amount of right wing legislation that the tea party caucus, also about 83 strong, has passed, but which has gone nowhere in the Senate). The Senate is where they go to die, and actual law is made.]

Despite the myth-making on the left, Democrats actually held their tenuous 60-vote majority for only five months in 2009: from July of that year, when Al Franken was finally sworn in after winning the recount against Norm Coleman, through November 2009, when Democrats lost Barack Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.

Could Barack Obama have somehow rammed through the entire progressive wish list in five months? I find it hard to see how, given the unreliability of the blue dog Senators. Could he have convinced the conservative Senators to put a vote to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell through, at the same time they were struggling to get a healthcare bill done? Could he have gotten them to add DOMA to their task list, given the knock-down, drag-out healthcare fight and with the rising tea party town hall rebellion brewing? Maybe, but I doubt that, too.
MORE:
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/m...sive-majority/

..........

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 03:01 PM

I'm in it, to win it...how about you?

Take Action

Contact Elected Officials - Address, Phone, Twitter, Email
Posted by Linda H on 7:58 AM

A list of websites, email addresses, twitter accounts and phone numbers for the Senate, members of the House of Representatives, and the White House:

White House
President Barack Obama - [[Democrat) Twitter

BarackObama
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20500
Web Form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/barackobama

Phone: 202-456-1111

Comprehensive list of contacts by State:
http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/05...e-twitter.html

Contact your Senators and Reps and tell them to PASS THIS BILL [[American Jobs Act)
..........

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 03:21 PM

The Fierce Advocate for Consumers Goes to Washington
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 | Posted by Deaniac @ The People’s View

Obama caves! It suuuucks that he didn't nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau! We're sooo disappointed! Some of us said that well, other than the fact that her nomination would only set up a huge brawl in DC without actually any chance of confirmation or any chance of exposing the Republicans' real obstruction agenda, the White House has a hand behind pushing her to run for the Senate in the Bay State. Well, don't look now but Elizabeth Warren is in. She's just formally announced her run for Senate in Massachusetts.

“Washington is rigged for big corporations,” Warren continued. “A big company, like GE, pays nothing in taxes, and we’re asking college students to take on even more debt to get an education? We’re telling seniors they may need to learn to live on less? It isn’t right, and it’s the reason I’m running.”

“We have a chance to help rebuild America’s middle class. We have a chance to put Washington on the side of families. We can do this together,” Warren says in her announcement video.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/0...s-goes-to.html

She will make a hell of a senator if voters wake up and get behind her. Good thing the President “caved” [[snark)

When it comes to leftwing messaging…they will ridicule the Obama Administration all day, every day but fail to see, too often the left [[as in base) is it’s own worst enemy. The really sad part, the Republican/TeaParty, count on it!

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 03:53 PM

The Poll Paradox For Perry: Obama A ‘Socialist’ But Ending Social Programs Would Be Terrible
Kyle Leighton September 14, 2011, 1:50 PM

Rick Perry, meet your base.

A PPP poll out on Wednesday illustrates a clear contradiction within the GOP electorate: overwhelming majorities of voters who deride President Obama as a socialist, but who also love actual real social welfare programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — and don’t want to see them cut.

For a candidate like Rick Perry, that cognitive dissonance could present real problems. He’s rocketed to the front of the pack on the strength of his appeal to the Tea Party, where the Obama-as-socialist rhetoric runs red hot. He’s also pretty much declared war on Social Security.

71 percent of Republicans in the poll agree that President Obama is a socialist. But 75 percent of them don’t think that the government should end Social Security. 78 percent think that ending Medicare would be a bad idea. And 61 percent say the same about Medicaid [[health care for the poor).
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...le.php?ref=fpa

It would help if MSM, politicians and even pundits [[on both sides)…as well as many average [[and uninformed) voters, stop pushing the meme that being poor is solely synonymous with minorities.

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 04:20 PM

Rep. Joe Walsh’s Plan To End Israel
By Matthew Yglesias posted from ThinkProgress Yglesias on Sep 14, 2011 at 3:35 pm

A sane Israeli government would have tried to use the Palestinian drive for United Nations recognition as an opportunity for creative thinking about how to achieve some goals, but instead, the quest to find partners who’ll back them up in saying no to anything has left them with guys like Rep Joe Walsh [[R-IL) who’s pushing a plan for the elimination of Israel:

One such measure supports “Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria,” the biblical name attached to the area otherwise known as the West Bank. The resolution, which was submitted last week by tea party firebrand Rep. Joe Walsh [[R-Ill.), accuses the Palestinians of breaking past agreements with the U.S. and Israel. [...]

“My hope is that this will help buck up Israel,” Walsh said in an interview last week. “We’re not going to get peace until the other side realizes that they’re dealing with strength, that Israel and the U.S. are not going to back down.” [...]

[…]You can have a single state with sovereignty from the Mediterranean to Jordan, but that state can’t possibly be Israel. Or if it is Israel, it would have to be a sovereign state that’s formally committed to denying citizenship to a large and growing minority of its residents. Walsh would, in other words, take exactly what’s so anomalous and problematic about the occupation of the West Bank and exacerbate it. This is fine if you’re playing partisan games or think you read something about it in the Bible, but it’s a ludicrous foreign policy strategy.
Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...to-end-israel/

This is what happens when you let emotion [[and ignorance)... not facts and logic rule your thinking.

This idiotic solution would start the mother of all wars.

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 06:01 PM

GOP Jobs Plan: More Snakes?
Benjy Sarlin | September 14, 2011, 4:34PM

Democrats and Republicans all agree that the nation needs to move on a jobs agenda. And Republicans have a new plan: unleash the reins of snake commerce.

GOP members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are incensed over a proposed regulation that would restrict the transportation and importation of nine types of snakes, including the Burmese Python.

In a new report entitled "Broken Government: How the Administrative State has Broken President Obama's Promise of Regulatory Reform," GOP members cited the proposed snake ban as one of seven examples of red tape choking off job growth in an already ailing economy.

More:http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...es.php?ref=fpa

Warning: Picture of a snake involved…just though I’d let you know

The Republican/TeaParty has officially crossed over into the land of the totally absurd!

I knew they would stall and obstruct but dayum, they really do think Americans are
stupid....and if we don’t push back on the BS we ARE stupid!

**ms_m** · 09-14-2011, 06:04 PM

I'm in it, to win it...how about you?

Take Action

Contact Elected Officials - Address, Phone, Twitter, Email
Posted by Linda H on 7:58 AM

A list of websites, email addresses, twitter accounts and phone numbers for the Senate, members of the House of Representatives, and the White House:

White House
President Barack Obama - [[Democrat) Twitter

BarackObama
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20500
Web Form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/barackobama

Phone: 202-456-1111

Contact your Senators and Reps and tell them to PASS THIS BILL [[American Jobs Act)

just discovered the link isn't working and no one said a word...hmmp...anyhoo

Comprehensive list of contacts by State:
http://www.whatisworking.com/2011/05...e-twitter.html