Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
yurbud
yurbud's Journal
yurbud's Journal
March 9, 2012
White House response to my Social Security petition:
I get nervous whenever they say words like ''balanced'' but they said the right things by the end--now lets see if they do it.
This is in response to a petition I posted on their website a while back. Pardon the typos--I didn't think it would go anywhere.
Like Senator Sanders, the Obama Administration is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security -- and securing the basic compact that hard work should be rewarded with dignity at retirement or in case of disability or early death. The Administration believes that any plan to close the long-term Social Security financing shortfall must be balanced and that we must ask the highest income Americans to contribute more to the system as part of this.
Currently, workers pay Social Security payroll taxes on earnings up to $110,100; Senator Sanders' legislation, S. 1558, would also apply these payroll taxes to the earnings of the highest income Americans above $250,000. This proposal deserves serious consideration. As the President has said, a modest adjustment to the Social Security cap "would do a significant amount to stabilize the system." And, whether it be through this or through other means, the Administration is committed to having the richest Americans contribute more to Social Security as part of a balanced plan to restore Social Security solvency so that the system can continue to provide the same financial security for future generations that it does today.
The Obama Administration has also been clear that it will not accept any reform that privatizes Social Security, slashes benefits for future generations, or cuts basic benefits for any current beneficiaries. Put simply, reform should strengthen Social Security and not weaken it.
FULL TEXT
Currently, workers pay Social Security payroll taxes on earnings up to $110,100; Senator Sanders' legislation, S. 1558, would also apply these payroll taxes to the earnings of the highest income Americans above $250,000. This proposal deserves serious consideration. As the President has said, a modest adjustment to the Social Security cap "would do a significant amount to stabilize the system." And, whether it be through this or through other means, the Administration is committed to having the richest Americans contribute more to Social Security as part of a balanced plan to restore Social Security solvency so that the system can continue to provide the same financial security for future generations that it does today.
The Obama Administration has also been clear that it will not accept any reform that privatizes Social Security, slashes benefits for future generations, or cuts basic benefits for any current beneficiaries. Put simply, reform should strengthen Social Security and not weaken it.
FULL TEXT
March 8, 2012
This is the right attitude for most problems, which doesn't mean you ignore bad acts or intentions by others, but deal with them in this spirit, sort of like the Unabomber's brother did when he turned him in, but sought certain guarantees about how he would be treated.
I think the absence of this is why so many of us are angry about the actions of the very wealthy. We don't begrudge them their wealth--we resent them treating us like cattle to slaughter at will, to give our jobs to people who work for starvation wages (and prevent those people from demanding more), take our houses when they realize our mortgage payments aren't making them richer fast enough, and even take our lives when it will increase the profit margin of their insurance companies, or when some oil rich country won't give their oil away for a song and so must be killed.
Theoretically, this has already been said with ''Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,'' but those at the top are doing unto others and us as they would do unto cockroaches. The law needs to bring their behavior to some happy medium between amorality and the Golden Rule, and their ability to influence the law needs to be reduced to that of any other informed, active citizen.
That is the idea and consequence of Bradley Manning's actions that they fear as much as pulling back the curtain of platitudes in front of the ugly actions of our government on behalf of the very wealthy.
Bradley Manning's idea as dangerous as leaks:
I heard Lawrence Lessig quote this on Pacifica, and it kind of gave me chills. It's from the chat log with the informant who narc'd on him.
(03:15:49 PM) bradass87: i cant separate myself from others
(03:16:12 PM) bradass87: i feel connected to everybody… like they were distant family
(03:16:24 PM) bradass87: i… care?
***
(03:24:10 PM) bradass87: we’re human… and we’re killing ourselves… and no-one seems to see that… and it bothers me
CONTEXT
This is the right attitude for most problems, which doesn't mean you ignore bad acts or intentions by others, but deal with them in this spirit, sort of like the Unabomber's brother did when he turned him in, but sought certain guarantees about how he would be treated.
I think the absence of this is why so many of us are angry about the actions of the very wealthy. We don't begrudge them their wealth--we resent them treating us like cattle to slaughter at will, to give our jobs to people who work for starvation wages (and prevent those people from demanding more), take our houses when they realize our mortgage payments aren't making them richer fast enough, and even take our lives when it will increase the profit margin of their insurance companies, or when some oil rich country won't give their oil away for a song and so must be killed.
Theoretically, this has already been said with ''Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,'' but those at the top are doing unto others and us as they would do unto cockroaches. The law needs to bring their behavior to some happy medium between amorality and the Golden Rule, and their ability to influence the law needs to be reduced to that of any other informed, active citizen.
That is the idea and consequence of Bradley Manning's actions that they fear as much as pulling back the curtain of platitudes in front of the ugly actions of our government on behalf of the very wealthy.
March 7, 2012
A Hershey, Pennsylvania ice cream shop owner came up with a novel way to support his favorite GOP presidential candidate: by creating a milkshake in his name.
Francis (Frank) Manuopus thought he should do more that plant a lawn sign to spread his support for Santorum, so he invented the Santorum Shake, made with double dutch chocolate (in honor of the Pennsylvania Dutch) and whipped cream because Santorum is "the cream of the crop" to Manuopus.
"If someone has never had the Santorum Shake, they absolutely MUST have a cherry on top," Manuopus added.
He has promoted it in various ways, such as selling it for 50% off if people ask for it at the far right end of the counter or who come in the back door.
and the rest...
ice cream shop offers Santorum shake
A Hershey, Pennsylvania ice cream shop owner came up with a novel way to support his favorite GOP presidential candidate: by creating a milkshake in his name.
Francis (Frank) Manuopus thought he should do more that plant a lawn sign to spread his support for Santorum, so he invented the Santorum Shake, made with double dutch chocolate (in honor of the Pennsylvania Dutch) and whipped cream because Santorum is "the cream of the crop" to Manuopus.
"If someone has never had the Santorum Shake, they absolutely MUST have a cherry on top," Manuopus added.
He has promoted it in various ways, such as selling it for 50% off if people ask for it at the far right end of the counter or who come in the back door.
and the rest...
March 6, 2012
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107458/The-white-slave-children-New-Orleans-Images-pale-mixed-race-slaves-used-drum-sympathy-funds-wealthy-donors-1860s.html#ixzz1oKOK5EYs
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107458/The-white-slave-children-New-Orleans-Images-pale-mixed-race-slaves-used-drum-sympathy-funds-wealthy-donors-1860s.html#ixzz1oKNn8pQ6
The 'white' slave children of New Orleans: Images of pale mixed-race slaves
This aspect of slavery has always fascinated me and underscores how arbitrary race-based slavery was since many members of the ''slave race'' looked identical to their white masters.
When eight former slaves aimed to drum up support for struggling African-American schools in the 1860s, they believed they had just the thing.
In order to garner sympathy - and funds - from rich northerners as they toured the country, organisers from New Orleans portrayed the slaves as white for a propaganda campaign, using four children with mixed-race ancestry and pale complexions.
The youngsters are pictured together and with dark-skinned children in sepia-tinged photographs entitled 'Emancipated Slaves'. Dressed in dapper clothing, they are photographed wrapped in American flags above text such as: 'These children were turned out of [a] hotel on account of color'.
The images were mass-produced for a fundraising campaign following Abraham Lincoln's emancipation of slaves in 1863.
In order to garner sympathy - and funds - from rich northerners as they toured the country, organisers from New Orleans portrayed the slaves as white for a propaganda campaign, using four children with mixed-race ancestry and pale complexions.
The youngsters are pictured together and with dark-skinned children in sepia-tinged photographs entitled 'Emancipated Slaves'. Dressed in dapper clothing, they are photographed wrapped in American flags above text such as: 'These children were turned out of [a] hotel on account of color'.
The images were mass-produced for a fundraising campaign following Abraham Lincoln's emancipation of slaves in 1863.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107458/The-white-slave-children-New-Orleans-Images-pale-mixed-race-slaves-used-drum-sympathy-funds-wealthy-donors-1860s.html#ixzz1oKOK5EYs
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107458/The-white-slave-children-New-Orleans-Images-pale-mixed-race-slaves-used-drum-sympathy-funds-wealthy-donors-1860s.html#ixzz1oKNn8pQ6
March 5, 2012
How is it THIS is the slur that broke Limbaugh's back?
I'm not complaining. I look forward to the day when he makes his living signing autographs at conservative conventions and klan rallies, but it seems like he's said things a lot uglier than this over the years. Other right prominent right wing talkers have said worse, and hell even Republican POLITICIANS have said worse and often survived.
Is it just that the mood of the country has finally changed and too many people have no stomach for this ignorance and bullying anymore?
March 5, 2012
[font size=4]
See full-sized and older THIS MODERN WORLD toons at Daily Kos.[/font]
TOON: THIS MODERN WORLD--Back to the parallel primary!
[font size=4]
See full-sized and older THIS MODERN WORLD toons at Daily Kos.[/font]
March 5, 2012
PIC: Mitt Romney or Mr. Burns?
I'd like to think something like this could keep a guy out of the White House, but Baby Bush was everything Romney is and stupid and cruel on top of it, so who knows.
March 1, 2012
Who Should Decide Your Health Care Choices, You or Your Boss?
If the Democrats don't make a talking point out of that title, they should be fired for incompetence.
Another way to put it: when it comes to a conflict between you and your boss, the GOP will side with your boss every time.
It just blows my mind that the Republicans thing the your employer should get to choose what kind of medical coverage you should get based on the boss's religious or moral beliefs. Does one have to defer one's own religion or morality to your boss? I can't believe they are actually proposing it.
What if your boss is a Jehovah's Witness? Should you be denied a blood transfusion? What if your boss is an Orthodox Jew? Does that mean you can't go to the doctor of Saturday? What if your boss is morally against vaccines? Does that mean you can't get vaccination coverage for your children? And your boss gets to determine if you get birth control coverage? Give me a break!
I'm beginning to think that this is all a distraction so that we don't focus on the fact that Republicans caused this depression are currently in and they want to distract us so we don't remember they are the part of Bush. Every day they become more and more ridiculous.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13355?destination=node%2F13355
What if your boss is a Jehovah's Witness? Should you be denied a blood transfusion? What if your boss is an Orthodox Jew? Does that mean you can't go to the doctor of Saturday? What if your boss is morally against vaccines? Does that mean you can't get vaccination coverage for your children? And your boss gets to determine if you get birth control coverage? Give me a break!
I'm beginning to think that this is all a distraction so that we don't focus on the fact that Republicans caused this depression are currently in and they want to distract us so we don't remember they are the part of Bush. Every day they become more and more ridiculous.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13355?destination=node%2F13355
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PMNumber of posts: 39,405