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
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
December 10, 2012
Tell this PINT-SIZE weasel to GFH! Their TRUE agenda is starting to bleed through.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is encouraging Democrats to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits because the programs are “things we don’t absolutely need.” Speaking to ABC’s George Stephanopolous on Sunday about the so-called fiscal cliff, Coburn said that he would be willing to accept tax hikes for the top 2 percent of earners if Democrats and President Barack Obama agreed to reform Social Security and Medicare.
The ABC host pointed out that Obama’s health care reform law had already achieved about $716 billion in Medicare savings and many Republicans — including former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — ran against those cuts.
“The $700 billion in savings doesn’t save the government a penny because what it does is takes that $700 billion and spends it on other people,” Coburn insisted. “We’ve seen the president demand that we’re going to solve 7 percent of this problem [with tax hikes on the rich] but he’s totally inflexible on the other 93 percent.”
“It doesn’t really matter what happens at the end of this year because ultimately the numbers and the bond holders throughout the world will determine what we’ll spend and what we won’t. So, we can play the political game that is being played out in Washington right now or we can be absolutely honest with the American people and say, ‘Medicare is going bankrupt, Social Security disability will be bankrupt in two years, Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt in five years, Social Security total will be bankrupt in 16,17 years.’”
“The fact is we are spending money we don’t have on things we don’t absolutely need,” he concluded. “And there’s no grownups in Washington that will say, ‘Timeout, stop the politics, let’s have a compromise rather than play the game through the press and hurt the country.’ We’re already going to get another debt downgrade just from what’s happening now because nobody in positions of power are willing to do what’s important and necessary for our country.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/09/coburn-medicare-and-social-security-are-things-we-dont-absolutely-need/
COBURN: Medicare and Social Security ‘Are Things We Don’t Absolutely Need’
Tell this PINT-SIZE weasel to GFH! Their TRUE agenda is starting to bleed through.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is encouraging Democrats to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits because the programs are “things we don’t absolutely need.” Speaking to ABC’s George Stephanopolous on Sunday about the so-called fiscal cliff, Coburn said that he would be willing to accept tax hikes for the top 2 percent of earners if Democrats and President Barack Obama agreed to reform Social Security and Medicare.
The ABC host pointed out that Obama’s health care reform law had already achieved about $716 billion in Medicare savings and many Republicans — including former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — ran against those cuts.
“The $700 billion in savings doesn’t save the government a penny because what it does is takes that $700 billion and spends it on other people,” Coburn insisted. “We’ve seen the president demand that we’re going to solve 7 percent of this problem [with tax hikes on the rich] but he’s totally inflexible on the other 93 percent.”
“It doesn’t really matter what happens at the end of this year because ultimately the numbers and the bond holders throughout the world will determine what we’ll spend and what we won’t. So, we can play the political game that is being played out in Washington right now or we can be absolutely honest with the American people and say, ‘Medicare is going bankrupt, Social Security disability will be bankrupt in two years, Social Security trust fund will be bankrupt in five years, Social Security total will be bankrupt in 16,17 years.’”
“The fact is we are spending money we don’t have on things we don’t absolutely need,” he concluded. “And there’s no grownups in Washington that will say, ‘Timeout, stop the politics, let’s have a compromise rather than play the game through the press and hurt the country.’ We’re already going to get another debt downgrade just from what’s happening now because nobody in positions of power are willing to do what’s important and necessary for our country.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/09/coburn-medicare-and-social-security-are-things-we-dont-absolutely-need/
December 10, 2012
Last week, I wrote about a powerful lobbying group of the wealthy and their corporations, Campaign to the Fix the Debt. Fix the Debt has among its members the CEOs of Boeing, Dow Chemical and AT & T. Critics have richly pointed out that this group ostensibly so dedicated to reducing government debt has members, like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein, who have taken some of the largest government handouts in history. Fix the Debt’s efforts have been intensely focused on getting legislators to implement austerity measures, a combination of draconian cuts to social spending like programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled, public education, and healthcare, with increases in corporate welfare. However, as much as liberals might want to cordon off conservatives as the only perpetrators of these “eat the poor” policies, Fix the Debt has Democratic members. It is the very fact that the Democratic Party is such a big tent that has many people upset. Some do not think the party should include leaders who will support Fix the Debt. This month, L.R. Runner discusses the issue in the Nation essay, “Can We Save the Democratic Party?”
Runner writes,
Runner’s essay highlights the tension in the Democratic Party between the “apologists” and the “progressives.” While there has been a lot of attention on the schisms within the Republican Party after the election, there has been less discussion of how the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party have been affected by the election. Prior to November 6th, the need to stop Mitt Romney from winning was forcing the marriage of two factions of the American Left. With the election over, Runner’s article appears to be one of the first to turn attention to the schism on the left between what some may call the corporatists and the progressives. It has come to the point when the interests of corporatists and those of progressives are deeply at odds. Runner thinks democracy itself will be on the line:
The viewpoint of the corporatist is not only considered pro-business, it’s seen as all-American. There are clearly those in the Democratic Party who believe in cultivating relationships with Wall Street, corporations, and the business community as a whole. It’s good for campaign fundraising. It’s good for gaining access to power. But it’s certainly bad when it comes to making policy; as Democrats grow closer and closer to the people at the top of the hierarchy, social policy is written more and more in favor of the rich and powerful, or simply by them. For example, leaders of the Democratic Party such as former chair of the Democratic National Convention, Antonio Villaraigosa, and former Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, are actually members of the board of Fix the Debt. These two men represent just two of many Democrats who do things like get involved in an organization that advocates policies at odds with what should be Democratic Party values.
- Contrast Democrats like Villaraigosa, Rendell, and Bowles with those like Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren, and it’s easy to see how there is a struggle for the soul of the party. On the one hand you have party members who are willing to let big business write law to limit regulation, reduce corporate taxes, and slash government spending. On the other hand, you have party members who are middle and working class champions unwilling to see social programs eliminated so that the wealthy can keep tax breaks and averse to seeing big business unregulated and operating without contributing to society. In the big tent of the Democratic Party, these two factions seem to be on a political collision course for control of the party and its policy. But the debate over the soul of the Democratic Party is actually an old one. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was frustrated with the party’s split loyalties and wrote a never-delivered letter declining to be re-nominated for the Presidency in 1940:
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/progressives-corporatists-struggle-control-democratic-party.html
PROGRESSIVES And CORPORATISTS Struggle for Control of the Democratic Party
Last week, I wrote about a powerful lobbying group of the wealthy and their corporations, Campaign to the Fix the Debt. Fix the Debt has among its members the CEOs of Boeing, Dow Chemical and AT & T. Critics have richly pointed out that this group ostensibly so dedicated to reducing government debt has members, like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein, who have taken some of the largest government handouts in history. Fix the Debt’s efforts have been intensely focused on getting legislators to implement austerity measures, a combination of draconian cuts to social spending like programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled, public education, and healthcare, with increases in corporate welfare. However, as much as liberals might want to cordon off conservatives as the only perpetrators of these “eat the poor” policies, Fix the Debt has Democratic members. It is the very fact that the Democratic Party is such a big tent that has many people upset. Some do not think the party should include leaders who will support Fix the Debt. This month, L.R. Runner discusses the issue in the Nation essay, “Can We Save the Democratic Party?”
Runner writes,
“Too many members of the party’s nationwide hierarchy are closer, ideologically and politically, to Wall Street than to Main Street—to the corporate, rich and powerful than to the stricken middle class, the increasingly impoverished working class (and the diminished and embattled unions that protect it), and the unemployed and perpetually poor.”
http://www.politicususa.com/austerity-bomb-real-threat-america.html
http://www.politicususa.com/austerity-bomb-real-threat-america.html
Runner’s essay highlights the tension in the Democratic Party between the “apologists” and the “progressives.” While there has been a lot of attention on the schisms within the Republican Party after the election, there has been less discussion of how the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party have been affected by the election. Prior to November 6th, the need to stop Mitt Romney from winning was forcing the marriage of two factions of the American Left. With the election over, Runner’s article appears to be one of the first to turn attention to the schism on the left between what some may call the corporatists and the progressives. It has come to the point when the interests of corporatists and those of progressives are deeply at odds. Runner thinks democracy itself will be on the line:
“An influential group of disaffected Democrats, led by financial titans, highly placed columnists and other privileged insiders, has been clamoring for an avowedly “centrist” party based on still more “bipartisan compromise,” as though Democrats have been lacking in that regard. If the project, essentially a version of the “grand bargain,” succeeds in swaying the Democratic establishment (which may be its actual purpose), the result would be a democracy without any alternatives to government of, by and for the 1 percent—that is, no democracy at all.”
The viewpoint of the corporatist is not only considered pro-business, it’s seen as all-American. There are clearly those in the Democratic Party who believe in cultivating relationships with Wall Street, corporations, and the business community as a whole. It’s good for campaign fundraising. It’s good for gaining access to power. But it’s certainly bad when it comes to making policy; as Democrats grow closer and closer to the people at the top of the hierarchy, social policy is written more and more in favor of the rich and powerful, or simply by them. For example, leaders of the Democratic Party such as former chair of the Democratic National Convention, Antonio Villaraigosa, and former Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, are actually members of the board of Fix the Debt. These two men represent just two of many Democrats who do things like get involved in an organization that advocates policies at odds with what should be Democratic Party values.
- Contrast Democrats like Villaraigosa, Rendell, and Bowles with those like Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren, and it’s easy to see how there is a struggle for the soul of the party. On the one hand you have party members who are willing to let big business write law to limit regulation, reduce corporate taxes, and slash government spending. On the other hand, you have party members who are middle and working class champions unwilling to see social programs eliminated so that the wealthy can keep tax breaks and averse to seeing big business unregulated and operating without contributing to society. In the big tent of the Democratic Party, these two factions seem to be on a political collision course for control of the party and its policy. But the debate over the soul of the Democratic Party is actually an old one. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was frustrated with the party’s split loyalties and wrote a never-delivered letter declining to be re-nominated for the Presidency in 1940:
“In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government. The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values.”
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/progressives-corporatists-struggle-control-democratic-party.html
December 9, 2012
Filibuster Reform- How Democrats can win 2014 & 2016.
- " This session, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., has become a leading advocate for filibuster reform. Merkley is proposing changes to the rules of the Senate that would allow bills to at least reach the floor for debate before being filibustered. The rules changes would require senators to take the floor and address their colleagues in order to block action on a piece of legislation. Right now, senators can simply obstruct bills silently, without explanation.
The proposed changes, are endorsed by at least 51 senators, many Constitutional scholars, as well as the public. A YouGov poll found that 65% of Americans favor changing the rules to require senators to debate a bill on the floor if they wish to block it from proceeding. A hybrid of the filibuster is a procedure called the “hold”. While many argue that they are one in the same, I can’t be sure. Even a veteran Senator could offer no clarity. All I know is, this secretive procedure seems to be used mostly to stop presidential appointments. Since the act is secretive, it is difficult to count the number of holds, but in 2010 Senators had placed a record number of holds on 69 executive and judicial nominees.
If, in fact, they are the same thing...so what! I say, error on the side of caution...leave no loopholes and cover all the bases. Because to demonstrate the power just one Senator can wield using the “hold” procedure, once Sen. Jim DeMint warned that he would place a hold on all legislation that had not been cleared by his office; a move that could have literally stopped all legislative activity in the government.
- Despite the damage caused by these blocking tactics, some Democrats worry they may be voted out as the majority party and are therefore afraid of chipping away at minority rights. There’s one thing we can be sure of, if the Republicans controlled Congress, the first thing they would do is get rid of the filibuster and that ridiculous procedure known as the “hold” so it would not be available to the Democratic minority. In fact, they wouldn’t even leave the fig leaf Democrats are proposing to leave. Republicans believe in obstruction, while Democrats believe in governing.
Senators placing record number of holds on 69 executive and judicial nominees.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126528338
Call, write, email, tweet, fax or visit your Senators and remind them of what Gov. Deval Patrick said at the Democratic National Convention,
SIGN THE PETITION:
http://www.reformthefilibuster.com/gillibrand/
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/12/dont-stop-at-filibuster-get-rid-of.html
DON'T STOP At The Filibuster, GET RID Of Senate “Holds” Too
According to the Brennan Center, as of October 2012, the current Congress has enacted the lowest output of any Congress since World War II, passing a record-low 2.8 percent of bills introduced in that chamber. Use of the filibuster has paralyzed and broken the Senate today in a way no one could have envisioned.
Filibuster Reform- How Democrats can win 2014 & 2016.
- " This session, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., has become a leading advocate for filibuster reform. Merkley is proposing changes to the rules of the Senate that would allow bills to at least reach the floor for debate before being filibustered. The rules changes would require senators to take the floor and address their colleagues in order to block action on a piece of legislation. Right now, senators can simply obstruct bills silently, without explanation.
The proposed changes, are endorsed by at least 51 senators, many Constitutional scholars, as well as the public. A YouGov poll found that 65% of Americans favor changing the rules to require senators to debate a bill on the floor if they wish to block it from proceeding. A hybrid of the filibuster is a procedure called the “hold”. While many argue that they are one in the same, I can’t be sure. Even a veteran Senator could offer no clarity. All I know is, this secretive procedure seems to be used mostly to stop presidential appointments. Since the act is secretive, it is difficult to count the number of holds, but in 2010 Senators had placed a record number of holds on 69 executive and judicial nominees.
If, in fact, they are the same thing...so what! I say, error on the side of caution...leave no loopholes and cover all the bases. Because to demonstrate the power just one Senator can wield using the “hold” procedure, once Sen. Jim DeMint warned that he would place a hold on all legislation that had not been cleared by his office; a move that could have literally stopped all legislative activity in the government.
- Despite the damage caused by these blocking tactics, some Democrats worry they may be voted out as the majority party and are therefore afraid of chipping away at minority rights. There’s one thing we can be sure of, if the Republicans controlled Congress, the first thing they would do is get rid of the filibuster and that ridiculous procedure known as the “hold” so it would not be available to the Democratic minority. In fact, they wouldn’t even leave the fig leaf Democrats are proposing to leave. Republicans believe in obstruction, while Democrats believe in governing.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR.) proposed "Secret Holds Elimination Act," legislation
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-sr502/show
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-sr502/show
Senators placing record number of holds on 69 executive and judicial nominees.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126528338
Call, write, email, tweet, fax or visit your Senators and remind them of what Gov. Deval Patrick said at the Democratic National Convention,
SIGN THE PETITION:
http://www.reformthefilibuster.com/gillibrand/
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/12/dont-stop-at-filibuster-get-rid-of.html
December 9, 2012
On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell confronted Newt Gingrich for falsely predicting in 1993 that the economy would suffer if then-President Bill Clinton raised marginal tax rates.
Republican are making a similar argument against President Obama’s call to raise marginal tax rates on the richest Americans, even though the economy and jobs grew exponentially during the Clinton years when the top marginal tax rate was at 39.6 percent for the top income earners.
O’Donnell read off Gingrich’s false prediction and asked him to apologize to Americans:
O’DONNELL: Who said this? ‘The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment, and actually increase the deficit.’ That’s Newt Gingrich, in 1993, on the Clinton tax increase, and those of us who were working on the other side of that tax increase, Newt, have been waiting for your apology for 20 years for being completely wrong about that.
GINGRICH: I don’t agree with you.
O’DONNELL: But the economy soared. Noone lost a job because of that tax increase.
GINGRICH: Baloney.
O’DONNELL: There was no recession, you said there would be a recession. There was no recession.
GINGRICH: The fact is, if you look at all the indicators when I was elected Speaker, virtually all of the economic growth occurs after the Republicans take control. Virtually all of the increase in the stock market, in fact all of the increase in the stock market is after the Republicans take control.
O’DONNELL: You did not reduce the rates, Newt. You said the rates would cause a recession.
GINGRICH: When we balanced the budget, we balanced the budget with a tax cut, not a tax increase. Four consecutive balanced budget with a tax cut, not a tax increase.
O’DONNELL: A tiny tax cut compared to the biggest tax increase in history, which is what Bill Clinton did. You didn’t dismantle it.
Indeed, in 1993 when President Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top income earners, Gingrich and the Republicans argued that the hikes would result in economic decline and result in huge deficits. They were proven wrong. The country experienced the “longest period of economic growth in U.S. history, increased business investment, 23 million jobs added, and, of course, budget surpluses.” The same boom did not materialize after President George W. Bush enacted his tax cuts; the country experienced large deficits and the weakest job and income growth in the post-war era.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/09/1306371/lawrence-odonnell-confronts-gingrich-for-falsely-predicting-economic-downturn-after-clinton-tax-increases-asks-for-apology/
Lawrence O’Donnell to Newt: APOLOGIZE For Predicting Clinton Tax Increases Would Lead to Downturn
On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell confronted Newt Gingrich for falsely predicting in 1993 that the economy would suffer if then-President Bill Clinton raised marginal tax rates.
Republican are making a similar argument against President Obama’s call to raise marginal tax rates on the richest Americans, even though the economy and jobs grew exponentially during the Clinton years when the top marginal tax rate was at 39.6 percent for the top income earners.
O’Donnell read off Gingrich’s false prediction and asked him to apologize to Americans:
O’DONNELL: Who said this? ‘The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment, and actually increase the deficit.’ That’s Newt Gingrich, in 1993, on the Clinton tax increase, and those of us who were working on the other side of that tax increase, Newt, have been waiting for your apology for 20 years for being completely wrong about that.
GINGRICH: I don’t agree with you.
O’DONNELL: But the economy soared. Noone lost a job because of that tax increase.
GINGRICH: Baloney.
O’DONNELL: There was no recession, you said there would be a recession. There was no recession.
GINGRICH: The fact is, if you look at all the indicators when I was elected Speaker, virtually all of the economic growth occurs after the Republicans take control. Virtually all of the increase in the stock market, in fact all of the increase in the stock market is after the Republicans take control.
O’DONNELL: You did not reduce the rates, Newt. You said the rates would cause a recession.
GINGRICH: When we balanced the budget, we balanced the budget with a tax cut, not a tax increase. Four consecutive balanced budget with a tax cut, not a tax increase.
O’DONNELL: A tiny tax cut compared to the biggest tax increase in history, which is what Bill Clinton did. You didn’t dismantle it.
Indeed, in 1993 when President Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top income earners, Gingrich and the Republicans argued that the hikes would result in economic decline and result in huge deficits. They were proven wrong. The country experienced the “longest period of economic growth in U.S. history, increased business investment, 23 million jobs added, and, of course, budget surpluses.” The same boom did not materialize after President George W. Bush enacted his tax cuts; the country experienced large deficits and the weakest job and income growth in the post-war era.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/09/1306371/lawrence-odonnell-confronts-gingrich-for-falsely-predicting-economic-downturn-after-clinton-tax-increases-asks-for-apology/
December 8, 2012
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) - HAVE A NICE CHRISTMAS WEASEL!
Earlier this week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sought to overcome the GOP’s resistance to voting on a Senate-passed measure that would extend Bush-era tax cuts to middle class Americans by introducing a discharge petition that, if signed by 218 members, could force the House to take-up the measure. Some Republicans, weary of the overwhelming public support for raising rates on the richest two percent of Americans, have urged the GOP leadership to allow the vote, but have yet to formally sign Pelosi’s discharge. Republican leadership continues to insist on extending tax cuts for all Americans, while President Obama said he would only sign legislation that would maintain reductions for individuals who earn $200,000 or less and couples who make $250,000 or less.
But in a recent photo-op with constituents, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) explained why Republicans are refusing to give in. The Tennessee Republican admitted that he won’t vote to extend tax cuts to 98 percent of Americans because doing so would cede control to Democrats:
CONSTITUENT 1: Are you going to sign the discharge petition?
DUNCAN: Ummm…Oh no, I’m not. No Ma’am. I’m not about to sign the discharge petition.
CONSTITUENT 2: Well if you sign the discharge petition, you’ll immediately etend the tax cuts for the middle class.
CONSTITUENT 1: Yea, why would you not want to do that? [...]
DUNCAN: It would take too long to explain that. I’m not going to give control of the floor to the Democrats.
If Congress does not act before the end of the year, taxes will increase for all Americans. Polls show that “nearly half” of Americans believe tax cuts “for people earning more than $250,000 should expire while they should continue for those earning less, while 32 percent said the tax cuts should continue for everyone.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/08/1305601/gop-congressman-explains-why-he-wont-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts-it-would-give-control-to-the-democrats/
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN): "I'm Not Going To GIVE CONTROL OF THE FLOOR TO THE DEMOCRATS
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) - HAVE A NICE CHRISTMAS WEASEL!
Earlier this week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sought to overcome the GOP’s resistance to voting on a Senate-passed measure that would extend Bush-era tax cuts to middle class Americans by introducing a discharge petition that, if signed by 218 members, could force the House to take-up the measure. Some Republicans, weary of the overwhelming public support for raising rates on the richest two percent of Americans, have urged the GOP leadership to allow the vote, but have yet to formally sign Pelosi’s discharge. Republican leadership continues to insist on extending tax cuts for all Americans, while President Obama said he would only sign legislation that would maintain reductions for individuals who earn $200,000 or less and couples who make $250,000 or less.
But in a recent photo-op with constituents, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) explained why Republicans are refusing to give in. The Tennessee Republican admitted that he won’t vote to extend tax cuts to 98 percent of Americans because doing so would cede control to Democrats:
CONSTITUENT 1: Are you going to sign the discharge petition?
DUNCAN: Ummm…Oh no, I’m not. No Ma’am. I’m not about to sign the discharge petition.
CONSTITUENT 2: Well if you sign the discharge petition, you’ll immediately etend the tax cuts for the middle class.
CONSTITUENT 1: Yea, why would you not want to do that? [...]
DUNCAN: It would take too long to explain that. I’m not going to give control of the floor to the Democrats.
If Congress does not act before the end of the year, taxes will increase for all Americans. Polls show that “nearly half” of Americans believe tax cuts “for people earning more than $250,000 should expire while they should continue for those earning less, while 32 percent said the tax cuts should continue for everyone.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/08/1305601/gop-congressman-explains-why-he-wont-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts-it-would-give-control-to-the-democrats/
December 8, 2012
Yet, right wing God Ronald Reagan very simply explained the lack of relationship between Social Security and the deficit way back in 1984. He said plain as day, “Social security has nothing to do with the deficit.”
What about this is so hard to get?
At the first Reagan-Mondale debate in 1984, Reagan set the record straight about Social Security. Watch here:
Reagan said, “Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once and for all… Social security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund or reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or raising or lowering the deficit.” Why are we still discussing Social Security as relevant to the deficit, and why are the very people who advocate against Social Security the same people who claim to revere Ronald Reagan? We know y’all hate the social safety net, but can we at least agree to deal in real math?
For a real taste of irony for the math impaired, Dan Gross explained that it is the “Republican-designed Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit that threatens to explode entitlement costs, by as much as $1 trillion in 10 years.” You see, Republicans left Medicare Part D unfunded and also left it up to the private sector insurance companies to charge what they wished for the drugs rather than force competition to do its thing.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/07/fiscal-cliff-day-31-a-gop-entitlement-s-huge-price-tag.html
At least Social Security is funded, which is more than we can say for Republican “entitlements” like wars, corporate subsidies, and tax cuts to the rich. Which party is the fiscally responsible party again?
http://www.politicususa.com/hey-gop-ronald-reagan-explained-social-security-deficit.html
FISCAL CLIFF: Ronald Reagan To Rethuglicans: ‘SOCIAL SECURITY Has NOTHING To Do With The DEFICIT’
Republicans keep nattering on about how we can fix the deficit by attacking so called “entitlements” of Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100271782
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100271782
Yet, right wing God Ronald Reagan very simply explained the lack of relationship between Social Security and the deficit way back in 1984. He said plain as day, “Social security has nothing to do with the deficit.”
What about this is so hard to get?
At the first Reagan-Mondale debate in 1984, Reagan set the record straight about Social Security. Watch here:
Reagan said, “Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once and for all… Social security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund or reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or raising or lowering the deficit.” Why are we still discussing Social Security as relevant to the deficit, and why are the very people who advocate against Social Security the same people who claim to revere Ronald Reagan? We know y’all hate the social safety net, but can we at least agree to deal in real math?
For a real taste of irony for the math impaired, Dan Gross explained that it is the “Republican-designed Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit that threatens to explode entitlement costs, by as much as $1 trillion in 10 years.” You see, Republicans left Medicare Part D unfunded and also left it up to the private sector insurance companies to charge what they wished for the drugs rather than force competition to do its thing.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/07/fiscal-cliff-day-31-a-gop-entitlement-s-huge-price-tag.html
At least Social Security is funded, which is more than we can say for Republican “entitlements” like wars, corporate subsidies, and tax cuts to the rich. Which party is the fiscally responsible party again?
http://www.politicususa.com/hey-gop-ronald-reagan-explained-social-security-deficit.html
December 7, 2012
Just shoot me.
[div class="excerpt"]“I think we’ve got to do Medicare,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It’s going to pull this economy down. We’ve got to deal with it. And I think most rational people, including Democrats, realize that we’ve got to make some cuts or deal with Medicare. But, you know, let’s have some means testing."
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cleaver-backs-medicare-means-test-84773.html#ixzz2EOj11ETD
When lawmakers go on these national cable shows they really need to go in knowing what in the hell they're talking about when what they're talking about is so critical to the livelihood of so many American citizens.
Jared Bernstein, take it away:
Yup, people who have higher incomes pay higher Medicare premiums already. Under Obamacare, they're also paying more for their Medicare prescription drug benefit. Squeezing whatever you can out of Medicare and pretending it's only the more wealthy people who suffer might have some appeal. But that's not what this is about. It's about what Bernstein says it is: "once you shift a program from universal coverage to means testing, it’s increasingly vulnerable to deeper means testing until it eventually becomes a poverty program which everyone wants to get rid of."
When Republicans "helpfully" offer up an idea like means testing to Democrats, they're not doing it in a true spirit of bipartisan compromise. They just don't do that. It's not their game. When in the hell will Democrats (Sen. Dick Durbin, we're looking at you) understand that Republicans don't care about the deficit, don't care about compromise? They care about destroying the good stuff government does. Period.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1168133/-Dear-Rep-Cleaver-Medicare-is-already-means-tested
Dear Rep. Cleaver, Medicare Is ALREADY MEANS TESTED!
A means test is a determination of whether an individual or family is eligible for help from the government, based upon whether the individual or family possesses the means to do without that help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test
Just shoot me.
[div class="excerpt"]“I think we’ve got to do Medicare,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It’s going to pull this economy down. We’ve got to deal with it. And I think most rational people, including Democrats, realize that we’ve got to make some cuts or deal with Medicare. But, you know, let’s have some means testing."
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cleaver-backs-medicare-means-test-84773.html#ixzz2EOj11ETD
When lawmakers go on these national cable shows they really need to go in knowing what in the hell they're talking about when what they're talking about is so critical to the livelihood of so many American citizens.
Jared Bernstein, take it away:
Medicare is means tested. You might want it to be more so (the current means test only hits the top 5% of beneficiaries by income), but as my colleague Paul Van de Water points out, it already is…means-tested, that is.
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/medicare-is-means-tested/
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/medicare-is-means-tested/
Yup, people who have higher incomes pay higher Medicare premiums already. Under Obamacare, they're also paying more for their Medicare prescription drug benefit. Squeezing whatever you can out of Medicare and pretending it's only the more wealthy people who suffer might have some appeal. But that's not what this is about. It's about what Bernstein says it is: "once you shift a program from universal coverage to means testing, it’s increasingly vulnerable to deeper means testing until it eventually becomes a poverty program which everyone wants to get rid of."
When Republicans "helpfully" offer up an idea like means testing to Democrats, they're not doing it in a true spirit of bipartisan compromise. They just don't do that. It's not their game. When in the hell will Democrats (Sen. Dick Durbin, we're looking at you) understand that Republicans don't care about the deficit, don't care about compromise? They care about destroying the good stuff government does. Period.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1168133/-Dear-Rep-Cleaver-Medicare-is-already-means-tested
December 7, 2012
The SEIU, NEA and AFSCME are launching a new round of ads pressuring potentially wishy-washy Democratic senators and Republican House members to oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid in fiscal cliff curb negotiations. The six-figure ad buy will target Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) and Pat Tiberi (R-OH).
An earlier round of ads also ran in Colorado, targeting the Democratic senators there, and in "several dozen" Republican House districts.
&feature=player_embedded
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1168076/-Unions-air-new-round-of-ads-against-Medicare-and-Medicaid-cuts
Tell Sen. Warner: DON'T Make a BAD DEAL That CUTS Our Care
Unions air new round of ads against Medicare and Medicaid cutsThe SEIU, NEA and AFSCME are launching a new round of ads pressuring potentially wishy-washy Democratic senators and Republican House members to oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid in fiscal cliff curb negotiations. The six-figure ad buy will target Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) and Pat Tiberi (R-OH).
"Cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid will short change the people who need it the most," the ads say. "So if you don’t want seniors to come up empty, call [lawmaker] and tell [him/her] 'Don't make a bad deal that cuts our care.'"
An earlier round of ads also ran in Colorado, targeting the Democratic senators there, and in "several dozen" Republican House districts.
&feature=player_embedded
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1168076/-Unions-air-new-round-of-ads-against-Medicare-and-Medicaid-cuts
December 7, 2012
" Tonight I went to a local meeting of the Public Banking Institute with Ellen Brown as the featured speaker. First, I joined the local organizers of the meeting, Brown and the director of the institute, Mark Armstrong. The lecture and the conversations before and after really helped me connect some dots that tie together single payer health care, Naomi Klein's Shock doctrine, tea partiers, bankrupt cities, global bankers like the Rothschilds, the class war and the war of the top-down powers against the bottom up revolution.
First, some notes from Ellen Brown's lecture:
A -public bank is not for the public- it's created to serve in the public interest-- but is a bank for bankers, not the public-- no front offices, no advertising, no big staffs. There's only one state with a public bank-- North Dakota-- and it is the state that has done better than every other state in terms of making budget and low unemployment. Public banks serve governments-- cities, counties, municipalities, states and in other parts of the world, whole countries. They serve them by making interest-free loans to them and by earning far greater interest on money they have. And they have a lot of money-- government employee pension funds, rainy day funds" which ordinarily earn a tiny amount compared to what they would earn if a bank was using them to earn interest.
Mike Krauss, chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Banking project told the group, "Our thrust is to decentralize credit and decentralize wealth holding-- a decentralization of wealth will create a decentralization of political power."
Ellen Brown, author of Web Of Debt, gave some stats in her presentation:
35-40% of everything we buy goes to interest.
29% of business profits go to the financial industry.
21-32 trillion are hidden in offshore tax havens.
You don't have to be paying interest on anything directly to be paying interest. Interest is built into the product.
40% of public projects, on average, goes to interest.
12% interest for garbage collection
38% interest on water processing
70+% interest as part of public housing costs.
How can governments recapture these profits?
By owning a bank.
Socialist? No.
Banking is not a market good or service. It's financial infrastructure, which belongs in the public sector-- part of the commons. Public banking means reduced banking costs: no bonuses, no fees, no commissions, no advertising, no branches. no high paid CEOS, just civil servants.
California has $70 billion in different pools, earns almost no interest--
20 US states have introduced bills for publicly owned banks.
Globally 40% of banks are publicly owned-- mostly in BRIC states. By 2040 BRIC states will overtake G6. One of the secrets of their success is their banks work for the public.
Original public bank in the US was a Quaker bank in PA in Ben Franklin's day.
No taxes, no inflation, no government debt.
US debt has not been paid off since 1835.
In past 24 years US has paid $8.2 trillion in interest on $15 trillion in debt.
There is less corruption in public banks-- and more profit.
http://opednews.com/articles/Public-Banking--The-Linch-by-Rob-Kall-121206-706.html
The Linchpin Tipping Point to REVERSE Centuries of Top Down, 1% Power and Privatization?
Editor's note:I took the words "public banking" out of the title because it's so not sexy I thought it would turn people off. But I hope you'll read through this article and see how and why I believe that Public banking could be THE intervention that begins the extinction of the Top Down powers of the one percent class. I have become a Public Banking hyperenthusiast
" Tonight I went to a local meeting of the Public Banking Institute with Ellen Brown as the featured speaker. First, I joined the local organizers of the meeting, Brown and the director of the institute, Mark Armstrong. The lecture and the conversations before and after really helped me connect some dots that tie together single payer health care, Naomi Klein's Shock doctrine, tea partiers, bankrupt cities, global bankers like the Rothschilds, the class war and the war of the top-down powers against the bottom up revolution.
First, some notes from Ellen Brown's lecture:
A -public bank is not for the public- it's created to serve in the public interest-- but is a bank for bankers, not the public-- no front offices, no advertising, no big staffs. There's only one state with a public bank-- North Dakota-- and it is the state that has done better than every other state in terms of making budget and low unemployment. Public banks serve governments-- cities, counties, municipalities, states and in other parts of the world, whole countries. They serve them by making interest-free loans to them and by earning far greater interest on money they have. And they have a lot of money-- government employee pension funds, rainy day funds" which ordinarily earn a tiny amount compared to what they would earn if a bank was using them to earn interest.
Mike Krauss, chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Banking project told the group, "Our thrust is to decentralize credit and decentralize wealth holding-- a decentralization of wealth will create a decentralization of political power."
Ellen Brown, author of Web Of Debt, gave some stats in her presentation:
35-40% of everything we buy goes to interest.
29% of business profits go to the financial industry.
21-32 trillion are hidden in offshore tax havens.
You don't have to be paying interest on anything directly to be paying interest. Interest is built into the product.
40% of public projects, on average, goes to interest.
12% interest for garbage collection
38% interest on water processing
70+% interest as part of public housing costs.
How can governments recapture these profits?
By owning a bank.
Socialist? No.
Banking is not a market good or service. It's financial infrastructure, which belongs in the public sector-- part of the commons. Public banking means reduced banking costs: no bonuses, no fees, no commissions, no advertising, no branches. no high paid CEOS, just civil servants.
California has $70 billion in different pools, earns almost no interest--
20 US states have introduced bills for publicly owned banks.
Globally 40% of banks are publicly owned-- mostly in BRIC states. By 2040 BRIC states will overtake G6. One of the secrets of their success is their banks work for the public.
Original public bank in the US was a Quaker bank in PA in Ben Franklin's day.
No taxes, no inflation, no government debt.
US debt has not been paid off since 1835.
In past 24 years US has paid $8.2 trillion in interest on $15 trillion in debt.
There is less corruption in public banks-- and more profit.
Single Payer and Public Banking
There are some exciting connections and commonalities between the movement towards single payer and public banking. Both are challenges to multi trillion dollar industries. Another commonality is finding people to advocate for the change. I've come to the habit of asking, when change is sought, "Qui Bono? Who benefits?" If you can answer that question you can find the low-hanging fruit to recruit to help in the change efforts.
There are a lot of people who are aware of single payer and who support it-- a lot less who are aware of promise of public banking let alone activists working on making it happen. But it is very possible that Public Banking could succeed before single payer does. That's because it can be implemented on a much smaller scale. And Mark Armstrong, Executive Director of the Public Banking Institute, told me that the clearest beneficiaries of Public banking are community banks. He also says that community banks are being royally screwed by the new Dodd Frank Bank legislation going into effect-- to the benefit of big banks.......
CONT'
There are some exciting connections and commonalities between the movement towards single payer and public banking. Both are challenges to multi trillion dollar industries. Another commonality is finding people to advocate for the change. I've come to the habit of asking, when change is sought, "Qui Bono? Who benefits?" If you can answer that question you can find the low-hanging fruit to recruit to help in the change efforts.
There are a lot of people who are aware of single payer and who support it-- a lot less who are aware of promise of public banking let alone activists working on making it happen. But it is very possible that Public Banking could succeed before single payer does. That's because it can be implemented on a much smaller scale. And Mark Armstrong, Executive Director of the Public Banking Institute, told me that the clearest beneficiaries of Public banking are community banks. He also says that community banks are being royally screwed by the new Dodd Frank Bank legislation going into effect-- to the benefit of big banks.......
CONT'
http://opednews.com/articles/Public-Banking--The-Linch-by-Rob-Kall-121206-706.html
December 7, 2012
ThinkProgress:
On Thursday, CNN host Anderson Cooper shone the spotlight on Republicans who voted against a U.N. treaty protecting people with disabilities, highlighting lawmakers who backed away from supporting the measure in response to conservative misinformation and opposition.
Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) featured prominently in Cooper’s “Keeping Them Honest” segment. He reported that Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), formerly a co-sponsor of the motion to ratify the treaty, suddenly backed out even after meeting with former GOP Presidential candidate Bob Dole, a proponent of the measure.
The lawmakers declined an invitation to come onto the show to explain themselves, leaving Cooper to condemn their dishonesty:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/12/07/1299951/watch-anderson-cooper-slam-republicans-for-putting-politics-ahead-of-the-rights-of-the-disabled/
Anderson Cooper HAMMERS Flip-Flopping Republicans: 'Why The FUDGING Of FACTS?'
ThinkProgress:
On Thursday, CNN host Anderson Cooper shone the spotlight on Republicans who voted against a U.N. treaty protecting people with disabilities, highlighting lawmakers who backed away from supporting the measure in response to conservative misinformation and opposition.
Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) featured prominently in Cooper’s “Keeping Them Honest” segment. He reported that Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), formerly a co-sponsor of the motion to ratify the treaty, suddenly backed out even after meeting with former GOP Presidential candidate Bob Dole, a proponent of the measure.
The lawmakers declined an invitation to come onto the show to explain themselves, leaving Cooper to condemn their dishonesty:
COOPER: And keeping them honest, they used arguments that just frankly did not square with the facts. They weren’t true. [...] We can only guess their motivations, and frankly, some of this is just so baffling that we’d be taking wild guesses, and we just don’t want to do that.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/12/07/1299951/watch-anderson-cooper-slam-republicans-for-putting-politics-ahead-of-the-rights-of-the-disabled/
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
