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
May 13, 2015
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Is America ready for the "S" word? Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats in Congress, is the only candidate so far to challenge Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. Sanders, who is 73 and has been in Congress nearly a quarter century, describes himself as a "democratic socialist." Although Sanders won re-election to the Senate in 2012 with 71% of the vote in his state, it is, to say the least, not politically correct in this country to call yourself any kind of socialist. John Nichols, a writer for The Nation, titled his 2011 book, "The 'S' Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism," precisely because, he said, "it is the subject of daily derision, a derision that is at once more intense and more ignorant than at any point in the long history of the United States." That is due in no small part to the sharp right turn taken by the Republican Party and the steady stream of right-wing blather on radio and television, where "socialist" is used as shorthand for big government, welfare, high taxes, and any other nefarious policy Rush Limbaugh and his cohorts care to attach to it. But it is also due to the residue of the long Cold War demonization of communism and the failure of centrally planned economies in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and China.
~snip~
Comfortable in the conviction that the U.S. is the biggest, strongest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, Americans have for decades tended to sneer at these European countries as inferior, bogged down economically by anti-business policies. But it is slowly dawning on wide portions of the American public -- crushed by stagnant wages, robbed of middle-class jobs by competition with low-wage countries, deprived of health care, burdened by student debt and the astronomical costs of a college education -- that this supposed superiority of ours is no longer true, if it ever was. And that's just the middle class. The rapidly growing pool of families below the poverty line, forced to work two or three jobs at subsistence wages just to scrape by, is also waking up to the fact that the famous "American dream" is no longer theirs. George Stephanopoulos, the ABC anchor whose career began as an aide to Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton in the 1990s, did a little sneering of his own recently when he interviewed Sanders on "This Week." (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/sen-bernie-sanders-us-scandinavia-30770990) "I can hear the Republican attack ad right now," Stephanopoulos said after Sanders expounded on the benefits of universal health care, a living wage, free higher education, access to child care, guaranteed pensions and other benefits enjoyed in "socialist" countries. "He wants America to look more like Scandinavia." Sanders blinked away his astonishment and replied, "That's right. That's right. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong when you have more income and wealth equality? What's wrong when they have a stronger middle class in many ways than we do, a higher minimum wage than we do, and they're stronger on the environment?"
~snip~
In a long article (http://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanderss-presidential-bid-represents-long-tradition-american-socialism) this month for American Prospect, Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College, cited a Pew poll finding that young Americans are about equally divided in their attitudes toward socialism and capitalism -- with socialism even getting a slight edge. Some 49% of 18-to-29 year olds had a positive view of socialism, Dreier noted, while 47% had a positive view of capitalism. And only 43% had a negative view of socialism, compared with 47% who were negative on capitalism. Ultimately, it is the message more than the labels that will catch fire in this campaign. Whether Sanders is labeled a socialist, a democratic socialist, a social democrat, a progressive, a liberal, a populist -- or is disparaged by critics as a pinko commie -- his message that there is too much concentration of wealth in this country at the expense of greater prosperity for all is certain to resonate. Citing polls from Pew, Associated Press, Huffington Post and Gallup, Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, said in a blog post last week (http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/06/why-bernie-sanders-may-just-shake-up-the-2016-presidential-race/)that this could be Sanders's moment. "Sixty percent of Americans agree with him that the 'economic system unfairly favors the rich,'" Borosage wrote. "Two-thirds of the American public think the rich pay too little in taxes. Two-thirds think CEO pay is too high. Three of four think climate change is a serious or very serious matter."
In his interview with Stephanopoulos, Sanders says his unusual career in politics should make people wary of underestimating him. The "S" word he has in store for Clinton, the Democrats and the eventual Republican nominee may well be "Surprise!"
cont'
http://research.tdameritrade.com/grid/public/markets/news/story.asp?docKey=1-SN20150513007772
Call Him A 'Socialist,' But MANY AMERICANS AGREE With Bernie Sanders
Presidential candidate's message is more powerful than the labelWASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Is America ready for the "S" word? Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats in Congress, is the only candidate so far to challenge Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. Sanders, who is 73 and has been in Congress nearly a quarter century, describes himself as a "democratic socialist." Although Sanders won re-election to the Senate in 2012 with 71% of the vote in his state, it is, to say the least, not politically correct in this country to call yourself any kind of socialist. John Nichols, a writer for The Nation, titled his 2011 book, "The 'S' Word: A Short History of an American Tradition...Socialism," precisely because, he said, "it is the subject of daily derision, a derision that is at once more intense and more ignorant than at any point in the long history of the United States." That is due in no small part to the sharp right turn taken by the Republican Party and the steady stream of right-wing blather on radio and television, where "socialist" is used as shorthand for big government, welfare, high taxes, and any other nefarious policy Rush Limbaugh and his cohorts care to attach to it. But it is also due to the residue of the long Cold War demonization of communism and the failure of centrally planned economies in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and China.
~snip~
Comfortable in the conviction that the U.S. is the biggest, strongest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, Americans have for decades tended to sneer at these European countries as inferior, bogged down economically by anti-business policies. But it is slowly dawning on wide portions of the American public -- crushed by stagnant wages, robbed of middle-class jobs by competition with low-wage countries, deprived of health care, burdened by student debt and the astronomical costs of a college education -- that this supposed superiority of ours is no longer true, if it ever was. And that's just the middle class. The rapidly growing pool of families below the poverty line, forced to work two or three jobs at subsistence wages just to scrape by, is also waking up to the fact that the famous "American dream" is no longer theirs. George Stephanopoulos, the ABC anchor whose career began as an aide to Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton in the 1990s, did a little sneering of his own recently when he interviewed Sanders on "This Week." (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/sen-bernie-sanders-us-scandinavia-30770990) "I can hear the Republican attack ad right now," Stephanopoulos said after Sanders expounded on the benefits of universal health care, a living wage, free higher education, access to child care, guaranteed pensions and other benefits enjoyed in "socialist" countries. "He wants America to look more like Scandinavia." Sanders blinked away his astonishment and replied, "That's right. That's right. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong when you have more income and wealth equality? What's wrong when they have a stronger middle class in many ways than we do, a higher minimum wage than we do, and they're stronger on the environment?"
~snip~
In a long article (http://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanderss-presidential-bid-represents-long-tradition-american-socialism) this month for American Prospect, Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College, cited a Pew poll finding that young Americans are about equally divided in their attitudes toward socialism and capitalism -- with socialism even getting a slight edge. Some 49% of 18-to-29 year olds had a positive view of socialism, Dreier noted, while 47% had a positive view of capitalism. And only 43% had a negative view of socialism, compared with 47% who were negative on capitalism. Ultimately, it is the message more than the labels that will catch fire in this campaign. Whether Sanders is labeled a socialist, a democratic socialist, a social democrat, a progressive, a liberal, a populist -- or is disparaged by critics as a pinko commie -- his message that there is too much concentration of wealth in this country at the expense of greater prosperity for all is certain to resonate. Citing polls from Pew, Associated Press, Huffington Post and Gallup, Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, said in a blog post last week (http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/06/why-bernie-sanders-may-just-shake-up-the-2016-presidential-race/)that this could be Sanders's moment. "Sixty percent of Americans agree with him that the 'economic system unfairly favors the rich,'" Borosage wrote. "Two-thirds of the American public think the rich pay too little in taxes. Two-thirds think CEO pay is too high. Three of four think climate change is a serious or very serious matter."
In his interview with Stephanopoulos, Sanders says his unusual career in politics should make people wary of underestimating him. The "S" word he has in store for Clinton, the Democrats and the eventual Republican nominee may well be "Surprise!"
cont'
http://research.tdameritrade.com/grid/public/markets/news/story.asp?docKey=1-SN20150513007772
May 13, 2015
If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, then how strong a candidate will she be against a Republican nominee who, as a representative of the conservative party, is proudly and openly supporting conservative positions? Taegan Goddard of The Week headlines on May 11th, "Is Hillary Clinton Flip-Flopping or Just Evolving?" and he notes several issues on which she has rhetorically veered to the left recently. He further notes that one of the things that probably shaved a crucial few percentage-points off the losers in previous Presidential general-election contests and caused them to lose, such as John Kerry and Mitt Romney, was the given candidate's primary-campaign rhetorical flip-flops that had been made during the Party's primaries in order to be able to wrap up that candidate's Party-base so as to win its Presidential nomination and so be able to become a participant in the general-election contest. In other words, the record is clear: such flip-flops reduce the ardor of the given Party's voters to come to the polls and vote on Election Day. The opposite Party's nominee, who hasn't flip-flopped quite so blatantly, wins the general election because that Party's base then comes to the polls in droves on Election Day in order to ensconce into the White House someone whom they passionately want to be there, someone whom they strongly believe represents their values. Thus, George W. Bush and Barack Obama became Presidents, while Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and Mitt Romney didn't.
~snip~
So: in order for Hillary Clinton to be credible in the general election against whomever the Republicans end up nominating, she will need to out-compete that nominee on consistency, and not only on ideology. Polls show that the two Parties are overall fairly-equally close to the viewpoints of the American electorate on ideology; but, in the final election, what makes the decisive difference is usually instead the passion-factor: the devotedness of the given nominee's followers, and this means mainly the Party (but also independents who respect the given person's consistency or "honesty"
. Flip-floppers don't get it, and they never can, especially when things become closer and closer to Election Day and the voters become more concerned about the issues than they were at the contest's start (i.e., before the debates and the advertisements). The stakes at the end of a Presidential contest are more stark than they ever were before. The key factor then becomes trust: if you don't trust your Party's nominee, you're a lot less likely to go to the polls to vote for him or her. That's a major reason why the U.S. has one of the lowest of all nations' voter-participation rates. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, then how will she be able to attack the Republican nominee for being a tool of Wall Street -- which she will have to do (and do convincingly) in order to beat the Republican?
How many Democrats will be too disheartened even to show up and vote? And how many of them will even be wondering whether perhaps some of the "private" emails that Ms. Clinton had wiped off her computer's (even off of her server's) hard drive, might have been emails with some of the Wall Street bigs (and their law and accounting firms) who were on that list of her top campaign contributors? Even the legality of her having destroyed those emails is far from clear. So: how will she be able to motivate her Party-base, when that final moment arrives? If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, then trust will be the killer campaign-issue, even if it's not an issue that's being discussed in the campaign. The closer and closer to Election Day, the bigger and bigger that issue will be. We're as far from it now as we can be, but, with Hillary Clinton, it's already rising, and no one has any suggestion of a way in which it will likely recede. And this is only the start. Regardless of whom Democratic voters select to become the Democratic nominee, and regardless of whom Republican voters select to become the Republican nominee, it would not be going out on a limb to predict, right now, that the Democratic nominee will be campaigning in the general election for the issues on which polls show that the public agrees mainly with the Democratic positions, and that the Republican nominee will be campaigning in the general election for the issues on which polls show that the public agrees mainly with the Republican positions. The silent but decisive killer-issue will be trust.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clinton-weak-presidential-nominee_b_7258616.html
Why Hillary Clinton Would Be a Weak Presidential Nominee for Democrats
If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, then how strong a candidate will she be against a Republican nominee who, as a representative of the conservative party, is proudly and openly supporting conservative positions? Taegan Goddard of The Week headlines on May 11th, "Is Hillary Clinton Flip-Flopping or Just Evolving?" and he notes several issues on which she has rhetorically veered to the left recently. He further notes that one of the things that probably shaved a crucial few percentage-points off the losers in previous Presidential general-election contests and caused them to lose, such as John Kerry and Mitt Romney, was the given candidate's primary-campaign rhetorical flip-flops that had been made during the Party's primaries in order to be able to wrap up that candidate's Party-base so as to win its Presidential nomination and so be able to become a participant in the general-election contest. In other words, the record is clear: such flip-flops reduce the ardor of the given Party's voters to come to the polls and vote on Election Day. The opposite Party's nominee, who hasn't flip-flopped quite so blatantly, wins the general election because that Party's base then comes to the polls in droves on Election Day in order to ensconce into the White House someone whom they passionately want to be there, someone whom they strongly believe represents their values. Thus, George W. Bush and Barack Obama became Presidents, while Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and Mitt Romney didn't.
~snip~
So: in order for Hillary Clinton to be credible in the general election against whomever the Republicans end up nominating, she will need to out-compete that nominee on consistency, and not only on ideology. Polls show that the two Parties are overall fairly-equally close to the viewpoints of the American electorate on ideology; but, in the final election, what makes the decisive difference is usually instead the passion-factor: the devotedness of the given nominee's followers, and this means mainly the Party (but also independents who respect the given person's consistency or "honesty"
. Flip-floppers don't get it, and they never can, especially when things become closer and closer to Election Day and the voters become more concerned about the issues than they were at the contest's start (i.e., before the debates and the advertisements). The stakes at the end of a Presidential contest are more stark than they ever were before. The key factor then becomes trust: if you don't trust your Party's nominee, you're a lot less likely to go to the polls to vote for him or her. That's a major reason why the U.S. has one of the lowest of all nations' voter-participation rates. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, then how will she be able to attack the Republican nominee for being a tool of Wall Street -- which she will have to do (and do convincingly) in order to beat the Republican?
How many Democrats will be too disheartened even to show up and vote? And how many of them will even be wondering whether perhaps some of the "private" emails that Ms. Clinton had wiped off her computer's (even off of her server's) hard drive, might have been emails with some of the Wall Street bigs (and their law and accounting firms) who were on that list of her top campaign contributors? Even the legality of her having destroyed those emails is far from clear. So: how will she be able to motivate her Party-base, when that final moment arrives? If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, then trust will be the killer campaign-issue, even if it's not an issue that's being discussed in the campaign. The closer and closer to Election Day, the bigger and bigger that issue will be. We're as far from it now as we can be, but, with Hillary Clinton, it's already rising, and no one has any suggestion of a way in which it will likely recede. And this is only the start. Regardless of whom Democratic voters select to become the Democratic nominee, and regardless of whom Republican voters select to become the Republican nominee, it would not be going out on a limb to predict, right now, that the Democratic nominee will be campaigning in the general election for the issues on which polls show that the public agrees mainly with the Democratic positions, and that the Republican nominee will be campaigning in the general election for the issues on which polls show that the public agrees mainly with the Republican positions. The silent but decisive killer-issue will be trust.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clinton-weak-presidential-nominee_b_7258616.html
May 13, 2015
By David Heath, Center for Public Integrity
The chemical industry’s powerful trade group, the American Chemistry Council, has long maintained that it had nothing to do with an enormously successful but deceitful lobbying effort in state capitals to defend the use of potentially ineffective and toxic flame retardants in furniture. Now, in a rare breaking of ranks, a top industry consultant is discrediting that story—and in so doing providing a window into the shadowy world of corporate advocacy and its use of front groups that aren’t what they appear. After a Chicago Tribune investigation in 2012 exposed Citizens for Fire Safety as an industry group masquerading as a coalition of firefighters, educators, community activists, doctors and others, the chemistry council disavowed any affiliation with or support for the group. The political consultant who ran Citizens for Fire Safety, however, says the council lied about its involvement. Grant David Gillham said the ACC helped create Citizens for Fire Safety and frequently coordinated with his organization. “They flat out lied about it,” Gillham said in a recent interview. “They denied that they ever did anything with us.”
The American Chemistry Council—whose 153 members include powerhouses such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Dow Chemical, and DuPont—stands behind the accuracy of a past statement made by its president and chief executive officer, Cal Dooley, about having no affiliation with Citizens for Fire Safety. Now, however, the council acknowledges for the first time that it engaged in discussions and coordination with the group. The council’s credibility is crucial as it currently works with a bipartisan group in the Senate to rewrite the law governing the regulation of toxic chemicals. The bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act passed a Senate committee recently by a vote of 15 to 5 and last week picked up 14 new senators as co-sponsors, virtually assuring it can pass the Senate. Still, nearly every major environmental group opposes it, in part because the American Chemistry Council supports it. “This is an industry that lies,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. “I think at this point anybody would be foolish to believe them when they say they are serious about reining in the abuses that they’ve committed.”
Cook said he believes the American Chemistry Council wants Congress to gut the power of states to regulate toxic chemicals and give all control to an easily manipulated Environmental Protection Agency. It was states such as California, Maine and Washington—as opposed to the EPA—that took action to curb the use of flame retardants. Virtually all Americans are exposed to the chemicals, which float as dust particles from seat cushions in a typical home. Yet scientific research has linked some of these chemicals to health problems such as diabetes, IQ deficits, fertility problems and cancer. Some scientists have also questioned whether flame retardants provide any significant benefit in protecting people from fire. The American Chemistry Council says that the EPA “has identified approximately 50 flame retardants that it says are unlikely to pose a risk to human health.” It says flame retardants “can help save lives.” In June 2007, a bill banning some forms of flame retardants passed the California State Assembly and was sailing through state Senate committees. At that point, three flame-retardant manufacturers decided to form Citizens for Fire Safety. Those companies were Albemarle Corp., Chemtura Corp. and ICL Industrial Products. The new group quickly flooded the state with television and radio ads. Gillham says it spent $22 million in 2007 alone to defeat the California bill.
California state Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco, said the group used questionable tactics such as having burn victims and children give emotionally wrenching testimony even though they had no knowledge of flame retardants. It also paid $240,000 in 2010 through 2011 to Seattle burn surgeon David Heimbach, who the Tribune reported gave false testimony about babies killed in fires because of the lack of flame retardants. The newspaper found that the babies Heimbach identified didn’t exist, a finding verified by Washington state’s Medical Quality Assurance Commission. “I can’t say that I’ve seen in my 13 years in Sacramento anything as crass and as insensitive,” Leno said in a recent interview. After Citizens for Fire Safety was discredited in 2012, current and former lawmakers in Maine asked the American Chemistry Council’s leader to expel the three flame retardant companies behind the group for engaging in unethical tactics. The council’s Dooley wrote back on June 5, 2012, denying any involvement with Citizens for Fire Safety. “ACC is not affiliated with Citizens for Fire Safety, and neither ACC staff nor resources were used to support activities undertaken by the group,” he wrote.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/13/i-lied-about-toxic-chemicals-for-exxon-dupont-and-their-lobbyists.html
‘I LIED ABOUT TOXIC CHEMICALS for Exxon, DuPont, and Their Lobbyists’
By David Heath, Center for Public Integrity
The chemical industry’s powerful trade group, the American Chemistry Council, has long maintained that it had nothing to do with an enormously successful but deceitful lobbying effort in state capitals to defend the use of potentially ineffective and toxic flame retardants in furniture. Now, in a rare breaking of ranks, a top industry consultant is discrediting that story—and in so doing providing a window into the shadowy world of corporate advocacy and its use of front groups that aren’t what they appear. After a Chicago Tribune investigation in 2012 exposed Citizens for Fire Safety as an industry group masquerading as a coalition of firefighters, educators, community activists, doctors and others, the chemistry council disavowed any affiliation with or support for the group. The political consultant who ran Citizens for Fire Safety, however, says the council lied about its involvement. Grant David Gillham said the ACC helped create Citizens for Fire Safety and frequently coordinated with his organization. “They flat out lied about it,” Gillham said in a recent interview. “They denied that they ever did anything with us.”
The American Chemistry Council—whose 153 members include powerhouses such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Dow Chemical, and DuPont—stands behind the accuracy of a past statement made by its president and chief executive officer, Cal Dooley, about having no affiliation with Citizens for Fire Safety. Now, however, the council acknowledges for the first time that it engaged in discussions and coordination with the group. The council’s credibility is crucial as it currently works with a bipartisan group in the Senate to rewrite the law governing the regulation of toxic chemicals. The bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act passed a Senate committee recently by a vote of 15 to 5 and last week picked up 14 new senators as co-sponsors, virtually assuring it can pass the Senate. Still, nearly every major environmental group opposes it, in part because the American Chemistry Council supports it. “This is an industry that lies,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. “I think at this point anybody would be foolish to believe them when they say they are serious about reining in the abuses that they’ve committed.”
Cook said he believes the American Chemistry Council wants Congress to gut the power of states to regulate toxic chemicals and give all control to an easily manipulated Environmental Protection Agency. It was states such as California, Maine and Washington—as opposed to the EPA—that took action to curb the use of flame retardants. Virtually all Americans are exposed to the chemicals, which float as dust particles from seat cushions in a typical home. Yet scientific research has linked some of these chemicals to health problems such as diabetes, IQ deficits, fertility problems and cancer. Some scientists have also questioned whether flame retardants provide any significant benefit in protecting people from fire. The American Chemistry Council says that the EPA “has identified approximately 50 flame retardants that it says are unlikely to pose a risk to human health.” It says flame retardants “can help save lives.” In June 2007, a bill banning some forms of flame retardants passed the California State Assembly and was sailing through state Senate committees. At that point, three flame-retardant manufacturers decided to form Citizens for Fire Safety. Those companies were Albemarle Corp., Chemtura Corp. and ICL Industrial Products. The new group quickly flooded the state with television and radio ads. Gillham says it spent $22 million in 2007 alone to defeat the California bill.
California state Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco, said the group used questionable tactics such as having burn victims and children give emotionally wrenching testimony even though they had no knowledge of flame retardants. It also paid $240,000 in 2010 through 2011 to Seattle burn surgeon David Heimbach, who the Tribune reported gave false testimony about babies killed in fires because of the lack of flame retardants. The newspaper found that the babies Heimbach identified didn’t exist, a finding verified by Washington state’s Medical Quality Assurance Commission. “I can’t say that I’ve seen in my 13 years in Sacramento anything as crass and as insensitive,” Leno said in a recent interview. After Citizens for Fire Safety was discredited in 2012, current and former lawmakers in Maine asked the American Chemistry Council’s leader to expel the three flame retardant companies behind the group for engaging in unethical tactics. The council’s Dooley wrote back on June 5, 2012, denying any involvement with Citizens for Fire Safety. “ACC is not affiliated with Citizens for Fire Safety, and neither ACC staff nor resources were used to support activities undertaken by the group,” he wrote.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/13/i-lied-about-toxic-chemicals-for-exxon-dupont-and-their-lobbyists.html
May 13, 2015
Earlier this month on ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) whether he actually believed a self-described socialist could be elected president of the United States. Sanders suggested that if more Americans were acquainted with the quality of life in countries in Scandinavia, they wouldn't be frightened by the label. Knowing that Scandinavia is nothing short of hell on earth, Stephanopoulos zeroed in on the absurdity of Sanders' point: "I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: 'He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.'" "What's wrong with that?" Sanders replied. Stephanopoulos was right to be skeptical that Sanders could get away with such a comparison. Scandinavian countries' social democratic policies of exceptionally high tax rates and heavy government involvement in the provision of services has been nothing short of catastrophic.
America should do whatever it takes to ensure it doesn't suffer the same fate. Take a look at the facts on what their policies would do to the U.S.
1. Access to quality health care would simply plummet.
Having the government step into services like health care would create massive public health challenges. Just look at how many people in Sweden lack access to affordable health care:
2. Health care costs would go through the roof.
Countries such as Norway believe that the government can manage some things better than the market. As you can see, this has resulted in loads of wasted money:
3. Our education system would be a joke.
Scandinavian countries have little interest in investing in their youth:
4. We would be overrun by violent crime.
With their gentle open-air prisons and their low ceilings for maximum sentencing, Scandinavian countries are havens for criminals:
5. America would just wallow in poverty.
The prosperity of Scandinavian countries — measured as a combination of wealth and well-being — captures just how bad their citizens have it:
6. Unemployment would skyrocket.
Scandinavian governments have suffocated the labor market and encouraged joblessness:
7. Everyone would be miserable.
Between the dark winters and the knowledge that any ambition will only be rewarded with more taxes, people aren't satisfied with life in Scandinavia:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/12/7-charts-show-socialist-hellscape-america-would-be-under-bernie-sanders
7 CHARTS Show the SOCIALIST HELLSCAPE America Would Be Under Bernie Sanders
These Charts showing America's downfall under 'social democratic policies' should send chills down your spine!Earlier this month on ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) whether he actually believed a self-described socialist could be elected president of the United States. Sanders suggested that if more Americans were acquainted with the quality of life in countries in Scandinavia, they wouldn't be frightened by the label. Knowing that Scandinavia is nothing short of hell on earth, Stephanopoulos zeroed in on the absurdity of Sanders' point: "I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: 'He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.'" "What's wrong with that?" Sanders replied. Stephanopoulos was right to be skeptical that Sanders could get away with such a comparison. Scandinavian countries' social democratic policies of exceptionally high tax rates and heavy government involvement in the provision of services has been nothing short of catastrophic.
America should do whatever it takes to ensure it doesn't suffer the same fate. Take a look at the facts on what their policies would do to the U.S.
1. Access to quality health care would simply plummet.
Having the government step into services like health care would create massive public health challenges. Just look at how many people in Sweden lack access to affordable health care:
2. Health care costs would go through the roof.
Countries such as Norway believe that the government can manage some things better than the market. As you can see, this has resulted in loads of wasted money:
3. Our education system would be a joke.
Scandinavian countries have little interest in investing in their youth:
4. We would be overrun by violent crime.
With their gentle open-air prisons and their low ceilings for maximum sentencing, Scandinavian countries are havens for criminals:
5. America would just wallow in poverty.
The prosperity of Scandinavian countries — measured as a combination of wealth and well-being — captures just how bad their citizens have it:
6. Unemployment would skyrocket.
Scandinavian governments have suffocated the labor market and encouraged joblessness:
7. Everyone would be miserable.
Between the dark winters and the knowledge that any ambition will only be rewarded with more taxes, people aren't satisfied with life in Scandinavia:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/12/7-charts-show-socialist-hellscape-america-would-be-under-bernie-sanders
May 13, 2015
Welcome to Loser Sons of Politics, a new column where members of the Jezebel staff recall with fondness the antics of the loser sons of politicians. Today: William Paul, son of Senator Rand Paul, who has pled guilty to DUI. This is the 22-year-old’s third alcohol-related run-in in as many years. According to WKYT, the young Paul pled guilty to DUI on Tuesday. Additional charges—that he’d also failed to maintain insurance coverage—were dropped. Paul’s punishment includes 45 days of license suspension and alcohol education. He is also required to pay $718 in fines. Once those stipulations are met, he’ll be back on the road. Look out, Kentucky!
Normally, we wouldn’t give a shit about what some guy’s kid did. But the game changes when the father of the loser has built a career on dispensing advice for how other fathers should father their own offspring. Rand Paul isn’t the sort of politician who touts his status as a family man as somehow qualifying him for elected office like, say, a Huckabee or a Palin, but he solidified his son’s place on the Loser Sons pantheon during an interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham that occurred during recent unrest in Baltimore.
“I came through the train on Baltimore (sic) last night, I’m glad the train didn’t stop,” he said, laughing, during an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.
Railing against what he repeatedly called “thuggery and thievery” in the streets of Baltimore, Paul told Ingraham that talking about “root causes” was not appropriate in the middle of a riot.
“The police have to do what they have to do, and I am very sympathetic to the plight of the police in this,” he said.
As for root causes, Paul listed some ideas of his own.
“There are so many things we can talk about,” the senator said, “the breakdown of the family structure, the lack of fathers, the lack of a moral code in our society.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-freddie-gray-baltimore-morals?utm_content=buffer62061&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
.....YUP!....Call them as you see them Rand........it just doesn't pertain to you....
cont'
http://jezebel.com/rand-pauls-loser-son-pleads-guilty-to-aggravated-dui-1703960785/+gabriellebluestone
Rand Paul's LOSER SON Pleads Guilty to AGGRAVATED DUI
Welcome to Loser Sons of Politics, a new column where members of the Jezebel staff recall with fondness the antics of the loser sons of politicians. Today: William Paul, son of Senator Rand Paul, who has pled guilty to DUI. This is the 22-year-old’s third alcohol-related run-in in as many years. According to WKYT, the young Paul pled guilty to DUI on Tuesday. Additional charges—that he’d also failed to maintain insurance coverage—were dropped. Paul’s punishment includes 45 days of license suspension and alcohol education. He is also required to pay $718 in fines. Once those stipulations are met, he’ll be back on the road. Look out, Kentucky!
Paul has faced alcohol-related charges in the past. In 2013, He was charged with assaulting a flight attendant and consuming alcohol while underage. Those charges were dropped. Later that year, Kentucky’s Alcoholic Beverage Control cited him for alcohol possession of a minor at Keeneland.
Police classified this as an aggravated DUI charge because they say Paul refused an alcohol test. Neither Paul, nor his father has commented.
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Rand-Pauls-son-pleads-guilty-to-DUI-charge-303470541.html?device=phone&c=y
Police classified this as an aggravated DUI charge because they say Paul refused an alcohol test. Neither Paul, nor his father has commented.
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Rand-Pauls-son-pleads-guilty-to-DUI-charge-303470541.html?device=phone&c=y
Normally, we wouldn’t give a shit about what some guy’s kid did. But the game changes when the father of the loser has built a career on dispensing advice for how other fathers should father their own offspring. Rand Paul isn’t the sort of politician who touts his status as a family man as somehow qualifying him for elected office like, say, a Huckabee or a Palin, but he solidified his son’s place on the Loser Sons pantheon during an interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham that occurred during recent unrest in Baltimore.
“I came through the train on Baltimore (sic) last night, I’m glad the train didn’t stop,” he said, laughing, during an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.
Railing against what he repeatedly called “thuggery and thievery” in the streets of Baltimore, Paul told Ingraham that talking about “root causes” was not appropriate in the middle of a riot.
“The police have to do what they have to do, and I am very sympathetic to the plight of the police in this,” he said.
As for root causes, Paul listed some ideas of his own.
“There are so many things we can talk about,” the senator said, “the breakdown of the family structure, the lack of fathers, the lack of a moral code in our society.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-freddie-gray-baltimore-morals?utm_content=buffer62061&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
.....YUP!....Call them as you see them Rand........it just doesn't pertain to you....
cont'
http://jezebel.com/rand-pauls-loser-son-pleads-guilty-to-aggravated-dui-1703960785/+gabriellebluestone
May 12, 2015
Could this be the populist moment?
A seemingly unstoppable coalition of the powerful assembled to advance the Trans Pacific Partnership trade bill: A Democratic president aligned with the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress and the full lobbying might of Corporate America. But on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate Democratic minority delivered a surprise defeat to President Obama and a severe setback to one of the last few items on his presidential agenda. They blocked consideration of “fast track” trade authority – a crucial vehicle to get the Pacific trade pact through Congress. The victors: the ascendant populist wing of the Democratic Party, and its spiritual leader, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. “Over and over, America’s workers have taken the brunt of bad trade deals,” the former Harvard professor and scourge of big business told a gathering of the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank, hours before Tuesday’s vote.
Warren masterfully undermined the trade bill, by highlighting the administration’s obsessive secrecy (the details of the proposed agreement are classified) and the role of corporate interests in drafting the deal (500 non-government advisors participated, she said, 85 percent of them industry executives or lobbyists).
Under intense pressure from the Warren wing, 44 of the 45 Democrats present Tuesday afternoon defied Obama. Even Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chief Democratic advocate for the fast-track bill, buckled. Proponents fell eight votes short of the 60 they needed to take up the fast-track bill. Senate free-traders will likely find a way to revive the bill, but Tuesday’s defeat will embolden opponents in the House, where the free-trade package already faced trouble. However the trade debate is resolved, Tuesday’s defeat in the Senate is likely to be a turning point, because it shows that the populists are now firmly in control of the Democratic Party. Anger over growing inequality has reached critical mass, and a backlash has begun against a political system that has, over the last three decades, allowed 100 percent of all income growth to go to the wealthiest 10 percent. The trade deal has for now become the victim of that anger – less because of the details of the TPP than because it hasn’t been accompanied by more protections and assistance for American workers. “I believe in this,” Obama said of the trade deal, “the same way… that I believe in a higher minimum wage. The same way that I believe in stronger protections for workers who are trying to get a voice in their company. The same way I believe in equal pay. The same way I believe in paid sick leave.” But Obama’s actions haven’t matched his words, and he didn’t require Republicans to accept any of those priorities before he joined them in pushing for free-trade legislation. Senate Republicans drove more Democrats into opposition when they declined requests to bring up other trade-related bills other than legislation offering a meager (and reduced) amount of training funds for workers who lose their jobs.
~snip~
At the White House, press secretary Josh Earnest called Tuesday’s vote a “procedural snafu.” But Obama was undone by more than procedure. His would-be successor, Hillary Clinton, was not courageous enough to take a position on the trade legislation, but her silence gave Democrats more freedom to oppose it. And Democrats in Congress bristled at Obama’s disparagement of opponents of the trade bill as emotional, illogical and dishonest. “The president is making some fairly nasty remarks about people on the other side, that they don’t understand we’re in the 21st century,” Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, said at the Roosevelt Institute gathering, at the National Press Club. “Actually we do. I don’t think he understands.”
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/populist-democrats-hand-obama-a-stinging-defeat-on-tpp/2015/05/12/aec9be02-f8e7-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?wprss=rss_blogsandcolumns
POPULIST Democrats HAND Obama A STINGING DEFEAT On TPP
Could this be the populist moment?
A seemingly unstoppable coalition of the powerful assembled to advance the Trans Pacific Partnership trade bill: A Democratic president aligned with the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress and the full lobbying might of Corporate America. But on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate Democratic minority delivered a surprise defeat to President Obama and a severe setback to one of the last few items on his presidential agenda. They blocked consideration of “fast track” trade authority – a crucial vehicle to get the Pacific trade pact through Congress. The victors: the ascendant populist wing of the Democratic Party, and its spiritual leader, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. “Over and over, America’s workers have taken the brunt of bad trade deals,” the former Harvard professor and scourge of big business told a gathering of the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank, hours before Tuesday’s vote.
“We can’t keep pushing through trade deals that benefit multinational companies at the expense of workers,” she added, with theatrical urgency. “Government cannot continue to be the captive of the rich and powerful. Working people cannot be forced to give up more and more as they get squeezed harder and harder.”
Warren masterfully undermined the trade bill, by highlighting the administration’s obsessive secrecy (the details of the proposed agreement are classified) and the role of corporate interests in drafting the deal (500 non-government advisors participated, she said, 85 percent of them industry executives or lobbyists).
“And now this trade deal is getting the full court lobbying press from those same giant multinational corporations,” she said. “The middle class is on the ropes and now is the time to fight back.”
Under intense pressure from the Warren wing, 44 of the 45 Democrats present Tuesday afternoon defied Obama. Even Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chief Democratic advocate for the fast-track bill, buckled. Proponents fell eight votes short of the 60 they needed to take up the fast-track bill. Senate free-traders will likely find a way to revive the bill, but Tuesday’s defeat will embolden opponents in the House, where the free-trade package already faced trouble. However the trade debate is resolved, Tuesday’s defeat in the Senate is likely to be a turning point, because it shows that the populists are now firmly in control of the Democratic Party. Anger over growing inequality has reached critical mass, and a backlash has begun against a political system that has, over the last three decades, allowed 100 percent of all income growth to go to the wealthiest 10 percent. The trade deal has for now become the victim of that anger – less because of the details of the TPP than because it hasn’t been accompanied by more protections and assistance for American workers. “I believe in this,” Obama said of the trade deal, “the same way… that I believe in a higher minimum wage. The same way that I believe in stronger protections for workers who are trying to get a voice in their company. The same way I believe in equal pay. The same way I believe in paid sick leave.” But Obama’s actions haven’t matched his words, and he didn’t require Republicans to accept any of those priorities before he joined them in pushing for free-trade legislation. Senate Republicans drove more Democrats into opposition when they declined requests to bring up other trade-related bills other than legislation offering a meager (and reduced) amount of training funds for workers who lose their jobs.
~snip~
At the White House, press secretary Josh Earnest called Tuesday’s vote a “procedural snafu.” But Obama was undone by more than procedure. His would-be successor, Hillary Clinton, was not courageous enough to take a position on the trade legislation, but her silence gave Democrats more freedom to oppose it. And Democrats in Congress bristled at Obama’s disparagement of opponents of the trade bill as emotional, illogical and dishonest. “The president is making some fairly nasty remarks about people on the other side, that they don’t understand we’re in the 21st century,” Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, said at the Roosevelt Institute gathering, at the National Press Club. “Actually we do. I don’t think he understands.”
cont'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/populist-democrats-hand-obama-a-stinging-defeat-on-tpp/2015/05/12/aec9be02-f8e7-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?wprss=rss_blogsandcolumns
May 12, 2015
Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of the top Democratic opponents of President Barack Obama’s trade agenda, criticized Obama on Tuesday for what the senator saw as “disrespectful” comments toward Sen. Elizabeth Warren and indicated that Warren’s gender may have played a role.
Earlier Tuesday afternoon, Brown told reporters at a news conference that he took issue with Obama’s comments toward Warren in their deepening spat over trade.
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/sherrod-brown-barack-obama-gender-role-elizabeth-warren-spat-117866.html?hp=rc1_4
Senator Sherrod Brown Suggests GENDER Played Into Obama-Warren SPAT
Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of the top Democratic opponents of President Barack Obama’s trade agenda, criticized Obama on Tuesday for what the senator saw as “disrespectful” comments toward Sen. Elizabeth Warren and indicated that Warren’s gender may have played a role.
“I think by just calling her ‘another politician’,” Brown told reporters Tuesday when asked how Obama was being disrespectful to Warren. “I’m not going to get into more details. I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps? I’ve said enough.”
Earlier Tuesday afternoon, Brown told reporters at a news conference that he took issue with Obama’s comments toward Warren in their deepening spat over trade.
“I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that,” Brown told reporters during the news conference, which came after nearly all Senate Democrats voted to block trade measures from proceeding on the Senate floor. “I think that the president has made this more personal than he needed to.”
Brown continued: “I know he disagrees. When he said that a number of us — not just Sen. Warren — but don’t know what we’re talking about, we’re fighting the last war, a number of those phrases he used, I assume he wished he hadn’t said them because he shouldn’t have said them.”
Brown continued: “I know he disagrees. When he said that a number of us — not just Sen. Warren — but don’t know what we’re talking about, we’re fighting the last war, a number of those phrases he used, I assume he wished he hadn’t said them because he shouldn’t have said them.”
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/sherrod-brown-barack-obama-gender-role-elizabeth-warren-spat-117866.html?hp=rc1_4
May 12, 2015
Today, the Senate makes a critical test vote on the Obama Administration’s trade agenda, kicking off a process that the White House hopes to end with the signing of an agreement between 12 nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In preparation for this vote, President Obama has been deliberately antagonizing his critics, mostly liberal Democrats. Senator Elizabeth Warren is “a politician, like everybody else,” Obama said Friday to Yahoo News, who has “got a voice that she wants to get out there,” framing her concerns as insincere self-aggrandizement. Those concerns, Obama added, are “absolutely wrong.” This is not the first time that Obama and his aides have depicted opposition on trade as deliberate misinformation designed to stir up a left-leaning political base, or generate campaign contributions; my favorite is the claim that Warren is merely trying to energize a non-existent Presidential campaign. It’s beneath the dignity of the Presidency to so aggressively paint opponents as not just wrong on the facts, but hiding the truth on purpose. Warren has responded without using the same indecorous tactics. Unfortunately, I don’t have the same self-control. So by way of response, here are ten moments where the President or his subordinates have lied – call it “misled” or “offered half-truths” or whatever; but I’m in an ornery mood so let’s just say lied – about his trade agenda:
1. 40 PERCENT: The President and his team have repeatedly described TPP as a deal involving nearly 40 percent of global GDP. This tells only part of the story. First of all, the U.S. by itself represents 22 percent of global GDP; a bill naming a post office would involve that much. Second, we already have free trade agreements with six TPP partners – Canada, Mexico, Australia, Singapore, Chile and Peru – and between them and us, that’s 80 percent of the total GDP in this deal. The vast majority of the rest is represented by Japan, where the average applied tariff is a skinny 1.2 percent, per the World Bank.
You can see this paragraph in graphic form here. The point is that saying TPP is about “40 percent of GDP” intimates that it would massively change the ability to export without tariffs. In reality it would have virtually no significance in opening new markets. To the extent that there’s a barrier in global trade today, it comes from currency manipulation by countries wanting to keep their exports cheap. The TPP has no currency provisions.
2. JOB CREATION: Saying, as the White House has, that the deal would support “an additional 650,000 jobs” is not true. This figure came from a hypothetical calculation of a report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which the Institute itself said was an incorrect way to use their data. “We don’t believe that trade agreements change the labor force in the long run,” said Peter Petri, author of the report, in a fact check of the claim.
The deal is actually more about building up barriers than taking them down. Much of TPP is devoted to increasing copyright and patent protections for prescription drugs and Hollywood media content. As economist Dean Baker notes, this is protectionist, and will raise prices for drugs, movies and music here and abroad.
3. EXPORTS ONLY: The Administration constantly discusses trade as solely a question of U.S. exports. A recent Council of Economic Advisors report touts: Exporters pay higher wages, and export industry growth translates into higher average earnings. But the Economic Policy Institute points out that this ignores imports, and therefore the ballooning trade deficit, which weighs down economic growth and wages. Talking about trade without discussing both imports and exports is like relaying the score of a ballgame by saying “Dodgers 4.” It is literally a half-truth. Recent trade deals have in fact increased the trade deficit, such as the agreement with South Korea. Senator Sherrod Brown notes that the deal has only increased exports by $1 billion since 2011, while increasing imports by $12 billion, costing America 75,000 jobs.
4. MOST PROGRESSIVE: Obama has called TPP “the most progressive trade deal in history.” First of all, so did Bill Clinton and Al Gore, when talking about NAFTA in 1993. Second, there’s reason to believe TPP doesn’t even clear a low bar for progressive trade deals. The Sierra Club, based on a leaked TPP environmental chapter, said that the deal is weaker than the landmark “May 10 agreement” for deals with Peru, Panama and Colombia, struck in 2007. Key Democrats who devised labor and environmental standards for those agreements, like Rep. Sander Levin, believe that TPP falls short. Even if the chapters were up to par, consistent lack of enforcement of the rules makes them ineffective. The U.S. Trade Representative has actually claimed the Colombia free trade agreement is positive because only one trade unionist in the country is being murdered every other week. Labor groups can only ask the White House to enforce labor rights violations, and for the past several years, the Administration simply hasn’t. So when Obama says violators of TPP will face “meaningful consequences,” based on the Administration’s prior enforcement, he’s lying.
CONT'
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership/
The 10 BIGGEST LIES You’ve Been Told About The Trans-Pacific Partnership
You can call it "misleading" or "offering half-truths," but when push comes to a shove, these are lies
Today, the Senate makes a critical test vote on the Obama Administration’s trade agenda, kicking off a process that the White House hopes to end with the signing of an agreement between 12 nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In preparation for this vote, President Obama has been deliberately antagonizing his critics, mostly liberal Democrats. Senator Elizabeth Warren is “a politician, like everybody else,” Obama said Friday to Yahoo News, who has “got a voice that she wants to get out there,” framing her concerns as insincere self-aggrandizement. Those concerns, Obama added, are “absolutely wrong.” This is not the first time that Obama and his aides have depicted opposition on trade as deliberate misinformation designed to stir up a left-leaning political base, or generate campaign contributions; my favorite is the claim that Warren is merely trying to energize a non-existent Presidential campaign. It’s beneath the dignity of the Presidency to so aggressively paint opponents as not just wrong on the facts, but hiding the truth on purpose. Warren has responded without using the same indecorous tactics. Unfortunately, I don’t have the same self-control. So by way of response, here are ten moments where the President or his subordinates have lied – call it “misled” or “offered half-truths” or whatever; but I’m in an ornery mood so let’s just say lied – about his trade agenda:
1. 40 PERCENT: The President and his team have repeatedly described TPP as a deal involving nearly 40 percent of global GDP. This tells only part of the story. First of all, the U.S. by itself represents 22 percent of global GDP; a bill naming a post office would involve that much. Second, we already have free trade agreements with six TPP partners – Canada, Mexico, Australia, Singapore, Chile and Peru – and between them and us, that’s 80 percent of the total GDP in this deal. The vast majority of the rest is represented by Japan, where the average applied tariff is a skinny 1.2 percent, per the World Bank.
You can see this paragraph in graphic form here. The point is that saying TPP is about “40 percent of GDP” intimates that it would massively change the ability to export without tariffs. In reality it would have virtually no significance in opening new markets. To the extent that there’s a barrier in global trade today, it comes from currency manipulation by countries wanting to keep their exports cheap. The TPP has no currency provisions.
2. JOB CREATION: Saying, as the White House has, that the deal would support “an additional 650,000 jobs” is not true. This figure came from a hypothetical calculation of a report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which the Institute itself said was an incorrect way to use their data. “We don’t believe that trade agreements change the labor force in the long run,” said Peter Petri, author of the report, in a fact check of the claim.
The deal is actually more about building up barriers than taking them down. Much of TPP is devoted to increasing copyright and patent protections for prescription drugs and Hollywood media content. As economist Dean Baker notes, this is protectionist, and will raise prices for drugs, movies and music here and abroad.
3. EXPORTS ONLY: The Administration constantly discusses trade as solely a question of U.S. exports. A recent Council of Economic Advisors report touts: Exporters pay higher wages, and export industry growth translates into higher average earnings. But the Economic Policy Institute points out that this ignores imports, and therefore the ballooning trade deficit, which weighs down economic growth and wages. Talking about trade without discussing both imports and exports is like relaying the score of a ballgame by saying “Dodgers 4.” It is literally a half-truth. Recent trade deals have in fact increased the trade deficit, such as the agreement with South Korea. Senator Sherrod Brown notes that the deal has only increased exports by $1 billion since 2011, while increasing imports by $12 billion, costing America 75,000 jobs.
4. MOST PROGRESSIVE: Obama has called TPP “the most progressive trade deal in history.” First of all, so did Bill Clinton and Al Gore, when talking about NAFTA in 1993. Second, there’s reason to believe TPP doesn’t even clear a low bar for progressive trade deals. The Sierra Club, based on a leaked TPP environmental chapter, said that the deal is weaker than the landmark “May 10 agreement” for deals with Peru, Panama and Colombia, struck in 2007. Key Democrats who devised labor and environmental standards for those agreements, like Rep. Sander Levin, believe that TPP falls short. Even if the chapters were up to par, consistent lack of enforcement of the rules makes them ineffective. The U.S. Trade Representative has actually claimed the Colombia free trade agreement is positive because only one trade unionist in the country is being murdered every other week. Labor groups can only ask the White House to enforce labor rights violations, and for the past several years, the Administration simply hasn’t. So when Obama says violators of TPP will face “meaningful consequences,” based on the Administration’s prior enforcement, he’s lying.
CONT'
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership/
May 12, 2015
Hillary, where are you?..................................
Liberal Democrats are intensifying their pressure on Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose President Obama’s Pacific trade deal as detrimental to American jobs. But Mr. Obama’s allies want her to endorse the accord, which the president has called a boon to the United States economy. And Mrs. Clinton, stuck between the progressives she must woo in a Democratic nomination fight and the president under whom she served, has remained, for the most part, mum. The issue has become the first major policy test in her fledgling campaign, with Mrs. Clinton under mounting pressure to pick a side in the delicate and heated debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, a 12-nation trade agreement that Mr. Obama has aggressively pursued and that is facing a critical vote in Congress on Tuesday. Just 48 hours after Mrs. Clinton delighted liberal Democrats with a proposal to expand citizenship eligibility to immigrants who are in the country illegally, protesters on Thursday urged her to speak out against the trade deal.
“Stop the TPP!” read one of the signs held by demonstrators who circled the mansion in Beverly Hills, Calif., where Mrs. Clinton attended a high-dollar fund-raiser. The left wing has not been this agitated over a trade deal since the last time Mrs. Clinton ran for president, when her squishy position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed into law by her husband in 1993, ignited debate during the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries. “The fact is, she was saying great things about Nafta until she started running for president,” Mr. Obama said of Mrs. Clinton during their 2008 fight for the Democratic nomination. This time, in an odd twist, it is Mr. Obama’s trade deal that haunts Mrs. Clinton’s early candidacy. If her stance on immigration, which would go further than Mr. Obama’s executive actions, offended the White House last week, any remarks she might make against the administration’s trade accord could fracture her already delicate relationship with the president.
On Saturday, Mr. Obama vigorously pushed back against Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has said the trade accord will help Wall Street and hurt American workers. “The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else,” Mr. Obama told Yahoo News. “She’s absolutely wrong,” he added. But even a tacit endorsement of the accord would put Mrs. Clinton on the opposite side of a very vocal liberal base of her party, which she has increasingly been courting in her campaign. The chances of pleasing both sides are slim. Mr. Obama’s allies — including congressional Republicans and business leaders who support the trade accord — as well as liberal Democrats, labor leaders, environmentalists and human rights advocates, have forcefully called for Mrs. Clinton to take a stance.
If there is one thing both sides agree on, it is that Mrs. Clinton needs to say more than the vague comment she made in New Hampshire last month: “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security.” “She can’t sit on the sidelines and let the president swing in the wind here,” John A. Boehner, the Republican House speaker, said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” last week. From the other side came this: “This is one you can’t waffle. You’re either for the T.P.P. or against it,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination and opposes the deal, told MSNBC. The Huffington Post reported that John D. Podesta, chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, had jokingly bemoaned in private, “Can you make it go away?” The Clinton campaign may not be able to make the issue go away, but it can be avoided until after a vote on Tuesday on legislation that would grant Mr. Obama the ability to “fast-track” talks on a final trade deal, which liberals vehemently oppose. Mrs. Clinton has no public events scheduled this week, only private fund-raisers and a summit meeting in Brooklyn with donors on Thursday. A spokesman for her campaign declined to comment.
cont'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-walks-tightrope-as-pressure-grows-to-take-stance-on-trade-deal.html?_r=1
Hillary Clinton WALKS TIGHTROPE As Pressure Grows To TAKE STANCE On Trade Deal
Hillary, where are you?..................................
Liberal Democrats are intensifying their pressure on Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose President Obama’s Pacific trade deal as detrimental to American jobs. But Mr. Obama’s allies want her to endorse the accord, which the president has called a boon to the United States economy. And Mrs. Clinton, stuck between the progressives she must woo in a Democratic nomination fight and the president under whom she served, has remained, for the most part, mum. The issue has become the first major policy test in her fledgling campaign, with Mrs. Clinton under mounting pressure to pick a side in the delicate and heated debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, a 12-nation trade agreement that Mr. Obama has aggressively pursued and that is facing a critical vote in Congress on Tuesday. Just 48 hours after Mrs. Clinton delighted liberal Democrats with a proposal to expand citizenship eligibility to immigrants who are in the country illegally, protesters on Thursday urged her to speak out against the trade deal.
“Stop the TPP!” read one of the signs held by demonstrators who circled the mansion in Beverly Hills, Calif., where Mrs. Clinton attended a high-dollar fund-raiser. The left wing has not been this agitated over a trade deal since the last time Mrs. Clinton ran for president, when her squishy position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed into law by her husband in 1993, ignited debate during the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries. “The fact is, she was saying great things about Nafta until she started running for president,” Mr. Obama said of Mrs. Clinton during their 2008 fight for the Democratic nomination. This time, in an odd twist, it is Mr. Obama’s trade deal that haunts Mrs. Clinton’s early candidacy. If her stance on immigration, which would go further than Mr. Obama’s executive actions, offended the White House last week, any remarks she might make against the administration’s trade accord could fracture her already delicate relationship with the president.
On Saturday, Mr. Obama vigorously pushed back against Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has said the trade accord will help Wall Street and hurt American workers. “The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else,” Mr. Obama told Yahoo News. “She’s absolutely wrong,” he added. But even a tacit endorsement of the accord would put Mrs. Clinton on the opposite side of a very vocal liberal base of her party, which she has increasingly been courting in her campaign. The chances of pleasing both sides are slim. Mr. Obama’s allies — including congressional Republicans and business leaders who support the trade accord — as well as liberal Democrats, labor leaders, environmentalists and human rights advocates, have forcefully called for Mrs. Clinton to take a stance.
If there is one thing both sides agree on, it is that Mrs. Clinton needs to say more than the vague comment she made in New Hampshire last month: “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security.” “She can’t sit on the sidelines and let the president swing in the wind here,” John A. Boehner, the Republican House speaker, said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” last week. From the other side came this: “This is one you can’t waffle. You’re either for the T.P.P. or against it,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination and opposes the deal, told MSNBC. The Huffington Post reported that John D. Podesta, chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, had jokingly bemoaned in private, “Can you make it go away?” The Clinton campaign may not be able to make the issue go away, but it can be avoided until after a vote on Tuesday on legislation that would grant Mr. Obama the ability to “fast-track” talks on a final trade deal, which liberals vehemently oppose. Mrs. Clinton has no public events scheduled this week, only private fund-raisers and a summit meeting in Brooklyn with donors on Thursday. A spokesman for her campaign declined to comment.
cont'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-walks-tightrope-as-pressure-grows-to-take-stance-on-trade-deal.html?_r=1
May 12, 2015
Last week Allen Clifton, co-founder of Forward Progressives, wrote a column with the terrifying title Bernie Sanders Is Already Making It More Likely Republicans Win The White House In 2016. How dare Bernie do such a thing! Hasn't Senator Sanders read any newspapers over the last six or seven years? Didn't anybody tell him that Hillary is going to be the nominee? Or is the grumpy old Senator from Vermont under the mistaken impression that the primaries have any other purpose than to reinforce what the party leaders have already determined to be our preference? (note: that was sarcasm you just read.)
Geeeshhh! Give me a freakin' break! What is Clifton so terrified of? This...
Well, guess what, Mr. Clifton: It didn't take Bernie Sanders officially entering the race for many of us on the left to recognize that Hillary is no progressive. There were reasons why we didn't support her candidacy in 2008, and nothing since then has convinced us that we were wrong. Let's get this clear from the start: If Hillary is nominated and loses, she will have lost it on her own accord, and not because she will be forced to debate an actual liberal before facing the Tea Time Circus. As Harry Truman so perfectly put it, "When a Republican runs against a Republican, the Republican will win every time." Now, Clifton's site is "Forward Progressives," so he feels obligated to start his essay by telling us that "I absolutely love Sen. Bernie Sanders." He claims no such love for Mrs. Clinton, but his fear of a GOP win is enough to give her his endorsement eight months before the first primary ballot is to be cast. I may already be several paragraphs into my response, but let me say that I, too, absolutely love Bernie - I have since the early '80s when I first started reading about that crazy Socialist winning over Vermont. Even more than that, I love democracy.
As a Daily Kos reader you already know, democracy is under fire. From restrictive voter ID laws, to cutting precincts and voting hours, to outright intimidation at the polls, to the one that no candidate is talking about - Citizens United - every effort is being made to bully citizens into either rubber-stamping the candidates endorsed by the corporate brass or staying home and keeping shut about it. And into that barrage of anti-democratic activity steps Allen Clifton of "Forward Progressives" to admonish us to ignore anybody who steps in the way of Hillary ascendant. As Lyndon Johnson so perfectly put it, "I may not know much, but I know the difference between chicken salad and chicken shit." Oh, wait, did I say no candidates were talking about Citizens United? That would be true if the Cliftons/Clintons of the world had their way, but it turns out that Senator Bernie Sanders is talking about it:
Now you would think that's something that "Forward Progressives" would care about. This forward progressive certainly does. So, please, you may be "Ready for Hillary," but when you try to bully others into falling in line, you are not supporting democracy (or winning friends or elections). For once there's a candidate who I have followed and admired for over 30 years, whose opinions most closely mirror my own, who - like me - is an independent who frequently allies with Democrats, and I intend to support him as long as he remains in the race - "viable" or not.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/11/1384047/-Democrats-Against-Democracy
Democrats AGAINST Democracy
Last week Allen Clifton, co-founder of Forward Progressives, wrote a column with the terrifying title Bernie Sanders Is Already Making It More Likely Republicans Win The White House In 2016. How dare Bernie do such a thing! Hasn't Senator Sanders read any newspapers over the last six or seven years? Didn't anybody tell him that Hillary is going to be the nominee? Or is the grumpy old Senator from Vermont under the mistaken impression that the primaries have any other purpose than to reinforce what the party leaders have already determined to be our preference? (note: that was sarcasm you just read.)
Geeeshhh! Give me a freakin' break! What is Clifton so terrified of? This...
... what I ultimately fear Sanders is going to do is get liberals worked up just enough to where when he eventually loses the Democratic primary election to Hillary, it’s going to cause many to become apathetic and refuse to show up in 2016 to vote for the “not liberal enough/basically a Republican” Hillary Clinton.
Well, guess what, Mr. Clifton: It didn't take Bernie Sanders officially entering the race for many of us on the left to recognize that Hillary is no progressive. There were reasons why we didn't support her candidacy in 2008, and nothing since then has convinced us that we were wrong. Let's get this clear from the start: If Hillary is nominated and loses, she will have lost it on her own accord, and not because she will be forced to debate an actual liberal before facing the Tea Time Circus. As Harry Truman so perfectly put it, "When a Republican runs against a Republican, the Republican will win every time." Now, Clifton's site is "Forward Progressives," so he feels obligated to start his essay by telling us that "I absolutely love Sen. Bernie Sanders." He claims no such love for Mrs. Clinton, but his fear of a GOP win is enough to give her his endorsement eight months before the first primary ballot is to be cast. I may already be several paragraphs into my response, but let me say that I, too, absolutely love Bernie - I have since the early '80s when I first started reading about that crazy Socialist winning over Vermont. Even more than that, I love democracy.
As a Daily Kos reader you already know, democracy is under fire. From restrictive voter ID laws, to cutting precincts and voting hours, to outright intimidation at the polls, to the one that no candidate is talking about - Citizens United - every effort is being made to bully citizens into either rubber-stamping the candidates endorsed by the corporate brass or staying home and keeping shut about it. And into that barrage of anti-democratic activity steps Allen Clifton of "Forward Progressives" to admonish us to ignore anybody who steps in the way of Hillary ascendant. As Lyndon Johnson so perfectly put it, "I may not know much, but I know the difference between chicken salad and chicken shit." Oh, wait, did I say no candidates were talking about Citizens United? That would be true if the Cliftons/Clintons of the world had their way, but it turns out that Senator Bernie Sanders is talking about it:
If he is elected president, he says, his Supreme Court nominees will have to pledge that they would vote to overturn the Citizens United decision that unleashed huge, unrestricted amounts of corporate and union campaign contributions as dark money into federal campaigns...
Unlike Clinton and the president, who both articulated discomfort with unrestricted corporate campaign money into Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s and (c)(6)s—and then proceeded to take advantage of the dynamic anyhow, Sanders has pledged not to use a Super PAC to raise money for his campaign.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/26104-the-citizens-united-campaign-for-the-white-house-bernie-sanders-vs-everyone-else.html
Unlike Clinton and the president, who both articulated discomfort with unrestricted corporate campaign money into Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s and (c)(6)s—and then proceeded to take advantage of the dynamic anyhow, Sanders has pledged not to use a Super PAC to raise money for his campaign.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/26104-the-citizens-united-campaign-for-the-white-house-bernie-sanders-vs-everyone-else.html
Now you would think that's something that "Forward Progressives" would care about. This forward progressive certainly does. So, please, you may be "Ready for Hillary," but when you try to bully others into falling in line, you are not supporting democracy (or winning friends or elections). For once there's a candidate who I have followed and admired for over 30 years, whose opinions most closely mirror my own, who - like me - is an independent who frequently allies with Democrats, and I intend to support him as long as he remains in the race - "viable" or not.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/11/1384047/-Democrats-Against-Democracy
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
