The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[richardhutnik]

What "gravy train" have the "the rich" been on in the United States? Paying low taxes ALONE isn't a gravy train. A gravy train is when they get a ton of tax dollars, and also have their taxes cut. Check the book called "Free Lunch" for more info on some things like this, such as subsidies to build sports stadiums.

- Rich

It isn't? In what world are you living in? Then who if footing the bill? Why do you think you don't have health care right now, Rich? Why do you think that you don't have a job ... and have little prospects of getting one until this economy if fixed? Where have you been the last 9 years?

EDIT: ... make that the last 28 years.

A problem we are facing is that the middle class is eroding, and the shift of wealth has gone to the top, while middle class wages have stagnated, and the middle class has shrunk. There are large economic forces at work going on the wealthy capitalize on. The largest one is globalization, which is the top reason for my condition. Corporations have rigged the system for their benefit, in that they place the training cost onus on workers, and pit workers from China and India against them. There are other monstrosities involved here to.

This is not a gravy train, where the rich line up and get money from the government, the bail-out as an exception. And I am hard pressed to figure out how exactly soaking the rich is going to get me a job, or possibly even health care. What you want to do is tax sufficiently to pay for what is needed. This isn't ending a gravy train. What it is, is putting the financial house in order.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

This Virginia governor is a jerk off.

[richardhutnik]

You wanna talk about boring? This at this square jawed strapperhead governor of Virgina ... with the black female, male asian, white female and military man behind him ... how more choreographed can they get? Yes, the rainbow coalition of the GOP.

You consider it a James Watt moment?
A public controversy erupted after a speech by Watt on September 21, 1983, when he said about his staff: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."

At least that looks like an upgrade. The last time the GOP tried to address it not being diverse (A party of only White Christian Males), it brought up that several notable people involved with it were Jews. Didn't mention any other group.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

A problem we are facing is that the middle class is eroding, and the shift of wealth has gone to the top, while middle class wages have stagnated, and the middle class has shrunk. There are large economic forces at work going on the wealthy capitalize on. The largest one is globalization, which is the top reason for my condition. Corporations have rigged the system for their benefit, in that they place the training cost onus on workers, and pit workers from China and India against them. There are other monstrosities involved here to.

This is not a gravy train, where the rich line up and get money from the government, the bail-out as an exception. And I am hard pressed to figure out how exactly soaking the rich is going to get me a job, or possibly even health care. What you want to do is tax sufficiently to pay for what is needed. This isn't ending a gravy train. What it is, is putting the financial house in order.

- Rich

But Rich, the big business (banks, insurance companies, investment companies, etc.) have been successful in padding the pockets of congressmen/women for reduced financial regulations which have permitted them to do the damage they've done making speculative investments. And I include Bill Clinton, and I'm sure other democrats, who let republicans bully them into making all these concessions.

[HarthorneWingo]

You wanna talk about boring? This at this square jawed strapperhead governor of Virgina ... with the black female, male asian, white female and military man behind him ... how more choreographed can they get? Yes, the rainbow coalition of the GOP.

You consider it a James Watt moment?
A public controversy erupted after a speech by Watt on September 21, 1983, when he said about his staff: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."

At least that looks like an upgrade. The last time the GOP tried to address it not being diverse (A party of only White Christian Males), it brought up that several notable people involved with it were Jews. Didn't mention any other group.

- Rich

His address was pathetic. Is this the best the republicans can do? And, no, I'm not saying it's any kind of
"moment." I was just making an observation about that BS back drop of different racial and ethnic make-up when we all know the republican party is a bunch of racist white men and women. But mostly men ...and stupid women who vote against their own interest ... probably because their racial biases eclipse whatever common sense they have.

[richardhutnik]

This is not a gravy train, where the rich line up and get money from the government, the bail-out as an exception. And I am hard pressed to figure out how exactly soaking the rich is going to get me a job, or possibly even health care. What you want to do is tax sufficiently to pay for what is needed. This isn't ending a gravy train. What it is, is putting the financial house in order.

- Rich

But Rich, the big business (banks, insurance companies, investment companies, etc.) have been successful in padding the pockets of congressmen/women for reduced financial regulations which have permitted them to do the damage they've done making speculative investments. And I include Bill Clinton, and I'm sure other democrats, who let republicans bully them into making all these concessions.

Bill Clinton wasn't bullied to make the changes. He endorsed the changes. The in-thing, Reagan era onward, was to rip out as many regulations as possible, in order to have things grow. Particularly regarding Fannie and Freddie Mac, the Democrats were in the pockets of corporate banking interests. It was damn the torpedos and full speed ahead.

Then take all parties involved who thought it a great idea to make a housing bubble and gross negligence all around, and then they ran things ashore. And throw on top of that the TARP and the bailout. In this, the TARP was the gravy train. Anything else is individuals not acting as responsible citizens and letting things get looted while blaming illegals, or whomever else they want, and division. And then you have people who decide the Tea Party protestors are loons also. Better to make fun of them and marginalize them, rather than the citizens that are upset trying to take control of things on their own, but feel the need to lobby Washington to give it crumbs.

If citizens won't have character and take control, they are going to end up in the worst of all things here. Maybe by some miracle the Michael Moore inspired rebels (see Capitalism) could work with the Tea Party folks, and we come up with solutions that make change and aren't based on Washington. Don't do that, and you will think that everything the trouble causing elite financial barons are causing is the result of Washington, and you will put everything that needs to be done to be there. And you won't do jack to help people as you wait for your next savior to come along. Get aboard the Hope float, because the next guy will apparently be able to give everyone jobs and sprinkle all sorts of goodness on everyone.

- Rich

No form of regulation will stop people from being stupid.

[richardhutnik]

Fact-checking the State of the Union address:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_ ... fact_check

If Congress keeps looking out for its own self-interests, and keeps itself in by voting on pork, one wonders how anything will ever get done, irregardless of Obama or anyone else in there. Democrats and Republicans have both shown themselves to party like drunken sailors. On this note, apparently Tea Party folk DON'T want pork to be brought back, so that is a starting point.

- Rich

[richardhutnik]

Anyone have any idea where the Department of Labor gets its list of careers categories that will be experiencing job growth forecasts? Check this out:
http://education.yahoo.net/articles/6_f ... m?kid=MQNM

I fell for this stuff and borrowed to get a Masters degree in IT. Now I see they are saying these areas will experience job growth (again):
1. Network systems and data communications analysts perform a number of tasks in relation to data communications systems, like the Internet, including designing, analyzing, testing, and assessing systems and their performance. Analysts might also supervise computer programmers and work as specialists who handle the interfacing of computers and communications equipment.

How Fast Is It Growing? This is considered the leading occupation in terms of the percentage of growth in jobs. In large part, this is due to the increasing use of computers and information technology. The rise from 262,000 employees in 2006 to 402,000 in 2016 represents a 53.4 percent increase over that span - that's 140,000 new jobs.

3. Computer software engineers rely on their knowledge of computer science and mathematical analysis to develop, design, test, and evaluate the software and systems that operate our computers. Their tasks are evolving quickly and reflect the ever-changing landscape of computer technology. Computer games, word processing, and operating systems are among their areas of expertise.

How Fast Is It Growing? A 44.6 percent increase in jobs from 2006-2016 puts computer software engineers near the top of the growth scale. This growth will be the result of businesses and other organizations embracing and integrating new technologies and seeking to maximize the efficiency of their computer systems.
----------------------------------------------
I speculate that they go to different industries to get their numbers, and industries feed them numbers they want to see, so that they can get a glut of workers, to drive down wage rates. If I am wrong, please speak to this.

- Rich

[knicks742]

There is hope after all.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/ ... -2012.html

[richardhutnik]

This comment was made in another thread: "Rich you know better than that, altruism doesn't exist, people give money to charity and those in need exclusively out of the selfish need to feel better about themselves or placate their guilt."

Anyone here care to defend that point or disagree with it? I say that is false. I was also surprised that someone who would defend the Christian faith would say that altruism doesn't exist.

- Rich

[mugzi]

Just dropped in to fan the flames....not one of you will agree with this article despite the facts it states, enjoy.

Thank You, President Bush
The Americano ^ | Dr. Jeffrey Folks.
Posted on Thu Jan 28 2010 11:04:11 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by big black dog

It has been one year now since George W. Bush left office. In that year the United States has endured terrorist attacks at home and abroad. By President Obama’s own admission, anti-terror intelligence has under his watch suffered a “systemic failure.” The unemployment rate has gone from six to ten percent. Public trust in Congress has fallen to an all-time low, while Obama’s approval rating has fallen to the lowest point of any president in his first year in office. The future of our modern health care system is in doubt an unpopular overhaul in disarray and its proponents vowing to “pass something.” In the latest opinion polls, two-thirds of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

This situation was different during the presidency of George W. Bush, who completed his first year in office with the highest approval rating of any president. After 9/11, thanks to the sophisticated network of intelligence rapidly put in place (including unauthorized wiretaps and enhanced interrogation, both effective means of gaining real-time intelligence, and both now rejected), there were no further attacks on the homeland. This was not happenstance. It was because George Bush was determined to defend the United States at all costs, even at the cost of assaults by civil libertarians and by opponents seeking to score political points. Few would dispute the fact that the electronic surveillance and enhanced interrogation protocols put in place by President Bush saved lives.

In the few short weeks following the 9/11 attacks, our military dislodged Taliban-protected terrorist camps in Afghanistan, thus denying the enemy a ready base of operations. The brief and (on our side) almost bloodless war that liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban drove al-Qaeda into hiding, denying them a base for training future terrorists whose only purpose was to attack the United States and its allies. No one will ever know how many lives were saved by President Bush’s swift and decisive action, but it must be many thousands.

Post edited. Please limit excerpts of copyrighted materials to three paragraphs or less.


Now I have some birthday cake with my name on it, Dicky, Wingo have fun with this article and try to find some facts to refute it if you can instead of partisan rhetoric.

[richardhutnik]

If Bush inherited a Clinton recession, what exactly do you call this? In a neat bit of partisan hacking of reality, there is make is so that we can blame Clinton for a recession Dubya had, and also blame Obama for what is going on now. And the same apparently with 9/11. Apparently the first WTC attack was due to the fault of Clinton, as was the second one Bush faced.

Economic realities? We have seen things go downhill since 2001, and they haven't gotten better. How was job growth during the Bush years? They were anemic. They didn't keep up with the growth in population. And how was the budget numbers? It continued a downhill decline that still hasn't reversed. You can put the onus of the budget deficit on Obama now. But apparently no one apparently cared about deficits when Bush was in charge. How does one justify running the deficits Bush ran, with a full Republican congress in charge, if times were so good?

And on job growth, chew on these numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_creat ... tial_terms

U.S. president Term years Start jobs* End jobs* Created (in millions) Average annual increase
George W. Bush 2001-2005 132,469 132,476 +0.01 +0.002%
George W. Bush R 2005-2009 132,476 134,333 +1.9 +0.3%

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html
Job Growth Under Bush Much Slower Than Under Clinton and Reagan

Under Bush, the economy produced 3.7 million new jobs from January 2001 through December of last year based on nonfarm payroll figures collected by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That figure is likely to be higher — perhaps by an additional 810,000— when the government releases annual revisions based on more complete information next month. However, that doesn't change the basic historical picture.

When Clinton was in the White House, the economy generated 17.6 million jobs during the corresponding period — from January 1993 to December 1998. Under Reagan, 9.5 million jobs were created from January 1981 to December 1986.

Those are the two most-recent two-term presidents before Bush. Some 2.6 million jobs were created during the four-year term of Bush's father, who took office in January 1989.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/ ... b/article/

January 9, 2009, 12:04 PM ET

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record


And that is reality. Will see what happens next with Obama, but that is the reality of the situation. But, carry on Mugzi.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

It's time to further publicly humiliate the "activist" Suuuuupreme Court. Leave it to a business to figure out how to take out the middle man.

Murry Hill's slogan: "Get Your Politics at Half-Price!"

http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

Supreme Court Ruling Spurs Corporation Run for Congress

First Test of “Corporate Personhood” In Politics

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress and released its first campaign video on http://www.youtube.com/user/murrayhillcongress

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, “If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.”

Post edited. Please limit excerpts of copyrighted materials to three paragraphs or less.

[HarthorneWingo]

See, I post articles that criticize Obama. I have to so though, I did enjoy him throwing that back in that smug fake-suntanned-face of John Boehner.

Anyhow, we're all doomed. The republicans just want to see Obama fail, even at the expense of the american people's livelihoods, while a handful of hillbilly democrats "run for them thar hills." Bunch of pussies. I hope the whole lot of them get voted out.

So, I'm thinking about Amsterdam again. Where a man truly has "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, i.e. legalized prostitution and weed smoking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/opini ... ugman.html

Op-Ed Columnist
March of the Peacocks

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 28, 2010

Last week, the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, published an acerbic essay about the difference between true deficit hawks and showy “deficit peacocks.” You can identify deficit peacocks, readers were told, by the way they pretend that our budget problems can be solved with gimmicks like a temporary freeze in nondefense discretionary spending.

One week later, in the State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a temporary freeze in nondefense discretionary spending.

Wait, it gets worse. To justify the freeze, Mr. Obama used language that was almost identical to widely ridiculed remarks early last year by John Boehner, the House minority leader. Boehner then: “American families are tightening their belt, but they don’t see government tightening its belt.” Obama now: “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.”

Post edited. Please limit excerpts of copyrighted materials to three paragraphs or less.

[HarthorneWingo]

Mugzi, you will appreciate this. But if anybody here didn't see Jon Stewart on The Daily Show after the SOTU address, you should watch it. It was funny ... no matter whether you're democrat or republican. Really.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... s-clueless

[richardhutnik]

Why did not a single Republican vote for "Pay as you go" to try to fight the budget deficit?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/28/24166.htm

WASHINGTON (CN) - The Senate voted 60-40 on Thursday to require that new legislation be paid for; no Republicans voted for the bill. "Strict pay-as-you-go budget rules created record surpluses in the late 1990s," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said. "And when this standard was abandoned under President Bush, it created record deficits."


Exactly what DO the Republicans stand for outside of getting back into the White House?

- Rich

[camillepd]

I saw this documentary on CUNY TV last week about the growing anti-Obama movement throughout the country. Now, its posted on youtube. This sh-t is scary!!

Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8SDMZ0D ... re=channel

[richardhutnik]

I saw this documentary on CUNY TV last week about the growing anti-Obama movement throughout the country. Now, its posted on youtube. This sh-t is scary!!

Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8SDMZ0D ... re=channel

Can you repost the entire link or at least the v= stuff?

- Rich

[richardhutnik]

camillepd, is this the video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8SDMZ0D ... re=channel

- Rich

And this video, created in 2007, fits into this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thn9Hnu_ ... re=related

[alphad0gz]

when we all know the republican party is a bunch of racist white men and women. But mostly men

I can't begin to tell you how offensive I find this. It really angers me to hear anyone write this crap. I've been around just as long (or longer) than you and I can guarantee you that there is just as much racism among democrats, Black Americans included. That kind of talk helps nobody. As I'm sure you know, the difference between the party's ideology has nothing to do with race.