Skunks in da House, deficit and debt

[thomas1023]

Here's another thought along these same lines is an analogy that I think fits this situation. I'm referring of course to the top management making outrageous sums of money and bonuses while presiding over the death of their company. If we set the precedent that any big U.S. company could get a taxpayer funded bailout in times of trouble and the CEO's and upper management could all be assured of keeping their jobs...where would it end?

It reminds me of the story of the boy who is in court for sentencing because he murdered both of his parents. When it's finally time to face the consequences of his actions he tearfully asks the judge for sympathy and leniency...because he's an orphan.

Tampa -

That's exactly the president which has been set...we now have the US Government now being able to pick the winners and losers in what's supposed to be a free market system. (As an aside, I'm sure the BO Executive Order to have all corporate CEOs and Boards report all of their political contributions to the Federal Government wouldn't play a role in which companies which may be chosen for bailouts in the future.)

We already have a solution in the free market, bankruptcy. This freezes liabilities owed, allows a company to sell off unprofitable divisions, restructure, and potentially emerge from bankruptcy a leaner and more competitive corporation.

In my opinion, this bailout was done for the Unions. Under bankruptcy, Union contracts could be renegotiated and this wouldn’t stand with the current administration. In a bankruptcy, the primary people who would be paid back money would be the bond holders. They were bypassed and the Union Workers were put in line first.

The BO Admin is working very closely with Union Leaders. Here are some clips from two which are avowed Socialist / Communist.

First, there’s Andy Stern from SCIU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzGuVd9E_lA&feature=related

My favorite quote is ‘…were going to use the power of persuasion….and if that doesn’t work, we’ll use the persuasion of power’. That along with the good old, ‘workers of the world unite just isn’t a slogan anymore'...those Soviets sure knew how to coin a phrase!

Then, of course, there’s Trumpka from AFL/CIO:

Here he is hanging out with his friends….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv5DpBx2Tg4&feature=fvst

and his influence in the White House…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4NrT2oTQqE

And, on a somewhat related story, just recently, Boeing invested a billion dollars in building a new plant in South Carolina which would employ thousands, however, SC is a ‘right to work’ state. Boeing based in Washington State and even with the opening of the new plant in SC, they were not going to fire any of the current employees and have added two thousand jobs in the last two years in Washington. Thankfully, the Dept of Labor stepped in and has sided in the Unions who said they could not expand into SC. I guess another good president set with the Federal Government controlling which States a company is able to operate. Hopefully, Boeing will be able to prevail in the courts!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWUSo4uckTo

I think the government should own all the companies and they could operate as efficiently as the Federal Government….sort of how that stimulus money went to the right places in the economy and we don’t need to worry about going over 8% unemployment!

 

[cumrag27]

Free market economy you say?

Tampa -

That's exactly the president which has been set...we now have the US Government now being able to pick the winners and losers in what's supposed to be a free market system. (As an aside, I'm sure the BO Executive Order to have all corporate CEOs and Boards report all of their political contributions to the Federal Government wouldn't play a role in which companies which may be chosen for bailouts in the future.)

We already have a solution in the free market, bankruptcy. This freezes liabilities owed, allows a company to sell off unprofitable divisions, restructure, and potentially emerge from bankruptcy a leaner and more competitive corporation.

In my opinion, this bailout was done for the Unions. Under bankruptcy, Union contracts could be renegotiated and this wouldn’t stand with the current administration. In a bankruptcy, the primary people who would be paid back money would be the bond holders. They were bypassed and the Union Workers were put in line first.

The BO Admin is working very closely with Union Leaders. Here are some clips from two which are avowed Socialist / Communist.

First, there’s Andy Stern from SCIU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzGuVd9E_lA&feature=related

My favorite quote is ‘…were going to use the power of persuasion….and if that doesn’t work, we’ll use the persuasion of power’. That along with the good old, ‘workers of the world unite just isn’t a slogan anymore'...those Soviets sure knew how to coin a phrase!

Then, of course, there’s Trumpka from AFL/CIO:

Here he is hanging out with his friends….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv5DpBx2Tg4&feature=fvst

and his influence in the White House…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4NrT2oTQqE

And, on a somewhat related story, just recently, Boeing invested a billion dollars in building a new plant in South Carolina which would employ thousands, however, SC is a ‘right to work’ state. Boeing based in Washington State and even with the opening of the new plant in SC, they were not going to fire any of the current employees and have added two thousand jobs in the last two years in Washington. Thankfully, the Dept of Labor stepped in and has sided in the Unions who said they could not expand into SC. I guess another good president set with the Federal Government controlling which States a company is able to operate. Hopefully, Boeing will be able to prevail in the courts!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWUSo4uckTo

I think the government should own all the companies and they could operate as efficiently as the Federal Government….sort of how that stimulus money went to the right places in the economy and we don’t need to worry about going over 8% unemployment!

Dear Thomas,

NEWS FLASH: Slavery was abolished after the Civil War ended in the US.

I have to laugh because whenever "Free market economy terminology is used" as if it is stated in the "Bill of Rights", it means the working class be damned, just like during the industrial revolution before and after the start of the twentieth century. At the time America only had two classes of people like some "third world banana republic". America at its founding stands for more that unbridled personal greed by the wealthy and subjugation of the poor working class so they only have a subsistence wage with no hope for improving their personal lot or that of their family.

I say this because this bleak view on "Free Markets" has nothing to do about the real "American Dream". America's promise was to allow the masses to work and live in dignity with opportunities for advancing their standard of living. During the industrial revolution, if I worker was crippled or their health made them incapable of earning a living while doing their job, there was no humane "safety net" to come to their rescue and that of their families. People were simply a commodity that could always be easily replaced, while the captains of industry made more and more profits and their attitude about the workers was "middle class be damned, no one is irreplaceable".

Are you saying that the tyranny of the super wealthy is what America's capitalism is all about with no commitment for allowing for a thriving better educated and higher skilled middle class? Since we have had the GW Bush tax cuts, the only segment in the United States that has consistently had a noticeable gain in "real income" has been the top 2% - the super wealthy. If only the wealthy would create jobs according to the "Trickle-down Myth", then surely these wealthy individuals have been a major disappointment in their failure to contribute to the essential fabric of our society through hiring the unemployed or underemployed. Instead, these fat cats are no more than hoarders.

Having no regulations in this so called "free market economy" means they can continue to increase the productivity of the American worker while keeping their wages artificially lower than needed to provide adequately for a family. In the past, American families did not require the parents as wage earners to have multiple jobs at the same time just to scrape by. The factory workers have had nothing more from those in power than an ever worsening economic future as their reward for all their increases in productivity. Something about this seems a bit unfair, wouldn't you say?

Oddly enough, American workers have been punished by their employers for increasing their efficiency allowing the employers to then release many hard working and otherwise productive workers as the consequence of their hard work. Where is the fairness in any of this? Do the super rich only want to have a country of the "HAVES" at the top 2 to 5 % and the rest of the country as the "HAVE NOTS". That sounds a lot like the economic system for the French peasants before the French Revolution. Surely, there will have to be a profound upheaval from the underpaid masses at some point in the future to correct this unconscionable WRONG!

The wealthy have had and continue to have every advantage already when it comes to influence peddling and padding their pockets. Tell me, what Congressman or Senator actually listens to the man on the street, rather than corporate supported lobbyist. The answer is obvious, politicians care very little about the average man because their continued existence in their position accumulates massive campaign slush funds that exceeds greatly what the average Joe could contribute. This certainly does not imply that we operate as a free country for anybody except for the wealthy! What a disgrace to American democratic ideals! Why would any developing country want to adopt our system of heartless government?

I am not a Socialist, or Communist, or Terrorist, or an Anarchist. Just a true believer in the American Dream for all US citizens, not reserved just for the wealthiest among us!

Sincerely,


Stimpy

 

[slimvintage]

Perhaps partly in retribution for their shameful right-wing extremist past, the Germans, through government policy, are now at the forefront of cooperation between labor and management. Workers have a stake in the success of the industries they work for and a voice in policy. The top union person in the firm is automatically a member of the governing board of directors. That crack about retribution is unfair. They've done this ever since they found out they made more money by working together with labor rather than against it.

The sick, adversarial stance that the right wing in the US assumes vis-a-vis the American workforce is counterproductive to their own interests, and looks like little more than sneery bullying when examined objectively. Either that or sado-masochism. Perfect theme for a new fetish site: fat, Beck style Republican with dandruff, halitosis, mini-willy and yellow toenails screwing handsome young dark skinned industrial worker. Donald Trump could be Clay,
and bellow "you're fired" at the end of every episode.

 

[Smiley]

Ford Motor Company and the UAW are now at the forefront of cooperation between labor and management. Workers have a stake in the success of the industries they work for and a voice in policy...They've done this ever since they found out they made more money by working together.

slim, I took your words and changed them a bit. They apply just as well to Ford and the UAW. thomas1023, your ideas of the relationship between the car companies and the unions are out of date. Things have changed radically in the last twenty years.

link1

link2

 

[slimvintage]

slim, I took your words and changed them a bit. They apply just as well to Ford and the UAW. thomas1023, your ideas of the relationship between the car companies and the unions are out of date. Things have changed radically in the last twenty years.

link1

link2

I saw GM CEO Dan Akerson on Fareed Zakaria's Global Public Square last Sunday. He confirmed he was probably a "Republican kind of guy" but sounded very much in line with your two links.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...ief-christine-lagarde-and-gm-ceo-dan-akerson/

stimpy and I like Fareed's program. Anyone who doesn't know about it might watch the last one via the link above. It's the most intelligent and entertaining Sunday pundit show in the US and manages every now and then to put America in context with the rest of the world without being especially noxious to isolationists like Bill O'Reilly, to name just one

 

[Smiley]

He better be in agreement with the UAW owning a significant share of General Motors!

It depends on how you look at it.

Some might say the workers now own the factory. That sounds like Communism to me.

It also seems like a good way to get everyone to work together, especially with the workers owning a minority share. If labor decides to make unreasonable demands for compensation, they just hurt themselves. It's in their best interest to maximize the company's profit. That sounds like Capitalism to me.

 

[cumrag27]

My main squeeze.

I saw GM CEO Dan Akerson on Fareed Zakaria's Global Public Square last Sunday. He confirmed he was probably a "Republican kind of guy" but sounded very much in line with your two links.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...ief-christine-lagarde-and-gm-ceo-dan-akerson/

stimpy and I like Fareed's program. Anyone who doesn't know about it might watch the last one via the link above. It's the most intelligent and entertaining Sunday pundit show in the US and manages every now and then to put America in context with the rest of the world without being especially noxious to isolationists like Bill O'Reilly, to name just one

Dear Slim,

Although I have objected to Broke Straight Boys using the Team Avatars because I find them confusing, I would gladly trade in my ambivalent and ever needy DP twins, "Lefty" and "Righty", pictured above for a Team Avatar of Fareed Zakaria's Global Public Square. Fareed is my main squeeze and I like to squeeze him dry for all the objectivity and wisdom he possesses.

I have often wondered how anyone on the far-right who pushes "Free Markets" can, without any sense of obvious incongruence of views, openly support isolationists like O'Reilly, Lumbaugh, or most of the extreme right wing pundits not realizing the obvious oxymoron(contradiction) inherent with this view.

Sincerely,


Stimpy, Team Fareed Zakaria Supporter

 

[cumrag27]

I have part-interest in GM?

He better be in agreement with the UAW owning a significant share of General Motors!

It depends on how you look at it.

Some might say the workers now own the factory. That sounds like Communism to me.

It also seems like a good way to get everyone to work together, especially with the workers owning a minority share. If labor decides to make unreasonable demands for compensation, they just hurt themselves. It's in their best interest to maximize the company's profit. That sounds like Capitalism to me.

Dear $miley,

Rather than concerning ourself with mere labels, as national part-owners of I think some 30% of GM and with its profitability on the upswing again, are the dividends stockholders normally receive going to come to the US Treasury to help with the national debt issue? Isn't it about time? General Motors is overdue to help with the bail out of the US Government Debt Crisis, too. One good turn deserves another!

$incerely,

$timpy, luv that money!

 

[slimvintage]

$timpy and $miley, you guys are both so droll. I'm speechless.

And thomas, your post was terrifically well researched, humorous and beautifully put together. I'm on the other side of the political divide from you righties, but I love to hear what you have to say just to make sure I still believe in my liberal ideals lol...thanks man for adding a lovely dimension to the debate.

 

[cumrag27]

I dedicate my newly revived avatar to represent...

In honor of the extreme lesson that has played out this week in Washington, no thanks to the "Tea Party" and other "fiscal conservatives", who would rather have a complete shutdown of the worldwide economic system than not get their way. Where ever they hang their party hat, my avatar is dedicated to these lovers of chaos and economic uncertainty.

I dedicate my avatar as the recently "errected in the flesh" homage to unreasonable "Divided Government" and "Gridlock" as only Washington can do it. These folks really gave us a double dose of the proverbial "SHAFT".

Besides leaving the debt issue only partially solved and to the dissatisfaction of all, these budgetary masters were more than happy to hurriedly leave Washington for their summer break while abandoning the Federal Aviation Administration lingering unfinanced with 70,000 jobs at stake in FAA related improvements in the form of construction projects unfunded nationwide and the airlines unable to collect at least $25 million daily in FAA fees as normal because of this ridiculous oversight. Construction projects for adding or improving runways, or converting radar systems to the new satellite based radar for added safety. Then there is the minor matter of traffic controllers nationwide having to work for NO PAY as a consequence while Congressional members are off for vacation. If the situation was reversed, I am sure members of Congress would happily work for no pay for a similar oversight.

Oh well, so much for their looking out for the interests of the country or keeping people employed maintaining airports. The money the air carriers normally collect in ticket sales for FAA taxes alone will be a total loss until the Congressmen act to approve the FAA budget and air carriers can resume FAA fees with tickets sold. WAY TO GO, GUYS! NOTHING LIKE TAKING YOUR EYES OF THE BALL AT ONLY $25 MIL PER DAY OF LOST FAA REVENUE! OH WELL, IT IS ONLY MONEY AFTER ALL.


IF YOU SHOULD BUMP INTO ONE OF YOUR CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION VACATIONING, ASK THEM HOW ARE THEY GOING TO CORRECT THIS? WILL THEY CUT MEDICAID, MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, PELL GRANTS, EDUCATION, DEFENSE, OR MAYBE THEIR OWN TRAVEL, LIMO, AND STAFFING ALLOWANCES? I'M DYING TO KNOW!


$INCERELY,


$TIMPY

 

[slimvintage]

I think in the end Chinless Mitch backed off his shocking statement that his party's sole objective from now on should be to insure that Barack Obama was a one term president. The dumb fucker didn't realize as he said it that he was announcing himself as a hooligan saboteur, prepared to throw the country into chaos in an attempt to satisfy the narrow objectives of a herd of pygmy terrorist politicians (who actually all ought to be jailed for what they've done over the last month).

Last week blogger "Marion" said it pretty well on addictinginfo.org/:

The sole and total object of this season’s Republican Party is the downfall of Barack Obama. The thugs masquerading as legislators have been open in actually stating as such. They aren’t interested in governing. Mitch McConnell says his major aim is to ensure that Barack Obama is a one-term President. John Boehner states that it’s important to “stop” Obama. Tim Scott, a Freshmen Congressman, as well as the criminally-compromised Darrell Issa, wants to impeach him.

Look around you. The far right all over the world is disgracing the noble name of "conservative" in many civilized countries. And our boys are beginning to look just like them.

 

[cumrag27]

A trillion dollars for your thoughts!

I think in the end Chinless Mitch backed off his shocking statement that his party's sole objective from now on should be to insure that Barack Obama was a one term president. The dumb fucker didn't realize as he said it that he was announcing himself as a hooligan saboteur, prepared to throw the country into chaos in an attempt to satisfy the narrow objectives of a herd of pygmy terrorist politicians (who actually all ought to be jailed for what they've done over the last month).

Last week blogger "Marion" said it pretty well on addictinginfo.org/:



Look around you. The far right all over the world is disgracing the noble name of "conservative" in many civilized countries. And our boys are beginning to look just like them.

Dear Slim,

This is why partisanship for its own sake is so harmful and the antithesis of real governance. It reminds me of the days of Tom Delay still in power when he was operating his "war room" focused on destroying Bill Clinton. For "Chinless Mitch"..."announcing himself as a hooligan saboteur, prepared to throw the country into chaos in an attempt to satisfy the narrow objectives of a herd of pygmy terrorist politicians (who actually all ought to be jailed for what they've done over the last month).

If these thugs don't realize this, consider where Tom Delay is today in comparision to Bill Clinton. Over the long haul I would like to think "Truth reigns supreme" but only with concerted efforts being positive.

Thanks Slim for your insightful observations!


Sincerely,


Stimpy

 

[cumrag27]

FAA update

House and Senate leaders on Thursday brokered a “bipartisan compromise” over Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, ending — if only temporarily — a two-week standoff that had sidelined 74,000 federal employees and airport construction workers and cost the government tens of millions of dollars in uncollected airline ticket surcharges.

“This agreement does not resolve the important differences that still remain,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement announcing the deal. “But I believe we should keep Americans working while Congress settles its differences, and this agreement will do exactly that.”

Under the arrangement, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Friday will pass by unanimous consent a bill the Republican-led House passed in July that temporarily allows the FAA to conduct its business and slashes $16 million from the budget for subsidies paid to rural airports.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood would then use his authority to grant waivers to any community that requested one, provided they make a convincing case for why they should continue to receive the money, a Transportation Department aide said.

The subsidy cuts had been approved by the House but had become a sticking point for Senate Democrats, who saw them as a Republican tactic in service of a larger goal: forcing Democrats to accept anti-union language that had been included in a long-term FAA reauthorization bill the House had approved weeks ago. The language strips away a National Mediation Board ruling that makes it easier to organize airline industry employees

“This is a tremendous victory for American workers everywhere,” LaHood said in a statement. “From construction workers to our FAA employees, they will have the security of knowing they are going to go back to work and get a paycheck — and that’s what we’ve been fighting for. We have the best aviation system in the world and we intend to keep it that way.”

Both chambers left this week for their August break, prompting LaHood to repeatedly call for Congress to return from vacation and act on the FAA bill.

Because the Senate is in pro forma session, just two lawmakers are needed — one presiding over the chamber and the other on the floor requesting unanimous consent — to pass the legislation.

After it clears the Senate, the bill would be sent to President Barack Obama for his expected signature.


At least this has been worked out and jobs and millions of taxes used to support FAA will begin returning to normal.

Sincerely,


Stimpy

 

[slimvintage]

I would like to help start re-call campaigns against the food-spattered children in the House who had month-long tantrums that brought the country to a disbelieving, disgusted, angry halt. But I don't have the first idea how to do it, or even if such campaigns can at this time be successfully mounted. Anyone?

 

[cumrag27]

Recall Process of Senators and Congressmen

I would like to help start re-call campaigns against the food-spattered children in the House who had month-long tantrums that brought the country to a disbelieving, disgusted, angry halt. But I don't have the first idea how to do it, or even if such campaigns can at this time be successfully mounted. Anyone?

Dear Slim,

I was not up on this aspect of recalling unfit Senators & Congressmen. I am sure this would not be easy nor appear reassuring to the financial markets worldwide, but here is the process:

SECTION 1. A person may not serve the remainder of any term as a Senator or Representative if the person has been recalled from such office pursuant to this article.

SECTION 2. A person qualified to elect a Senator or Representative from a State may register with the executive authority of the State a petition requesting that the Senator or Representative be recalled. The person may not register the petition during the 150-day period before, or the 60-day period after, a general or special election in which the Senator or Representative is a candidate for election or reelection to such office. A person qualified to elect the Senator or Representative may sign the petition during the 120-day period beginning on the registration date. Not later than the 1st business day after such period, the registrant shall file the petition with the executive authority.

SECTION 3. Within 30 days after the date any recall petition is filed with the executive authority of a State under this article, the executive authority shall determine if the petition bears valid signatures in a number not less than 20 percent of the number of votes legally cast in the most recent Presidential election by persons who are qualified to elect the Senator or Representative who the petition requests to be recalled. On the date of any determination that a petition bears such number of valid signatures, the executive authority shall deliver a certified copy of the petition to the Senator or Representative who the petition requests to be recalled. Within 7 days after any such determination, the executive authority shall call for a vote of persons qualified to elect the Senator or Representative on the question of whether the Senator or Representative shall be recalled. Such question shall be the only question posed to such persons during the vote. The vote shall be held within 30 days after the 60-day period beginning on the date the executive authority calls for the vote.

SECTION 4. The executive authority of a State shall certify the results of any vote taken in the State under this article. If a majority of the persons who participate in any such vote choose to recall a Senator or Representative, the Senator or Representative shall vacate such office on the date of any such certification. If a majority of the persons who participate in any such vote choose not to recall a Senator or Representative, the Senator or Representative shall not be recalled during the remainder of the term of office in which the vote was taken.

[edit] Notes1.↑ H. J. RES. 419, 102d CONGRESS, 2d Session (1992), introduced by Rep Paxon, Bill [NY-27]
2.↑ H. J. RES. 109, 103d CONGRESS, 1st Session (1993), introduced by Rep Paxon, Bill [NY-27]


I certainly would like for recall petitions to make believers that we are serious for once and are tired of their "Political Shit" and, in the words of the far-right, really "CLEAN HOUSE" in both chambers.

Sincerely would welcome a little "checks and balances" worthy of both Houses for once,



PS I just read this legislation failed to be passed in 1992.

 

[tampa24]

Tampa -

That's exactly the president which has been set...we now have the US Government now being able to pick the winners and losers in what's supposed to be a free market system.

Again Thomas going back to my earlier post... Whose fault is it that the major corporations fell into bankruptcy in the first place? So do I understand your position to be that we let the free market work and let all these poorly managed companies go bankrupt?

If the government is forced to nationalize a company they can usually make a strong case that they had to do so for national security reasons. (Be they military or economic.) How convincing the argument was for bailing out each company on a case by case basis was and is obviously open to subjective interpretation. That's what I saw happening with most of the bailouts. I see a contradiction in the ideology that you're espousing though. First I understand you to say that we should let the free market work and let losing companies fail. If however the government intervenes and props up a failing company...you object to the government firing, demoting or otherwise replacing the very managers who presided over the bankruptcy of the company.

So where do you stand on that? Let all failing companies go bankrupt. Survival of the fittest. Right? But then if unfortunately the taxpayers do come to the rescue you want the government leave the same incompetent management team in place?

 

[tampa24]

Are the Rich not Rich Enough?

Are the rich not rich enough?

And if not, what can we (of the middle and/or lower classes) do to correct this?

I set up these incendiary questions because the conservatives have apparently paid for alot of focus group research lately. In the latest budget debate they have taken to forswearing the use of the words rich, wealthy or affluent altogether. They found that many people don't respond well to the sound of words like tax breaks for the rich. I myself have no animosity towards wealthy people. Perhaps that's because like many of us I hope to one day be able to join their ranks. haha

The propaganda campaign that I find annoying is that now Republicans have taken to using the term "job creators" whenever the subject of the rich comes up in the budget debate. They say they won't consider any tax hikes on the "job creators" to help balance the budget. Apparently the term "job creators" applies to anyone of wealth, regardless of how they earned the money or how they spend it.

There are indeed many people of wealth who do create jobs. What's so galling in this latest propaganda exercise is that the wealthy socialite jet setting to Marseilles and Monaco...who keeps most of her money in Swiss bank accounts...and earned her money the hard way...by inheriting it, is considered a "job creator". Is she in need of more tax relief from other U.S. taxpayers? Is the CEO of a company bringing in $40 million or more a year, plus corporate jet and stock options a "job creator"? He isn't personally hiring anybody. Will his company hire less people if he has to pay more of his salary in taxes? I am smart enough to know that through purchases with large sums of money that he helps to keep other people employed in the entertainment industry, restaurant industry, hotel industry, retail industry etc. I do understand the logic of that.

The crux of my point with this latest propaganda campaign of the far right is this: If the rich really are supposed to be the "job creators" right now...How well are they doing at creating jobs? Looking at the national unemployment rate I'd say they are doing a pretty piss poor job of it! LOL

Are the "job creators" not creating enough jobs right now because they are not yet "rich enough"? Should the rest of us help make them richer so that they can be our salvation?


After all, any jobs created by government and paid for by government revenue are pure evil...whereas any jobs created by the private sector are semi-divine.

So where does that leave members of Congress and the Senate?

 

[slimvintage]

A guy called Andrew Sullivan writes/blogs for The Daily Beast, a great online news source. Here's what he had to say about the guy whose dick I would happily suck if he were into that shit. Sullivan and some other smarties were chatting today about who is Washington's most effective politician:

I think Obama is easily the winner and currently stupidly under-rated - and drowned out by all the noise in the conservative-media-industrial-complex.

Here are the political accomplishments: defeating the most heavily favored party machine in decades (the Clintons) while actually bringing his biggest rival into his cabinet, where she has performed extraordinarily well; helping to cement the GOP's broad identity as extremists opposed to compromise; entrenching black and Hispanic loyalty to his party; retaining solid favorables and not-too-shabby approval ratings during the worst recession since the 1930s. 44 percent of the country still (rightly) blame Bush for this mess, only 15 percent blame Obama.

On policy: ending the US torture regime; prevention of a second Great Depression; enacting universal healthcare; taking the first serious steps toward reining in healthcare costs; two new female Supreme Court Justices; ending the gay ban in the military; ending the Iraq war; justifying his Afghan Surge by killing bin Laden and now disentangling with face saved; firming up alliances with India, Indonesia and Japan as counter-weights to China; bailing out the banks and auto companies without massive losses (and surging GM profits); advancing (slowly) balanced debt reduction without drastic cuts during the recession; and financial re-regulation.

Yes, there have been failures. The election of Scott Brown; the 2010 mid-terms; the surrender to Netanyahu and AIPAC; the botched and ill-conceived war in Libya; the failure to embrace Bowles Simpson up-front; the collapse of cap and trade (maybe not such a bad thing anyway). But notice what hasn't happened. Where are all the scandals promised by Michelle Malkin? Where are his Katrinas and Monicas?

When I read commentaries expounding on the notion that this man is competely out of his depth, I just have to scratch my head. Given his inheritance, this has been the most substantive first term since Ronald Reagan's. And given Obama's long-game mentality, that is setting us up for a hell of a second one.

 

[cumrag27]

Fight the good fight!

Are the rich not rich enough?

And if not, what can we (of the middle and/or lower classes) do to correct this?

I set up these incendiary questions because the conservatives have apparently paid for alot of focus group research lately. In the latest budget debate they have taken to forswearing the use of the words rich, wealthy or affluent altogether. They found that many people don't respond well to the sound of words like tax breaks for the rich. I myself have no animosity towards wealthy people. Perhaps that's because like many of us I hope to one day be able to join their ranks. haha

The propaganda campaign that I find annoying is that now Republicans have taken to using the term "job creators" whenever the subject of the rich comes up in the budget debate. They say they won't consider any tax hikes on the "job creators" to help balance the budget. Apparently the term "job creators" applies to anyone of wealth, regardless of how they earned the money or how they spend it.

There are indeed many people of wealth who do create jobs. What's so galling in this latest propaganda exercise is that the wealthy socialite jet setting to Marseilles and Monaco...who keeps most of her money in Swiss bank accounts...and earned her money the hard way...by inheriting it, is considered a "job creator". Is she in need of more tax relief from other U.S. taxpayers? Is the CEO of a company bringing in $40 million or more a year, plus corporate jet and stock options a "job creator"? He isn't personally hiring anybody. Will his company hire less people if he has to pay more of his salary in taxes? I am smart enough to know that through purchases with large sums of money that he helps to keep other people employed in the entertainment industry, restaurant industry, hotel industry, retail industry etc. I do understand the logic of that.

The crux of my point with this latest propaganda campaign of the far right is this: If the rich really are supposed to be the "job creators" right now...How well are they doing at creating jobs? Looking at the national unemployment rate I'd say they are doing a pretty piss poor job of it! LOL

Are the "job creators" not creating enough jobs right now because they are not yet "rich enough"? Should the rest of us help make them richer so that they can be our salvation?


After all, any jobs created by government and paid for by government revenue are pure evil...whereas any jobs created by the private sector are semi-divine.

So where does that leave members of Congress and the Senate?

Dear Tampa24,

Did you not know that when excessive government regulation forced the wealthy to remove their alligator-filled moats surrounding their humble abodes, no one told them that, from henceforth, their primary preoccupation and life challenge was to create jobs for the nation from their ever-enlarging riches.

Blame it on poor public education, underdeveloped family values, or that Obama failed to inform them. Take your pick! I am sure that anyone of these will do just fine as long as you:

• puff out your bottom lip,

• look-up with sad, tear-filled "Tammy Baker-ish eyes", and

• say in a "poor-pitiful-me, whinny-voice" that you are now totally at the mercy of both the middle and lower classes.

Wait a minute! I think my being in touch with reality just escaped me for a minute, like some errant "Senior Moment' or a mirage appearing briefly on the asphalt surface of a super heated highway.

On closer review one can readily see our entire tax code is designed to be manipulated primarily by the wealthy but financially supported primarily by the less-privileged middle & lower classes. Large corporations have always had the resources to outsmart the existing loopholes Congress so wisely built in with a blind-eye and deaf-ear. This was compensation for their rich friends who were earlier so unceremoniously "de-moated".

So, naturally when they produced their off-spring, the offspring entered politics with a score to settle and they became to be known as the "uncivilized" Tea Party. They have allegiance for the "Free-Markets provided they sit in control of what goes for the "Free Markets" in today's parlance. They adhere strictly to the "Golden Rule" which is defined thusly..."As long as I have the Gold, I make the Rules." All of this sounds a little selfish and Narcissistic, wouldn't you say?

My hope is that, some day should I acquire wealth, I will not come to the same point of actually believing own PR or spin at the disadvantage and cost of those more needy.


Sincerely Moat[/COLOR]-free,


Stimpy

 

[slimvintage]

stimpy and tampa, thank you again so much for your posts.

The recall campaigns wouldn't so much be to get the targets out of office as to have on their record that a legitimate, serious attempt had been made to unseat the fuckers.

And I loved your dissertation, tampa, on the vicissitudes of the poor Rich.