Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

AFL-CIO goes in the field in 23 states

By Aaron Blake and Felicia Sonmez

1. The AFL-CIO is launching the first stage of its field operation for November's elections, dropping more than 300,000 flyers at worksites in 23 states over the next two weeks.

The effort, which is set to be announced Monday morning, is the start of what the union says will be an unprecedented effort in the 2010 campaign.

"If politicians are fighting for working families, then we will work our hearts out for them," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. "If they aren't delivering and think they can take our support for granted then they may be awfully lonely come November."

Labor (including the AFL-CIO) has already made a huge splash this year by spending about $10 million trying to take down Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) in her primary. It came up just shy, but it insists there's more where that came from.

According to copies of the flyers obtained by The Fix, some are negative and some are positive. They will focus on everything from governor and Senate races on down.

One flyer hits Illinois GOP governor nominee Bill Brady for supporting lowering the minimum wage in his state to the federal level. Another focuses on California Republican Senate nominee Carly Fiorina's tenure as Hewlett Packard CEO, which included tens of thousands of layoffs and a "golden parachute" when she left.

A positive piece for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) lists the labor-friendly policies he has supported in the past.

The states where the flyers are being distributed also include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.

2. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's political action committee reported raising more than $860,000 in the second quarter -- a significant increase for the potential 2012 presidential candidate.

The AP reports Palin spent $87,500 on candidates and $210,000 on consulting for the quarter. She has more than $1 million cash on hand.

Sarah PAC is still not performing at the level of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) Free and Strong America PAC, which has consistently been raising big money (though no second quarter numbers available yet) and has spent $300,000 on candidates so far this cycle. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) PAC raised $700,000 in the second quarter.

In other fundraising news, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) announced last week that he raised about half as much as Tennessee gubernatorial frontrunner Bill Haslam in the second quarter.

Haslam, the mayor of Knoxville, announced on July 1 that he had pulled in $1.7 million for the month. Wamp, who is one of several Republicans gunning for Haslam, said he raised more than $800,000.

In the Arizona Senate race, Democratic frontrunner Rodney Glassman raised $500,000 and self-funded another half million dollars. Glassman's hopes appear to rest on the possibility that former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) defeats Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in a primary.

In House races, freshman Rep. Betsy Markey (D-Colo.) announced she raised a strong $528,000 and had $1.5 million cash on hand after the second quarter. Markey is a top GOP target.

3. A week after video of Michael Steele's controversial comments on the war in Afghanistan first surfaced, leading Republicans continue to distance themselves from the embattled Republican National Committee chairman.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) made it a point to say during an appearance on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" that aired Sunday that Steele is "not my leader" and "not the head of my party." On "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that Steele's remarks were "wrong" and declined to take a position on whether Steele should step down. And Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R), chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said at the National Governors Association summer summit that Steele's comments were "a distraction."

Steele has said that he "ain't goin' anywhere," and in appearances at state Republican Party conventions in Nevada and Washington state over the weekend, he again walked back his comments.

"I know that my remarks may have been a little bit confusing or misunderstood," Steele told a crowd of about 300 at the Nevada Republican Party convention on Friday night. "Afghanistan is a war we can win."

As we've noted, it's unlikely that Steele will be ousted ahead of the midterms, which are less than four months away. But as Republican Party leaders continue to balk at defending him in public, the chairman's chances of maintaining his perch post-November aren't looking any rosier.

4. The Democratic National Committee took a key step toward deciding on its 2012 nominating process on Saturday as its Rules and Bylaws Committee approved a plan that would put the first contests a month later than their January start date in 2008.

Under the proposed calendar, which would maintain the early-state status of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the 2012 White House race would kick off on Feb. 6 with the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. The New Hampshire primary would take place eight days later, on Feb. 14, followed by the Feb. 18 Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary on Feb. 28. The rest of the nominating contests would take place between March 6 and June 12.

The 2012 calendar is of lesser importance on the Democratic side (where President Obama will probably cruise to renomination) than on the Republican side (where a contested battle for the nod is certain). The Republican National Committee, like the DNC, is planning to hold its four early-state contests in February, although the details will be hammered out at the committee's summer meeting in Kansas City next month. Democrats will make a final decision on their proposal at their own summer meeting in St. Louis.

The decision by both parties to push the first nominating contests to February is largely a factor of the way things played out in 2008, when a front-loaded calendar meant that that the first contests were held in early January.

Aside from the timing of the 2012 calendar, of even greater import on the Republican side will be the decision next month on how delegates in many of their presidential contests will be awarded. The RNC's Temporary Delegate Selection Committee is considering requiring any states that hold their contests before April 1 to award their delegates on a proportional rather than a winner-take-all basis, in an effort to draw out the nominating process and prevent candidates with bigger war chests and greater name ID from clinching the nomination early on.

That change - along with the calendar changes -- will be decided upon next month.

5. The best political trivia night in D.C. (and, dare we say, on Planet Earth?) is only hours away.

That's right: "Politics and Pints," The Fix's monthly trivia night, is BACK. The festivities kick off at 7 p.m. at Capitol Lounge -- 231 Pennsylvania Avenue SE. Registration's first-come, first-serve, so make sure that you get there early. (No worries if you don't have a full team - we'll do our best to match you up with our other political junkies in the house.)

The first- and second-place winners will walk away with prizes (and undying glory), and the team with the best name will win official Fix T-shirts.

So give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to drink good beer and test their political trivia mettle. And to get on our early e-mail list to find out when the next event is, shoot a line to chris.cillizza@wpost.com with "Politics and Pints" in the subject line.

By Aaron Blake  |  July 12, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ga. gubernatorial hopeful's new ad puts gender in the spotlight
Next: Alabama candidates spar over outside group's role in runoff

Comments


Obama has SLIPPED A SECRET PROVISION INTO THE FINANCIAL REGULATION BILL - AND TURNED THE BILL INTO A MINORITY QUOTA HIRING BILL


Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry.

In addition to this bill's well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.


.


Posted by: FlowersOfPeace
------------------------------------------
There are already affirmative action laws on the books. Why this duplication of effort? Just more control freakism by the marxist moonbats of today's Neocom Statist Destructionist Free Lunching Dbagger Party.

Posted by: leapin | July 13, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"I am a person who could have taken my ss contributions and invested it wisely enough to make more money than it will otherwise pay me. If I take my money out, and a lot of others do so, the whole program will collapse. I consider my ss contribution to be a contribution to my fellow citizens, rather than just maximizing it for myself. I have other retirement funds that I try to maximize, much larger than my ss. Posted by: 12BarBlues"

Even were you more savvy than Warren Buffet, I suspect that your claim would actually turn out to be a less then even money bet.

Not because you made any mistakes, but because what the Market really is is a way to get savvy investors to turn over large quantities of their money to investment firms to use to pay themselves the big bucks.

Look at it this way. Using whomever you would use to facilitate a sale true penny stocks, from an infinite collection of stocks for sale at a penney a piece, were I to give $100 to your middle man to buy as many stocks as I could after the agent had claimed his various fees, how many shares would I receive. and oafter your agent had disposed of his fees on your tyransaction, how much money would you have received?

All those sevurities markets are non conservative less than zero sum markets. Money in, minus fees, commissions, miscellaneous other expenses, and arbitrary charges, equals money out.

It is a very lossy system, and therefore, on average, the only people who actually make money are inside traders and anyone who can charge investors for handling their money.

Yes, I am bitter, and I never invested one cent in the mirage.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 12, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

"interesting 12Bar the average Tea Partier
is over 65 and on Medicare and SS. I have heard them proclaim: keep your government hands off my Medicare and SS. Curious if they are aware of these leading GOP sentiments, my guess is that they have no idea. Posted by: leichtman1"

Actually, since the T-Party is the remnant of the Jim Crow democrats who switched when LBJ passed his monumental Civil Rights legislation, it is obvious. If they first voted in 1968, theyare my age. And I can assure you NONE of us is getiting any younger, and we won't live for ever. Their kids may or may not have learned their political attitudes at their parents knees, but their grand kids have no referent at all to judge their grandparents animus by, and probably don't share it. So their grand kids, when THEY see someone attacking Social Security and medicare are quite capable of recognizing who is is that is attacking, Conservative Republicans.

Good bye, and god bless, the party of Lester Pickax Handle Maddox and Ross Barnet.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 12, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

"Aside from the timing of the 2012 calendar, of even greater import on the Republican side will be the decision next month on how delegates in many of their presidential contests will be awarded. The RNC's Temporary Delegate Selection Committee is considering requiring any states that hold their contests before April 1 to award their delegates on a proportional rather than a winner-take-all basis, in an effort to draw out the nominating process and prevent candidates with bigger war chests and greater name ID from clinching the nomination early on. That change - along with the calendar changes -- will be decided upon next month."

There won't be any change, because the whole set up is there to give the far right a stranglehold on the nominating process. Winner take all heavily front loaded allows a zoo of poorly financed and totally uncompetitive candidates to stroke their own ego, while splitting up the votes of all but the properly dedicated, so that Sarah, for instance, (provided she doesn't alienate even her followers by raising millions and some how frittering it away on consultants named Palin) ends up with the nomination despite never winning as much as a quarter of the republican Primary vote.

It was set up that way to get Goldwater the nomination, and the Conservatives have really loved the way it got them Nixon, Reagan, and Both Bushes.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 12, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Herewith I repost a REAL winning formula to get the best candidate for a Political party:

The First Tuesday in January Iowa gets to caucus. New Hampshire can have its Primary the same day, or the next Tuesday should it so choose.

Then, Each Tuesday from then until every state has had a primary, with time off for Holy Week and Easter Week, two or three states Primary or caucus, in order of size, smallest to largest. States may choose Proportional or Winner take all, although proportional is preferred.

That way NOBODY can have an insurmountable lead before late may at the earliest. This tests staying and organizational power, and strategic vision, rather than stampede tactics, which is what the Republicans currently have.

Time it right and you get a month to politic the un-awarded delegates who aren't yet committed. (The Super delegates, picked before hand because of their long commitment to the party. This is a rather good idea, really)

Then you go into the Convention with either a moderately consensus candidate, or a true open convention.

EVERY state is somewhat important, and there is therefore no great incentive to jump your primary months ahead to get candidates attention. You are insured of it in turn.

It will be a bit more expensive, but not that much more, and early sprinters in carb debt don't clog the miz later in the campaign.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 12, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

"Palin spent $87,500 on candidates and $210,000 on consulting' $87,000 on other candidates, combined? What did she do, buy them lunch? This is spending? And the $200k on consulting -- on her hair and nails? Posted by: drindl"

Uh, Drindl, you missed a Mile Post, and a wonderful one.

SP is raising money by the millions and dribbling it out by the thousands. Meanwhile she is hiring consultants with coincidentally similar names to her's.

Sort of like scam charities.

So watch closely, and see if her money raising leads to either A: more money in the back, or B: Big donations to other R's.

When the answer is C: it goes to pay for more fund raising, the great white hope for the democrats in 2012, SP at the head of the ticket isn't going to happen, because Auntie Iris is going to come down on her like a ton of bricks.

Sigh, I had SUCH great hopes.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 12, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

that is a really a simple fix that we can all agree with.


Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 8:38 PM
---

You'd think so; but if we can all agree, then why isn't something being done? As for whether Social Security is a good idea or whether or not it's socialism, that's one of those debates that occurred and was settled about 75 years ago. Why candidates think it's a good idea to oppose such a popular and effective program, I have absolutely no idea. How about we just fix it instead of complaining about it? Life insurance companies occasionally have to update their actuarial tables and adjust their rates accordingly. And they are unlikely to wait until they're broke to make the adjustments. Insurance commissioners look at the requests for rate increases/decreases and respond. Social Security has to be handled the same way. If a SS tax increase (or raising the limit on income subject to the tax) is required---or whatever other tweaks need to be made---grown men should be up to the job. We did it in the '80s and it's time to do it again. We're not talking about new programs or expanding government; this is a good program that just needs some occasional fine tuning.

Posted by: Brigade | July 12, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

we all know this brigade so why the nonsense from the Bachman and Paul crowd that its socialism and on the verge of going broke which we hear daily by the GOP.

"An important thing to remember is that there is still plenty of time to keep Social Security on the right track with very little pain. It would require raising the limit on income to which the SS tax is applied"

that is a really a simple fix that we can all agree with.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

your post that it is unlikely that the GOP will be able to Repeal Medicare or SS is spot on. George W tried like heck to push that agenda but likely on Sept 15, 2008 and Dec 21, 2008 when he saw the markets collapsing he thought otherwise.

Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Angel, Hensarling and other Rs just don't get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQW0oacbOWg
All those Privatization doubters should listen to Congressman Hensarling's policy ideas about that very issue which you rightfully call doubtfull.

Politically its suicidal, irresponsible and just plain dumb for them to even be promoting it, using euphamisms like Hensarling did with Matthews calling it "REINGENEERING" SS and turning it into a Defined Contribution Plan(he presumed voters are too dumb to know what a Defined Benefit Plan is). Calling for Cuts in SS is truly insane no matter how they try and phrase it. While not likely Brigade voters need to understand that folks like Ryan and Hanserlang IF Rs take over the House will become Chairmen of the Budget and Ways and Means Committee and have influence over such whacked out political concepts.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

My guess is that brigade, like some of the rest of us, is nearing 65. Liberal, moderate or conservative, well off or poor, people on the edge of collecting SS know FOR SURE they paid in, and counted on the benefits, and want the government to honor its obligations.

Am I right, brigade?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 7:41 PM
----

Absolutely. And try telling young people that they're supposed to fund my retirement at the same time someone's cooking up some scam to leave them high and dry.

Posted by: Brigade | July 12, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love those right-wing priorities.

ME FIRST!!!!!

It would be real nice they could make one serious suggestion to fix any of the problems they have heaped on this country since 1968. Just one.

Tax cuts for the rich didn't work the first 10 times so that might be off the table. How am I kidding?

Posted by: BigTrees | July 12, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

My guess is that brigade, like some of the rest of us, is nearing 65. Liberal, moderate or conservative, well off or poor, people on the edge of collecting SS know FOR SURE they paid in, and counted on the benefits, and want the government to honor its obligations.

Am I right, brigade?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love those right-wing priorities.

ME FIRST!!!!!

It would be real nice they could make one serious suggestion to fix any of the problems they have heaped on this country since 1968. Just one.

Tax cuts for the rich didn't work the first 10 times so that might be off the table. How am I kidding?

Posted by: BigTrees | July 12, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't think there's much danger of Social Security being privatized. I certainly wouldn't support it. Left to their own devices, many people would simply become lawful prey for unscrupulous investment counselors---that's not an opinion but a fact. And, as Noacoler said, if people weren't forced to save, many of them wouldn't save a dime; but at the end of the day, government would still be expected to step in and save them from the bitter fruits of their own bad choices. And what about younger people on SSDI who haven't been around long enough to build up assets?

And I'll agree with Drindl for once. The dollars we've paid into the fund might not be the same dollars we draw out, but we made a pact with government and have lived up to our end of the bargain. So we're not interested in hearing about changing the system now. You hear idiots like Mike Barnicle talk about "means testing"; but this isn't a welfare program, and people would be loath to contribute if it was.

As 12BarBlues pointed out, some of us may have pensions, 401Ks, and even savings. And while we were saving for our old age, some people were spending every nickel they made. We're not interested in being penalized for being successful or frugal or whatever, so we don't want to hear that we don't "need" Social Security because we have other resources. If we feel guilty, we'll give something to charity. Sure, some people get back more than they paid in, but, as Present mentioned, some people die at 64 and never see a penny.

An important thing to remember is that there is still plenty of time to keep Social Security on the right track with very little pain. It would require raising the limit on income to which the SS tax is applied and maybe kicking up the retirement age another year for younger workers. But you can't pull money out of the system for people to invest on their own and still expect to keep it solvent. If only politicians had the courage to solve problems before they become emergencies.

Medicare is fast becoming an emergency; Social Security still has a ways to go.

Posted by: Brigade | July 12, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

ooooooooooh, things are heating up over at Scott Brown's facebook page.

One guy who posted in ALLCAPS about UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UN-AMERICAN claims he was banned (although I read the post)

weird sexual positions because of no spine

something about killing himself and saving others the trouble

-------------------------
shades of Bart Stupak, eh?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Remembe when burnout was logjamming every thread with "SEAT SCOTT BROWN?"
----------------------------------
Turns out 37th is a true visionary. Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Ah the discomfiture of creeps.

Remembe when burnout was logjamming every thread with "SEAT SCOTT BROWN?"

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Comments from his fans on Scott Brown's Facebook page:

No no NO
POS
Traitor
judas
You had me fooled
What?
Don't do it
Think again
What did they pay you?
sucks
ashamed

etc.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Scott-Brown/178795233167

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama has SLIPPED A SECRET PROVISION INTO THE FINANCIAL REGULATION BILL - AND TURNED THE BILL INTO A MINORITY QUOTA HIRING BILL

Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry.

In addition to this bill's well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.

.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

What did [Scott] Brown's vote cost the Democrats? An $18 billion bank tax to fund implementation of the bill was replaced with leftover TARP money and increased FDIC premiums at his request. This basically shifted costs from hedge funds, large banks and their customers to small banks and their customers, plus the tax payer. He also got the Volcker Rule weakened a bit to allow banks to invest 3% of their capital in private equity funds and hedge funds.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/12/scott-brown-champion-of-the-democratic-agenda/#ixzz0tVjqZhZ9

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Don't bother looking for consistency or logic from 37th, that was a lot of dead neurons ago.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of the Tea Party, they can really come through when needed:

For all the talk of being the "41st Senator" (thus denying the Democrats their supermajority), Scott Brown sure has a knack for delivering numero 60 for Harry Reid and Co. in a pinch. You may remember the time he saved the Democrats' jobs bill. Today the Massachusetts Senator, who won late-in-the-game concessions in conference committee, announced his intention to vote for financial reform.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/12/scott-brown-champion-of-the-democratic-agenda/#ixzz0tVjIXieI

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


When I talk to you, I'm really talking in code


When Im nice to you - you know it really means something much more sinister.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

It is entirely clear that the democrats are desperate to make an issue out of something.

Why don't you say all the Republicans are from Mars - and thus all Republicans are illegal aliens?

That makes just about as much sense as what we have heard from Obama lately - and from the people on this blog.


We have heard Obama twist around a comment about an "ant" - Boehner wasn't calling the economic crisis an "ant"


But there we have the Commander in Cheif LYING about the "ant" comment.

There is a minimum level of truth we expect from the President - a minimum level of being non-partisan before the elections

And Obama doesn't cut it.

Not that too many people are listening to Obama anymore.

The number of people who have tuned Obama OUT is astonishing.

Obama is not going to be able to get the independents back - Obama had his chance and people don't want to give him a second chance.

Maybe they did give Obama a second chance - but Obama decided to get in everyone's face and push through the health care bill - that hurt Obama extremely.

Then Obama - for reasons that have to be really stupid - decided to unleashed his democratic PR machine - and start making FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.

That was it for most people - they won't give Obama another chance.

What an arrogant little stupid set of moves.....


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman,

I know that arch conservatives speak in code when they talk about ss/medicare. They talk about "reform" but mean repeal.

There is a reason they keep it secret. And the reason is obvious--they'd never get elected if they admitted their true motive.

I'm sure that the Tea Party retired person has no idea that their beloved ss/medicare is even being discussed as on the cutting block. To wit, 37th instantaneous response to you "you lie". He couldn't believe it.

He must believe it now since he seems to be lying low or the Fix has caught up with his sorry a$$.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

@noa,

And yet, there are plenty of examples of collective behavour that no one objects to. Every insurance contract is a collective-based concept. A bunch of people each pay small amounts of money so that a few of them can collect when the house burns down. No one argues that each person should save the entire cost of his house.

We share the cost of schools, libraries, fire, police and roads. We don't each of us pave our own road, build our own private school, hire our own security and firemen. We don't complain about that, because it makes sense. It's a much better use of resources for us to band together in certain circumstances, to provide more security for all of us, and at less cost.

IMO, it makes sense to contribute to a basic security plan to provide everyone with a minimal safety net. Most people will collect something about 1.5k or so/mo, which doesn't cover much more than food and very minimal housing.

If we don't do that, we have to seriously think about how much MISERY we want to see with our own eyes. Do we want to see old people sitting on curbs begging? If we are going to help them, then we might as well provide a mechanism to paying for it. Hence, social security.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

interesting 12Bar the average Tea Partier
is over 65 and on Medicare and SS. I have heard them proclaim: keep your government hands off my Medicare and SS. Curious if they are aware of these leading GOP sentiments, my guess is that they have no idea.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

interesting 12Bar the average Tea Partier
is over 65 and on Medicare and SS. I have heard them proclaim: keep your government hands off my Medicare and SS. Curious if they are aware of these leading GOP sentiments, my guess is that they have no idea.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Yeah 12Bar that's what it really comes down to .. conservatives can't tell the difference between "collective benefit" and "collective farm." They bristle at the idea of doing anything for anyone but themselves have have load of Ayn Rand and Hayek references to back themselves up. The virtue of selfishness, the road the serfdom, screams of socialism and paranoia around encroaching tyranny.

Tiresome bunch.

But at the heart of all their cold and unsympathetic positions there beats a heart of p[ure conceit. They seem to really believe that they could manage their own lives better'n any damn bureaucrat, yup, just leave'em their money and don;t make them wear motorcycle helmets or seat belts and they'll be just fine .. those families with the unwashed kids plaintively holding up donation jars at the limos going by, fuggem, they should have invested more wisely.

Fuuny, though, how the people who trumpet this self-relaiant views are always people like zouk, walking train wrecks whose successes are all florid inventions, or people like 37th who have obviously never had jobs.

There's a lesson there.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

37th says its a Big Lie when I claimed last night that there are Rs who truly want to Repeal SS and Medicare.
-------------------------------------
It used to be the third rail of American politics to tamper with ss/medicare. Is that still the case? Or not?

Somehow, I can't believe that most retired Americans, and I include the average conservative, would want to be thrown to the wolves--Wall Street or health insurance companies.

And if older Americans don't like it, how can it help the GOP, because older folks are part of their base?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

37th says its a Big Lie when I claimed last night that there are Rs who truly want to Repeal SS and Medicare.
-------------------------------------
It used to be the third rail of American politics to tamper with ss/medicare. Is that still the case? Or not?

Somehow, I can't believe that most retired Americans, and I include the average conservative, would want to be thrown to the wolves--Wall Street or health insurance companies.

And if older Americans don't like it, how can it help the GOP, because older folks are part of their base?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

37th says its a Big Lie when I claimed last night that there are Rs who truly want to Repeal SS and Medicare. Think again Rand Paul calls Medicare socialism and SS a ponzi scheme.
I already mentioned the Paul Ryan plan, Sharon Angel's rants about Medicare, Michelle Bachman's comments along with Paul Broun,and Paul Ryan head R on the budget committee. Anyone not taking these GOP sentiments seriously is simply naive.
Here is what Rand Paul thinks about Medicare and SS.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/rand-paul-in-the-90s-medicare-is-socialism-and-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme-video.php

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

zouk/moonbat/uncounted has been so freaking irritable all day today -- from his very first post to his last: gritch, spit, snipe, snarl. Adding nothing to the conversation.

Seems the yacht, the by-the-hour lingerie models and the wife/model/countess are not enough to put him in a good mood. I propose we take up a collection for the old fellow: he desperately needs a high colonic and more girlie mags.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 12, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I am a person who could have taken my ss contributions and invested it wisely enough to make more money than it will otherwise pay me.

If I take my money out, and a lot of others do so, the whole program will collapse.

I consider my ss contribution to be a contribution to my fellow citizens, rather than just maximizing it for myself.

I have other retirement funds that I try to maximize, much larger than my ss.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

@noa,

Our regular contribution to social security is our answer to the plight of elderly people in 1934. Then, people lived on private pensions and savings. They died early and if they didn't die, the average older person lived in dire poverty because of the depression.

Since then, private pensions have all but disappeared. Oolder people no longer live with their kids. Savings have been below zero until recently. People live 25 years longer. The need for social SECURITY is greater now than it was then.

We pay, so that EVERYONE to have some kind of minimal safety net. It was never intended to be an "each man for himself" proposition. That's what it solved.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Ped is talking to herself and quoting herself

A new low in loneliness.

time to flee for the exits.

Perhaps the birds will still tolerate your inanities loser. they are after all, caged and have no choice. sounds so liberal to me too. Are there any non-caged beings that can still stand you?

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

yeah right. Wall street has done so poorly with everyone's money over the years that no one bothers investing over there anymore. there will probabaly be a giant groundswell of the rich demanding that the government take their money for safekeeping.

==

Everyone who invests makes money? Nobody loses? Wow, where do I sign?

You're looking at averages, fool.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler (oh wait, that's me) wrote:

"The best thing about the SS system (donning asbestos gear) is that it's an involuntary tax. You don't pay only when you're feeeling responsible, you pay even in the worst of your times, paycheck in and paycheck out, and there's no psyching oneself up to think for the future."

==

I'd like to hear what some of the non-crazed have to say about this. I happen to think it's a more important point than how much people could make putting money elsewhere.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

zouk,

What do you do with the poor investors when they quit working?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Sarah PAC sounds like a slush fund to me.

Posted by: FauxReal | July 12, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

yeah right. Wall street has done so poorly with everyone's money over the years that no one bothers investing over there anymore. there will probabaly be a giant groundswell of the rich demanding that the government take their money for safekeeping.

you loons don't make any sense.

The fact remains that the S&P 500 has averaged about 11% over 30 years. No amount of liberal spin or demogougery can alter that fact. the voters already know what the tiny sliver of ignorant Obamabots will not admit.

social security averages minus 2 percent. Do the math, Libs, if you can.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

@noa,

I understand your motive for buying gold. You have an unusual motive particular to your circumstances because you will be living somewhere it can be used.

The average guy who buys gold (and stays in the U.S.) is usually fear motivated. At least that's what the gold sellers' ads plainly tell us. You know armageddon right around the corner and all that.

There is another type of gold investor--the supply/demand type but I understand they tend not to do very well because of the large supplies of gold at central banks, supply that always overhangs the fundamental market.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Why stock up on ammo, zouk? You only need one bullet. Why don't you use it now? Or are you saving it for November?

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. government hasn't defaulted on its obligations yet. But conservatives want to scare the hell out of us by predicting they will.

Then, illogically, conservatives say "oh, but you can make money in the stock market or in bonds when the government goes t'its up".

Wrong, folks, if the U.S. government goes belly up, you won't make money in U.S. stocks and CLEARLY not in govt bonds.

This argument appeals both to fear (of loss) and greed (you could make millions!). Sounds like something cooked up by idiots being manipulated by Wall Street bankers.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

@12: I'm not "investing" in gold. I'm buying the stuff to use as a stable currency. As I've posted before, it's legal tender in VN, and I buy it in the units most familiar over there, what you'd calle "Chinese ounces" or lượng over there.

That said, I've made quite a bit of money on the stuff, or would if I sold it now.

My investments are in land, over there in VN (you know, the stuff that zouk keeps insisting it's ilegal for me to own). We have friends in the provincial government who tell us about stuff for sale in areas slated for development. So 200% return in under two years is a reality.

A lot better than frantically refreshing a hand-held to make a few high-stress bucks.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I get ALL my imvestment advice from TV commercials. especially G gordon Liddy. I find him eminently trustworthy.

Gold is mostly a hedge against bad monetary policy. Are you suggesting that present ident Obumgler is over his head at treasury. No big difference between 8 and 10 percent unemployment is there? No big difference between $400 billion deficit and 1.6 trillion, is there?

Maybe gold is NOT for wack jobs only any more.

but we all know it still is. I personally am stocking up on ammunition instead. when the collapse arrives, it will be worth something, not like some shiny decorative metal.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that same guy leaving $700K so his grandkids can buy a house or go to college.
----------------------------------
He can do it in his

IRA
Keogh
Roth
401k

all tax advantaged.

Or he can do it after tax in a savings account.

Why does the GOP want to wipe out the last safety net for the average person? And hand them and their money off to Wall Street? That person will NOT end up with $700k--more likely $70k.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

...would buy all gold and be wiped out.
------------------------------------
I wouldn't be so quick to put down Noacoler's gold investments.

Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the whole army of conservative talkers have nothing but GOLD ads all over their websites and they do do numerous spots every day advocating GOLD purchases.

Gold sellers have figured out their best market is selling to conservatives.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Here ya go, zouk! Here's the glorious time ahead!

http://tinyurl.com/26uy5qs

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Simon

On the contrary, my assumption is that they will deplete benefits. And raise rates. It is all a big bait and switch on top of a check kiting scheme on top of a pyramid fraud. Sound illegal? It is. except for the government. and yes, there will be another big fat bail out. Liberals will exclaim they never saw it coming.

Or we could suck it up, admit the entire architecture was heartfelt but unsustainable and convert over now to an american methodology of self responsibility except for all but the very poor.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"There is no savings, no trust fund, zero. Just a promise to repay them at some day in the future."
-----------------------------------
This describes insurance companies, banks, corporations with pension obligations, and every other large entity I can think of. The only entities who have funds on hand are entities so small and financially weak that it is prudent to require them to have the funds on hand.

There is not a pot of money somewhere to pay for U.S. defense obligations. There isn't a pot of money to pay for the President's helicopter. Or medicare. Or social security.

And it's not a problem as long as the government doesn't run up long term structural deficits that devalue the currency and credit worthiness of the government.

Just like ANY large entity. No different.
People make this too hard.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Give up, 12Bar, zouk is so preoccupied with his hatred of a few posters on this blog and of Obama that he can't even finish a sentence without invoking a string of stupid caricatures.

Yeah it's possible for certain people with lots of free time (meaning jobs that don't leave them beat at the end of the day and lives relatively free of care like children and illnesses) to make more money on investments that on social security. For a lot of people, though, and probably for most people, the investments would dribble away, to say nothing of the fact that they would be in direct competition with investors who do this crap all day every day. Privatizing SS is a way to fleece people.

And, this is the part that the pioneer spirit types don't like to hear, it's unreasonable to expect people to make sound decisions all the time and keep it up year after year. The best thing about the SS system (donning asbestos gear) is that it's an involuntary tax. You don't pay only when you're feeeling responsible, you pay even in the worst of your times, paycheck in and paycheck out, and there's no psyching oneself up to think for the future.

It appeals to the conceit of some conservatives that they're all self-reliant an' stuff and gives them an excuse to deride others who slip and fail and who don't always act responsibly as they might, but it's good public policy to compete people to save for the future even if it doesn't feed conservative conceit.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"You can't get away from this very basic economic fact."


Its more of the something-for-nothing voodoo economics that conservatives accept on faith, facts be damned. No consequences for defaulting on social security benefits; just an evaporation of the national debt and days filled with wine & roses for all. Taxes will go into negative rates, driving our economy into hyperdrive. You won't be able to blink without raking in dough, hand over fist. A thing of beauty it will be! Just take a toke on this pipe, and you'll see what they're talking about...

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 12, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

If the government goes belly up, so do their bonds, currency, and U.S. stocks drop like a rock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
so I take it you won't be voting Democrat ever again?

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

zouk writes
"There is no savings, no trust fund, zero. Just a promise to repay them at some day in the future."

Call it an accounting gimmick if you want, you won't get an argument from me there. But your final analysis relies on the presumption that the Fed will default on the "promise to repay them someday in the future". Of course, you know that's a false assumption. Much like the feds stepped in to bail out the S&Ls, the auto companies (some more than once), wall street, etc, the feds will bail out social security too; there won't be any other viable alternative.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 12, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

@present grandpa,

Don't you get it that the health of the U.S. stock and bond market is inextricably tied up with the health of the U.S. government and currency? If the government goes belly up, so do their bonds, currency, and U.S. stocks drop like a rock. You won't make money in the U.S. if the government collapses. In fact, you won't make money in our lifetime, anywhere in the world, if the U.S. collapses.

You can't get away from this very basic economic fact.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

12bar - I have already advocated limited regulation for retirement entities. I am not gung ho for individual stocks for novices. Poor Ped would buy all gold and be wiped out. Dingbat drivl would invest in slushee machines in alaska. finance whiz would liquidate every few days and buy back in at the bottom.

this is not the insurmountable challenge you Libs make it out to be.

As far as supply and demand goes, I am from the Sowell school on that.

Please explain why you Libs are out to get the black man, who works hard and honest his whole life, but because of environmental and cultural issues, dies at 64, leaving nothing to his family. this is particularly true of minorities. why do you Libs feel the need to repress minorities so that they can depend on you for their sustenence?

Imagine that same guy leaving $700K so his grandkids can buy a house or go to college.

Not in liberal land you don't. you must instead visit the Kafkaesque door of the government, hope they answer, and beg for some handouts, that you gave them years earlier, if they still have them.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh look, angle can't seem to remember to shut up:

"During a recent appearance on conservative host Alan Stock’s radio show, a caller asked Republican Sharron Angle, who’s running for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat against Harry Reid (D), “if she would have intervened on behalf of MGM Resorts’ CityCenter complex the way Senator Reid did. In 2009, CityCenter experienced financial struggles during its construction. The project’s bankruptcy appeared imminent. Reid called several banks on MGM Resorts’ behalf, and the project averted bankruptcy.” Angle told the caller that she would not have done so. A local news reporter tried to follow-up with her after the interview:

Angle also expanded on her comments regarding CityCenter. “It’s kind of like shifting the chairs on the Titanic,” she said. “You only shift jobs from one place to another, when we know that when we put those jobs at City Center, it was jobs that were taken away or business that was taken away from other areas. So, really it actually injured the economy of other businesses.”

Her response has generated significant controversy in Nevada. A spokesperson for MGM Resorts responded, “Ms. Angle’s statement is ridiculous on its face. Senator Reid’s support of our significant private investment in Las Vegas came during our company’s darkest hour. He saved, not only 10,000 construction jobs and 12,000 permanent private sector jobs at CityCenter, but the jobs of 50,000 employees at our other resorts that would have been jeopardized had our company followed CityCenter into bankruptcy.”

Posted by: drindl | July 12, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Overheard at the table in 2040
part 2

Grandpa, tell me again about how retirement used to be run by the government before the great Obama depression.

Well sonny, it used to be that the big evil government used to take most of your money, because you could not be trusted with it. Back then, before the evidence came in, everyone thought that liberal elitists were smart.

so if you lived long enough, the government would give you back a tiny sliver of what you gave them over the years.

You mean you had no worries thanks to them.

Well not exactly because they always spent the money on other big government stuff and when it came time to pay you, there was nothing left. they survived a few more years by borrowing from Medicare then lending it back.

you mean like check kiting. combined with a pyramid scheme. they used to let the government do that? but if you died, you got everything back right?

Nope, you got nothing. after paying all that in for so long.

you sure grew up in strange times. I am so happy that President Ryan fixed all that so we could reclaim our country and sent that liar and cheat obama to jail where he belongs.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

but if you like the arguments such as corporations are evil
-----------------------------
Are you kidding? I worked in venture capital and build companies and sold them. I have been an active individual investor for years. I am hardly the socialist--in fact you won't find anyone more capitalistic than I am.

But, not everyone is a good investor. What happens to people who don't invest well? Or to those who invest in blue chips like Enron, Bank of America, Citi, Merrill Lynch, and a hundred others, who turned out not to be so "blue".

What happens to those people? Cardboard boxes on the street? What?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

and Zouk that is precisely why we have IRAs,
Keoughs and 401ks to invest precisely as you suggest.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

the flow of money into the system would not attenuate as you suggest.
-------------------------------------
On what basis do you say this. The market is nothing if it isn't supply and demand. The supply of U.S. stocks has been steadily dropping for decades due to mergers & acquisitions. There are now about 8000 exchange traded stocks, not including penny stocks.

Now, you introduce zillions of new funds. And you don't think that will drive the price of stocks sky high?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

it is 2040. overheard at the dinner table Granpa, tell me again about when cell phones were private.

Sonny, the choices were so vast, you could never pick one out of so many. and the prices kept going down, you felt like you were getting ripped off every month when a new, better model came on the market priced lower. If you weren't an electronic engineer, you had no chance in those fancy stores.

-I sure am glad we don't have that anymore. I have had the same government issued cell phone for years. why would I want a new one. the networks are all jammed up anyway. And the new one is a duplicate of the old one. why change? the price just keeps going up and up. now what do you think will happen next week at your Obamacare death panel grandpa?

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

zouk: obviously you don't understand the market. Its driven by fear. If you don t think that millions of Americans would have
liquidated at precisely the wrong time you are mistaken, especially those over 65 who live on fixed income. Somehow you delude yourself that people investing their SS funds would be great market timers. That ignores market psychology and as 12bar accurately posted, millions will invest in penny stocks, Enron, GM or Bear Sterns and other high flyers not P&G and Exxon.
Years ago those folks would laugh in your face if you predicted the demise of GM or Bear Sterns and I know plenty of folks much brighter than you who lost most everything by being invested in Enron.

Again what will you and the TeaParty folks say when you create the next private investor's bailout?

But keep on coming, I just pray that GOP leadership listens to Ryan's hairbrain scheme. That is truly a great political strategy.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Well the ergalitarianizing of the stock market mostly ended up as a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the investment caste.

Guess it only whetted their appetites.

I didn't see anyone here saying "corporations are evil" but trying to claim they're good wouldn't be an easy sell. But then zouk only trades in absurd caricatures.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

It was only Sept 2008, when Goldman Sachs was in some danger of collapsing and the U.S. government was the ONLY entity large enough and solvent enough to bail them out.

Now, we're willing to give up the full faith and credit of the U.S. government security for Goldman Sach not guaranteeing anything?

And GS is WAY more secure than the rest of Wall Street. Remember how they were dropping like flies just 2 years ago?

Don't be suckers for this idea. This is just a scheme to end social security and make Wall Street very happy.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I harbor no objections to a bare minimum regulatory environment, such as there is now for retirement IRAs that do not permit options, encouraging people to invest in broad funds that follow the market.

these could also move money towards cash as they age.

the flow of money into the system would not attenuate as you suggest. As the population grows, more money would flow in and the stable environment would encourage foreigners as well.

Additionally, you could will your money to your heirs, breaking a cycle of poverty for certain unhealthy populations that have never actually participated in social security.

but if you like the arguments such as corporations are evil and Repubs like to strangle babies, these notions will not influence your view.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

its kind of funny that I posted the Paul Ryan plan here last night and the first reaction I had from the Right was LIAR, no one in the GOP is proposing that.

Today's slant: of course they did and its a brilliant idea.

I am just amazed that any GOP apologist in their right mind would think that privatizing SS and Medicare is a grand political strategy.

I think most Ds here would agree with my assesment: GO FOR IT. Lets see how seniors will respond in Nov when they learn how serious these folks are about privatizing SS and Medicare and that it is far from a big lie or scare tactic, they are absolutely serious and up front about their intentions. That is why I labeled my post last night, R's dirty little secret about their plans for SS and Medicare. Hoepfully after today it is no longer their secret.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

TO: present-and-unaccounted-for who wrote:
“…yes people (mostly liberals) are suckers…”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Most Republicans are suckers, but they’re too stupid to know it.

Posted by: lindalovejones | July 12, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Listen up everyone,

If the GOP gets its way and siphons off ss funds to Wall Street, stay in the market during the huge blow off top in stock prices because it will be an E ride, I guarantee it.

Then get out of the market when the majority of the funds are invested, because it will be a bubble collapse like we've never seen before.

Then, buy back in when there is blood in the streets if you have the stomach to do so.

And everyone can say, well I never predicted the stock market was going to do THAT!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

And there you have the weakest argument ever from the so called finance whiz:

If you liquidated your entire portfolio into cash at the lowest point in decades, caused by the fear induced at the election of a communist, then you'd be poor.

I am pretty sure that finance whiz would have done that, but few others. think of it as Darwinism for liberals.

If you want to argue about economics, you will have to actually know something about it first.

try the drivl investment approach, hide your quarters in the couch and then later when you come back, they'll still be there, perfect for a slushee on a hot day.

Or the Ped method. Sneak onto busses, don't tip, try to rip people off everywhere you go, they deserve it anyway. Scrounge it all into gold bars and hide it under a bridge. then invest it overseas where you don't speak the language, you are not allowed to own property but the translator said it would be fine, just for you, joe.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

The ONLY reason Sarah "The Bimbo" Palin has to spend so much on consultants is because she doesn't know squat about politics so she has to have somebody train her.


Posted by: lindalovejones | July 12, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

dear present,

And what about the folks who don't do that? You can always find investments that outperform a defined benefit plan. I could name a few more that would outperform.

Of course, with zillions more demand (meaning new investment funds), the market initially will zoom up, before it craters off when the new funds are fully invested. There are only so many stocks, bonds to invest in. There will be a huge inflation in stock prices. Want to predict that?

If people are given choices in what they invest in, they will invest in the craziest things. Penny stocks, options, you know what I mean. The Submarine Screen Door Company will sound good to a lot of people. I know, because a lot of them ask my opinion on those kind of stocks.

SS is supposed to be SECURITY. So people have something minimal, but secure, at retirement. Can't we leave something secure? Is that too much to ask Wall Street not to make fees on our SS funds too?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

yes, I strongly urge suckers everywhere to hand their retirement over to Goldman Sachs.

Posted by: drindl | July 12, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

and had you withdrawn your SS b/w Sept 15 and Dec 30 2008, you would have quickly lost 60%
of that S&P investment.
The GOP is dreaming up a system that will guarantee the next BAILOUT, this time of private investors who lose their SS funds.


GO FOR IT ZOUK, voters are waiting for the next GOP/RYAN scheme.

Incidentally no one is discouraging those same seniors from investing their IRAs, Keoughs or Roth IRAs in S&P funds but there are certainly better investments.

Again Ds are licking their chops and praying that Michael Steele listens to Zouk and adopts the Ryan hairbrain scheme and most of us will gladly contribute to your GOP Privatizing web site.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Note the obvious flaws in zouk's phony analysis.

What you "paid in" versus "what the S&G thing would have yielded." Comparing apples and ball bearings."

I know you think we're stupid, zouk, but you're too stupid to realize that we're actually a lot smarter than you.

Still haven't figured out how we knew your boat/family thing was phoney even before modelmania, have you.

Go take a look at my FB photo album again. The house. Stacks of commie money. New pics to be posted shortly. Yeah, "hovel."

Enjoy your Carline Black Label and Dinty Moore.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

yes people (mostly liberals) are suckers:

To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the public sector.

Obama gave primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding; but as soon as he became the party’s nominee, he reneged on that pledge.

During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.

Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.

When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.

Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

If you think Paul Ryan and the GOP cares about honest hardworking people ending up starving and homeless then you haven't been paying much attention to the Republican Party.

Privatizing Social Security is just a sugar-coating over and excuse to let the investment caste get their hands on trillions of dollars of other peoples' money. It's a despicably irresponsible idea, allowing the GOP to hem and haw about "personal responsibility" with the snickering presumption that careworn people have time to become experts in investment in a field that is tilted against them from the start.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

What Ryan is talking about is changing

our guaranteed (by the U.S., the strongest financial entity in the world) defined benefit social security benefits...

and changing them into non guaranteed defined contribution benefits, that will largely

benefit Wall Street.
---------------------------------

People are suckers if they don't see that.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Liberals - step away from the economics. It is too scary and perplexing for your tender sympathies:

Here's an interesting look at 20 years of Social Security payments versus what else you could have done with the money had it been yours. The summary:

If you paid in the maximum amount for the past 20 years and your employer did the same, you would have paid in $231k into the system.

If you had taken that money and invested it yourself in an S&P 500 Index Fund, you would have $739k.

http://allfinancialmatters.com/2010/04/14/had-you-maxed-out-social-security-over-the-last-30-years/

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Paul Ryan's plan screams BAILOUT when
private investorts lose their shirts on bad unregulated investments. The TeaParty folks will be thrilled.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Now, Paul Ryan wants to remove the U.S. government standing behind ss obligations, and hand that off to ordinary citizens.

Then, those ordinary citizens will turn to Wall Street, who isn't going to guarantee anything, but put that money at risk. Some will make money, but some will lose money, some will lose all their money.

What will happen to those people at retirement? That is a real question, don't you think?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

More junk policy from Ryan, and the usual dopes arrayed behind it.

Yeah, sure, solvency can be acheived, just like the insurance companies do it .. collect premiums but don't honor contracts. Hooray for solvency. Love that free market. Usurous executive bonuses tantamount to embezzlement .. how else can you attract top talent?

Anyway. Conservatives have this idea that cutting taxes stimulates growth. Ryan wants to all but eliminate corporate taxes to stimulate job creation. And it does make a superficial sort of sense ... less money paid in taxes leaves more to grow the business. Neglecting of course the benefit that revenue has in creating a society for corporations to operate in, e.g. an educated workforce, working roads to carry goods, and so on, but these don't translate to executive bonuses so they tend to be deprecated.

Only problem with this tax cut stimulus notion is that there's no evidence that it works that way, and plenty of evidence it works the other way.

When corporations are awash in cash they don't tend to plow it back into the biz, that's what decades of data tells us. Responsible management happens when profits are lean,

Compare the Reagan and Eisenhower eras .. two Republican presidents, one very high taxes, one cutting taxes with an ax, one prosperous, one extending our lexicon with new words like "downsizing." Problem with the conservative formulation is that the prosperity was the high-tax Eisenhower period and the downsizing was the low-tax Reagan era.

One reason Obama's stimulus has had such tepid results was that a lot of it wasn't stimulus spending, it was tax cuts, and tax cuts just don't stimulate the economy.

And econonics is decades or centuries away from having the rigor requisite for public policy. It just isn't there. Economics is at best descriptove, and no better .. not "it works this way because of detailed theoretical analysis" but rather "it works this way because that's what worked in the past." Anyone who says otherwise is chanting over entrails.

Business taxes should be raised, not lowered, because that's what works.

Posted by: Noacoler | July 12, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

When a corporation self insures its employees, and a lot of corporations do, their ability to pay claims is based primarily on the corporation's credit. That credit is their ability to generate earnings, and if insufficient, to borrow money to cover their obligations. Corporations don't have little pots of money here and there to pay for this and that.

The U.S. government has the ability to tax and borrow and even print money. That is their full faith and credit. And there is no other entity on earth, no government, no corporation, who has more credit than the U.S. government.

And that is what stands behind Social Security and Medicare.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

US government - record deficits

GS: record profits

social security return on investment = negative 2 percent

GS ROI - 8 percent

hmmmmmm

No wonder the voters have zero confidence in liberals messing about in economics.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The covert politics of personal destruction renders the electoral process moot...

EXTRA-LEGAL CITIZEN 'TARGETING' BY HOMELAND-RUN 'FUSION CENTERS' -- A ROOT CAUSE OF AMERICA'S ECONOMIC WOES?

• How a rogue bureaucracy -- unchecked by an apparently naive, misinformed Obama administration -- makes a mockery of the rule of law while devastating the lives and livelihoods of extrajudicially targeted Americans.

http://nowpublic.com/world/extra-legal-citizen-targeting-root-cause-economic-woes
http://NowPublic.com/scrivener (lede articles and links therein)

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 12, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

You see how ridiculous this "investing" issue is? The U.S. government investing SS funds in U.S. government bonds, guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

It's all the same entity.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Dear present,

You don't understand the comment. I am talking about surpluses and deficits limited to social security. It's just cash flow. They don't actually HAVE to put ss money into some kind of secured account. What? an account secured by Goldman Sachs? The U.S. government's credit is way better than GS.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow simple simon. you have revealed what a gullible imbecile you are.

There is no savings, no trust fund, zero. Just a promise to repay them at some day in the future. this like all of Obungler's campaign promises is empty.

the only method of paying out what was promised, is to either raise more revenue or reduce spending.

Interestingly, when the program was started it was only supposed to max out at 1% and effect only the very richest. Just like the IRS. Just like......well every government program ever.

but remember that except for the gingrich years, a short 12 year span, the liberals in congress have driven government into a ditch. they can never say NO to any spending and never have. Only a Republican president saved us from doom at an earlier time. but no more.

Funny how Oblamer points his finger at the first two years of the Pelousy congress as the culprit for all that is wrong in this country. He may have a point.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

IS EVERYONE AWARE that Obama's financial regulation bill INCLUDES MINORITY HIRING QUOTAS ??


It is WRONG to make the financial regulation bill a MINORITY HIRING QUOTA BILL.


AND Obama is setting up 20 offices around the country to ENFORCE THE HIRING QUOTAS.

These provisions in the financial regulation bill HAVE TO BE TAKEN OUT.


IMMEDIATELY.

.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

This is how the SS Administration says they are investing funds, so 37th is flat wrong to say that he knows that they get no return; they are just not subject to daily flucations in the market a sensible way to secure the money rather than risking it in the stock market as zouk and Paul Ryan are pushing:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n2

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

the fop writes
"yes there is a problem - there is no money in the system - it is NOT like a pension fund which can live off interest... There is no interest earned."

Actually, there is interest earned, as the SSA buys T-bills when its running a surplus. Current SSA cash flow is positive - workers & employers are contributing more to the fund than is paid out to beneficiaries. The balance is spent on t-bills. When the cash flow goes negative, the trust fund will first apply the t-bill income towards beneficiaries & eventually potentially have to sell of those bonds. SSA won't be bankrupt until the 'lockbox' is empty - it will run a negative cash flow for decades before that happens.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 12, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The posters on this blog - most of whom have behavior FAR WORSE than mine - have made the case for keeping me.

If I deserve to be banned, at least 20 others should be banned first.


Let me be clear.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The posters on this blog - most of whom have behavior FAR WORSE than mine - have made the case for keeping me.

If I deserve to be banned, at least 20 others should be banned first.


Let me be clear.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

12Bar writes:

There is no particular problem with current contributions going to pay current benefits.


________________________________

yes there is a problem - there is no money in the system - it is NOT like a pension fund which can live off interest.

There is no interest earned.

I'm only making this point because the idea that investments can go up and down is correct - however it is a fallacy to use that point against the current system.

ANY investments is better than NO investments.

So the point that investments can go up and down - that says nothing to the point that currently we have NO investments - it is at ZERO and will stay at ZERO

The system has to be fixed.


Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

12bar uses the "I'm really smart and you're not" typical liberal elitist approach that has landed them in an electoral route.

then to prove just how stupid a Lib can be, an utter confusion over history ensues:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Some periods of time will produce surpluses and some deficits, based on demographics. If investing is such a lead pipe cinch idea, then the government can "invest" the surpluses, and draw down on the deficits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>...

Seriously?

the surplus was then until now. the deficits too. Now that there is no surplus any longer and will never be again, your solution is to employ it to pay down the deficit. What are you? channeling AL Gore's lockbox now? Maybe you need a massage.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Liberal reelection plans revealed:

The six-month election recount that turned former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota's Twin Cities. That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.

who knew that Obungler would mimic Nixon as his go-to president. and FDR on depression extending. and jimmy carter on foreign policy fecklessness. he sure can pick 'em.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Flowers of Peace = Flowers of Poop

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | July 12, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I know, margaret -- the supermodel Aryan Countess would surely be upset.

Posted by: drindl | July 12, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"
Uncivil poster at 1:33


When will this stop ?

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse "

As soon as you blow your own head off. Don't do it for me, do it for America.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | July 12, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Social security is a cash flow issue. There is no particular problem with current contributions going to pay current benefits. Some periods of time will produce surpluses and some deficits, based on demographics. If investing is such a lead pipe cinch idea, then the government can "invest" the surpluses, and draw down on the deficits.

Sending ss money to Wall Street just reduces the current contributions, so that the whole ss system fails. Sending hundreds of millions of new investors and money to Wall Street is the biggest sellout there is.

People need some kind of security in their old age. Sometimes, too much choice is just a way for unsophisticated people to be conned out of their money.

I say this as an experienced investor. I make money, I lose money, but I've been doing this a long time. I can tell you it is hard to make money in the market, and even harder to keep it. The average person will eventually fritter away all their money in penny stocks, options, and other schemes that appeal to the unsophisticated.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

moonbat/zouk/present comes back from a long weekend on the yacht with his model wife and it turns out he was thinking about drindl the whole time.

Does the model/missus know about this?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 12, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse


IS EVERYONE AWARE that Obama's financial regulation bill INCLUDES MINORITY HIRING QUOTAS ??


It is WRONG to make the financial regulation bill a MINORITY HIRING QUOTA BILL.


AND Obama is setting up 20 offices around the country to ENFORCE THE HIRING QUOTAS.

These provisions in the financial regulation bill HAVE TO BE TAKEN OUT.


IMMEDIATELY.

.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Uncivil poster at 1:33


When will this stop ?

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

I am not into privatizing Social Security


However, we have to be honest about what the system is right now.

The system right now in Social Security is NOT investments - IT IS SPENDING ALL THE MONEY RIGHT NOW.

The argument that investments can go up and down is VALID.


However, compared to spending all the money right away (which is happening right now) ANY INVESTMENT IS BETTER.

The finances in this nation have to be res-structured - because it is a disaster right now.

And Obama's health care makes the whole thing much much worse - it ceratainly doesn't improve anything.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Flowers of Peace is the kind of brainless liar that the WaPo needs to install a better registration process to keep from wasting everyone's time. Go kill yourself Flowers of Peace.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | July 12, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

actually Ds enjoy a good round of golf now and then.

Put the George W clearing brush on endless vacations and his Charles Brakly like shanks up against the endless hours and sweet swing of Obama any day of the

week.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuZPIVpxNtE&feature=player_embedded


typical R like Golg Swing zouk.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

IS EVERYONE AWARE that Obama's financial regulation bill INCLUDES MINORITY HIRING QUOTAS ??


It is WRONG to make the financial regulation bill a MINORITY HIRING QUOTA BILL.

AND Obama is setting up 20 offices around the country to ENFORCE THE HIRING QUOTAS.


These provisions in the financial regulation bill HAVE TO BE TAKEN OUT.

IMMEDIATELY.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

actually Ds enjoy a good round of golf now and then.

Put the George W clearing brush on endless vacations and his Charles Brakly like shanks up against the endless hours and sweet swing of Obama any day of the week.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Turning our social security accounts over to Wall Street is like telling the ordinary guy to go swim in a shark tank.

It is called social SECURITY, which implies some kind of safety net. We all have retirement accounts (IRA, KEOUGH) that are invested in the market. Why does Wall Street have to suck out the LAST safety net for a lot of folks?

Well, that's a rhetorical question, because we certainly know that Wall Street is salivating all the way to their knees with the prospect of all the automatic payroll taxes funnelling into their maw. The delivery of millions of unsophisticated new investors into their octopus arms is truly the scariest thing I can imagine.

What happens at retirement to the ordinary guys and gals who aren't good at investing, because most people aren't, I assure you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

see what I mean about finance whiz and 37th?

stand by for carpet posting of the same spew over and over.

FW - it was sufficiently idiotic the first time.

Meanwhile, a portrait of the current admin:

Amidst recent charges that the New Black Panther Party intimidated voters outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, a new documentary called We Will Not Be Silenced charges that this was not an isolated incident. The film’s director Gigi Gaston appeared on Fox and Friends this weekend and was introduced by host Alyson Camerota who claimed that “the 2008 primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was rife with stories of voter intimidation and voting violations.”

The film’s website describes its mission thusly:

This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama Campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”

Right of center media outlets and websites have already begun promoting this film rather aggressively, ostensibly to delegitimatize the Obama administration. The director’s pedigree is noteworthy, particularly to those who are aiming to present the film as non-polemical – a lifelong Democrat and granddaughter of a former Governor of Massachusetts.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's PAC exists to buy herself shoes and handbags, don't kid yourselves. I wonder if she ever paid the RNC back for that Sak's shopping spree.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | July 12, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

How do Libs conduct "I will not rest"?

Fore! If it’s Sunday, it Must be Golf Day for Obama

[ Via: The Hill ]
President Barack Obama spent Sunday on the golf course at Fort Belvoir, Va., according to White House pool reports.
The president was playing with regular links partner Marvin Nicholson and two others whose names weren’t immediately known.
First lady Michelle Obama is set to visit the Gulf region Monday for the first time since the BP oil spill began. BP began a new containment procedure Saturday that the company’s hopes will provide a tighter seal around the well leak, but in the meantime oil is flowing freely into the Gulf once again

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Sept 15 and Dec 21, 2008 Zouk and the GOP call for privatizing SS and Medicare.

See what I mean, more brilliant GOP economic policies.

Let Chairman Steele know that you demand that the Ryan Medicare Plan be adopted by the GOP
this election cycle. We will anxiously await their response and get back with us if you need help starting up the GOP SS and Medicare Privatization web site, I am sure many here will willingly contribute to your cause zouk.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman,

I'm with you. Paul Ryan's roadmap talks handing over SS/Medicare to the private sector to do "that voodoo which they do so well".

If this becomes known to the electorate, the Republicans will find that are standing all by themselves, with independents and democrats shrinking away in horror.

This privatization has been the GOP goal for decades and represents the final handover of wealth to the private sector. And we know what Wall Street will do with our retirement funds.

After the large fees, hidden fees, inappropriate investments, and unexplainable declines in the market of 1000 points (just last May), most of us will be cowering in a corner as Wall Street sucks the last bit of money out of our accounts. And we ALL know it.

Don't even start on the "voodoo" of the health insurance companies.

Leichtman is right--this is the overarching difference between the parties and deserves to get ALL the publicity it deserves.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

No need finance Whiz. the following message, brought to you by liberal moonbats everywhere is sufficiently abhorant:

More spending
more government
more corruption
more secrets
more racism
more weakness
more terror
more taxes
more unemployment
more regulation
more poverty
more enviro extremists
more gas prices
more surrender
more fecklessness
more GOLF
more spilling
more speeches
more vacations
more blame
more thuggery and gangsterism
more illegals

See what I mean?

so do the voters.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

as expected your second grade insults.

You just don't get it zouk. You and Ryan think it great politics to compaign on repealling
and privatizing Medicare and SS. If you think that Anthem is not standing in the wings licking their chops for Ryan's plan you are naive.

Absolutely NO ONE I know is discourgaing you. Boaner and Ryan from promoting that brilliant plan.

We are literally BEGGING the GOP to adopt the
Ryan privatization plan and run it in tv spots in Nevada, Fla, Pa and Ca this election cycle.

Its a BRILLIANT plan. Please let Chairman Steele know that is exactly what American voters are begging for. You are exactly right, now get on the Steele email and blog site and let him know that is what American voters realy want. Somehow you think we are discouraging that talk. Just the opposite. If you need a few bucks to start a web site we can call it the GOP SS and Medicare Privatization Plan, I am game.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Finance whiz and the Libs prefer we continue to spend into destruction and blame it all on the minority party that has no power whatsoever.

come up with any austerity measure, and the Libs proclaim it untenable.

that is why they will be run out of town very soon in droves.

the Libs won't even pass a budget this year, the very minimum requirement for federal government. they wish no part of revealing their socialism for all to see and vote on.

finance whiz, on the night of April 11th on board the Titanic ship of socialism cries out, 'what icebergs?. full speed ahead. Give the lookouts the night off. It's cold out there."

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The GOP promotes insane economic policies for this nation.

More tax cuts for the super wealthy at a time when he are in deficit.

Insane.

Posted by: drindl | July 12, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

If there is any action that would encourage the mindless drivl to depart - TAKE IT!

the total lack of any other activity in its poor shallow life of hate and envy precludes that outcome.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

just walk away, 12Bar. Let the Post see that they have two spammers who have driven everyone else away.

if they don't care, that's their problem.

Posted by: drindl | July 12, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

1. The AFL-CIO promotes insane economic policies for this nation. They spent $10,000,000 on defeating Sen. Lincoln and failed. They shouldn't worry, though. The new US Senator of Arkansas will be US Rep. John Boozman, perhaps they will like that. I assure you that Pat Toomey welcomes the debate there in Pennsylvania. Rossi is likely to welcome that debate in Washington. The Club for Growth is likely to spend heavily for both. It looks like they will attack anyone who promotes economic growth and what's good for the nation. Their hope is that EFCA can become law this year, and that's just not going to happen. That would be devastating for a healthy economy, and it would be a disastor in this economy.

Posted by: reason5 | July 12, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

1. The AFL-CIO promotes insane economic policies for this nation. They spent $10,000,000 on defeating Sen. Lincoln and failed. They shouldn't worry, though. The new US Senator of Arkansas will be US Rep. John Boozman, perhaps they will like that. I assure you that Pat Toomey welcomes the debate there in Pennsylvania. Rossi is likely to welcome that debate in Washington. The Club for Growth is likely to spend heavily for both. It looks like they will attack anyone who promotes economic growth and what's good for the nation. Their hope is that EFCA can become law this year, and that's just not going to happen. That would be devastating for a healthy economy, and it would be a disastor in this economy.

Posted by: reason5 | July 12, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I am very anxious for the GOP to push the Ryan plan to repeal and replace Medicare; so is Ca Anthem.
As to your brilliant idea to Privatize SS, would love to see that as well on the GOP agenda. That will be real popular in Nevada, Pa and Fla elections this Nov, so bring it on; no one here is discouraging that talk. Even George W had the good sense to walk away from privatizing SS especially after the fall of AIG, GM and Lehman.
I can see the commercial now. Ryan and Boaner
promoting Privatizing SS along with CNBC clips from the Sept 15 and Dec 22, 2008 market collapse. We are encouraging you to email your leader Steele, he of the military is losing Afghanastan and the Afghan war was a mistake fame, to get Michael Steele to join zouk, Boaner and Ryan's call to end and privatize Medicare and SS.

Ca. Anthem is licking their chops in anticipation of the GOP/Ryan/Zouk, plan.

you might want to post those suggestions here
at the Michael Steele blog site. I will look for his email address for ya:

http://www.gop.com/index.php/chairman_steele/

I am sure you have more of your second grade insults to throw back. Save them and send them to Michael Steele. I am sure he would love more of your brilliant political suggestions.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I rest my case. Unchanged.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

12Bar


Why the horrible statements from you ??

You make it seem like I am crawling back to you after a break-up and begging you to take me back......

And you are demanding me to explain how I have changed - how I am a changed man - why I changed.


I didn't change - I am still the same reasoned, analytical me -

I will not change for you - you have to change for me.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Democrat Embarrassment

In light of the Moonbat Messiah having turned out to be every bit the catastrophic farce patriots predicted, some of the Democrats who put the turtle on his post so they could congratulate themselves on their political correctness are discovering an unpleasant new concept: shame.

But although voting to turn our country over to the likes of Barack Hussein Obama may be the most contemptible act imaginable, not even Obamania Kool-Aid guzzlers who fully realize just what they have done to the world's Last Best Hope need to spend the rest of their wretched lives skulking around with paper bags on their heads. Andrew Klavan offers hope for sufferers of D.E.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPw4_OaHlkA&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

leichtman wrote: why suddenly rational arguments? has something changed 37th?
--------------------------------------
Don't be suckered. He does this about the time he thinks he'll be blocked. It's just another ruse to get people to interact with him. If he really changed, he'd explain why and how he's changed. That's what a CHANGED person, who has suddenly become reasoned and rational, would do. Until then...well, don't be suckered.

He just doesn't want you to email CC again.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | July 12, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

The idea of Edwards should not focus on Edwards himself, his positions or whether is a good man.

The idea of Edwards in a potential primary process should just be referred to as Candidate C.


Yes, there is a dynamic for the candidates who drop out - when and what makes them drop out.

First - why shouldn't ALL voters get a chance to vote for ALL the candidates?

The idea that candidates SHOULD drop out - how good is that idea ?

Obviously the danger - the minefield - is four or five candidates spliting up the delegates and there is no clear winner at the end of the primaries.

Up to now, that process has been a function of candidates running out of money - which in turn was a function of media attention.


A lack of media attention meant less money meant dropping out.

But that media dynamic - as mentioned in an earlier comment - is long dead.

That is why winner-take-all primaries at the end of the process will benefit Candidates A and B and hurt Candidates C, D and E.

The country has less regional candidates now as compared to long ago - so that should not be a problem.

Still - the fact is a proportional system lends itself to split delegates and a contested convention - the democrats have been lucky up to this point that it has not happend.


If Edwards, or another Candidate C, had stayed in the race in 2008, the convention probably would have been contested.

There could have been a Candidate C and a Candidate D both staying in - each believing that the Convention would abandon both Candidates A and B - and the selection would fall to someone else.

If one looks at game theory, Edwards should not have gotten out of the race - we all know now he had a baby coming.

A fourth and fifth candidate - seeing the split between Candidates A and B - and the weakness of Candidate C - could have stayed in the race as well.

All this should be considered - because it is going to happen.

Easily Candidates like Biden or Dodd could have been sitting there with 15 % of the vote each - and deciding to stay in the race just to see if a Convention would go to them.

We DO NOT have the democratic party dealing with these issues in these comments - we have the Reid people and the Clyburne people pushing South Carolina and Nevada - provoking a fight - and there is no over-all system or balancing emerging.


.


Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The plan would give everyone a refundable tax credit to buy health insurance, allow individual investment accounts to be carved out of Social Security, reduce the six income tax rates to two (10 and 25 percent), and replace the corporate tax (35 percent) with a business consumption tax (8.5 percent). And that's not the half of it.

As ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Ryan was able to get the Congressional Budget Office to run the numbers in his plan. CBO concluded the plan would "make the Social Security and Medicare programs permanently solvent [and] lift the growing debt burden on future generations, and hold federal taxes to no higher than 19 percent of GDP." Pretty impressive results, I'd say.

The road map does one more thing. It would give Republicans an agenda if they gain control of the House or Senate in the midterm election -- or a mandate if they win both. "What's the point of winning an election if you don't have a mandate?" Ryan asks.

He doesn't expect a mandate in 2010. "I need to make sure these ideas survive this election," he says, and set the stage for "the most ideological, sea-changing election in our lifetime" in 2012. Merely survive in 2010? The road map can do better than that. How about thrive?

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

For a Chicago pol, whose path to prominence came not via intellectual brilliance or personal charisma but through behind-the-scenes machinations to get opponents thrown off the ballot or have their sealed divorce records made public, “by any means necessary” is not only a tactic, it’s a categorical imperative.


The reason the left loses is, paradoxically, because of its periodic successes: once in power the mask slips, they cannot control themselves and so the people ultimately recoil and cue up “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by the Who. But of course they do, and so Tomasky’s “pitched ideological battle” — the struggle for the soul of the American experiment — goes on.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Incoherent garbage from 10AM on from braindead boy. The standard, obssesive, moronic and rabid attacks by the other zero zouk.


This blog is now officially crap.

Posted by: drindl | July 12, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Politically, Obama was likely to lose Congress even before this disaster hit. Now, Rasmussen has four Democratic Senate seats definitely going Republican (Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana and Delaware), with six more rated as tossups (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado, Nevada, Washington state and Wisconsin). California is also a likely Republican pickup. Rasmussen rates four GOP Senate seats as tossup (Ohio, Missouri, Florida and New Hampshire), but the Democrats are unlikely to win any of them.

If the GOP picks up the seats it is likely to win, it will control the Senate by 52-48. And, in the House, the likelihood of a Republican victory is even more significant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just let Libs be libs. the voters take care of the rest.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

so let me understand this ZOUK. You are against
encouraging 37th to moderate his postings and
prefer his previous rants? nuanced is not the kind of language we are used to hearing from 37th.

As to Edwards his policy position were on the mark, he was obviously the wrong person to make those arguments. We admit that we were wrong about Edwards. When will we hear that same admission to the December 2008 debacle of George W Bush, a decent man but a disaster for this country(ranked at the bottom of ALL Potus)? Unless you are still pushing that same
argument that the Dec 2008 collapse of Lehman, GM and AIG were great GOP accomplishments that they should be proud of. At least 37th has quit his second grade name calling; a tactic you seem addicted to. Never thought I would claim that 37th's behavior has become more reasoned than zouk's constant name calling.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

In the primary process there are a few "goods" one would want to achieve.


The later States should matter.


The system should be able to produce a clear winner.

It is ironic that going early didn't mean nearly as much as it does now. When the conventions chose the nominees, winning the June primaries were key - because it provided momentum into the conventions.

January is way too early - February is way too early. SuperTuesday used to be in March.

SuperTuesday should be in June.


The later states should get double the delegates - so if a third of the states go on the last day, then half the delegates are chosen that day.

And make that day winner-take-all state primaries.

Now all of a sudden, states might want to go at the end.


Let's face it - there developed a favorable position on the calendar - which was going after New Hampshire, but before SuperTuesday.

If SuperTueday was in June - maybe the May primaries would be important - and those 3rd and 4th positions much less so.

I would like to challenge the notion that 3rd and 4th positions are important because they are right after New Hampshire - I would like to advance that those positions on the calendar are important because they are right in front of SuperTuesdy.

So move SuperTuesday back to June.

Push the other states to a distribution system in April and May - there is no reason to have early primaries in the middle of the winter when it is hard to find voters on the street.


There is little reason to do anything in March - put New Hampshire and Iowa in February.

If going first is so important - leave some time between New Hampshire and Iowa - and the rest of the states - so that will diminish the extreme value of going first.

Give the states that go in May 30% more delegates than those that go in April.


So the states going in April are on the first tier - but they select the least delegates.


Going in May is 30% better - and you get to go right before the SuperTuesday in June.

The voters in June select half of all the delegates over-all and essentially make the decision.


There is a primary system which balances out the calendar - accounts for media value - does not disenfranchise ANY voters in any State - and does the job.

A lottery system could be put in place to determine which tier each state is in - and it will provide a rotation among states by election cycle - that would provide equal protection to the voters - because voters in one set of states should not be favored over other Americans.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Fiance whiz and 37th.

A marriage made in heaven.

drivl and Ped - the other place.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

If the argument is to end candiates like Edwards early on that makes sense.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 11:10 AM


Like another charlatan who easily fooled the gullible droobs in the Dem party didn't follow immediately.

that's some track record of high ranked pervs you got there Libs:

Gore
Clinton
Edwards

Next, the entire establishement will be shocked, shocked to discover that Berry is not qualified nor eligible to be present ident.

Posted by: present-and-unaccounted-for | July 12, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

leichtman


Right now we don't have an over-all system which they decided to balance out.

What the DNC did was chose the first 4 states to go first - and they said everyone else has to go after a certain date.

There is little system to balance out the other 46 states.

Little known is there is a compensation for states which go later - I think states after a certain date get 25% additional delegates. I remember North Carolina had additional delegates last time.


A combination of additional delegates to later states and winner-take-all will dramatically increase the value of going later.

We need the right balance - but the later states SHOULD MATTER.

I think a THIRD or even HALF the states should go on the last day - the first Tuesday in June.

This would allow earlier states to weigh in - get their media attention -


But it would not allow the early states to actually make the decision - and cut the voters in the later states completely out.

One disadvantage of having the bulk of the delegates at the end - is the incentive for all candidates to hang in until June - so candidates would not drop out early - and you might get a three or four way split among the candidate which does not get resolved until the convention.

To be honest, the system has been lucky that there has not been more contested conventions like there used to be.

Perhaps it was a function of having three networks - with three half-hours every night for national news.


That media concentration is long gone - and the old idea that winning an early primary in order to get those precisious seconds on the national evening news is long gone too.

By the 1970s, those precisious seconds meant that the other candidates got NO ATTENTION - and the polls instantly shifted toward the winners of the early primaries.

THAT DYNAMIC IS LONG DEAD.

I have to be clear that the dynamic behind all these rules that people think in term of - it is long dead - and it is not coming back.

We need to balance out the system by weighting the later primaries significantly.


We cant let party insiders make the decision.


All Americans should have equal say in the selection of the President.

The idea that certain states get favored is wrong - the idea that stacking the deck in favor of certain groups within states is wrong as well.

.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

who has taken over 37th's postings?????????

Nuanced, Congress cannot take over the primary process?

why suddenly rational arguments? has something changed 37th?

by the way a quick resolution of the nomineed gives the nominee a financial advantage, but what happens if there is buyer's remorse b/c the nominee is chosen too quickly?

If the argument is to end candiates like Edwards early on that makes sense.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If a candidate is supported by Cornell1984, I always vote for the other guy.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 12, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

My economic model predicts that the wheels fall off beginning this week. With that, unemployment, real unemployment, is going to climb to above 25%, the markets are going to plunge in a series of sharp shocks, falling below 8,000 by early fall, and you are going to see people in this country actually starving to death. Our future holds riots, mass protests and government reactions to suppress them, violence spirally out of control, and the demise of the American democracy. The political left and right are equally to blame for this. The globalization free trade nitwits have succeeded where Al Qaida, Stalin, Hitler, and all of our enemies in history failed. Sit back and watch the show, for now, because it will consume us all in time.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 12, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Drivl never spent 20 bucks on hair and nails in her life. Her perpetually "busy" schedule does not permit a break from dispensing hate and envy for such frivolities. Plus it's twenty bucks, lipstick on a pig, etc.

Posted by: Moonbat | July 12, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1


Yes - the problem is we have a hybrid system - and that presents serious problems.

The parties have developed into relying on the States to hold their primaries.


So the States use public money for those elections - so that part of the process CERTAINLY falls under Constitutional protections of equal protection et al.


Then there is the issue of fundamental fairness - we are electing the President here - and it certainly makes sense that Constitutional principles apply to the entire process.

The States should have as near equal standing as possible - a lottery for calendar position does that. A bunch of Washington insiders choosing States really does not.

New Hampshire and Iowa were not chosen - they evolved and became tradition.


One can argue that New Hampshire is functioning well -


and that Iowa is broken - too many precinct leaders are playing too many games - and things have become too expensive - demanding $40K for a table at Ames is just one example.

Obviously, there is a benefit to being 3rd and 4th - otherwise there would be no arguemet -


To have party insiders make this decision does not work - every State which wants to be in that position should get a fair shot.


I personally favor a lottery system - let New Hampshire be first - and allow states to fall into 5 groups on the calendar after that.

Allowing the states that come later in the process to have advantages makes sense too - greater amounts of delegates like is done now - and winner-take-all are good ideas to compensate for having later primaries.

Ideally, the voters of every state get to weigh in and have a say in the selection.


Having states vote after a nominee is already viewed to have been selected is not good.


The other thing that can be done is to have SuperTuesday at the end - weight the great number of states at the very end of the process.

So, hopefully the last day would do it -

.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

If a candidate is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, I always voter for the other guy.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | July 12, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman


You ask why -


The primary process has evolved since the 1960s - and we have a patchwork of primaries which never really had over-all planning or balancing.

In the 1980s, the DNC put through a series of reforms - but again they were patchwork reforms designed to address specific problems - not really an over-all plan.


One can easily say that these reforms opened up other issues.

No one in Washington or anywhere else gave New Hampshire or Iowa their positions - it just evolved that way - those states on their own decided to have early primaries and it worked for them.

Up to the 1980s, the DNC and RNC were heavily weighed toward winner-take-all primaries - which led to a situation in which Jesse Jackson ended up with 25% of the votes and 15% of the delegates.

So - AFTER the primaries and the elections - first with the Mondale people and then with the Dukasis people, Jesse Jackson agreed to a series of reforms which brought in the proportional system you see at the DNC now.


YES, you had the losing Presidential campaigns negotiating with Jesse Jackson's people AFTER the whole election was over.


It was the way it was done - and who had the power in the party at the time.

Proportional sounds great - and it is American - but the question is: does it lead to the clear selection a candidate in the spring as the system now demands ?

Too ealy is not good, and too late is not good either. Too late is generally regarded as disasterous, because today no one wants to chose the nominee at the convention.

So the system has gone from choosing the nominee at the convention to the NECESSITY of getting it done earlier.

My main point is the proportional system will lead to a hung convention - which is bad.


In 2008 all we needed was John Edwards to hang on to the end for there to be a contested convention.

Imagine if four or five candidates decided to hang on.


In a sense, the democrats have been lucky that the rules settled after the 1988 election have not resulted in a contested election.


So that is why I support winner-take-all primaries later in the process - it contributes toward wrapping it up -

However, we can discuss the pros and cons because there are several nuances.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Well blow me down! 37th (FoP) is correct to question whether Congress can regulate primaries. I think not: the parties are free to determine their own methods of selecting candidates.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 12, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

surprised to read of union activity here in Texas considering that we are a weak labor/right to work state. My guess is that they will be most involved in state legislative races where Ds are close to recapturing the state house in a critical redistricting year.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3


Good point - however does Congress have jurisdiction over the nominating process ?


Up to now it is the parties and States.

Congress could pass a law, but will it hold up in Court ?

On the other side, maybe only Congress has the power to get everyone to an agreement.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

that was actually a reasoned post 37th of which I could actually agree with most of what you said. The DNC defitely needs to make changes so that their patchwork primary system never ever creates a Fla or Michigan scenario. There are obviously many raw feelings that are still expressed by folks like 37th and I am sure many others although most don't carry a grudge to its extremes for 2 years like him but yea keep it up reasoned posts are always welcome.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3


Good point - however does Congress have jurisdiction over the nominating process ?


Up to now it is the parties and States.

Congress could pass a law, but will it hold up in Court ?

On the other side, maybe only Congress has the power to get everyone to an agreement.


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

that was actually a reasoned post 37th of which I could actually agree with most of what you said. The DNC defitely needs to make changes so that their patchwork primary system never ever creates a Fla or Michigan scenario. There are obviously many raw feelings that are still expressed by folks like 37th and I am sure many others although most don't carry a grudge to its extremes for 2 years like him but yea keep it up reasoned posts are always welcome.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

One has to recognize history when one starts to talk about Florida and Michigan.


Both states had in earlier election cycles - an early position on the calendar - behind New Hampshire and Iowa but before the crush of states.

The DNC came in and took AWAY those positions - and handed those positions to South Carolina and Nevada.

I am disappointed that after the big fight over Florida and Michigan in 2008 - the DNC has decided to stick with its plan - and try to FORCE those states into its plan. A rotation would be much better.

This reflects that the powers at the DNC are not budging - and are locked into one way of thinking.


Why should Florida and Michigan lose the position on the calendar which they had staked out - and get thown in with all the other states ???


.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Mark and Bsimon,
The issue of the primary calender needs to be dealt with by Congress. Since all of these things that are passed by the parties are really just rules that can be broken with no real ramifications (see Florida in 2008), we need the US congress to set rules that will benefit everyone. Liebermann talked about doing this two years ago, but apparently it has fallen flat on its face so I agree that we will have another chaotic primary season (at least for the GOP).

Posted by: AndyR3 | July 12, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

When the democrats brought in South Caroline and Nevada - on the surface it seemed like it would open up the process.


However on closer examination, it really tightened the process - by increasing the influence of well established groups in those states.

These two states were a horrible and poor choice to add to the early schedule.

First, the influence of the Reid family in Nevada and Rep Clyburne in South Carolina - one has to ask why would anyone want to give more influence to these people.

Are blacks and hispanics really getting a better and more influencial situation with this schedule - or would those groups be better off with other states ?

The fairest way to do this process is with a lottery which takes place every four years - so a rotation takes place.

To have certain groups who have influence at the DNC make a schedule for THEM - and then have those groups ENFORCE such rules by NOT allowing the votes of Americans to count is just wrong.

This process is an important part of American democracy - and certain principles of equal protection should prevail.


What went on last time was just such a disgrace - with truthfully 48 states counting until a nominee was chosen - that is wrong.


In addition, if the process is not set properly ahead of time, there are different campaigns which seek to take sides which only complicates getting it right.


Early on - there should be some fall-back rules in place so that ALL states can chose delegates.

Also - all States should believe there is a sense of fairness - and all States should be able to reach a level of agreement in the final result.

Clearly - MANY MANY states were NOT in agreement with the final result arrived at - and did not agree.


Two states actually went against that final result.

That kind of brinksmanship is not good - and to be honest - it could have affected who is in the White House now.

If Florida and Michigan had held their primaries on the first day permissable - and those delegates were counted early on - Hillary just might be the President right now.

That is how critical these questions are right now.

.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The RNC rule dividing the primary process into proportional and winner-take-all primaries is a good idea.

OK why?
it certainly selects the candidate quicker than a system where the delegate count is proportinate, but does it deliver necessarily the best candidate? I actually agree in a winner take all primary system, but I am not sure it necessarily deliver the best general election candidate? I think I understand what is behind your sentiment but I have moved on from that obssession.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The RNC rule dividing the primary process into proportional and winner-take-all primaries is a good idea.

.

Posted by: FlowersOfPeace | July 12, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

"Apparently that reform, which would have made campaigning cheaper and travel more efficient, has gone the way of most sensible, efficient, and economical reform.

Another circus awaits us in 2011-12."


A rose by another name still smells the same. Or should we call it a 'turd blossom'?

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 12, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

mark I was particularly displeased that the Texas D party refused to change the 2 step primary process. In 2008 it was a charade where
Hillary had won the actual primary vote but then could not get those same voters working moms and poor people to come back for a second step caucus. It was chaos to say the least. and I was shouted at by the Obama people who insisted he had won our primary. Not sure any other state has a primary system as insane. I have always thought 4 regional primaries spread out over 8 weeks made more sense and would be more economical but the status quo always seems easier.

Posted by: leichtman1 | July 12, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

All one has to do is watch Greece to see where the AFL-CIO is headed if they don't get their way!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Jimbo77 | July 12, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Todd's new consulting firm is doing well.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | July 12, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

WHAT IS IT WITH THE GIANT 'MITT ROMNEY' IN 20 PT TYPE, PEOPLE? IS THIS A JOKE?


Palin spent $87,500 on candidates and $210,000 on consulting'


$87,000 on other candidates, combined? What did she do, buy them lunch? This is spending?


And the $200k on consulting -- on her hair and nails?

Posted by: drindl | July 12, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

'PERFECT CITIZEN' -- THE PERFECT CRIME AGAINST DEMOCRACY AND PERSONAL LIBERTY?

Politics amount to little more than bread and circuses in a nation whose elected leadership turns a blind eye toward a rogue bureaucracy's "perfect citizen" schemes...

...totalitarian programs that erode personal liberty, make a mockery of the rule of law, and impose ideologically-driven censorship upon extrajudicially "targeted" Americans:

HOMELAND 'FUSION CENTERS' SILENTLY ASSAULT, TORTURE, IMPAIR, SUBJUGATE U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM, FINANCIAL SABOTAGE, 'COMMUNITY WATCH' VIGILANTE TERRORISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST


* Thousands of Americans slandered as "dissidents" or undesirables, targeted by Bush-era multi-agency legacy program for debilitating cell tower- based precision-targeted microwave/radio frequency assault, held hostage to fed-supported vigilante "community policing" GPS-equipped stalking units that menace, vandalize and terrorize as local police look the other way.

* Microwave laser radio frequency weapon system -- a nationwide installation employing cell towers and satellites -- silently, invisibly induces weakness, exhaustion, mood changes, pain, head and body aches, physical and neurological impairment, strokes, aneurysms, sickness, cancer -- and many victims do not realize what is making them sick.

=== POLITICAL LEADERS MAY BE AMONG TARGETS ===

* Regional Homeland Security- administered "fusion centers" reportedly serve as command centers for covert electromagnetic radiation attacks, pervasive surveillance, financial sabotage of those identified as "dissidents," "trouble-makers" or slandered as threats to society.

* Use of microwave weaponry to torture and impair political opponents recently confirmed by deposed Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.

"These are crimes against humanity and the Constitution, being perpetrated under the cover of national security and 'safe streets' by multiple federal and local agencies and commands -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight, enabled by the naivete of those who think 'it can't happen here.'" -- Vic Livingston, former reporter for WTXF-TV Philadelphia, Phila. Bulletin, N.Y. Daily News, St. Petersburg Times; producer/host, MSG Network; columnist, NowPublic.com/scrivener.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

BUCKS COUNTY, PA- BASED MAGLOCLEN FUSION CENTER -- "Centcom of a Mid-Atlantic States Extrajudicial Gestapo."

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list) OR Facebook -- Vic Livingston ("Notes")

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 12, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

The above Steele-bashing paragraphs --- surprise! -- make no mention of the many GOPers who came out FOR Steele, e.g., Ron Paul and Ann Coulter, and that the state committee members continue to support him. As well, no mention of the Fix connection with Chip (Barack the Magic N-gro CD) Saltsman, whom Steele beat out for the RNC Chairmanship.

@ Interns: an okay first draft, now go back and revise this.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 12, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

There was an initiative to hold four early primaries affordable to all comers, and then, after the field had shaken down a bit, have four regional primaries, each a few weeks apart. Apparently that reform, which would have made campaigning cheaper and travel more efficient, has gone the way of most sensible, efficient, and economical reform.

Another circus awaits us in 2011-12.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 12, 2010 7:16 AM | Report abuse

MITT ROMNEY is writ pretty large there. Are the kids going for subliminal tricks while the boss is away?

And Sarah Palin? That PAC is for her benefit and no one else's. This makes her look very "small time" as a candidate.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 12, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company