E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe death of the DLC… The Dean way triumphed over the Clinton/From/Lieberman way… What the “Draft Jeb” movement means… And what the GOP excitement over its VP field says… Scott, Kasich, and Walker vs. Jeb, W., Thompson, and Engler… Wadhams drops re-election bid to head CO GOP.
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** The death of the DLC: Just five years ago, a handful of Democratic presidential hopefuls -- including Hillary Clinton -- gathered at a high-profile Democratic Leadership Council confab in Denver. Yesterday, however, Politico’s Ben Smith broke the news that the centrist DLC, which helped Bill Clinton win the White House in 1992, is on the verge of closing its doors. In recent years, a few things particularly hurt the group: its founder, Al From, endorsed Joe Lieberman in the ’06 general election in Connecticut; its current chairman, Harold Ford Jr., mulled New York Senate primary challenge against Kirsten Gillibrand -- from the right; and CEO Bruce Reed left the group twice to pursue jobs in the Obama administration. But what hurt the DLC more than anything else was that it never figured out how to survive when Bill Clinton was no longer the Democratic Party’s center of gravity.
*** The Dean way triumphs over the Clinton/From/Lieberman way: The DLC was a Bill Clinton organization, pure and simple. Al From and Bill Clinton were attached at the hip in the run up to 1992, and at times it was a rough ride. Then-DNC Chair Ron Brown and then DLC Chair Bill Clinton were known to trade a barb or two. But Clinton prevailed and essentially took over the Democratic Party for over a decade, sometimes with the DLC and From in the passenger seat -- and sometimes in the trailer attached to the fender. The DLC tried to survive without Clinton or at least survive UNTIL another Clinton. But when Hillary didn’t win the Democratic nomination in ’08 -- and when Joe Lieberman became its ideological standard bearer -- the organization lost its relevancy. What's more, the DLC struggled to be relevant once IN power. It's an easy path to preach when the Democrats were out of power, but once in power or when the country became disaffected with the right (like 2006 and 2008), the Howard Dean way (begun in 2004 and mastered by Team Obama in 2008) triumphed over the Clinton/From/Lieberman way. By the way, is it a coincidence that the same day we learn the DLC is about to close its doors we also find out that centrist California Rep. Jane Harman (D) is leaving Congress to head the Woodrow Wilson Center? Harman will sit down for an exclusive interview on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” in the 1:00 pm ET hour.
*** Conservative split on Egypt: Bill Kristol, in the Weekly Standard, pens an essay pushing back on other skeptical conservatives (and even calls out Glenn Beck by name) for fear-mongering over what's happening in Egypt. The issue, of course, for many concerned Middle Eastern foreign policy activists is the fear of the unknown in Egypt and what it means for Israel in particular. Here's Kristol's lecture: "Let’s hope that as talk radio hosts find time for reflection, and commentators step back to take a deep breath, they will recall that one of the most hopeful aspects of the current conservative revival is its reclamation of the American constitutionalist tradition. … An American conservatism that looks back to 1776 cannot turn its back on the Egyptian people. We should wish them well -- and we should work to help them achieve as good an outcome as possible."
*** What the “Draft Jeb” movement means: Last week, we noted how the potential 2012 GOP field reminds us of the 2004 Dem field -- Romney = Kerry, Thune = Edwards, Gingrich = Gephardt, etc. And we made one other comparison: that Jeb Bush would probably be Hillary Clinton, circa '03-'04, as the candidate whom some activists want but probably won't get (at least this cycle). Lo and behold, National Review’s Rich Lowry listed eight reasons why Jeb should run for president in 2012. The question we have about a Jeb Bush candidacy: After conservatives used the Tea Party movement to re-brand conservatism and the GOP after George W. Bush's candidacy, how eager are Republicans to returning to the Bush brand? But more than anything else, this “Draft Jeb” movement may say less about Jeb and more about the GOP’s frustration with its ACTUAL potential presidential field.
*** And what the GOP excitement about its VP field says: Another sign that the GOP is unhappy with its field is when there’s more excitement around potential VP possibilities. Per Politico, “It’s almost as if there is more excitement over the deep pool of vice presidential prospects than over the emerging roster of presidential candidates, which is largely composed of white, male, former and soon-to-be-former governors, none of them from the biggest battleground states. On the vice presidential level, Republicans are already gushing over the sheer diversity of the candidates—unprecedented in terms of race, gender, geography and political experience—who could fill out the 2012 ticket.” Of course, not since 1960 has a VP nominee directly helped a candidate win the presidency. By the way, this excitement over "who's No. 2" might also be a compelling reason to push Jeb to run now. Rubio, Ryan, N. Haley, S. Martinez, Christie, etc. will all be "ready" to go national on their own in 2016.
*** Scott, Kasich, and Walker vs. Jeb, W., Thompson, and Engler: Speaking of the Tea Party and Florida governors, it was striking -- though not surprising in retrospect -- that Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) yesterday unveiled his budget to Tea Party groups instead of state lawmakers. As one of us pointed out yesterday, it was yet another sign how ideologically conservative the new crop of GOP governors is (Scott, John Kasich, Scott Walker). In fact, they're more conservative than the prominent GOP governors of the '90s like Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Tommy Thompson, and John Engler. The conservative movement's ideological warriors were in the House in the '90s; now they’re in the governor's mansions (and sitting in the attorney general posts as well). In the '90s, the governors were the pragmatic conservatives; these days those GOP pragmatists are in the Senate (think Graham and Lamar, an ex-governor, by the way).
*** Wadhams out in CO: The Denver Post reports, “Dick Wadhams on Monday unexpectedly dropped his bid for re-election as chair of the Colorado Republican Party, warning GOP leaders that their chances in 2012 could be ‘severely undermined’ by a strategy aimed solely at uniting conservatives.” More Wadhams: “‘The ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined,’ he said. Wadhams on Monday added that [the front-runner to replace him, Ted] Harvey ‘sees everything through the lens of a safe Republican district in Douglas County, and Colorado is more diverse than that.’”
Countdown Chicago’s mayoral election: 14 days
Countdown to Election Day 2011: 273 days
Countdown to the Iowa caucuses: 363 days
* Note: When the IA caucuses take place depends on whether other states move up
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. and
Leave a Comment:
It sounds like the crew has decided to report on the Death of a Salesman. Must be a slow newsday.
It appears the media is using hard liner propaganda as a weapon for continued conflicts in Egypt. There is a video on CNN of a protestor's last moment. The report goes on to exasperate the moment by implicating the government when it is unclear if the video is authentic, nor where the shot originated, nor who the actual people were that fired the shot.
Considering there were people outside the realm of the video and the people that were "the shooter" appeared to not move at the time of the shots, I have to say that the media needs to tone down the "rhetoric" of indictments. The media is all about keeping the atmosphere exasperated and tense. That's how they make money. How do you stop that elephant when it is on the steroids of fear and drunk on power? When the public is tapped in 24/7/365, there is little hope especially when people love to watch other people's misery play out. Bring back the 8-track, cassette and VHS/Beta Max. You're controlled by the new era.
Is that de ja vu? No, it's just Elliot Carver creating stuff.
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
They really do ‘eat their’ own’:
I am no fan of Bill Kristol – having said that, I do am grateful he had the courage to connect the dots between the delusional fear monger Glen Beck & the John Birch society!
Fox ‘Entertainment’ News is playing a very perilous game & thankfully there appears to be a VERY small minority of conservatives that haven’t gone totally bat sh!t crazy!
I see where MSNBC.com is reporting that the planet's biggest pompous A$$, Keith Olbermann, is going to Al Bore's WUHB, Washed-Up-Has-Been, TV network. I wonder if that network even breaks into a four figure audience level on its best day?? If so, that means there are between 1,000-9,999 seriously disturbed people out there.
Maybe Olbermann can do some undercover reporting from North Korea!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Feisty, or someone. I saw an article about KEITH OLBBERMANN and a new show he's doing. Something about Al Gore and a news station. Does anyone have any info on this? When, what station and time?
Thanks
Tom,
It was on HuffPo - Keith's suppose to make the announcement @ 11:00 am this morning!
I'm sure they'll be covering it - the probability is quite high that MSNBC won't! lol
Can't WAIT! ;o)
Oh my gosh, Libbies, your Keithy is coming back!!!
You all been so lost without someone telling you what to think.
We don't need Keith to tell us what to think about you JoAnna! :o)
I will look forward to hearing Keith again, maybe we will get the skinny on what really happened at MSNBC.
JoAnnaSmith,
Isn't that the truth, yesterday three of them regurgitated the same thinkformeprogressive piece on the same thread spontaneously before they even read what was up already.
Amen, Nashville. Of course the right has people like Beck, Palin and Bachmann telling them what to think. Talk about crazy.
Watch for a draft Jeb movement from the righties. They know they have nothing. From yesterday: our resident scold, no jo was "outraged" at a claim that President Obama betrayed Britain by giving proprietary information to the Russians. Since no jo is predictably disingenuous, I waited and sure enough this popped up from Media Matters yesterday: Right Wing Media Falsely Claim Obama "Betrayed" Britain by Complying With Treaty Language" February 7, 2011. Now all of you can go to Media Matters and read about this, I am not going to repeat the whole article here, but suffice it to say, that as usual, no jo is being less than honest about what actually happened. The information that was transferred was in compliance with existing treaty, to wit: 1991 Start Treaty. All of this is readily verifiable. But, honestly...it just makes me sad. I am hoping that no jo has the courage and grace to say "I was wrong" but I won't hold my breath that will happen. Both governments, the US and UK have confirmed that is what happened.
The MSM, after carrying the waterbucket for the GOP, the last couple years,"Where are the Job's" are remaining Silent on the GOP's nonstop push on the Social agenda! Why is that, Mark, Domenico, ChuckyT?
President Obama flew the Patriotic flag yesterday at the COC. Where will the COC plant thier Flag?
Really, draft Jeb Bush! I know American's have a short memory span, but a Bush back in the WH just seems like LaLaland (otherwise known as New Jersey).
I mean ComeOnMan!
Thanks Feisty. I knew if anyone would know you would.
Thanks again. Please keep us informed,
Tom
"United We Stand, Divided We Fall".
From Gallup's Jeffrey M. Jones, February 4th, 2011:
"President Obama's job approval ratings were even more polarized during his second year in office than during his first, when he registered the most polarized ratings for a first-year president."
Well...I suppose that President Obama did unite a significant portion of the electorate last November when Democrats lost 53 House incumbents, 63 House seats overall along with control of that chamber, and 6 seats in the U.S. Senate...including the one once held by President Obama in Illinois.
What's that sound that I hear?? Oh, It's Joe in Albany and JoAnna Peeing in their pants along with the other Republicans!! Welcome Back Keith!!!!
Lois as usual you get right to the point. I see your post as...
A Positive Statement
The Media and Big Business is only going to Take Care Of Themselves.
The young Egyptian Google executive detained by Egyptian authorities for 12 days said Monday he was behind the Facebook page that helped spark what he called "the revolution of the youth of the Internet.
He said his interrogators were convinced that foreigners were backing the movement, but Ghonim asserted it was just young Egyptians "who love this country." He also sought to debunk the government's accusations that the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak's most bitter rival, was involved in planning the protests.
He referred to his arrest as a "kidnapping" and a "crime" but also sounded conciliatory, saying "this is not a time for settling accounts or cutting up the pie; this is Egypt's time."
Ghonim told ON TV: "Please don't make me a hero. I'm not a hero. I have been asleep for 12 days. I hope that we would be able to put an end to all the rubbish in this country. The rubbish really needs to be cleaned up."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41464115/ns/technology_and_science-security/">http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112722535988460.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41464115/ns/technology_and_science-security/
There were 300 fake registrations on my facebook page, all negative comments, about how we were allegedly being paid. I was the admin of the page but others paid for it. We are dreamers (says it in English). There was no Muslim Brotherhood presence in organising these protests, it was all spontaneous, voluntary. Even when the Muslim Brotherhood decided to take part it was their choice to do so. This belongs to Egyptian youth.
Please everyone, enough rumours. Enough.
http://tinyurl.com/4bcku3o
So essentially you are right; louis. If the media got a tip that the Department Of Health And Human Services Recommends Standing At Least Once A Day More. As part of an ongoing campaign to promote physical fitness and well- being. you can believe it would be all over the media as a sensational topic suggesting the Department of Health and Human Services is urging all Americans to set aside time at least once a day to stand. round shoulder-width apart, straightening out the legs, and then locking the knees to hold an upright position.
Of course, that was a joke I picked up on the Onion. But if unfair and unbalanced FOX NOISE IT WOULD REPORT IT TRUE. Consequently, it would force other stations to pick it up because Fox claims it touts the truth. HA... the FOX NOISE channel has been snooker before by the onion and it took MSNBC to broadcast and point out it was a spoof.
The idea that Professor Glenn Beck has decided his lectures on the Caliphate is so treating is laughable. Even Bill Kristoll called this lunatic out for his fear mongering and lies. Why? Beck and other Buffoons like Sarah Palin (TM) are doing more damage than good to the right.
I'm so glad MSNBc has decided to call out this fool. It's especially laudable of Chris Matthew who sends a chill up my spine every time he speaks with such clarity about this fool, Glenn beck. Don't forget Sarah Palin (TM) and Michelle Bachmann.
I thought it was a courageous deed for our President to walk into the lions den over at the Chamber of Commerce even without a fruit cake. You all know how lions love to devour food. In this case it seems the lions are the young ones on the left running ads portraying the President as a suck up. When will theier learn they are puting more on that fruit cake
Remember we are all in this together and we al have a responsibility to contribute to the betterment of America. Siitting on nearly 2 trillion dollars does not contribute to jobs.
Bill Kristol's remarks about Glenn Beck and the John Birch Society are well past due, and a strong indication that sensible Conservatives are becoming alarmed at the genie that was released from its bottle by the Koch brothers in service of winning a Republican majority. Broken promises, wildly unpopular ideas, lack of respect for appearance of impropriety, and just crazy talk are becoming so common the Republican party will suffer serious damage.
Conservatives here at FR have been criticizing me for months as I connected the dots between Beck, the JBS, and the Koch brothers. Now establishment Conservatives are doing the same. There's a message to be had.
"You all been so lost without someone telling you what to think."
That's NOT true, Smiff. We still have YOU!
So the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) is calling it quits.... not much need for a DLC when the Dem party is history. Maybe they'll find a new home in Mexico with their remaining foreign supporters.
Reportedly, my man Keith O will be on CurrentTV!
The demise of the DLC demonstrates the paucity of diversity of thought and ideas on the left.
On the other hand, Bill Kristol's remarks about Glenn Beck demonstrate something entirely different, don't they?
Hey Mixed Bag, what are you talking about?? The DLC is out because they were too weak with Progressive Ideas and were trying to be Psedo Republican! Nobody wants a weak Progressive! The DLC got exactly what was coming to them for being weak and straddling the so called middle with the GOP!!
Now the sissy's like Harold Ford Jr can make up his mind if he wants to be a Progressive or a Lame Backwards Republican like Palin, Cheney, Beck and the other clowns!
"Hey Mixed Bag,what are you talking about??"
You really don't know, do you?
Try reading it again, Chuck...
I don't expect you'll agree, but maybe at least you'll understand the post.
NDD, your right about that. She is usually to busy pontificating with her usual long wind essays.
Drive by
That's NOT true, Smiff. We still have YOU!
Especially since Smiff is not cognizant that in her think quest, no one is paying attention to her.
@mixed bag
You skewed the interpretation just like most righties do. Kudos to Bill Kristroll for calling out that tin oil hatter, Glenn Beck and his ludicrous paranoid theory. By the way, do I need to say Professor's Beck's lectures are ahistorical. Those timelines over at Beck U are developed to fit the totally whacked out mind of his. Especially, now since he has lost 1/3 of his audience and 100+ advertisers.
Also you might want to note that...
Gallup News Minute: No Egypt Effect on U.S. Obama Approval
Also, I gave the wrong link disputing Professor Beck's and Swan Hannity's lies about the Muslim brotherhood taking over; my bad.
He said...
[snip]
I tricked my employer so I could attend the protests in Egypt. I am not a traitor. I don't need anything from anyone.
There were 300 fake registrations on my facebook page, all negative comments, about how we were allegedly being paid. I was the admin of the page but others paid for it. We are dreamers (says it in English). THERE WAS NO MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD PRESENCE IN ORGANISING THESE PROTESTS, IT WAS ALL SPONTANEOUS, VOLUNTARY. EVEN WHEN THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD DECIDED TO TAKE PART IT WAS THEIR CHOICE TO DO SO. THIS BELONGS TO EGYPTIAN YOUTH, the real heroes are the ones on the ground. Those I can't name. This is the era where people who have good intentions are considered traitors.
http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/exiledsurfer/~Ab8xx
Are you referring to this little fairy-tale from yesterday?
Wonder why we haven't seen a retraction from her? Since she couldn't or wouldn't back up her claim about the BBC.
Instead we're forced to listen to her 'expertise' on unions today...
This just in:
And thankfully - I already have Current TV with my satellite package!
How about you go instead Joe? You seem to think you have a fountain of knowledge we can't live without. Keith is one of the reasons the Dems took control back in 08. What say you just posting hog wash here on FR. Yeah I thought so.
I have to agree with Chuck Wright. The DLC was never an organization that offered a clear, intellectually coherent, principles-oriented package of ideas. Instead they were a cynical group that sought to drain support from Conservatives by staking out a position on every issue just to the Left of whatever stand Republicans were making. As a result they only helped the Conservative Movement push the dialogue far into fringe territory while being transparently obvious opportunists.
I have no problem with moderate Democrats, but the DLC will not be missed by this Democrat.
Hi Feisty and Devie: You both are right, of course, we cannot expect honesty from no jo. Here is why it makes me sad: She seems very interested in the issues of the day, I thought, but I am wrong. She is only interested in anything she can find to trash this President and this nation. You cannot hope a President fails without hoping the nation fails, and that is not the definition of patriotism. There are posters on FR that I never respond to because they bring nothing to the table, ITM, Joe in Albany, Steve are a few. no jo has now joined that group. She is without conscience, and I don't deal with people who lie.
"I have no problem with moderate Democrats..."
I suspect you'll have even less of a problem with them going forward, John.
John B, Des Moines, IA
but the DLC will not be missed by this Democrat.
Neither will I.
@ Fiesty
And thankfully - I already have Current TV with my satellite package!
Me too I have it on Comcast; at least for now.
Isn't funny how the righties have come up with this 1994 tape of St. Reagan admitting he had Alzhemizers after the fact.
Here is a president who lied about the Iran Contra affair which documents show he lied and yet the clouded right still believe his lies?
I surprised that the Dodo Sarah (tm) has not suggested they refurbish his home in Chicago.
newdayDAWNING10
Hi Feisty and Devie: You both are right, of course, we cannot expect honesty from no jo. Here is why it makes me sad: She seems very interested in the issues of the day, I thought, but I am wrong. She is only interested in anything she can find to trash this President and this nation. You cannot hope a President fails without hoping the nation fails, and that is not the definition of patriotism. There are posters on FR that I never respond to because they bring nothing to the table, ITM, Joe in Albany, Steve are a few. no jo has now joined that group. She is without conscience, and I don't deal with people who lie.
How right you are! Thankfully there are those of us that do Love our Country. And we ain't even from Alaska!
Hi Steven!
Good to see you!
If you read down a bit further you'll see NJNB is up to her usual 'manipulation' of the truth!
So far the poster girl for 'morally' bankrupt is 2 for 2 this week! lol
Feisty & newday,
I argued the same thing no joe did. Saw it and referenced it in my comments to Ron yesterday above no joe's.
Isn't Media Matters one of Soros's little inventions? Bias?
White House guy has said it is bunk. Duh. What would anyone expect - yea we tried to get the UK to allow us to put it in the new START, tried for months, the UK stayed on no, so we said screw'em - where they gonna go for a Trident, Walmart...ha ha. White House is credible for you guys, not very credible for most. Need examples?
And the UK denial ..... an anonymous source?
So George Soros's progressive tool quotes an anonymous source? May be the Holy Grail for you guys, but I'm not convinced. Media Matters was created to marginalize the right. I doubt the Telegraph was. (BTW- Others have reported it also based on a confidence in the Telegraph.)
If the Telegraph prints a retraction, if something legitimate comes along that refutes it, I will be happy to state that the Telegraph printed a re-traction / say my source was wrong.
Right now, I have a degree of doubt, based on Media Matters - that's all. I feel no joe's sentiments are probably close to the same. The BBC crap/everyone is talking about it. Fact that it was printed in the Telegraph - why would the British not be talking about it - not as important as the Super Bowl commercials?
Fairy-tale - Hardly.
You being forced to listen to her "expertise" on unions? Hardly. There is an ignore button. She uses the button and ignores you guys because she feels you have nothing to offer. I know she is smarter, but really - you can't figure the ignore button out?
Why are you guys obsessed with her when she could not care less about you? newday - you say you don't deal with people who lie.
So don't. Otherwise, your statement is pretty much a lie, right?
Well look at that NDD - another sermon from bobby on obsessions! lmfao!
How EVER did NJNB survive before might mouse came along to save the day?
Raise your hand if you didn't see THAT coming, right Feisty! I forgot to mention, poor bobby is another one that I don't respond to. Brain cells die if you read what he posts. The fact that all of this is verifiable away from Media Matters just doesn't matter to the intellectually impaired.
Wright,
When are people going to realize that a vast majority--taken from Boehner--of people don't want "too progressive" or "too conservative" people in the White House. I believe that Clinton was pretty much as close to the middle as we have had in recent history.
If you get too extreme in either direction, look at what happens--November 2010.
People like government when they need government--emergency situations, protection, roads. But when it becomes to intrusive--they hate the government. Somewhere in the middle is where people feel the most comfortable. People felt comfortable with Clinton--I personally only disliked his moral habits, but commend him for never lying under oath. But many people in this country have extracurricular activities in their married life, so why should a regular man or president not have them also.
newday,
"Who saw that coming?" Well you did finally detect a pattern.....good girl!
And about your statement that you don't deal with someone who lies, you understand that precludes you from responding to no joe (you say she is a liar).
Of course you could respond to her, but that would make you the liar.
See that coming?
I saw an interview with UK's David Cameron Sunday. Odd that not once did he mention the UK annoyance about the START treaty NJ and Bob claim exists and is running rampant in all of England. Facts is facts. Mediamatters is not biased, it reports truth about claims from both sides. Apparently, conservatives believe that Rupert Murdoch has the right to own and push right-wing views but George Soros is to be demonized for having an opposite view. One would think the NJ, Bob,JS1 spinners would be dizzy by now.
Newday:
You don't have to respond to me. I'm at the table, you're trying to get a seat. OOPS, I forget you would rather be under the table TEABAGGING.
Your OPINION is no better than anyone else's.
Jody -
Yesterday I was told by you know who that I was supporting "selling out an ally" just because I asked for proof that this story was "all over the BBC" - so you'd think the Prime Minister would be more than a little "annoyed" if it were true. But there's still nothing on this on the BBC site today - or on number10.gov.uk, the Prime Minister's official website. And the big story today on The Telegraph's site is that David Cameron had his picture taken today with David Hasselhoff. Of course, I can see where that would be even more annoying than having your national security compromised...... :)
Yep, amazing, isn't it JoAnne? Perhaps David Cameron and the rest of the UK have not been reading the rantings of our resident nut to know what they are supposed to be annoyed at. I am sure that she has the phone number and can call them directly.
Jody & JoAnne,
Do you guys actually think David Cameron would want blow this into a bigger deal?
And the proof that the Telegraph is wrong is that he hasn't blown it into a bigger problem? That he would rather discuss it with the MEDIA instead of in private with Obama, or let the diplomats handle it?
Are you guys really this simple?
Bigbear, I respect the fact that you can acknowledge that clinton's "moderatism(?)" contributed to his success. I would however like to note that he also lost a signficant amount of seats on his second election and barring outside forces (9/11 fear mongering) most presidents do.
I believe that no matter what the president does to try to appease the masses he cannot be all things to all people and the midterms indicate where he is on the scale (Obama being a bit more a product of the polarization of America that I believe started (peaked?) with the 2000 election).
As to the argument about the UK and Russia, I would say a formal complaint would've been made already if the UK had an actual problem with it. They are usually as quick as anybody with those if they are wronged.
And as a moderate dem I would like to point out that many many of us exist and still have our say. I haven't known a moderate republican to have a lot of success getting their way in the recent past. I think Senator Spector is a great example of that. Socially moderate, fiscally conservative.
basedrum,
And where would the formal complaint go to. What legal standing does the UK have with a treaty between the US and Russia? BTW-Why wasn't the UK, France, China and the others involved in the treaty? Why wasn't there a relevant treaty that addressed the emerging treats, N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan... Why just Russia, they were the threat 50 years ago - not now?
Formal complaint? Is that what you do when your best friend betrays you? And that does what good?
Bob1805084:
"Jody & JoAnne,
Do you guys actually think David Cameron would want blow this into a bigger deal?"
Not sure what would constitute "a bigger deal" than his country's national security - but no, actually I think that you and NoJoe seem to be the only ones who want to blow this into a bigger deal than it is. Look, this wasn't a story yesterday. It's even less of one today.
And yes, it is that simple.
"Mediamatters is not biased..."
-Jody, Iowa-
From the NY Times' Michael Luo, November 23rd, 2010:
"In what may prove to be a significant development for the 2012 midterm elections, David Brock, a prominent Democratic political operative, says he amassed $4 million in pledges over the last few weeks and is moving quickly to hire a staff to set up what he hopes will become a permanent liberal counterweight over the airwaves to Republican-leaning outside groups that spent so heavily on this year's midterm elections."
Hmmm...David Brock. The name sounds oddly familiar...
Anyway, more from the NY Times' Luo:
"Certain to set off debate, however, is that Mr. Brock appears to be positioning his new organization so that fund-raising consultants can raise money for Democratic-oriented media efforts not just through American Bridge but also via one of the nonprofit organizations Mr. Brock currently runs, Media Matters Action Network, which does not disclose its donors."
Oh...THAT David Brock.
So, let me see if I understand this.
The CEO of Media Matters, David Brock, wants to fund-raise for Democrats through the aforementioned (and oh-so-impartial) Media Matters.
Were you trying to make me laugh, Jody?
Just when you think the GOP/Tea Party cannot stoop any further I saw a post (URL attached) that the GOP/Tea Party wants to change the definition of “preventive” to deny women the “pill” or other means of contraceptives.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38043_Now_the_Right_Wants_to_Redefine_Preventive_to_Exclude_Contraceptives#rss
“Dr. Hal C. Lawrence III, vice president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said contraceptives fit any reasonable definition of preventive health care because they averted unintended pregnancies and allowed women to control the timing, number and spacing of births. This, in turn, improves maternal and child health by reducing infant mortality, complications of pregnancy and even birth defects, said Dr. Lawrence, who is in charge of the group’s practice guidelines”.
“But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and some conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, say birth control is not a preventive service in the usual sense of the term”.
“Pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented, nor is fertility a pathological condition,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “So birth control is not preventive care, and it should not be mandated.”
So let me see if I got this right.
1. They (GOP/Tea Party) tried to change the definition of “rape” to “forcible rape” in the HCR Law that would deny women abortions for any reason unless they showed up beaten to a pulp. I mean, how else would they be able to prove it was forcible
2. The GOP opposes equal pay for equal work – Men are worth more than Women in the work place regardless of qualifications
3. And now because they had to pull back their despicable definition of rape they are trying to backdoor it by going after the hospitals/clinics by redefining what is preventative or not. And do not forget a new bill introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) that would carve out an abortion exemption to the HCR Law that would allow women seeking medical care for abortions to be refused treatment period, putting the mother at risk. So they have utter contempt for women
4. They do not like Gays as proven with their opposition to the repeal of DADT
5. The hate for the Unemployed is also proven by their opposition to extending the UI Bill and even refers to them as “Hobos”
6. They do not like people on Medicaid and refer to them as a drag on society
7. They do not like our seniors as they are trying to repeal/cut or privatized Social Security and Medicare
8. They are intolerant of religious beliefs different than theirs, for example claiming all Muslims are Terrorists. This is like saying a poodle is a dog, hence all dogs are poodles. It makes no sense.
9. They do not support Small Businesses as evidenced by their opposition to bills that support tax cuts and extended capital to them. Show me one thing the GOP has done in the last 2 years to create Jobs in USA, to help Small Business, to move the economy forward. Just one. The only thing they supported in 2 years was the tax cut for the richest 2% that do not need it, it does not create jobs and does very little to expand the economy. Yes, it does help Wall Street but not Main Street.
10. And the list goes on…………..
QUESTION: Who is voting for these people and why? They have utter contempt for women, the unemployed, senior citizens, gays, our Veterans, the middle class, small business and people who need help. So what is left????
We do not need to go overseas to find people to fight that are in the dark ages, we have enough right here in this country.
Amen Navy!
They're not satisfies waging war on the disadvantaged...
Now it's WOMAN as well!
Ooops!
Should read satisfied & WOMEN...
Fingers haven't thawed out yet this morning! lol
Feisty:
How true.
Most of your hyperbole is not worth comment, however number three must be addressed:
The First Amendment of the Constitution contains the "free exercise" clause. Therefore, Catholic hospitals are constitutionally protected from having to perform abortions. Moreover, individual doctors have every right to refuse to perform abortions due to their religious beliefs, be they Roman Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim. There are, I understand, even "secular humanists" who have personal beliefs that preclude them from performing abortions.
The left would like these exemptions to be abrogated- they would like to use the law to force people to abandon their deeply held beliefs. The bill to which you are referring would preclude any such action by this, or any other, administration.
Our Founders foresaw just such activity- indeed, they had experienced it- and wisely embodied the right to act on ones religious beliefs in the Constitution. That the left would seek to abrogate this speaks volumes about their supposed tolerance. That it would be couched in terms that hide their true intent speaks even more.
Excellent post, US Navy. I had not heard about the attack on birth control pills recently. The Catholic Bishops want their religious beliefs to control everyone else's choices. So much for getting Government out of our lives, the GOPTP promised but they always break their promises.
As for Catholic hospitals, the current law exempts them and doctors who object from having to perform abortions; however, the current law requires those hospitals and doctors to transfer women to hospitals that do. The GOPTP's HR358 (Protect Life Act) want to change that requirement and simply allow women to die rather than transfer them to facilities that could save women's lives.
nojonobo:
They already have that right. No abortions are ever performed in Catholic hospitals. The House Repubs are trying to figure out how to impose more restrictions beyond that. (At least this subject has diverted nojonobo from her obsessive ranting about President Obama).
Jody:
Very true, they do have to transport the patient to one that does. Pits law would allow them not to even do that. So what choice does the patient have? I don't care how NoJo keeps trying to spin it, this is a bad idea and will put women at risk, but then again what the he!! does the GOP care or NoJo for that matter.
Navy,
When 41% of all NYC pregnancies end in abortion, something is wrong. When Planned Parenthood, that gets 1/3 of its funding from taxpayer dollars is helping pimps get the 14 year old prostitutes back on their backs, by getting them abortions.....
Why do we have to pay for their birth control / abortions? It is not a health issue, a health issue is when something is wrong, pregnancies are evidence of health, or irresponsible sex. They are not an illness or disease. Why do we have to pay for irresponsible sex?
GOP/TP does not hate Gays because they opposed DADT. They opposed DADT because there was not ONE NET POSITIVE reason, no military reason to repeal DADT, that the guys in combat arms -the actual guys that do the fighting and dying were strongly against it, thought it would diminish effectiveness, etc.
Obama and his liberal agenda has strangled the private sector, the GOP/TP was tried to prevent that. The American people (those with a clue) voted and supported the GOP/TP in the last election. Most of America gets it.
You are either pathetically ignorant to keep posting this crapulence, which you never have the intellectual capacity to defend, or are just a blind tool of hate.
Which is it Navy?
I assume, Joday, that you have never hear of EMTALA- or the ACLU's attempt to use it to force catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
http://www.medlaw.com/healthlaw/EMTALA/courtcases/aclu-moves-to-extend-emtala-to-force-catholic-hosp.shtml
Maybe Navy has not, either. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Now that you DO know, can I assume that you oppose any such demand that the Constitutional protections afforded everyone not be abrogated?
It's not a big surprise that the Right is poised to wage war on contraception, that's been bubbling below the surface for a long time.
The only surprise is that they're bold enough to do it now.
I'm not John - below is a classic example of the rhetoric we've heard since the election!
All bravado and ZERO substance!
People want J O B S - not smoke & mirrors...
Personally, I'm enjoying the over reach... ;o) There's already plenty of buyers remorse to go around!
no joe, no bo, nj
How does re-fighting the abortion debate create jobs for unemployed Americans? It doesn't. Politicians have no business exploiting this issue to gain elected office. Since when are politicians moral guides?
Abortion is a tragedy whose roots began in the Garden of Eden. Making abortion illegal won't eliminate the pain and suffering of young women, or do anything to address the unconsciousness of our culture towards sex and procreation. Republicans don't truly want to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies because there goes their most reliable wedge issue. Keep yapping about Roe vs Wade, it just serves to distract the public from the fact Republicans can't govern in the one sphere that legislative branch is supposed to have an impact: growing jobs.
@Navy
Is this your own list or did you find it somewhere else?
On the question of SS. Some of us would like to ensure that SS will exist in the future and not have to fight for funds from the general tax fund like paying interest on the debt. The fact that demographics have changed and there are substantially less workers per retiree, and the fact that the SS has been spent, means that sensible options such as the gradual raising of the retirement age and perhaps means testing should be considered. I would even accept removing the salary cap on contributions if it was guaranteed NOT to go not the general fund or be used to buy treasuries. However, to trot out line like "They do not like our seniors as they are trying to repeal/cut or privatized Social Security and Medicare" is just infantile.
BTW What is your solution to fund Medicare in the future?
Amy, this is not about making abortion illegal. It is about protecting the rightsmof religious hospitals, and individual doctors and nurses, to refuse to perform them.
The ACLU is leading the assault, using EMTALA as the excuse.
Should this issue go to court, there is no question in my mind that the ACLU would fail. However, lawsuits cost money- money the federal government should not be wasting.
And, should Holder side with the ACLU- well, let's just say younwould REALLY see abortion as a wedge issue. One Obama would lose.
The proposed bill would merely direct HHS not to try to enact a clearly unconstitutional policy.
Liberals have a problem with that?
When I first received health "insurance" as a young woman and mother (1978) the cost of birth control was not covered (reimbursed). I had no problem with this as it's a CHOICE...and choice is more important to me than a few bucks to cover my prescription.
It seems to me all of the ranting and raving started when we changed from health"insurance" to health "coverage". All of our personal responsibility has gone out the window in the name of prevention. And, a little side note...costs have also gone up as a result.
Personal responsibility.....the lack of....look at what it's cost us all. (and this coming from a flamin' librul) Maybe we need to return to the days of health "insurance" with a break in premiums given to those who actually practice "prevention" on their own. We certainly have enough electronic recordation to track it all.
bob-1805084 -
Bob - if 41% of all NYC pregnancies end in abortion - a figure you must allow me to doubt - then a great, great many of those abortions are performed on middle- and upper-class women. The "something is wrong" may be in your opinion of abortion, period. In that case, it's an opinion rather than a systemic issue, and the debate moves off the public policy platform to that of ethics and morality.
While that particular battle is of course never-ending, in terms of public policy and fundamental law, in the U.S. the matter has been settled. Navy's point was that the right wing of the Republican Party wishes to again deny that the matter is settled, and through legislative manipulation take a back door to get to denying abortions for American women under ANY circumstance.
As for Planned Parenthood, it is their openly-declared mission to provide services to everyone who comes to them unless there is a violation of law involved. Again, there is a move to in fact make their very existence a violation of law - although Navy didn't bring that up. Planned Parenthood would, if it could, get those young girls out of the hands of pimps and the sex trade - the organization has no brook with that at all, so by the phrasing of your argument you imp[ly something that is absolutely not true.
Experience and study after study have shown that the old Nancy Reagan line, "Just say no," is a failure as a practical policy dealing with teen sex - or adult sex, for that matter. And we can see historically that abstinence as a fundamental social policy has always failed. While we can encourage parents and children to adopt healthy lifestyles and life patterns, as I am sure you and I both in fact do or have done with our children, we must also recognize that human beings yet make choices of which we may not approve.
Unwanted pregnancy may result, and I have had direct experience among my friends of the consequences of illegal abortions. Contrary to your statement, Bob, unsafe abortions ARE a health issue. Unwanted pregnancies, particularly among younger girls, ARE a health issue.
The provisions in ACA under attack are provisions that do not force any woman to have sex, take contraceptives or get abortions. They are provisions that allow women to have those CHOICES. Having the choice IS the law of the land today, and health insurance must honor that.
The attacks on those provisions that Navy raised reflec a constant, never-ending effort to return the U.S. to the day when preachers and ministers dictated laws. I remember those times well, for I entered adolescenece before the invention of the pill, and while it was common in nearly every state of the Union for laws to prohibit the sale of ANY contraceptives, including condoms. I remember the Sunday sermons on the subject, and the incredible outrage when the assault on laws prohibiting contraception began.
I remember the servitude of women as a result of lack of contraception. I remember my mother's 10 pregnancies (seven of us survived) and the way she "shopped a confessor" to find one who would allow her to take oral contraceptives to treat the effects of menopause. And, while this is somewhat sexist, I most happily remember the uni-kini and REAL miniskirts after both the arrival of the Pill and pantyhose. Bob, for goodness' sake, please don't make those illegal too.
As for No Jo's post about Catholic hospitals, that link is to a legal blog discussing the subleties of exemptions for Catholic Hospitals presented with patients in an emergency abortion situation. My former girlfriend was the ultrasound technician at St. Joseph's in Burbank, CA - hospital to the stars - and more than once reported an ectopic pregnancy. These are cases where the gyzote embeds in the Fallopian tubes, and if allowed to progress will kill the woman by bursting her reproductive organs. St. Joseph's nearly always transferred such cases to other hospitals for surgical treatment, but at times did agree to immediate treatment where the patient's condition was an emergency.
That is the kind of case the three instances the article in No Jo's link discussed - not routine abortions. further, it turns out the ACLU is NOT taking such cases forward at the moment - it is discussing the matter with another legal agency. The blog concludes that probably the cases will not be pursued to the Supreme court. So No Jo's claims are grossly exaggerated and misleading, at least based on the facts from her own link.
VermontGirl- finally, a voice of reason!
John A.- it is simply amazing to me that those on the left are not comfortable simply stating that they oppose constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
The ACLU is taking this case to another agency? They sure are- they have taken it to HHS.
Ectopic pregnancies? Ectopic pregnancies are not considered viable pregnancies by the Catholic church- nor by Orthodox Jews. I cannot speak for the Muslim faith, but I am sure that they have a similar finding.
Spending paragraphs attempting to hide your true agenda - to force all hospitals and doctors to perform abortions, despite their personal convictions- will not work.
Thank you Navy Retired, as a former Marine, you are the only Navy guy that I have ever agreed with.
NJ, an attack on contraception doesn't protect your right to free practice of religion, it imposes your view of religion on others. That's what's really going on in USN's link.
The move by the Right to redefine MY rights as imposing on YOUR freedoms is one of the most unattractive features of the present Conservative Movement.
No Joe, as a member of the left I don't claim to oppose religious freedom. But not opposing one freedom means not opposing all freedoms. And that is where the left and the right split. Your amazement that one side will not accede to the rights of the other is disingenuous. And not only on this matter.
In order for Catholics to have their freedom to oppose abortion, people with different beliefs also have to have the freedom to choose what they do with their bodies and their minds. That is the very definition of choice.
First of all, John B., my posts were on protecting the rights of doctors, nurses, and hospitals to refuse to perform abortions based on personal beliefs.
Now that you bring up contraception, I urge you to read VermontGirl's post.
Why should I have to pay for your condoms? Why is that not YOUR responsibility?
Yes, I am well aware of those organizations--they fight for the rights of all Americans not just those whose religion they agree with. Abortion is legal, it is no surprise that groups will continue to fight for women's rights to choose. When will we stop fighting a cultural war over abortion and focus on the reason why and instead, fight the root causes to reduce the numbers.
Abortion is legal in this country, the anti-abortion groups are determined that making it illegal will solve the problem. It will not, it will simply push women into the back allies with the quacks who perform abortion for high prices and in less than sanitary environments. I remember the era before Roe v Wade; the horror stories told on shows like 60 Minutes, the investigations into the back ally abortion industry. Making abortion illegal will solve nothing. Abortion is not the problem, it is the result of many factors including poverty, lack of education, rape and incest, abstinence only is a lack of honest sex education, lack of funding for birth control (because some religions oppose it), lack of teaching children that with sex comes responsibility. If republicans were serious about abortion, they would be serious about having an honest debate and serious about helping solve the many causes for it. Women do not make this decision lightly, yet the GOP pretends they do. The legislation republicans are proposing in 2011 are irresponsible and heartless but that should come as no surprise since they are also heartless when it comes to the poor, the unemployed, the sick.
No Jo, I am beginning to learn that you cannot be trusted to report the whole truth in your comments on this board. I read the article in the link you provided and I learned, as Paul Harvey used to say "the REST of the story." This isn't a story about the ACLU forcing Cathoic hospitals to perform abortions, this is getting them to perform EMERGENCY abortions, warranted under their OWN guidelines.
John A:
Thank you for the follow up, you said it much better than I. Many of these arguments have been settled by law. But, the GOP Right is not content with that, they need to find other ways to destroying the economy and the middle class, and they also want to take away peoples rights and to grind them into total submission. This argument about the Catholic Hospitals is just a smoke screen for their true agenda to outlaw abortions for all women for any reason. Just like they want to make unemployment, medicare and medicaid, social security, education etc unconstitutional by some. This is what people do when they want total control, not just monetary control, but they want to own the people as well lot, stock and barrel.
This party has gone off the deep end and it will drag us down as well. They try and hide their false fiscal responsibility but cutting programs that are middle class programs but they have no problem with rewarding the people that bought them with huge tax cuts, they have no problem with continuing to give big oil and coal huge subsidies, allowing corporations to hide money in oversea accounts, and tax loopholes that save them tax dollars and loopholes that reward them for farming jobs overseas and then turn around and say their burden is too much while throwing the lions share of the pain/burden on the backs of the middle class giving themselves a free ride.
No Jo, you usually are a one-note Johnny every time you appear here. I'll give you points for determination, milady, but demerits for persisting in error.
For example, at WHAT point did I advocate forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions? Cite me ONE complete sentence in which I wrote such a thing.
Second - at WHICH point will you admit you manipulated and mis-stated the actual content of your link? I read and analyzed the article. The ACLU is NOT advocating forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. NO ONE is doing so. The issue of "emergency" abortions was raised in three cases, two of which were refused by the hospitals, while after the third case was treated, the hospital's administrator was fired. But none of those are presently in ANY court - says the story in YOUR link.
Most of us here actually agree with your view that religious freedom includes the right of religious hospitals to follow their standards in delivering medical care. And frankly, I don't hve to worry about hospitals run by sects that refuse blood transfusions, for example, because there aren't any. Fortunately.
As far as mandating that insurers provide coverage for contraception and other reproductive health matters, that merely reflects the fact that those ARE part of a complete health care spectrum. They ARE available to men and women because the law of the land finally moved the bluestockings, preachers, and male supremacists out of the bedroom. If you don't like it I understand that both contraception and abortion are frowned up in Iran.
Liberals firmly believe in the First Amendment, the right to freedom of and from religion; Congress shall inact no laws. Why is it modern day conservatives claim to support religious freedom yet expect those who disagree with them to follow "their version" of religious freedom which is to impose one religion's belief on all others. Catholics are free to not practice birth control of any kind but they do NOT have the right to say everyone must follow their rigid beliefs, that no one should have access to birth control pills or devices simply because Catholics forbid it. A bunch of Catholic Bishops, all men, wish to control every woman in this country--that's uncivilized and not the democracy of the U. S. Constitution.
John B, stated it best above. The right wants to define MY rights by their views; it is pathetic and disingenuous considering their daily rhetoric invokes individual rights, freedoms, the Constitution; their version is freedom EXCEPT if that freedom is in opposition to their view.
You are once again obfuscating the issue, Jody.
Neither H.R.3 nor H.R. 358 would make abortion illegal.
They protect the conscience exemptions for doctors, nurses, and religious hospitals, and exempt contraceptives from mandated coverage.
Since you defend the administration taking away the right of people using their own funds in tax free medical savings accounts to buy OTC drugs, I fail to see why you object to people using their own funds to purchase contraceptives.
You cannot have it both ways.
Amy, it is not up to the ACLU, or then government, to determine whether an abortion meets the Church's criteria, any more than it is up to the Church to determine if a given case meets the ACLU's criteria.
The fact that the ACLU is attempting to use EMTALA to force catholic hospitals to perform any abortions at all should be disturbing to you.
There are plenty of hospitals to provide such services.
A woman does have the right to choose and when she chooses to have an abortion except in the case of rape my tax dollars should not pay for them. As an intelligent woman I know that it really doesn't matter if want my tax dollars used for this purpose or not, they will be. Anyone who is on welfare and obtains an abortion is using my tax dollars to obtain that abortion. Any money that someone has, is my tax dollars. It is something I have just come to accept, the same as those who don't want their tax dollars used for war. But I can continue to voice my opinion and work to ensure that maybe the Hyde ammendment will actually be enforced.
Planned parenthood provides a valuable service to women. But the question I must ask is why is NOW and other women's organizations are NOT DEMANDING that investigations take place as to under age girls obtaining abortions. These girls got pregnant somehow, and as long as they are under 16 (in most states) the father of these aborted babies should be prosecuted for statutory rape. Yet planned parenthood refuses to cooperate in these investigations. Why doesn't planned parenthood want these men/boys prosecuted?
Last week, posters here were claiming that republicans hate women, my question is why do Women's organizations such as NOW and others hate young under age girls who have been the victim of statutory rape? The men/boys are criminals and it shouldn't be up to the family as to whether these boys are prosecuted or not.
no joe, no bo, nj
Oh my God, my God, my God. I just googled H.R.3 and H.R. 358 and I found out just what is in those proposed laws. In a way, I am glad you brought up the topic because I had no idea the Republicans are trying to make it legal for a Catholic hospital to allow a woman to die rather provide an emergency abortion. I feel sick. I really do. I feel like throwing up.
Janet, your tax dollars do not and have not paid for routine abortions--it's called the Hyde Amendment, it's been law for decades. The only exceptions are rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother which I would think reasonable people can agree makes sense--why allow a woman to die because she cannot afford the treatment needed, why force a young girl to have a child because a father, uncle, or other relative abused her and she cannot pay for it herself, why force a raped woman to carry the child of her rapist for lack of money.
As to your other comments, women's groups do argue the issues you raised. Teenage boys are prosecuted when charged but isn't it a bit extreme to prosecute teenage boys when often the teenage girls are willing particpants. The answer isn't prosecuted teenagers for statutory rape but rather doing a better job of educating those young boys and girls about the responsibility and risk that comes with sex, honest sex education and providing them with preventive information and access to those preventive measures.
No Jo, H.R. 3 IS an attack on abortion rights. It contains the conscience language to make it harder to oppose, but in fact it is unnecessary. It is a sheep in wolf's clothing - and you KNOW that.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text
As for HR 358, it too is an attack on abortion rights.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h358/show
You can't get away with half-truths here, No Jo. Your protests of innocence seem, as the Bard said, excessive: "Methinks she doth protest too much." You take a few facts and by careful use, turn them into propaganda that is the reverse of the truth.
Jiminy, one-note Johnny No Jo just keeps on blowing her flat tune:
No Jo, it's time to drop the pretense of conversational courtesy and say it flat out:
YOU ARE LYING.
The ACLU is NOT presently engaged in any court cases attempting to force Catholic hospitals to do ANYTHING. The facts in your own citation show you are lying.
And I don't know about the others here, but this discussion has been long enough. No Jo once more makes things up and thinks that by enough repetition, as if this were an ad campaign, she'll sell something. Nuh-uh, not now, not here, not never.
On one hand conservatives here argue that abortion is wrong (that's fine), they complain about the number of abortions performed, rant against any abortion as wrong; and on the other hand they state they do not want to pay for contraceptives for others. The irony is that the few dollars of each of our federal tax dollars spent on contraceptives would reduce the number of abortions performed because it would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Shades of gray elude conservatives.
Bob Hall 900721:
I thank you for your service and dedication to this great Nation. Yes, the Navy and Marines have a great history together and we do our brotherly and sisterly disagreements don't we. I remember when I was much younger and still in the Navy I would visit a lot of the local watering holes. Once in awhile I would be challenged for my service and called names or called out. I remember one time that happened and as I stood to up leave ( I was grossly outnumbered) I had a feeling of presence behind me. About a half a dozen Marines were on their feet and covering my 6. It seemed that no matter what differences we have/had we could always count on the other to be there to help when the chips were down. Too bad the rest of the country cannot act that way.
Bob, again thank you for your service and a I wish you well. Drop in and visit more often maybe we can exchange some views here.
US NAVY: The right is poised for an attach on women. They would like us all barefoot and pregnant, with the Republicans in charge of our morals and what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. It is okay for them to do what they want, just no women. Why not deny them the right to Viagra? That's a terrific expense. Republicans want to be the guardians of our morals and keep the government out of your private lives and bedroom as much as the Fox wants to guard the henhouse.
It is unconscionable to me that in this day and age of rampant overpopulation of our world, which I consider to be the crux of most of the suffering in this world, that Republicans only legislations wants to promote more births, unwanted pregnancies, denying contraception, rewriting history that the "victim" should now be called the "accuser", and all there other foolish folderol. Why don't they work on getting the economy going and getting us some jobs. No, the have no ideas about that or the economy, they just want two weeks work and one week off. If you look at the Republican calendar there is very little that is actual work going on there. Well, America, you got what you wanted. Sometimes you should think about what that means.
Maybe we can legislate that Sanford and Ensign (who have never even been reprimanded yet) should have their little weinies stapled or something because their family values and righteousness got all got up in their penises. However, FU to anyone else who wants to live their own lives. Believe me, it is not the Dems who want to run your life by government, it is surely the Republicans.
John A., right on!
I don't mean to pick on No Joe in particular but this is the second such misstatement by her in two days.
On a larger scale, this is the current conservative tactic. It is being used in all of their arguments. It is not the truth, it is misleading, it is wasting precious time. We have not seen the last of this and we must be vigilant and oppose it wherever we see it.
Lying? No, you are attempting to obfuscate.
The ACLU does not have an active law suit- they know that they would lose- and put the Obama administration behind the eight ball, to boot.
They are attempting to do by HHS directive what would be unsuccessful in court.
Which you are defending.
The bill at hand would make clear that HHS could not issue such a directive.
By the way, you might want to give a think to the unintended consequences if the ACLU gets it's directive.
In Phoenix, (one of the incidents cited by the ACLU in it's letter seeking a directive), the hospital DID perform an abortion on a young woman who presented with high blood pressure.
The nun who was the hospital administrator was demoted, and ultimately ex-communicated. The Bishop then withdrew church support for the hospital.
That meant a loss of funding from the diocese. Who do you suppose made up the difference?
Moreover, if the ACLU succeeds in forcing this issue because the Catholic hospitals system receives and treats Medicare and Medicaid patients, the hospitals will withdraw from those programs.
Who will fill that gap?
Or the gap left when those doctors, nurses, and others who exercise their conscience exemptions withdraw from medicine, rather than being forced to violate their deeply held beliefs?
Have or fund as many abortions as you like. However, do not attempt to force YOUR beliefs on others. Or force them to participate in something to which they have moral objections.
John A,
I think I saw it in the Weekly Standard from a New York Times story or something. I'm sure if you Google 41% NYC pregnancies... you'll find it. I think the numbers for 2009 were something like 126,273 births, 87,273 abortions. The percentages for teens and women in their 20s is higher.
Actually, I tend to recluse myself from the abortion debate. It seems very wrong, I am against it, but I don't have to carry the baby. Nevertheless, I live with Roe/Wade, but strongly feel it is a State's issue and the States should be able to reflect the will of the people. Whatever way that goes it is acceptable to me.
Regardless that 41% is real. Planned Parenthood stuff is real - on film, the worker fired and full blown damage control is in effect.
It is a public policy issue if the public is paying for it, my primary complaint expressed above. Yea, a girl, or women is free to do what she wants - why do we have to pay for it when her choice doesn't work out for her and she is now in an inconvenient situation that is not a health issue. Health dollars are spread to thin. Why do pay for hooker's business abortions when their isn't money to help with mental health issues, or whatever?
Planned Parenthood? When were they ever neutral, unbiased and gave unbiased help? Reference the above again. Nevertheless, Planned Parenthood can do what ever it wants on two conditions. One - it's legal which isn't the case too often and Two - we don't have to pay for them. let them do it on their own or with the help of liberal abortionists that feel it needs to be supported. To state that "there is a move to in fact make their very existence a violation of the law" is a cheap and gross misrepresentation of the argument.
US Navy wasn't talking about rubbers and Nancy Reagan ......... it was basically artful attempt to marginalize the right, characterize the argument., etc.
Nice "artful" attempt to cover for him. But what Navy is really about is.......
Want to defend that crap?
Bob - Does that last comment from USNAVY need to be defended?
We spend much time here on this blog arguing over if we are going to fund unemployment benefits or if we are going to fund the next newest BILLION dollar 'tool' the Pentagon wanted.
Why is that even an argument? As Americans, shouldn't we be doing what is in AMERICA's best interest?
Apparently not.
I agree with US NAVY's sentiment that we do not need to go overseas to find people to fight that are in the dark ages.
We DO have enough to fight right here. We are willing to watch Americans starve and be homeless, but then we are spending MILLIONS on trying to 'legislate' what women do with their bodies.
I am pretty sure the women can figure what to do with their own bodies. They definitely do NOT need MY help. But we are not willing to help the least of us - as Americans - because it is not 'politically expedient.
And until we can come together and work together as Americans, USNAVY's sentiment - and by extension, my sentiment - doesn't need defending.
Navy and John A: Work well done. Accurate facts and well written.
NJ: You lie about your personal life, you twist facts to fit your pretzel logic. Whatever you say/write has no credibility. People have come to see you for what you are: a pathetic woman.
Ron:
That shyt is uncalled for just because that lady is not a damn liberal.
You sound like Fiesty. I wonder if some of you are actually the same person. It's very ironic the way you pat each other on the back constantly.
The one who obfuscates is No Joe, not me. She attempts to cloud her argument with concern for Catholic Hospitals, doctors and nurses. The current law protects those hospitals, doctors and nurses so the argument is less than honest. The GOPTP's HR358, however, would allow those same hospitals, doctors and nurses to simply allow a woman to die based on their religious doctrine; it would not require those hospitals, doctors and nurses to transfer a woman elsewhere to receive the necessary, life saving treatment. It is sad that conservatives value the life of an unborn child but not the life of the woman carrying that child who is perhaps a mother already. That's what I see posted in their remarks.
Pietro,
Your sentiment is that the right has utter contempt for women,......utter contempt for the unemployed,.......utter contempt for senior citizens, ........utter contempt for gays,.........utter contempt for Veterans, .......utter contempt for the middle class, .......utter contempt for small business,.......utter contempt for people who need help.
Do you think that 48% of (Americans who identify themselves as conservative) the country is that contemtible? Worse than people in the Dark Ages..... who need to be fought?
Are you this pathetic and ignorant and bigoted?
"Have or fund as many abortions as you like. However, do not attempt to force YOUR beliefs on others. Or force them to participate in something to which they have moral objections."
How dare you, No JO? HOW DARE YOU! Using the lives of women and girls to try and wring a few votes by completing mis-stating what these laws would do. These are not laws to protect doctors and nurses from having to perform abortions against their conscience, they are laws saying hospitals don't have to perform EMERGENCY ABORTIONS in case of IMMINENT DEATH or TRANSFER THOSE PATIENTS to providers who will! You and your Republican cronies are SICK, SICK, SICK!
Bob - Thanks for your reply. I'll check those numbers. That few births in a city the size of NYC does have me scratching my head. On another front, you wrote:
First, as I noted when mentioning the fact that there are and have been persistent efforts to largely criminalize Planned Parenthood, I wasn't taking a cheap shot. Nor was it mis-directing the argument. My main point was that when you set up your discussion by referring to PP doing its job on behalf of pimps for 14-year-olds, you invert the issue. Planned Parenthood is doing its job for the girl, not for the pimp. Apparently you have an episodic example of something I'm not familiar with, but I am quite well aware of how PP goes about its business, and it does not typically offer abortions to underage girls so they can get back to hooking as soon as possible.
Navy certainly wasn't talking about rubbers and Nancy Reagan - I felt that you were with that broad-brush discussion about "irresponsible sex." I was addressing the sbustance of your comments. Not that I condone, as I also wrote, "irresponsible sex," but I acknowledge that Humanity's best efforts aside, it happens too often. Heck, by standards of the 17th and 18th centuries, America today is a clean, pure and rather priggish place.
So I wasn't engaged in "artful" or deceptive methods to stand up for Navy. I was pretty direct in having a dialogue based mainly on your comments. However, I also agree with Navy, and was glad he presented that list for us to discuss. I hadn't been aware of some of the things now active on Congress' agenda - things, by the way, that were part of a long list of predictions I published before the election that we could expect if the GOP/TP won big. It's true, I'd rather have been wrong, Bob.
PS - Let me know if you're interested in any references to books that paint some delicious detail about the pre-revolution colonial experiences of Americans and the founders, and related topics. There's a good list of truly excellent reads.
Actually, Bob, you have answered your own question.
When you have Republican Senators holding up legislation for seniors to get a lousy $250 for the Medicare donut hole, and Senators holding up unemployment benefits for those who are the most needy and are AMERICANS, then yeah, it certainly DOES seem that the right-wing has contempt for those that are in need.
Doesn't it?
We spend one whole year on here talking about all of the bills passed in the House that were put on 'secret hold' by ONE Republican Senator - and there was nary an outcry from the right.
Yeah, I am saying that the right has utter contempt for those that we should be looking out for, especially the ones they voted into office to carry out their 'agenda'.
Year, I am saying that the right had the responsibility then - and the responsibility now - to BALANCE their 'fiscal conservatism'.
But when we see legislation that is always 'taking away' things from people - be it unemployment benefits, health care, rights to what to do with their bodies - then yeah, it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about the right and what they want for America.
You say that 48% of America is Conservative? I can believe that, but there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a Republican and a Conservative.
Like all things, Conservatism is practiced in/manifests itself in degrees, not ONLY as an extreme. So yes, 48% of America may be conservative in ONE FORM OR ANOTHER. There are some who are more liberal who are Conservative and others who are not.
So what are you saying, Bob?
What I am saying - and what USNAVY's sentiment is that I concur with - is that we have people here who could care less about Americans - just themselves. As Americans, we should be looking out for AMERICANS, and if we are doing that, we would not be 'DENYING' monies to those that most need them when we have processes set up to handle thosesort of situations.
So yes, Bob, we have to FIGHT those that want to take the shelter away from and the food out of the mouths of those that are LEAST able to defend themselves.
THAT is who we are fighting - right here - in this country.
John A.,
Sorry, I was/am not aware of efforts to criminalize Planned Parenthood. If they are breaking the law, committing criminal acts (such as the event I mentioned) prosecute the appropriate violators. Otherwise, as I stated, leave them alone and let them fund themselves however they want.
Yep, unwanted pregnancies happen, (sweated a few times myself), natural event that has been happening long before the country was here. That's life.
Sorry, if I got a little snippy, I re-read Navy's post about that time in making my comments. I honestly don't care for what the Repubs are doing right now, the social stuff. HCR needs to be addressed then move on. Clean up everything we can to free business in order to grow the economy and reduce unemployment.
Thanks for the offer regarding founders and colonial experiences. I would appreciate it.
Thanks for your comments John.
Pietro,
The first red flag for conservatives regarding Obama's HCR was the taking away of $500 billion from Medicare. That was deal killer right there for me. We need to take care of children that need help and take care of the elderly that have limited options and have paid so much. To suggest that that conservatives have contempt for the elderly is contemptible. Who but conservatives is arguing against"death panels", or more accurately rationed care for the elderly. Who but conservatives is concerned about the possible ramifications of end of life counseling. Your disingenuous hypocrisy and malicious characterization is amazing. It is stunning you don't even begin to see it.
Republicans holding up legislation? What did the elections prove Pietro? Don't give a crap about the will of the people - libs are the only ones who know best? What utter conceit?
Legislation that takes away things? Are you serious? Do you not know that government doesn't produce anything, it only re-distributes. Every time government gives something to someone, it takes away from someone else. Unemployment sounds great - give it to them whether they have plenty in savings / 401s whatever - but, your taking away from your children who have to pay the debt? Does that really not occur to you guys, not really sinking in. Name something that is free, Pietro.
HCR? What a woman can do with her body? Give it to them. Yea take away $500 billion from the elderly and give it to women to pay for all the abortions that can take. What's free Pietro?
Thank God only 20% of the population identifies itself as liberal, is too immature to deal with reality, lacks the common sense to realize what works - what built this country and is sanctimonious enough to believe that they know what's best for everyone and holds nothing but utter contempt for anyone who disagrees with them.
Bob - if you want to argue the facts, then let's do that. Since when did we have a 'liberal' say ANYTHING about a 'death panel'?
Oh yeah - it was coined by a Republican during the health care debate. We get to see what they were talking about in Arizona, when the Governor CUT the budget so much so that people have DIED - people who needed help but did not get it. Then the Governor had the unmitigated NERVE to say 'too bad, so sad' until she was SHAMED into making concessions.
These are the people and the policies we are FIGHTING in this country, Bob.
You cannot - I repeat CANNOT - refute the fact that Sen Durbin placed secret holds on legislation. You CANNOT refute there are 400 pieces of legislation that DIED in the Senate. You cannot refute that the Republicans - time and time again - placed holds on money until they were SHAMED into releasing their holds on unemployment benefits when there are people out there that are STARVING because they were depending on those unemployment benefits to feed their children.
And you want to call me sanctimonious?
BOB - get real.
I stand by my post. Until I start seeing Republicans give a crap about AMERICANS and start to do something to help AMERICANS instead of wanting to always CUT programs that Americans worked long and hard all their lives for, then I'll change my tune.
The Republicans are the Party of NO. No ideas, NO solutions.
Think what you want of me, Bob, I really don't care. However, you cannot unring the bell that has been rung. When people are DYING because of so-called 'conservative policies', then NO, I am not going to give those who wrought that destruction on America a pass.
Remember that Sharon Angle line back in July; you know, the one of her comparing a little girl being raped and impregnated by a family member to turning lemons into lemonade? As a married father of four, that pissed me off to the point I was going to throw my poor "puter' in the trash!!!!
OR, how about this one: My State of Florida TRIED (Thank God they failed) last year to pass a legislation REQUIRING a woman to get an ultrasound to listen to the heartbeat of a fetus BEFORE she goes and have an abortion. Talk about Government GETTING IN THE WAY of a doctor and the patient.
This has to be the moneymaker here: Bill "O, the Klown" O'Reilly (MUCH RESPECT, KEITH-O). For years, he said everything, without ANY sanctions from Foxnews, about George Tiller. O'Reilly called him everything BUT a Child of God, he even went so far as to give him a Callsign in his name. I'm sure you've heard of it: George "The Babykiller" Tiller. On May 31st, 2009, in Wichita, Kansas, Dr. Tiller was shot during Sunday Morning Service at his church by Scott Roeder, an avid listener of the O'Reilly Factor. And you want to get bent out of shape when we PROLIBDEMS tell you that words have consequences.
You're better off stripping the 19th Amendment from women altogether, and say that women have NO rights whatsoever, that she is property, a piece of meat, and that there are ONLY TWO PLACES FOR HER: THE KITCHEN AND THE BEDROOM!!!!
Jeb for president? Lets talk dynasty!!
Can anyone ever imagine Obama standing in front of the SEIU or the AFL-CIO and exhorting them to reduce the Unions demands on businesses? To tear up and renegotiate their contracts to help out both businesses and governments to reduce their costs and make ends meet? To give up their Cadillac pension plans, their fully paid medical benefits, their pay for accumulated sick leave time (which can be years of pay when they retire).
Nope, I can’t imagine it either.
Jo Anna. The only demand that labor makes on business is for a fair share of the profits generated by their labor.
Do you have any facts and figures, or is that too much to ask for?
But their fair share is too much Patrick. It's dragging the businesses down, hurting their ability to hire. Certainly union members can understand that if they take just a little less in pay and benefits that the companies they work for will be able to hire more people. Wouldn't that small sacrifice by the unions for the common good be worth it?
And what are the union demands of business ??
How about executives that have over 20% increases in their already large pay while laying off American workers?
So JoAnna, what are we to make of the "new" President Obama? Has the shellacking from November really forced this tiger to change his stripes, to be more business friendly as he has been of late? Or is this still the same leftist guy who told Joe the Plumber that redistributing the nation's wealth would be a good thing. The same leftist guy who led the charge for massive government intervention in the health care economy and who thinks cap and tax is a great idea.
Some may lean towards trusting this new man, particularly the independents critical to the president's reelection. Others may steal a Reagan line and argue that "trust, but verify" would be a better approach. You can certainly count me in the latter camp. In that regard I'll pay more attention to what this man does, not what he says. Because he has demonstrated time and again that he will say anything to ingratiate himself to the audience of the moment.
What's really cool about all this is that Obama's leftist base is none too pleased with his apparent move toward the center, particularly making nice with the evil Chamber of Commerce. So the danger for the president is that he alienates his most fervent supporters even while he fails to convince his opponents he's a chastened man. Could make 2012 interesting.
So while FR waxes over the non-issue of whether Jeb Bush will run or takes their obligatory swipes at Sarah Palin or tries to spin a "split" in conservative ranks over Egypt, the more interesting political dynamic of the day is how Obama will survive this rhetorical tightrope he's walking. And we haven't even gotten to the looming battles with congressional Republicans over raising the debt ceiling and cutting the budget. That's when the rubber will really hit the road, and that's when we'll get a reality based glimpse at just how "new" the current version of this Obama guy is.
Jo Ann.Corporate profits are at record levels, The CEO'S are receiving huge salary and bonus increases. Why should all the burden be put on the worker?
JoA, how about the CEO's helping by reducing their compensation.
Bill, and Joanna- Obama spoke for 36 minutes, and got polite, smattering applause exactly twice- when he was introduced, and when he finished.
His total misunderstanding of how business works was apparent throughout his speech- and his excuses for the excesses of the first two years of his administration are thin, at best.
One of the things that struck me during the SOTU, which he touched on yesterday, was his objective of having the government expand the internet and its use. Seems to me that this has been done, quite efficiently, by private enterprise. Why on earth would he believe that the government had any role in this- or should have one, going forward? Two words: net neutrality. The FCC has already lost a court battle, yet soldiers on ahead anyway. Sort of reminds me of the drilling ban- where the administration lost in every challenge, and went ahead anyway. So much for their respect for the rule of law.
Independent voters simply cannot be stupid enough to fall for the Zelig candidate again- and the battles that are upcoming this Spring will reveal Obama once again as a far left ideologue.
JS1,
“But their fair share is too much Patrick.” I have heard this same old line since the 1950’s at my first job.
Tell me why does the employer give them what they ask for? This is done thru negotiations at the bargaining table. Employers do not have to give in to the unions - do they? They can, and have, locked out the employees and even kept operation running with white collar and contract labor.
Companies agree to contracts that their CFO says they can afford – if the financial analysis from the CFO is incorrect why should the contract be null and void? It can be renegotiated in the next contract.
Always am amused at how conservatives lap up the "it's the Union's fault" talking points. My guess is that those who make these claims do so because that is what the GOP has been preaching since Reagan started it and that is the only thing they know. It has become part of the conservative beliefs. They do not understand that their own employer sponsored health care, 40 hour work weeks, paid vacation and holidays, overtime, decent wages, their rights to demand a safe working environment all come from organized labor--they reap the rewards yet demonize those who succeeded in getting those rewards for them.
The GOP has declared unions as evil; therefore, that must be fact. Eisenhower defended workers' rights to organize and demand from employers reasonable compensation for the work they perform which makes a business profitable. For those conservatives who continue their anti-union views, it is sad they cannot think for themselves or research the truth about unions. Unions have given many concessions over the past years to help their employers continue in business. Airlines, auto workers, steel workers and others have made many concessions to employers yet we hear the same drum beat from conservatives--"it's the Union's fault".
In the 1970's CEO pay was 27 times that of the average worker; today it is 262 times greater. Their work load has not changed. Perhaps if CEO's went back to 27 times greater, there would be greater profits for business. Perhaps that is too complicated for conservative minds to grasp.
Certainly executives should keep their compensation in check, but the biggest cost to businesses, to corporations, and of course to the government, is it's pay to it's workers. States in fact are going bankrupt by having to pay more and more in pensions and benefits to their retirees. If corporate executives do take a symbolic cut in their pay, it certainly is a nice gesture. The real cost factor though is with the contracts they have their unions members. That is what really impacts the bottom line of these corporations and governments.
Now I'd expect President Obama knows there are two sides to a coin, and he too will call on the unions to be more flexible with the corporations, to have the unions help with reducing costs so that these corporations are more competitive with foreign companies. In addition, President Obama needs to explain to government employees that they too need to reduce their compensation and benefits for the good of their states and the federal government.
It is the right thing to do. It is the only thing to do.
As Mr. Obama has spoken to corporate America about their obligations, I look forward to President Obama's speech to the unions explaining their obligations while we are in this dire economic situation.
It always puzzles me why people like Bill in Fairfax and JoAnnaSmith exclusively back the ever-expainding giant corporations against the ever-diminishing unions. Maybe they watch too many of those commericals on TV that inform us about how wonderful Chevron Oil or BP are (despise the latter nearly destroying the Gulf of Mexico). And I wonder if they bug their doctors by repeatedly calling them up to find out if the latest drug the pharmaceutical industry is pushing on TV is "right for them." Some people are just more susceptible to advertising than others. Maybe they just can't help themselves.
Obama is putting him self in a box he won't be able to crawl out of. All the good feelings of passing DADT and the treaty with the Russians (The Russians? A treaty with them 30 years ago would have meant something, but today . . . ?) will pale when Obama has to put up or shut up when asked to start cutting his $1.5 trillion dollar deficit spending. I don't think the guy (Obama) has it in him to cut anything. In fact, I think he'd spend more, much more, if anyone let him. Obama is about to be painted as the big government liberal he is when this budget battle occurs.
Dennis: Good points. What is this BS that Wall Street, Big Business and the 2% pay more than their fair share? Anybody got any proof from any economist that supports that they are paying too much?
I think it's because we have a more diverse set of information that we access and interpret Houston. We look at both/all sides of an issue and look for solutions rather than assigning blame. The Left certainly jumps at the populist notions that Obama puts out on a daily basis, and certainly what Obama says sounds good (to some) but that's not how the real world works. Obama in fact is just playing to his political base when he brings up these populist themes of his.
Big Unions certainly have their place, but they too have their obligations to the economy as a whole. Again, I look forward to President Obama addressing Big Unions and explaining that too need to be flexible in these dire economic times.
Well, Houston, maybe I can help you out:
Unions are self defeating.
Consumers actually control the cost of goods, by making decisions on what price they are willing to pay for a product- thus, the truth that all goods are elastic in the long run. If the price for a good or a service is deemed too high, a substitution will be made, or, in the case of "disposable goods" ( flat screen televisions, for example), the good may be foregone. Many services are subject to the same consumer judgments. Think about your own buying decisions.
When union demands drive the cost of goods are services beyond the point where consumers are willing to pay, actual demand, (rather than the more fluid rate of demand), falls. At that point, it becomes economically unfeasible for businesses to provide the good.
At that point, decisions are made as to whether or not to continue the manufacture- and where.
Public service unions are a different story entirely, and, as such, are far more corrupt. I will give you just one case in point- the teachers' union in my town.
Elections for leadership positions were, and are, always held by voice vote- no secret ballots, ever. If a motion were made for such, that hapless newbie was booed off the floor. Well, ten years ago, after 9/11, (when there was not a family in town not affected, I might add, since this is a commuters paradise), the union decided to go on strike. It is, as you might know, illegal for public union members to strike. The town got a court order for them to go back to work- they ignored it. So, right before Christmas, the judge in the case bagman putting individual teachers in jail for contempt of court.
He did it alphabetically- calling theaters whose last name began with A and B before him, and asking if they would return to the classroom. Tearfully, reluctantly, they refused, and begged to be let off the hook. I watched this, appalled by the unadulterated idiocy of these people- I knew, you see, what would happen- and I was right.
When the judge got close to the part of the alphabet where the union president and vice presidents names would be next- they declared that they had settled the contract.
They had not. No one on the Board of Education had even spoken with them. It was a unilateral decision, meant to keep them from suffering the same fate as their hapless colleagues.
Two months later, the union finally gave in on the outrageous wage demands, and the contract was settled.
That summer, the same leadership was reelected- over the outraged cries of those who had sent time in the county lock-up.
It was a voice vote, counted by the current leaders.
There are more recent examples of public union disservice to its membership. Two cities that have laid off close to four hundred police officers, because the union leaders would not agree to small cuts that would have saved their jobs.
Public employees getting paid bonusesmfor working on their birthdays.
Pension systems that pay out, at age fifty, in some cases, on the last year salary of the employee.
There is much that is broken in unions today. The Molly Maguires are rolling in their graves.
JoAnnaSmith1
But their fair share is too much Patrick. It's dragging the businesses down, hurting their ability to hire. Certainly union members can understand that if they take just a little less in pay and benefits that the companies they work for will be able to hire more people. Wouldn't that small sacrifice by the unions for the common good be worth it?
Joanna your fail to realise that if the unions did hold business back they why is business making record profits these days, unions are not the problem, or let me say skilled unions are not the problem.
the non unions companies are the ones who have a problem getting rid of people and hiring new ones. its the non unions companies that give a false since of being cheaper than a union company.
Skilled Unions have been loosing for 30 years, their demand on business has been deminishing over the years, but are still the best option for getting the best job for your money. municipal unions however are a problem, along with there pension plans.
so before i go on Joanna please clarify if your are refering to skilled unions or non skilled unions?
JS1, Bill and no joe, please tell us how much of your salary you're willing to give up for the good of the corporations? You're always spouting about how everybody else should take less pay, but saying leave mine alone. Step up to the plate, make a pledge to give up 20% of your pay.
JoAnna. Corporations are makeing record profits. And how competitivedo you want to get with foreign companies? One dollar a day? Ten dollars a day? how low should we go? Should shareholders give up dividends, should we do away with bonuses for Wall Street. What sacrifices are you making, what sacrifices are you willing to make.
no joe, no bo, nj
When union demands drive the cost of goods are services beyond the point where consumers are willing to pay, actual demand, (rather than the more fluid rate of demand), falls. At that point, it becomes economically unfeasible for businesses to provide the good.
No Jo after reading your post, i have one question, do you think the good we use that are made in the forgin markets are as good, as the goods made here at home by union workers?
Because the answer is heck NO!!!! the products we use made abroad are garbage, case in point, Lighters, i stoped buying lighters made in china because there garbage, Bic Lighters are made here, they cost 3 times as much but last 4 times as long, so the cost for a lighter made in china in reallity cost more. if you buy a lighter made in china for 50 cents, a Bic cost 1.50. you will have to buy 4 50 cent lighters, but if you buy the Bic you only buy 1.there for the cost for the american made product cost less.
For some reason american comsuners only see this when they buy autos. they will pay more for a forgen auto than a american because they know the product is better and will last longer.
so your argument is not complete, if american will pay more for a forgin car because its a better product, then the same consumer will pay more for goods made here as long as its a better product, i think american companies should use this theory when advertising american goods which they don't.
No Jo we all know that if school districts had paid there teashers a desent wage, they would have never needed a union. right, you know the chicago teashers union is not on my fan list, they screwed over my mother after 25 years. but this just goes back to my point, that if they had paid then like college professional a union would not have been needed.
JoAnnaSmith1
"But their fair share is too much Patrick. It's dragging the businesses down, hurting their ability to hire"
I have no idea of what a 'fair share' would be. All I know is- in the 60's, the top execs made 20-someting times what their workers made. Now, its 200-something times. Not saying what fair is, just asking...When is enough enough? When it sinks the whole ship, maybe??
"Because the answer is heck NO!!!! the products we use made abroad are garbage, case in point...."
A case in point, Jeff, is refrigerators. The damned things used to last 30, 40 years!
drive-by-observer
"Because the answer is heck NO!!!! the products we use made abroad are garbage, case in point...."
A case in point, Jeff, is refrigerators. The damned things used to last 30, 40 years!
Your playing right, i want to know where you bought your from, i had to replace mine after 15 years along with my water heater, and furnance.
So, how 'bout you share some of that information with quotes and links so we can learn? Instead you make a blanket statement and ask us to just accept it. Perhaps you could start by proving this one;
The only unions No Blow and No Anna are concerned with are the Government employee unions. You can Google this yourself, but the percentage of union jobs has decreased since the 60’s. Unions have their bad side, but have improved the average workers life in America. Big improvements attributable to unions are the 40-hour workweek and child labor laws. In countries without unions there are longer work weeks lower wages and child labor.
Jeff, your point about the lighters proves my point:
You, the consumer, made a choice to purchase a cheaper lighter than your usual choice. (let's say for the sake of argument that the cheaper lighter cost one dollar, while the Bic cost three).
Upon use, you discovered that the cheaper lighter had stopped working, although still containing fuel. You purchased another, thinking that the first was defective- the same thing happened. You then realized that, if you continued to purchase the dollar lighter, yup would actually spend MORE than you had previously, because you would have to purchase a new lighter more often. Thus, the three dollar lighter was actually LESS expensive than the dollar lighter.
The manufacturer of the three dollar lighter has undoubtedly done research on this very phenomena, much like the manufacturers of laundry detergents. There are some very low priced detergents, and they have a market- however, the higher priced detergents are actually the best selling detergents in the market, as they are more cost effective, load for load.
Consumers base their decisions based on their perceptions of cost effectiveness and overall satisfaction, which is what you did with the lighters.
By the way, you should not smoke.
It appears the Liberals here don't agree that Big Unions have their obligations to the economy just as much as Corporate America. The observation was made that President Obama has taken his road-show to Corporate America, the Chamber of Commerce in this case, and the speculation is that seeing that Obama has asked much from them, but will he also be asking much from the the Big Unions?Apparently the Liberals here see no need for that happen, but if we're all in this together, why isn't Big Union included on the Obama's speaking engagement schedule?
Really? "Fair share" seems to be a real cornerstone for Liberal ideology. Liberals are always talking about someone else's "fair share", whether it be the tax burden on the rich, corporate taxes and hiring practices, on what people owe to the country. So one can figure that if the Liberals talk about it so much, that maybe they would know exactly what it means.
It's the Union's fault that CEO's make 262 times the average pay of their employees; apparently "fair share" is 262 times greater pay. It's the Union's fault that business profits are at their highest levels in decades. Conservative ideology is black and white--shades of gray elude them. Liberals view the world as give and take, business makes a good profit and rewards its workers for their efforts with a good, "fair share" wage; business makes a good profit and provides its workers with benefits to make life better for everyone; business makes a good profit and does its best to retain its workers. I'm all for big business but somehow CEO pay at 262 times greater than its employees is not good business or even reasonable.
JAS1:
It only appears that way because you filter out all facts that don't fit into your extreme ideology. Of course "Big Unions" have an obligation to the economy. Your lament of the plight of corporations is laughable considering thehuge profits they've made under President Obama.
A businesses profit (or loss) is irrelevant to what it compensates it workers. The going rate for a worker is what the industry will pay. For an example, a line worker in a machine shop is compensated for his/her skills based on their education and production. It's irrelevant what profit/loss the company that person works for makes/loses, they still get a paycheck. If that worker believes they are not compensated fairly for their work, they have the option to take their skills elsewhere.
The investor is the true owner of the company. He/she puts their money at risk by buying stock within a company. It is up to the stockholder to measure if the executives running the company are 1) Doing their job 2) Are compensated at a reasonable level 3) Are providing them a return on their investment. If the stockholders, the owners, believe the executives should be replaced because they fail to do the jobs they wish, they are replaced.
Everything else is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the CEO makes 10, 100, 1000 times more than the line worker. That's a populist notion and a liberal ideology that does not work in a capitalistic system.
I surmise that JS would be happy if we all paid the corporations and companies we work for for the privilege of doing so. That seems to be her constant mantra and condemnation of the unions that have given us benefits such as health and 401Ks. Those unions actually negotiated for less money in order to have those benefits. JS is incorrigible in her thought processes and thinking. I think she is nothing more than a Faux and Friends plant. I very rarely respond to her idiocy, so I will just go back to ignoring her again after this as neither she, ITM, BoB, Or No Blow has a synapse firing on its own. It must be sparked by Glenn Beck rants and Faux and Friends talking points.
There you have it, the unvarnished truth about Conservative economic philosophy straight from a defender of same. Businesses and the wealthy elites have no obligation to the rest of society, just rake it all in. If the rest of us can afford to keep roofs over our heads is of no consequence.
That wasn't always the case. George Romney always put a cap on his executive salary because he felt it was his duty to the company and his employees to not exploit his position.
I doubt if his son Mitt has ever felt those same qualms as he made himself rich by buying and disassembling companies, leaving a trail of broken dreams in his wake. After all, it's irrelevant.
"Really? "Fair share" seems to be a real cornerstone for Liberal ideology"
Yes- just as "fair Share" seems to be a real cornerstone for Conservative ideology when the subject is taxes to be paid.
I sure wouldn't volunteer to go into the ring with Smiff, as she can duck and weave waay better than most opponents.
JAS
"If the stockholders, the owners, believe the executives should be replaced because they fail to do the jobs they wish, they are replaced."
Do you really think that is how it works? I would bet you are not a stock holder or if you are have no clue how corporate governance works.
You can work for who ever you darn well please C! It's a free country ya'know. You can even create your very own business. Let us know how that all goes for ya, k?
Sorry C, don't watch Fox, but guess what! Your Keithy is coming back!! He'll be on another channel, different from the one you always have on. You do realize there are other channels, correct? But maybe someone can teach you how to work your remote and you can be all tuned back into your Keithy!
Aren't you just so excited?
Yes - See Carly Fiorina for details.
Public service unions have been under attack since 1981, when Reagan took office. He nearly wrecked the national airt traffic control system by busting their union. And the exploitation of surviving air traffic controllers since was horrific - that's one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and one of the most important to public safety. Numerous air crashes have resulted from it. THAT'S a case in point for the consequences of removing union-imposed restraints upon a government employer that runs roughshod over unprotected workers.
And there are more, throughout history. All these ugly complaints from the right about public employee unions ignore the very reason those unions exist. Especially in smaller jurisdictions, such as rural school districts or small cities, the "employers" are usually elected boards, comprised mainly of amateurs at governance who enjoy a most inflated opinion of themselves.
Instances of such people throwing their weight around are legion - and that weight tends to fall on the workers. Teachers targeted by an irate parent for discipling his or her child are vulnerable to political influence. Social workers handling many, many cases (ofr a bottom-of-the-barrel salary) find themselves targeted by jealous or self-righteous neighbors objecting to "the neighborhood slut" receiving any form of public assistance. Honest policemen feared by some of their colleages on the take can discover the Mayor has been hearing ugly rumors - and suddenly pulling the worst hours, in the worst places.
Public employee unions followed the civil service reforms of the latter 1870's and the 1880's, instituted by Republican administrations in Washington. It took longer than the successes of craft and industrial unions in their battles through the 1920's, but public employee unions eventually succeeded in protecting their people and fighting hard for the wage and benefit advances they achieved. They built on civil service reforms to cut down on the abuses of patronage that corrupted hiring of workers and local politics. They put an end to the practice of a foreman or supervisor requiring each employee kick back part of every paycheck to the bosses and the higher-ups in local political machines. They put an end to the practice of political "feather bedding" where a favorite of the machine was a ghost worker who never showed up but still drew a paucheck.
And in return for a commitment to public service in place of taking higher-paying private sector employment, the unions won for their members good pension plans, reasonable vacation and sick time, and predicatable, steady wages.
THESE are the "evil unions?"
What ARE the "evils" involved in public employment, pensions and benefits? Certainly, double-, triple-, quadruple-dipping is one, although it is not as widespread as many suggest. Is working for 25, 30 years on a low- or mid-level job for the state, county or city and then receiving a pension PROMISED in order to win that worker's commitment an "evil?" Is getting a hearing and an orderly process for adjudicating a complaint about performance or behavior at work "evil?" Is having a financial incentive to acquire additional education, training, and experience in order to do a job better, or earn advancement, "evil?" Is staying at work, taking care of the public's business, rather than costing taxpayers money for time off and reducing the overall performance of a public agency, "evil?" Is it "evil" to expect that because a worker did that, he or she is then entitled to receive the promised pay for the time off not used?
Public employee unions around the country have already participated in government cutbacks, on numbers of employees, on pay scales, on benefits. They will certainly have to endure more.
If public agencies do not wish to incur future pension costs, then let any such changes occur with new hires, rather than betray loyal public servants who EARNED the benefits promised them. Public agencies for decades have known that the day would come when workers would retire with their EARNED benefits. If that represents a burden today, frankly, that's too d***ed bad - let the officeholders now bite the bullet with the taxes necessary to keep those promises. The voters will make THEM pay for having been cynical and improvident in the past.
As for the craft and industrial unions, they also HAVE taken substantial hits as a result of the economic crisis. Airline employees and pilots, auto workers, pipefitters and welders, red caps and ditch diggers, all of them have experienced reductions in ranks, wage rates, benefits, and more.
What's tryuly breathtaking is how senior executives, management, and shareholders of big businesses that won up to 50% concessions for their unions turned around and gave the savings realized to themselves. The workers got shafted, the executive got champagne toasted.
The fix for THAT issue to change BACK the tax codes to a time before Ronald Reagan set up the screwing of America. Change back capital gains taxes to punish short-term turnover and holdings, and reward long-term successes and investments. Encourage stability in the business world and give the day-traders the boot. Set a progressive tax on executive compensation that rises to 90% of salaries, bonuses, and stock rewards that exceed 100% of the median worker's earnings. Once again forbid the raiding of pension funds following a merger or acquisition. And establish new labor regulations that trade places on the board of directors for large concessions from unions.
That's not Conservative economic philosophy John, that's a Capitalistic philosophy. There are plenty of Liberals running today’s corporations, take Google for example, that know that they either compete and make money for their investors, or they go out of business. Because if they don’t perform, someone else will.
So tell us John, when you go shopping, do you purchase products that meet your needs and are competitively priced? Or do you buy more expensive and inferior products, you know, just because you want to see some Social Justice for the less fortunate companies and workers out there, you know the ones that pay their workers more for less work and less production? Be advised, your answer will either prove you to be a hypocrite, or an idiot.
That's a lie.
The ATC agreed with a contract that said they would not strike and leave their positions. The ATC Union members breached that contact and struck, and Reagan held them accountable.
Or do you not believe in living up to the terms defined in contracts?
John, public service unions receive their due from the public as they should.
As you are aware, CA is a large labor union state, with the public sector unions massive contributors to the current Spending Party, that has controlled the state coffers since well before Reagan. When the state is rich - they spend; when the state is poor - they spend. We are heavily taxed and fee poor, but to balance the budget, the Spending Party will not decrease the entitlements, they only want to increase the tax rate on the rich while also creating new and more taxes for the majority of the state.
Almost 45% of the state budget is dedicated to the teachers union, with layer-upon-layer of management built into the system prior to having the individual classroom teacher. When the actual money is spent, the amount spent per student is marginal at best. It is know that the state, once a leader in education, is rated at the bottom of the rung. What a great return for our student investment dollar. Do we need to retain those tenured teachers that refuse to teach, putting in their time until they can earn 80% of their wages under retirement? My one daughter earns $75K in her district, and will retire on at least $60K annually. And that is for teaching the second grade. Quite alot of crisis management there.
In Sacramento, we see and read daily about the manner in which the labor unions are suing the governor about their rights.......to take a days pay to keep government open is a blow to them. In the private sector, salaries may be cut to help keep the company going......or layoffs to reduce staff happen. These are foreign to public sector unionism.
As I recall the air traffic controller union issues, built into their contract was the condition that they would not move off he job during a strike, but negotiate. When they moved off of the job, the government had every right to honor the contract clause. And, life moved on also.
Sorry, but I honestly believe business today treats their employees well, without the need of a union highjacking. I for example, pay 100% of my employee costs; and set aside a portion of profits to be shared with them each Dcember 1. My only clause to their agreements is that should they unionize, these policies are void.
Now I did previously state this, and a libbie on the site stated that I had the ending clause as a control over a union takeover. Not so - should my family of employees unionize, I would be required to honor their union agreement, pay them according to their contract, health benes due their agreement, with no bonus unless in the union agreement. That individual called me several rather interesting comments, beginning with troll......
No, unionism is going by the wayside.
I remember the air traffic controllers' events quite well - the Administration first moved unilaterally against them and wasn't filling empty posts, leaving the remaining controllers in a very difficult position. The enitre context of that event is that Reagan took advantage of it to bust the union, plain and simple.
As for California, saying that 45% of the state budget goes to the teachers' union is quite a large distortion. first of all, it goes NOT to "the union," but the school districts, and is partly a redistribution of county tax receipts to satisfy the Serrano decision. It would become tedious to the others here to discuss that in detail, but if you're in California you know what that's about. Teachers' pensions are independently funded through CalPERS, which my former wife joined when she became a high school teacher in 1972 in Pomona. The pensions are not part of the state budget at all.
When businesses perfrom as you says yours does, then unions usually are not as attractive. Ford for some time was a non-union plant because henry Ford did the same thing in the early 1900's.
As for California and unions, it's pretty much divided. I could recount lots of stories about the hostility to unions in the Los Angeles region, including the attacks on the International tyupesetters Union there. San Francciso is pretty much a union town, but down South they are far less influential.
JAS1, I notice the ONLY thing you could say were about the air controllers. Glad you recognized the rest of the post.
I like to keep things simple enough that even a Republican can understand it:
If a CEO 'earns' 262 times his average employee's salary,...then he should pay 262 times as much tax burden.
That's what Fair Share means to us Liberals. Any questions?
John, thank you for your comments, i do stand corrected on a few points. The CA educational funds do not go to the union, but does go to the Ca. State Director of Education in Sacramento, then is distributed to the leaders of the various School Districts for incorporation into the plans developed by the State Dept of Ed.
And yes, CalPers is accountable for teacher union investments for retirement. But isn't the union involved with finances when they negotiate? I do know the teachers union invests big in electing those legislators who send money to the educational system. Are the legislators funding the unions for the money received by them?
We can agree to disagree until the cows come home, but you would have to admit, with the large amount of funds spent to educate the children of CA, our return on investment is poor.
JAS1.
Carly was forced out by the board of directors. Look it up.
When you're too bat @!$%# crazy for Kristol, you're just WAAAAYY too bat @!$%# crazy!
Draft Jeb? I dare ya!! The Bush brand is way too radioactive for him to run before '16. If we had an attention span that was longer than nanoseconds, this tool would NEVER get elected!
Jeb does not pass the litmus test of conservative.
Thanks for the mini-history of the DLC First Read . . . I wasn't really paying much attention to politics back then, so it was quite informative.
The only other thing I will add is that it is good to see more conservatives calling out some of the crazy rhetoric we see coming out of the Beck's and Limbaugh's . . . it is irresponsible to constantly spout wild theories that you have no way of backing up. Folks need to be held responsible for the crazy things they say, and the crazy things that happen as a result.
Hope everyone has a great day!
Meanwhile in news from NJ. The tunnel is back on and we're not paying for it and we're clearing out a corrupt public agency.
online.wsj.com/article/APff3be3826bc246be9ca2a0a584cc665b.html
www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/gov_christie_fires_71_passaic.html
As Governor Christie replied to the question on whether he would run in response to a poll in which he would beat President Obama, "Its good news for the President as I'm not running".
Death of the DLC. I have been a democrat for years and never paid much attention to the DLC. The democrats have other viable groups to fill the void. Consolidation makes more sense than many groups-- more consistent goals and messaging will help democrats in the long run.
Wooing and Exhorting. President Obama addressed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Beltway wisdom tells us he is trying to mend fences. Not really but it makes for good conversation. The business group applauded twice during the speech. Had Reagan or Bush given this same speech, it would have been met with robust applause and some cheers. President Obama was right to lambast Wall Street in 2009, they brought the country to its knees with their risk taking that caused a global economic collapse. President Obama was right yesterday to remind business to have faith in America and the American people; to appeal to their patriotism. They are sitting on $2 trillion dollars as the Chamber's President claims because of "uncertainty". If they each hire more people in the U.S, it provides income and greater demand for their products. Keep shipping jobs overseas and fewer Americans can afford the products they build. That's not hard to figure out.
Jeb Bush. Please, not another Bush. This is the U.S., annointing family political dynasties is not my idea of democracy. Might as well have a royal family if we keep this up.
GOPTP House at Work for the People? I could swear the GOPTP campaigned on creating jobs, improving the economy (without specifics but that is beside the point) and of course, repealing all things President Obama. What happened between Nov 2, 2010, and now?
The GOPTP House repealed Health Care, the Senate failed to get the votes, but Boehner, Cantor, McConnell said they were waiting for the President's State of the Union before charting a plan for job creation. That was two weeks ago. Why not have their own plan, why wait for the President--they knew they would not agree with any of President Obama's ideas?
Now the GOPTP has moved to their real agenda, the one they didn't mention to voters in 2010. They are working to pass legislation forbidding any federal tax money for abortions. We have that already, it is called the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of HR3 and HR358 (Protect Life Act) is to rewrite the definition of rape, incest; to write legislation that allows hospitals to let a woman die because of a life-threatening pregnancy rather than perform an abortion; to write legislation that eliminates tax credits for private health insurance plans that cover abortion. GOPTPer Bobby Franklin of Georgia has written a version that would legally prevent calling raped women "victims". The GOPTP is determined to have Government interfere with women's personal decisions or the recommendation of those women's doctors. So much for telling voters they want Government out of our lives--apparently, the GOPTP has an exempt clause pertaining to abortion and religious beliefs.
The GOPTP House has released its new schedule. For every two weeks in session, they will have one week vacation at home, paid for by our tax dollars. This week, today is the only day the House is in session. Four bills are on the table but only one will be debated. None of them has a single thing to do with the economy or job creation.
The truth is the GOPTP never intended to work on the economy or job creation, it was smoke and mirrors to win the election. The TPers are serious about cutting spending but the GOP is not because they know that voters will not take kindly to draconian cuts; they were never serious about it except for cuts around the edges. Since Ronald Reagan's presidency, the GOP when in charge of Congress and the presidency cut taxes but never cut spending--they borrowed money, lots of money and true to form, cry foul when deficit spending is necessary to revive the economy.
Your tax dollars at work on social issues which have zero economic impact; your tax dollars at work on one week House vacation for every two spent in Washington. It's our money paying these people. Mr. Boehner, you have been Speaker of the House since January 5, 2011, what are your plans to improve the economy and create jobs? ....crickets.....
Jody:
The GOPTP House has released its new schedule. For every two weeks in session, they will have one week vacation at home, paid for by our tax dollars. This week, today is the only day the House is in session. Four bills are on the table but only one will be debated. None of them has a single thing to do with the economy or job creation.

According to Rachel Maddow, one of the things they're going to debate is whether oversight committees should perform oversight. That's certainly a major issue of our times. The jobs situation pales in comparison.
As for the huge amount of vacstion that the Repubs are rewarding themselves with, it reflects the character of their leader, John Boehner whom Republican Joe Scarborough called one of the laziest politicians in Washington. And I remember that when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, the Republicans whined about the Democratic leadership making them work longer hours.
Well, the Democrats' reign of tyranny is now over, so the Republicans can get back to doing what they do best: freeloading at the taxpayers' expense and boozing it up with corporate lobbyistss. And the lobbyists write the Republicans' legislation for them, leaving them even more time to practice their drives on the golf course.
Jody, does the death of the DLC mean there are actually no centrist Democrats left in the US? Also, we already have a royal family here...they are called Kennedy.
Mr. Boehner, you have been Speaker of the House since January 5, 2011, what are your plans to improve the economy and create jobs? ....crickets.....normally you are above this. What happened? The schedule of working days compared to "off" days for Congress is the same as usual.
Good points, Houston.
Well, Big B, I only hear crickets coming from the GOPTP House on jobs and the economy, just calling it for what it is. You are wrong about the working days. When democrats were in charge, they went home on weekends except for the traditional scheduled holiday breaks. This is different, BB, and if I were a conservative like you, I would be asking my GOPTP legislators why they aren't working more--it's your money, too.
Houston:
I watched Rachael last night and had to replay it this morning to make sure I heard her right. How in the he!! do you justify to the American People working only 2/3 of the time? I guess it is because they have no ideas on how to create jobs, continue the economic growth of this country etc, so they may as well stay home. Any bets they will not reduce their pay by 1/3.
And, soon the campaign season will be among us and that will be another excuse to not do anything.
The sad thing is that what happens to us will happen to them as well. Either they do not see it or they are so blinded by their dislike of our President that they are willing to throw themselves under the same bus.
http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/cong_schedule.html
http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/images/111/111th-2Schedule2010.pdf
You are correct! I can't defend them. See First Read club, it is possible to disagree with your own party. Wow, wonder how any of these guys would survive in the corporate world? Jody, look on the bright side...the less they work, the less they can screw up.
You see, Big B, we can agree.
2/3 work should get 2/3 budget,...
I haven't seen any Democrat House members volunteering to come to work on those off weeks.....
Clara, and reduced benefits like health care and pensions.
Good luck to President Obama trying to get big business to think "what they can do for America." The large corporations are designed to do one thing and only one thing: maximize their profits by any means that their high-price lawyers tell them they can get away with.
You finally get it!
And here I thought you would never understand!
Yes, that is EXACTLY what business does- maximize its profit, by supplying goods and services for which there is a demand. There is a great amountmof creativity needed to achieve that aim.
Take Henry Ford: most folks think of his creation of the assembly line, giving no thought whatsoever to the reason behind it. Old Henry realized that he could sell a lot more vehicles if he could figure out a way to make them inexpensively enough so that his own workers could afford them.
He realized that having one or to workers building individual cars, as had been done, was not the way to achieve this end. He then realized that specializing the work, training individuals to do only certain parts, would increase productivity, and drive down the cost of labor, thereby reducing the cost per vehicle.
Voilà ! He increased demand for his product, and maximized his profit!
nojonobo
I've understood for a very long time that big corporations have no allegiance to the United States and that they will do anything to increase their profits no matter how detrimental it is to the country as long as they think they can get away with it. I also understand that the only things that prevents the big corporations from turning this country into a 19th Century hell scape from Charles Dicken's worst nightmares in pursuit of profit are the government regulations that the business world would like to get rid of completely.
You, njnb, understand neither.
And you pick a very bad example with Henry Ford. At one point, he decided that he could sell his cars for less profit than the market would bear but still at a healthy profit, simply out of some generous impulse to the workers of this country to make his cars more affordable. The major stock owners overruled him and forced him to squeeze as much money out of working people as they could.
Unfortunately, Henry Ford made up for his few generous implulses by also being an anti-semite and a Nazi sympathizer. That's an even better reason to avoid treating him as a paragon of Corporate America's ingenuity.
Nice Post, Houston, nice post.
1. It was not a generous impulse. It was an entirely new business model, which his investors did not understand and, thus, resisted. Until proved wrong, I might add.
2. As to his being an anti- Semite and Nazi sympathizer- there is nothing in anything I have evermposted that would lead you to believe I condone anything remotely like that. However, it might behoove you to do some research on old Joe Kennedy.
Or Charles Lindberg.
nojonobo
Ford's pricing decisions that were rejected by the stockholders had nothing to do with the conversion to mass production. I recognize that free markets encouraging innovation. I also recognize when allowed to run unchecked by the countervailing forces of government and unions, they inevitably damage the country and ultimately self-destruct.
I don't view corporations as either good or evil. They are like fire: essential to civilized life, but in need of careful supervision. I don't worship corporations as a god like you seem to.
I didn't say you were antisemitic or a Nazi sympathizer; I said Ford was, as were many "captains of industry" in the '30s. They greatly admired Uncle Adolf because he was highly effective at maximizing corporate profits (until the Allies blew the Krupp factories to smithereens). And I know all about Joe Kennedy and Charles Lindberg's Nazi sympathies. But what does that have to do with whether or not corporations ought to be left to run amok?
What does that have to do with corporations? I have no idea, Houston.
You must, though.
You brought it up.
You betcha Joanna, The nerve of these people wanting to provide for their families. They need to think about the well being of people like the Koch brothers and their children right? Tea Party on! Let's lose the future!
We are still waiting for the GOP-led congress to introduce bills for creating American jobs and improving life of Americans.
You just don't get it do you?
Carl the Plumber:
Is that an answer or a dodge?
New Wavez:
I am still waiting for them to go to work, period. Would anybody like a job where you get great benefits, a six figure income and you only have to work (actually show up) 67% of the time??
If so, run for our corrupt political system.
Nice post New Wavez.
What, like the Democrats did? Like the 2009 Stimulus bill? Nearly a trillion dollars in deficit spending, no jobs. We can all recall Arlen Specter saying he didn't like the bill, but "We have to do something". With as great of reasoning skills possessed by Arlen, he immediately switched to the Democratic party where he'd fit right in just fine.
And just when is Congress going to pass a bill that says everyone should be happy?
JAS1,
Do yourself a favor and look at the legislation that passed the 111th Congress that was shelved by the Republicans in Congress.
There is where the jobs legislation got killed, by the obstructionist Senate Republicans.
Say-
Considering that the independents caucus with the democrats and the democrats had a supermajority until Scott Brown was elected, I'll call your post a lie. The truth is that the democrats couldn't get the legislation past their own party, otherwise it would have passed with no problems considering that they did not need a single republican vote until Brown was elected. Besides, Snowe and a couple of other RINOs would have voted for them if they had any value at all.
Besides, government can't really create jobs (except government jobs), all they can do is create an environment conducive to job growth. Too many regulations and high taxes are detrimental.
Not that I said too many regulations. I know some regulation is needed, but enough already!
Not at all true, Tammy. The Democrats had 58 members at max. That meant they needed 2 independents, 1 of whom endorsed John McCain for President in order to invoke cloture.
It makes a great talking point though, doesn't it?
Not true, Tammy. Government can and does create jobs outside the government sector. Private contractors build bridges, roads, railroads not government employees and they are built with Government invested dollars. Private contractors resurface roads with local, state and federal dollars. Private industry builds wind turbines, solar roofing tiles, solar panels with incentive loans from the Government. Private industry builds aircraft, fighter pilot training systems, radar, ships, satellites, military training equipment with Government money. President Obama and democrats loaned GM and Chrysler money to save America's auto industry in a Great Recession, they saved jobs of auto workers, parts manufacturers, and dealerships--all private industry. The Government has been repaid 90% of its loans to the auto industry. All those jobs saved were private industry with Government money.
Jody, Iowa
tammy should have watched the doc on HBO about reagan,
During the reagan recovery he created more government jobs than private sector jobs with the hugh increases in defense spending. from what i saw, the reagan recovery was jobless with the exception of defense spending, and the record numbers of men enlisting in the military as a way to get though college.
i also leaned something, reagan was a hyporcrite. he was leader of general electric unions repesenting over 200 thousand workers. so when the air traffic controlers went on strick it was completley odd that he fired them all.
Typical.
The DLC goes under mere months after the crushing, historic, midterm defeat of Congressional Democrats.
Last November, voters made clear that they prefer to take their chances with a Speaker Boehner rather than endure any more from Speaker Pelosi.
While the electorate was shoving Congress back to the political center, the Democratic Party continues its relentless march to the political left, purging itself of any semblance of ideological diversity. Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Party pays endless homage to the notion of "diversity", but is unable to tolerate any significant measure of diversity of thought within its ranks?
You only need to spend a few moments here at First Read to realize that the left has learned very little...if anything whatsoever, from the midterm beat-down.
Bag:
Where the center is depends on one's perspective. When you're as far out on far right as you are, the Dwight Eisenhower would appear to be a hard core leftist.
Apparently last November's voters knew where the center was...and ran screaming from the Democratic Party's agenda.
That's a fact...
Not the ill-informed opinion of a blind, left-wing ideologue like yourself, Houston.
With all due respect, the gen-pop aqui' couldn't find the center if it was lit from within and made of creamy milk chocolate. When every post begins with an insult or a comment about how "they" amuse them, or how "they" hate America, it's just two gangs of keyboard radicals throwing verbal Molotov cocktails, shouting so loudly that they will never be heard.
You really have to hope that the actual grown-ups with real jobs in government are more pragmatic and open-minded...
new - "We are still waiting for the GOP-led congress to introduce bills for creating American jobs and improving life of Americans"
That's why they're repealling Obamacare, outlawing earmarks, and cutting the budget.... you've been waiting for 2 years while BO pushed his personal agenda and spent like a madman all the while ignoring it to blame every problem on Bush. Welcome to reality.
dangerfield-
Any thoughts on the demise of the DLC?
MB-
Well, as I could be labeled a Clinton-centrist democrat, what do you think?
After President Obama's election, I expected the democratic party would experience something similar to what happened in the republican party in the 1960's when the "Rockefeller"-centrist republicans were ousted by the more conservative wing.
The same thing seems to be happening, in reverse, to the democratic party with the DLC. I was (shocked, I'm sure) a member, a contributor, and saddened...
dangerfield-
That's pretty much the reaction I would expect from you.
On this end, it simply looks like a wholly inappropriate reaction to the midterm elections.
If the two events are unrelated...well, that only makes it worse, eh?
Bag
I'm not the one that continually tries to reduce issues to simple-minded left versus right false dichotomies. You are. I've repeatedly said that there are a number of moderate Republicans like Eisenhower that I admired. I once tried to get the rightwingers on this blog to concede that taxes can be too low after acknowledging they can be too high (which they were at the end of Ike's administration but certainly aren't now after Obama's tax cuts). Not a single righist would concede that taxes could be too low.
If you can call that being a left wing ideologue, it only proves you're either an ignoramous, a rabid right-wing ideologue, or just a troll.
As for the public voting in the Repubs, people voted them into power to do something about the jobs situation because they believed the Democrats' approach was ineffective. I think a lot of people are going to get buyers' remorse after they realize the Repubs are going to waste their time on witch hunts in the Obama administration and hot button social conservative issues when they're not taking off for the 4-month vacation they've rewarded themselves with.
You'll need to come up with a whole lot more examples of your inherently moderate nature to have even so much as a prayer of making that sale, Houston.
In recent days you've called me an "intellectual weakling", an "idiot", "simple-minded", "an ignoramous", and referred to my "stupidity"...all, I would argue, outstanding examples of the true degree of your inclinations toward moderation and civil discourse with those whose politics you disagree with. And then...without ANY self-awareness whatsover (lol!), you describe ME as "nasty". Hilarious! No wonder you're utterly unable to detect the presence of left-wing hypocrisy, Houston.
Truth is...
The only fair accusation you can reasonably level at me, Houston, is that I occasionally allow you to drag me down to your level.
Guilty as charged.
;-)
Republicans ran on a promise of fiscal conservatism and bringing jobs to Maine, but so far it's been more like they are offering bread and circuses to their numbskull base.
Today's headline from the Bangor Daily News is "LePage bars fire marshall from hearing on Maine fireworks bill." Our Tea Party administration favors making the sale of firworks legal in Maine, you see, and the fire marshall's office, strangely enough, is opposed to this, as is the Firefighters' Association, medical and opthamologist organizations across the state.
Currently, Mainers who want something stronger to set fire to than than sparklers, have to go to New Hampshire to buy their bottle rockets, roman candles, etc. Oddly enough, you can purchase fireworks in NH, but you can't use them without a permit. It appears that fireworks are dangerous to life and limb (and children), so New Hampshire prefers they be used in Maine.
The Tea Party, however, thinks the $400,000 a year in potential sales tax they would bring Maine is all worth the pain and suffering and increase in fire fighting and medical costs the widespread use of fireworks in Maine will bring. And they don't want to hear from no sissy Fire Marshall 's Office to the contrary. Yup, Republicans won a majority in the Maine legislature because of the recession, and they are governing like a bunch of adolescents who finallly got the keys to their Dads' car.
Amy -
The law in Pennsylvania is very similar to New Hampshire's - it's okay to sell the really dangerous stuff here, but PA residents aren't allowed to buy them, which is why there's a fireworks superstore on I-95 at the first exit north of the Delaware state line. I've never understood it either, so I just finished reading the article you mention. Speaking of things I don't understand, how about this rationale from Governor LePage's legal counsel about WHY they're banning the fire marshall from the hearings:
"That’s because Gov. Paul LePage — whose administration supports the sale and use of some consumer fireworks — did not allow anyone from the State Fire Marshal’s Office to testify before lawmakers Monday. The fire marshal’s office has consistently opposed similar legislation in the past.
“In his role as fire marshal, [John Dean] has offered testimony on similar bills in the past, and I don’t think it would be fair to him to ask him to express an opinion contrary — well, not exactly contrary — to what he has said in the past,” said Dan Billings, Gov. Paul LePage’s chief legal counsel, on the administration’s decision not to allow Dean to testify".
I think I speak for both of us when I say......"Huh"????? It wouldn't "be fair" to expect him to change his mind, so they were actually doing him a favor?
I've been enjoying your posts on the consequences of the "rush to judgement" last fall. Keep them coming! Reminds me of the old Kingston Trio song about Charlie and the fare increase on the MTA - "Citizens, hear me out! This.....could happen.....to YOU".
Wow, thank you Joanne in PA for taking the time to google the headline in our Maine paper. I feel like how Alaskans must have felt when Palin used their state as an example of the the Tea Party ideology in action. . .Look what is happening to US!
Mainers expected Republicans to "do something" about our financial situation when they gained the majority, but so far, they are focusing on repealing environmental protections, weakening the seat belt law, and now, legalizing the sale of fireworks, as an exciting way to raise renvenues. Another quote from that article:
Amy don't you think your hand ringing liberal Ideology of Knowing whats right for all us common people was thrown out in the last election ?
So what's going on with this bail out for some of the state, tucked into the budget? Some of the states that are cash strapped will not be required to pay back the loan for unemployment benefits. Anyone?
thetotas
So what's going on with this bail out for some of the state, tucked into the budget? Some of the states that are cash strapped will not be required to pay back the loan for unemployment benefits. Anyone?
Isn't it strange you're not questioning the money that Wall Street hasn't paid back or the tax payer dollars wasted by the House Oversight Committee Darrel Issa's with hunt on President Obama?
Understandably, you should worry about trillion dollar grants that rip our government . In some instances, these contractors have endangered the lives and well being of the men and women who serve our country in the armed forces. Address that fraud.
Department of Defense report outlines contractor fraud
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/02/department_of_d.html
OMG, It's nerve-wracking!!!
Tags...
Rich People;
Environment
What are you talking about. You bounce all over the place. Whats nerve wracking is how you go into these rants. I asked a question, simple. I dont beleive we should bail out the states. I am from California and I think its our responsibility to take care of us.
PS - I think Darrel Issa is doing a great job. We like him here in California, dont really know why you are so fixated on him, but I guess thats how you roll.
DLC: Honestly, this is a shame. I think having diversity of opinion within the political parties is important. Centrist groups from both sides can really help to get things done. Yes, they will tend to "infuriate the base"...but for the most part, things in Washington have to get done via compromise.
Jeb Bush: I said it before and I'll say it again. Jeb would have been a far better President than his brother. And honestly, I believe he'd make a good President. His biggest problem, unfairly, would be his last name and the fact that people will begin screaming "dynasty". Yet another shame.
Bill Kristol...bravo! His quote: "An American conservatism that looks back to 1776 cannot turn its back on the Egyptian people. We should wish them well -- and we should work to help them achieve as good an outcome as possible." That is spot on. I don't see what else the Administration can really be doing here. Did they get caught flat-footed? Maybe. I don't know. But honestly, let's leave politics at the coastline until more is known. If the President decides to put out a policy toward Egypt or the Middle East, fine, let's debate it. But right now, I just don't see what bold steps can or should be taken.
VP Hopefuls: I think the FR crew makes a really good point here. With the electoral victories in 2009 and 2010, the GOP "bench" is looking much stronger in many ways. Problem is, with only a year or two in office before campaigning begins in earnest, they are too new for 2012. But come 2016, I think we'll have quite a variety of candidates to choose from.
Happy Tuesday all!
Frank "Grimey" Grimes. Always enjoy your comments. I agree about Jeb Bush. He would have been a much better President than his brother. I just do not think America is ready for another Bush no matter how much some conservatives would like to erase our memory of George W. Bush, most people simply are not ready for another Bush. It was also good to see Kristol criticize Glenn Beck, it's about time.
I don't think the demise of the DLC will impact the democratic party all that much. What dictates blue dogs, moderates, and liberals is the state and area they represent. Democrats have always been a very mixed bunch from far left to middle to blue dog.
I don't think the Administration was caught flat footed as much as the media, pundits, opponents like to say. Were they surprised at the speed from Tunisia to unlikely Egypt--probably, but weren't we all. I doubt they were unaware of the simmering unrest. The Obama admin has been telling Mubarak to reform since taking office. I believe the intelligence saw warning signs but no one could say what or when something would "spark" the protest. I think the United States should only nudge, suggest, guide and help wherever possible--the last thing we need is to have Egypt's protests and reforms reflect "Made in the USA".
Great post, Frank. On the Bush family---I wasn't crazy about Bush the father, thought George W. Bush was a total disaster so I would be hard-pressed to try for the hat trick from the Bush family. I'm not anti-dynasty but there isn't enough of a positive track record for me, even if I agreed with his views.
Re: Egypt---what could the administration have done differently if it had any more advance intel on the uprisings? They have already been urging Mubarak to make reforms and step down. These are sovereign nations over there and this is one that has been an ally in our support of another ally, Israel--a country with no friends in the region. I'm not of the opinion they were caught off-guard but if they were I'm not sure it matters.
Steeler Fan and Jody...Thanks for the comments. Well done as always. I wasn't saying that I thought they were caught flat-footed. It seems to be a criticism that I don't think really has much bearing...the more important thing is watching to see what happens and deciding how to react from there.
Going away from the topics- sorry, but I remember St Reagan's cute-sy sounding "...Governmnet IS the problem" sound bite.
Does anyoune remember just WHAT problem he was describing back then?
nope
More great news from the socialist left - DLC is a failed organization. It should be against the law to use the word "Democratic" and "Leadership" together. Gives "leadership" a new meaning!
Bill Clinton to Meet With Blue Dogs Since They Don’t Seem To Understand Why They Were “Wiped Out” last Year………………..
Rep Ross
As I Understand It From many Democrats
Your Own Fellow Democrats Are Responsible For Half The “Blue Dogs” Not Getting Re-elected”
Because Blue Dogs Are “Republicans” Running Rogue As Democrats.
Blue Dogs Are About Getting Re-elected vs. Doing What’s Right for the American people
At least that’s how some of my Dem friends explained why they simply “SKIPPED” Blue Dogs On The Ballot
If this morning’s interview with Rep. Ross & Chuck Todd is any indication
The Rest of the Blue Dogs will Definitely be voted out during 2012 by your own party a situation of your own making
Thus Many Felt Since Blue Dogs Are Republicans, Why Cast A Vote For Blue Dogs, Just Skip Them On The Ballots, and they certainly did!
Major Democratic Organizations asked their supporters/contributors if they wanted them to spend Money On the Blue Dogs and the Dems Respondedly Loudly “No”
Apparently Rep. Ross thinks it’s because he and his gang were forced to vote on Necessary American Values Like “Health Care/ Environmental Issues………..He’s still Clueless………..perhaps this time as we understand it the Dems are planning to send a much stronger message to the Blue Dog Dems and remove the remainder from office.
News Flash:
Mr. Ross…………Dems nor did many Independents vote for the Blue Dogs, you and the gang failed to support the American People.
Former President Bill Clinton, whose work with Republicans angered fellow Democrats during his tenure in the White House, speaks to centrist House Democrats later today in New York as members of the Blue Dog Coalition plot a path forward
after nearly half of their colleagues lost or retired.
The surviving Blue Dogs could prove crucial to any bipartisan deal-making that plays out over the next two years, particularly with regard to deficit reduction.
But the barriers to cooperation remain high.
While members of the Blue Dog Coalition remain angry at Democratic leaders for forcing tough votes in the last Congress on health-care, climate-change and stimulus spending,
Comment: “Angry about being forced to take tough votes for the American People…………………..uh?
Translation: Doing the Right thing for our fellow Americans won’t get Blue Dogs Re-elected!
Comment:
Apparently The Blue Dogs Still Don’t Understand That They were elected by Dems & Independents as were others to Do What Was Best For The People…………….
Yet Rep Ross comes on this am
Still Whining about loosing because he & His Blue Dogs were forced to Cast Votes For Health Care
Ignoring that the American People Pay for Rep Ross’ & His Blue Dogss Health Insurance and for Republicans as well while they continue to take the same Health Insurance away from the very American people the Taxpayers who pay for their families Health Insurance.
“These conservative Democrats have little love for the Republicans who targeted them and their colleagues in the last election.”?????????
WRONG!!!!!! DEMS & Independents Removed Over Half OF the Blue Dogs AS THEY SHOULD HAVE AND WILL AGAIN IF THEY PLAY THE SAME GAMES!!!!!!
“The Blue Dogs are working to find ways to bring people together to develop middle of the road, common sense solutions to our nation’s biggest challenges,” said Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, a leader of the group. Comment: Ross is the worst one and should have been voted out!
“If we have any hope of doing what the American people sent us here to do –
Comment: Rep Ross is really confused clearly That’s Not What Blue Dogs Did, They Worked Against The American People In Favor OF The RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Recent House Votes
Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act - Vote Passed (245-189, 1 Not Voting)
The House voted to repeal the 2010 health care law. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has vowed to block the bill in the Senate.
Democrat Rep. Dennis Ross voted YES......send e-mail or see bio
Actually, the name should be The Health Care Law Act. Adding the “Job-Killing “ into the title is the Republican-Tea Party putting as they always do a false spin.
As far as the Senate blocking the vote, well that vote happened and the Republican-Tea Party failed in the repeal.
“its current chairman, Harold Ford Jr., mulled New York Senate primary challenge against Kirsten Gillibrand -- from the right”
Harold Ford as Chairman and his Lack of leadership and the manner in which he conducted the NY run is utterly ridiculous.
Apparently Chairman applicants require little common sense or the necessity to understand the American people.
Blue Dog Democrats Only Requirement/Qualification seems to be “What Ever It Takes To Get Re-Elected”
third times the charm? all we need is another bush... first two raised taxes and took us back to war, with the second bush trying to deport the third bush's kin. what would this bush do that the other two didnt? maybe legalise marijuana? change immigration law to favor who's already here? open our doors to castro's cuba? equal opportunity for all same sex couples? who knows! im all for those so why not!
Before the DLC falls off the face of the earth, I'd like to nominate HOWARD DEAN as the only NUMBER ONE JERK HALL OF FAME MEMBER. Is there a more arrogant, pompus, aristocratic, JERK in America? I think not.
Congrats...............YOU @!$%#!
gojeaux. Wrong, the GOP is replete with arrogant, pompus, and greedy self aggrandisers.
Hey Patrick - How many GOP members are also members of the DLC? Name just one who is a member of the DLC and I'll concede (assuming he really is a Howardesq jerk)!
gojeaux. I guess you have to be a graduate of the Limbough Institute to understand your question. I pass.
NAH Patrick, just an I.Q. above 3!
Note to FR. In case you missed it. Americans paying lowest taxes since 1950.
Nearly half of all working Americans pay no federal income tax, so that would be as low as it can go for that segment of workers in America.
Do people think that's okay, or do those people need to pay their "fair share"?
American’s (all classes from rich to poor) are currently paying a smaller percentage of their pay toward Federal income tax than any time since 1950.
This fact has nothing to do with who pays taxes and who doesn’t – it’s a percentage of pay, tax rates and tax tables.
Unions are the most important advance ever made in the industrial countries. Compere the standard of living between countries where unions were organized and those were unions were suppressed.
Hey Patrick (again) - know your history? Look at Europe; Greece, Spain, France and Great Britian. How you think they ended up in the toilet.......fat, unreasonable, labor union demands and contracts. The history of these countries all have the same looking bell curve; from proverty, to prosperity back to poverty. We, like the European countries are on the declining side of the bell curve, thanks to labor unions. How can any one, any country, expect to contribute peanuts to their retirement well being and then retire like kings.
gojeaux. They ended up in the toilet for the same reason we ended up there (thanks to Obama we are on the road to recovery) They allowed their financial markets to bring them to brink of ruin. But the one thing most Europeans do not have to worry about is going bankrupt paying health care costs.
I noticed you did not mention Germany. Is that because their economy is booming, and they have very Strong unions?
Gojeaux -- what do you mean by "contribute peanuts to their retirement well being and then retire like kings?" Would that apply to CEOs like Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina as well? Did they put in proportionally the same amount as a union worker did to get proportionally the same amount of benefits for "living like kings?" Unions came about precisely because employers were not treating people with dignity.... in much the same way that "undocumented" workers are treated now. Without a collective bargaining agreement, employers tried to undercut each employee, to get as much labor for as cheaply as possible, and employers let people go on a whim because labor (immigrants, and then freed slaves) was cheap. Why do people today continue to hire undocumented workers? It couldn't be because without a law to "burden" them to offer a fair wage, they want to maximize profits, not worry about providing for the labor force (health insurance, workmen's comp)? If people have pension funds that they haven't had to contribute to, it is most likely that the pensions were agreed to in exchange for lower wages up front, so people DID contribute more than peanuts -- they agreed to work for less money up front in exchange for more money down the road.
Hey Kate (let me see where to start):
We can agree to disagree -- the main thrust of my comments refer to public employees (municipal and state) like police officers, fire fighters, teachers, sanitation workers, and town office workers, since it is those pensions which are affecting state and municipal budgets. Auto workers are part of the private sector. Why shouldn't they bargain to get the best deal they can? That's what the CEOs and others do all the time -- bargain for the best deal. An auto worker even putting on fenders is using sophisticated, computerized equipment and the fender is going to protect the passengers in that car and will probably cost $1500 to replace. Why shouldn't the person in that job make $20 or $30 an hour?
How much money do people think a police officer should be paid? It's a dangerous job, requires education and training and one has to qualify through exams. It's unlikely one could remain active in the same job for more than 20 years (just like the army, where one can retire after 20 years). Cities could pay officers their value up-front, or they can agree to bargain and pay them less, but offer them more inducement to stay on the job by offering a great pension plan. Just because the city can't take care of its revenues (by better investment, better decisions or increasing taxes) it does not have the right to try and change the terms of employment.
I just saw a survey on a tv screen where I was that asked: What would be most important to you in considering a candidate for the GOP nomination? 29% said 'agrees with my views on issues' versus 68% that said 'could beat Obama'.
The Right is concerned with issues, my ass. The only issues they are interested in is: how much MORE can I have for ME, and how can we defy the 'will of the people' (remember us- the voters??) even MORE?