Conservative VS Liberal

[pattygreen 5]

This is not true. I have said that ground zero for the tea party is their hatred of Pres. Obama because he is (1) a progressive democrat - and their guy lost and (2) there is now a black man in the white house.

I stand by that analysis and the posts I have made by columnists who have anaylzed the statistics bear this out. This isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of many. Many see the tea party movement as rooted in racism.

Now, if the shoe fits, wear it - as the saying goes. The fact that you protest so much just means that once again I have struck a nerve and you as usual are trying to deflect.

I have proven with your quotes that you have called me a hater and racist so quit saying you haven't or that it's only in response to my post. That doesn't matter. You either said it to me or you didn't. And you did. The whole "she said it first" (I didn't) childish excuse doesn't fly.

Nice try. I know, and God knows, the truth and that's really all that matters. You have been calling the right haters and racists from day one. There is NO denying that. I called you it back when you kept insisting that you were justified in calling the tea partiers those names. Because you were so insistent that we were haters and racists, I put it back on you. I said it was YOU that was a racist and a hater, not them. Also, when I said that I never called anyone a hater or a racist before, I also said "anyone BUT Cleo'smom."

[pattygreen 5]

AP poll suggests growing support for healthcare law

By Julian Pecquet - 06/17/10 09:29 AM ET

The Obama administration is touting a new Associated Press-GfK poll that suggests growing support for the healthcare reform law. The poll notes that while Americans remain divided — with 45 percent in favor of the new law and 42 percent opposed — support has been growing steadily since reform was signed into law in March; just last month, opponents still outnumbered supporters 46 percent to 39.

"The Obama administration has been working diligently to implement the new legislation," notes a White House official, "with the president and his team acting quickly and carefully to deliver the benefits of reform to the American people and answer their questions."

In particular, The Associated Press reports, support has been growing since May among men (from 36 percent to 46 percent in favor), working-age Americans between 30 and 49 years old (from 35 percent to 49) and even Republicans (8 percent to 17).

That's old news! This report was in June. My report was just the other day.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

pgreen's post: I don't 'hate' anyone or call people haters. You can't prove it, and that is the reason for why you wont spend the time to pull anything up from the past, not cause you don't want to, but cause you can't! Cleo'smom has repeatedly said that the tea partiers are hateful racists. SHE is the one who uses the hate word over and over. NOT me. If I have used it, it is to defend her accusations of Hate.

So, as you can see, It was Cleo'smom who called me a racist and a hater eons of times prior to this post of mine that she puts up here and I all I did was just turn the tide on her an call her the hater. Like I said, I have never called anyone or a class or group of people haters, EXCEPT CLEO"SMOM WHEN IT WAS IN DEFENSE OF HER CALLING ME A HATER OR A RACIST. Notice how I emphasized in the post the words you. "YOU are the racist!" "YOU are the hater!" I did that because she was previously calling ME a racist and a hater.

Nice try though.

Here's where you deny it and I have proven that this is a lie with my post of your quotes in which you call me a racist and hater.

I want you to do the same and find the posts where I have called you a racist or hater.

I don't deny what I have said about the tea party movement and I stand behind my opinions of them. Like I have said, these opinions are shared by others who have done research and polling. So I am hardly alone.

You make sweeping generalizations about liberals all the time. In many of your posts.

And it's more than a nice try. It's the truth. Unlike you I PROVE my points. :thumbup:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

That's old news! This report was in June. My report was just the other day.

Two different polling places. Apples and oranges. Everyone knows it's how you word the question.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

July 20, 2010 2:57 PM Poll: Voters Prefer Generic Democrats Over Republicans

According to a Gallup poll released yesterday, Democrats have taken a six point lead over Republicans in generic ballot preference for the upcoming midterm elections.

The poll, conducted last week, shows that voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a 49 to 43 percent margin -- the first statistically significant lead for the party since Gallup began tracking the trends weekly in March. Prior to yesterday's poll, support had been leaning in favor of Republicans, who held a four-point or higher lead in three of the polls.

According to a statement by Gallup, the finding is attributable largely to a shift in the preference of independents. While Democratic and Republican support for their own parties remained steady, independent support for Democrats increased five points, from 34 percent to 39 percent.

It is unclear what the cause of this shift was, but one possibility could be the passage of the mammoth financial reform bill last week. A recent CBS News poll indicated that 59 percent of independents said they supported increased government regulation of banks and financial institutions

[Cleo's Mom 257]

More republican hypocrisy: I guess they only want transparency from Democrats.

REPUBLICANS GETTING ALL UP IN EACH OTHERS' BIZ-NESS - Looks like the whole unified front thing is hitting a bit of a snag. "Several House Republicans are balking at a request by their leadership to offer up a copy of their August schedules for a GOP Conference online database. 'My constituents know how to find me,' Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said. 'I'm listed in the phone book.' GOP leaders have asked Members to submit their schedules as part of their 'America Speaking Out' agenda project, but some Republicans said doing so would only create opportunities for their opponents to embarrass them...Likewise, Rep. Mike Simpson said he would not be submitting his schedule to leadership either, in part because he felt it was not 'the Conference's business.'" CQ:

Not the "conference's business"??? It's MY business. Everything you do as a congressman is MY business, you arrogant hypocrite. I am your employer. :thumbup:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

E.J. Dionne Jr.: The car industry bailout is working

And Presidents Bush and Obama deserve credit. It's time to stop the slur of 'socialism.'

Monday, August 02, 2010

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Drive time: President Obama at the Jefferson North Chrysler Plant in Detroit on Friday.

WASHINGTON -- Who could have imagined that the bailout of the auto industry, one of the single most unpopular moves by the Obama administration, would become one of its best talking points?

But don't for an instant imagine that the comeback of the nation's rescued car companies, particularly General Motors, will change the way we debate government's role in the economy. When it comes to almost anything the government does, ideology trumps facts, slogans trump reality, and loaded words ("socialism") trump data.

Let there be no mistake: rescuing GM and Chrysler took political courage, and I want to put in a good word not only for President Barack Obama but also for George W. Bush.

True, Mr. Bush's electoral career was over in December 2008, when he extended $17.4 billion of TARP money to keep the companies alive long enough to give Mr. Obama a chance to act. Still, it took guts for Mr. Bush to decide not to "leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office."

Yet it was Mr. Obama who put in the bulk of the cash -- in all, Mr. Bush's input had grown to $25 billion before he left office while Mr. Obama put up an additional $60 billion -- and created the tough restructuring plan.

Both presidents faced broad public resistance. A CNN Poll in December 2008 found that 61 percent of Americans opposed the bailout; only 36 percent supported it. When Mr. Obama acted two months later, a Gallup Poll found 72 percent opposing the additional money for the auto companies and only 25 percent in favor.

At the time, I was in the bailout-supporting minority because a collapse of the car industry would have devastated an already ailing Midwest. Enterprises dependent on the auto firms would have come crashing down. A White House report last week concluded that 1 million jobs would have been lost if the government had not intervened, and some estimates last year went much higher.

The decision to lose one of our core manufacturing sectors would also have been irreversible -- a severe enough threat that even Bush, the staunch free-marketer, wouldn't let it happen. That's why the Obama administration is bragging a bit about the 55,000 auto jobs added since last June. "The auto rescue," White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who met with a group of columnists last week, said, "is a great example of how the administration's policies helped lead to a turnaround in the industrial base of our country."

The arguments against the bailout were predictable but not unreasonable. Many suspected that government would inevitably make politicized choices: plant-closings determined by political influence and Obama favorites on company boards pursuing pet administration projects at the expense of sound business judgments.

This didn't happen. Even though the administration lost one fight when Congress voted to protect the interests of the auto dealers, the White House let the automakers behave like private companies. Ron Bloom, a major architect of the restructuring, told the columnists: "For the last nine or 10 months, we've kept our hands off of it." Directors, Mr. Bloom added, were chosen for their business expertise, not for their politics.

Ironically, Steve Forbes, the former Republican presidential candidate, confirmed the administration's story in an opinion piece in Politico last week, whose purpose was to deny Obama any credit for the auto industry's comeback. "GM's management," Mr. Forbes said, "is using solid, conservative, free-market management principles to get the company back to long-term profitability." But this is exactly what opponents of the bailout said could never happen if the government stepped in. By Mr. Forbes' own testimony, they were wrong.

That's why President Obama could declare at a Chrysler plant in Detroit on Friday that "for the first time since 2004, all three U.S. automakers are operating at a profit," meaning that taxpayers are likely to recoup most of their investment and possibly more.

Might practical-minded business people now admit that there are occasions when government intervention can be good for capitalism by saving it from some of the very forces it unleashes?

OK, Wall Street is full of whining ingrates who would have been wiped out absent government help. Many business folks ignore how much they depend on effective government so they can keep complaining about taxes and regulations.

But honestly: without government, we would have lost large parts of our auto industry. Doesn't this matter to anybody?

Good thing Pres. Obama didn't listen to the poll numbers and instead did what was right for this country.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Keep in mind that these are the people that the republicans want to extend the tax cut to. A tax cut that is not paid for and adds to the deficit they keep yapping about.

Also keep in mind that the argument that these people create jobs is a fallacy.

Do the Rich Even Need the Rest of America Anymore?

Yves Smith

Naked Capitalism

August 3rd, 2010 12:31AM

Robert Frank at the Wall Street Journal contends that the rich don't need the rest of us all that much (hat tip reader Don :blushing::

Late last year, the U.S. economy experienced a surprising decoupling.

As stocks boomed, the wealthy bounced back. And while the Main Street economy was wracked by high unemployment and the real-estate crash, the wealthy-whose financial fates were more tied to capital markets than jobs and houses- picked themselves up, brushed themselves off and started buying luxury goods again.

Who knows what the next few months and years will bring. But one thing seems clear: the economic fate of Richistan seems increasingly separate from the fate of the U.S.

Some argue that the decoupling has gone even further. Michael Lind, a policy director for the Economic Growth Program at the New American Foundation, argues in Salon that

the American rich no longer need the rest of America

.

He says

the wealthy increasingly earn their fortunes with overseas labor, selling to overseas consumers and managing financial transactions that have little to do with the rest of the U.S. "A member of the elite can make money from factories in China that sell to consumers in India, while relying entirely or almost entirely on immigrant servants at one of several homes around the country."

This is an interesting line of PR. To the extent those at the top of the food chain believe it, and better yet, can get the great unwashed to buy into it, the more they will be able to get their way.

Yes, the rich increasingly live lives apart from those not in their economic cohort. But separation is not the same as independence. The Southern plantation owner had little interaction with his slaves (his overseer took care of that), yet he clearly depended on their labor. The financial crisis resulted in the greatest looting of the public purse in history. While the banksters were the obvious beneficiaries, most of the rest of the rich were carried along with them. The sudden recovery in the fortunes of the wealthy was no accident, but the result of a host of policies to prop up asset values.

This line of thinking is hardly new. James Galbraith, in The Predator State, discusses how the corporate elite have come to serve their own interests rather than those of their companies, and have become adept at using the state to further their personal aims. Thus the profit potential of remaining engaged in the US (albeit at as much of a remove as the top echelon can manage) is too great to be ignored.

[BJean 16]

You know, don't you, that wealthy men confer with and back Rush Limbaugh, right? And we all know who is backing Fox networks and various newspapers and the other interests that Rupert Murdoch runs with an Iron fist. And that jerk oilman who claims "wind power" is his gift to America. And we know about many other extremely wealthy men who influence the Republican party and the Republicans in congress.

And that's who the tea party movement supports - and guess what? The tea party's roots are within the wealthy influence peddlers. They're intertwined, big time. And they've sucked in Americans who like to think of themselves as conservative, God-fearing, patriotic Americans. They love capitalism, hate welfare, are outraged at the thought of socialism in any form, think they should keep every dollar they make, etc., etc., etc.

Well if they had a clue they'd understand that the people they're supporting in congress and the money behind campaigns to destroy Acorn and the president and the speaker of the house and other Democratic politicans, is handled by the extremely wealthy billionaires, who do very little to provide jobs or pay taxes to help run this country.

And yes, Americans are becoming expendible to them. Or have already become expendible when it comes to the labor force.

When I was talking to the DirecTV folks the other day, trying to make some changes to my service, I was routed to a person whose job it was to clarify the order and make sure I understood the charges. I could understand about every third word she spoke due to her very heavy Indian accent. It was extremely frustrating and par for the course these days. What used to take about half an hour (at worst) took me most of 2 hours!

This used to be such a fine place to live, work and raise your family. Now it's turned into a fine place for billionaires to get richer and the middle class and poor are finding it more and more difficult just to keep their heads above Water.< /p>

[Cleo's Mom 257]

BJean: Everything you said is so true. Ed Schultz's book about the assault on and the decline of the middle class makes many of these points.

I am also reading another book that points out that employers don't need employees. We need employers for a paycheck, healthcare and retirement. They don't need us because they can overwork the employees they have, getting more out of each one. This is evident because despite the unemployment rate staying the same, GDP is up. And they also ship jobs overseas for cheap labor while enjoying our country's generous tax breaks for them.

And once again I have to ask - and those who support all of this is who some want to elect more of?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This morning I am exposing the republican hypocrisy, lies and misrepresentations, starting with this:

There They Go Again: Two Senators Continue False and Misleading Attacks on Recovery Act

Posted by Jared Bernstein on August 03, 2010 at 09:53 AM EDT

This morning two senators—John McCain and Tom Coburn—released their third report critiquing 100 Recovery Act projects. And just like the last two, this one was an inaccurate and misleading attack on programs that are putting Americans to work across the nation. I’ll present some details in a moment, but it’s very unfortunate that, once again, instead of trying to help create the conditions for stronger growth, to help build on the momentum of the Recovery Act, McCain and Coburn spend their valuable time cooking up phony critiques and, with their Republican colleagues, blocking votes of even bipartisan measures to help small businesses.

Let’s start with the bigger picture. Just last week two prominent, independent economists released a rigorous study on how actions by the government (and the Federal Reserve), including the Recovery Act, helped to end the Great Recession. One of the authors—Mark Zandi—was one of McCain’s top advisers during his presidential bid. He and Alan Blinder (a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve) found that the Recovery Act has created or saved about 2.7 million jobs so far, and shaved about a point and a half off of the unemployment rate.

These jobs are the result of over 70,000 projects in action around the country, of grants to states supporting jobs of teachers, police, and firefighters, of tax cuts for working households, loans to small businesses, and investments in innovative new industries producing advanced batteries, clean energy, and much more. They’ve helped reverse a situation where last year, we were losing millions of private sector jobs; in the first half of this year, we’ve added 593,000 private sector jobs.

Now, we’re always glad to take a second look at projects when concerns are raised. In fact, there’s never been a stimulus program of this magnitude with anywhere near the amount of oversight that’s been brought to bear on the Recovery Act. And when we find a problem, we fix it. We’ve shut down hundreds of projects that weren’t delivering the goods.

But the inaccuracy of McCain/Coburn in this regard renders this report just as unreliable as the last two. We followed up the projects in those reports, and found half of their claims to be flat-out false or misleading. Many of the others criticized worthwhile, job-creating projects. Check out this link and you’ll see that news outlets like CNN have debunked their claims in the past, often by simply going to the folks who were working on the project and learning about it:

In the current report, our review so far finds that five of the 100 projects are not even Recovery Act projects. And others are just blatantly wrong on the facts. Take for example an award that McCain and Coburn describe as “funding a WNBA Practice Facility,” when in fact the award is building a tribal government center that will create education and health facilities while also creating hundreds of jobs. Moreover, the tribe has agreed to disallow any commercial use of the facility.

One of their top critiques in the new report is a clean energy program in California that’s put about 50 people to work so far, expects to create 1,500 construction jobs, and then 500 permanent green jobs after that. Gov. Schwarzenegger praised the program, as did the Chamber of Commerce. What would McCain and Coburn say to these workers? That they shouldn’t have this opportunity? That they should go back to the jobless roles? That building a clean energy future is the wrong way to go?

What ideas does Senator Coburn have to offer to the 35,000 people working in Oklahoma who wouldn’t be there without the Recovery Act? What about the 64,000 Arizonans at work because of the Act?

Instead of answers, we’re left with a partisan attack contradicted by one of the author’s own former advisers. But that’s not all. We’re also left with a choice.

The President has shown he is willing to work with anyone who will join us to figure out new ways to create more jobs. The Vice-President spends each week making sure we’re squeezing job out of every Recovery Act dollar. Meanwhile, Republicans are blocking an up or down vote on a package of bipartisan proposals that would cut taxes for small businesses and allow them access to capital through community banks. It’s incredible, when you think about it: last week as they were working to turn out this hit-job of a report, these same two senators were voting against helping small businesses expand and create jobs.

Yes, we must carefully evaluate our progress, but we must do so without partisan thumbs on the scale. In that regard, the report these two senators are touting today is not a road map forward. To the contrary, it is one back to the failed policies that got us into this mess. We’ve tried that route. We cannot afford to go back there again.

Jared Bernstein is Chief Economic Advisor to the Vice President

And to think that McCain the flip-flopper was whom some wanted for president. He has changed his position on so many issues that he barely resembles the so-called maverick that he used to call himself, but now denies.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Next on the list is the republican lie that tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy, create jobs, etc.. You'd think that the fact that we've had the bush tax cuts for the rich in place for 10 years while losing 8 million jobs would squash this argument, but apparently not:

Rich Doctor Whines About Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts.

by Verbalpaintball

Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 03:39:49 AM PDT

From Robert Reich at HP:

During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when America's top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the nation's average annual growth was 3.7 percent. But between 1983 and start of the Great Recession, when the top rate was far lower -- ranging between 35 and 39 percent -- the economy grew an average of just 3 percent per year.

Supply-siders are fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan's 1981 cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. In fact, that boom followed Reagan's 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; it came in the wake of Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

Nonetheless, while the top 1% is far away from that 92% income tax, the well-off are still whining about their poor earnings as a result of a tax increase that HASN'T EVEN HAPPENED YET.

Here's a typical buffoon responding in the comment area of that same article:

Whatever you say Berkely dude.

As one of the business owners that makes (joint income) over $250,000 year I don't care if my tax rate goes from 35% to 39.6%. Won't matter to me if capital gains goes up. Won't matter when you add another 4% on as a healthcare tax.

Won't matter when I'm reimbursed at Medicare rates for the care I provide for everyone, not just those over 65. Doesn't matter that I still have to pay ever increasing Malpractice rates and business expenses and my business mortgage stays the same

I'll just have less to bonus and pay my employees. Less to put into my SEP (and theirs). Less to put into my local community and economy.

I'll just give it to Uncle Sam, he will spend it better than me.

Not one to let a perfectly bogus claim stand, I responded as follows:

First of all, if you are making a salary of $250,000, as a business owner your gross income is more (I am a business owner, so you can't fool me there). If you're a smart business owner, that extra income is in the form of company shareholder profits or dividends (at a tax rate of 15%).

Now, you're a doctor of some sort, so the Medicare reimbursement issue is certainly a concern, but this tax increase ONLY affects your taxable income.

Furthermore, as a business owner you have expenses. Mine take my taxable rate down about 10% every year. How about you?

I'll tell you how the Bush tax cuts have affected me. It wasn't in the pittance I got back in my pocket, but the increase in property taxes in my state through the reduced revenue. What was $3,800 in 2003 is now $8,400 this year. That's the legacy of the Bush tax cuts.

As far as you not being able to pay your employees bonuses, well, that's an issue of company profits and not your taxable income. Either you know this or are trying to be deceptive. There are other factors that affect profits, but your small salary increase won't be one of them.

And that's really the crux of it. The rich will complain, even though their taxes will remain the same.

This is how my accountant assesses it:

If income taxes go up, pay yourself less. If they go down, pay yourself more.

This guy owns his own business, so he has that luxury. As a Doctor, sure, he has to deal with a decrease in Medicare payments. As an employee, he has to deal with an increase in healthcare tax. But the issue with many Doctors (particularly General Practitioners) is that the cost of business is too high to make a profit with malpractice insurance involved. In short, they can only make $150,000 instead of $200 or $300,000 or more like specialists can. Still in all, dissolving the Bush tax cuts have no effect on these problems at all.

What's lost in all of this, outside of the issue of where those government cuts went (property tax increases) are the fact that tax cuts do not create jobs. So, in short, those of us in the middle class have gotten screwed, pay more (over double in property taxes, like I have), and aren't seeing any new jobs coming from that rich 1% who are getting the true benefit from these tax cuts.

But the Republicans still push this stupidity, mainly because they have no respect for the intelligence of the American people, and their ties to business are too great to buck. Get a load of the initiative they proposed yesterday:

From HP:

The Economic Freedom Act of 2010 -- introduced by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) -- proposes deep tax cuts favoring the wealthiest in America, a reduction in regulatory oversight and the elimination of a federal tax on the estates of millionaires, which will allow wealthy investors to escape taxes entirely on a significant portion of their income.

Republicans say the bill will create jobs where President Obama's policies have failed to do so.

Michael Linden from Center For American Progress on this new act:

"This is almost five times bigger than Bush tax cuts were," Linden said. "It really represents a doubling down on Bush's economic agenda. Where he skewed his tax policy heavily to the rich, this would skew it even further even to the exclusion of the middle class."

Edited August 4, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Third on the list is that hypocrite McCain again, along with his darling Sarah Palin both of whom supported cap & trade during the 2008 election. Now they call it cap & tax and don't support it. More flip flopping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orlD9Sp57n4

Start at the 2:44 mark. Where did this guy go?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

Two different polling places. Apples and oranges. Everyone knows it's how you word the question.

No. One month matters. Yours is Old news!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

No. One month matters. Yours is Old news!

As parent's under 26 year old kids get to stay on their policies next month and seniors start to get $250 donut hole checks and the uninsured with pre-existing conditions can start to get insurance in high risk pools (for the time being) you will see those numbers approving of healthcare reform go up. And when they get to see the lies for what they are.