McConnell to Obama: Americans don’t want your advice on fiscal responsibility

Partial article quote by Josiah Ryan of The Hill

“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday tore into President Obama's Wednesday speech on deficit reduction, saying the public doesn’t want advice from him on fiscal prudence.
'The American people are not inclined to take advice on fiscal responsibility from an administration whose unprecedented borrowing and spending has done so much to create the mess we are in,' said McConnell.
McConnell accused Obama of shifting from wanting to spend more to wanting to save more only because it’s politically expedient.”

Sounds to me like McConnell and Republicans are on the defense because Obama made it fairly plain in his speech that at the end of the Clinton Administration the Federal Budget was at a zero deficit, with a surplus projected to begin paying off the Federal Debt! Yes?

Obama also made a mention of how the Democratic zero deficit and surplus projection was thrown out the window by the Bush Administration through two big tax cuts (largely to the wealthy, or “My kinda people”, as Bush himself said), two wars (remember the “Shock and Awe”, “Bombs Over Baghdad” extravagant display for the media, that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, as the propaganda misled! Not to mention Bush said it would only last “a week”!), and a huge, unfunded addition to Medicare (maybe because he was coming up for re-election and wanted people to forget about how angry they were with him for trying to privatize their beloved program).

But what is really insidious is that driving the deficit and debt was a far right, economic projection and power plan from the beginning (and conveniently to include Bush's Medicare increase!) Starting with Reagan's economic advisers telling him that Union busting and running up the Federal Debt is not such a bad thing, and Bush's advisers literally told him that his colossal “debt is an investment in the US economy”, that it would raise the GDP. All this done so they could attack social programs in the future as being the cause of the government's spending (not revenue) problem!

And where was McConnell and not a small number of the current Congressional Republicans while the Bush era spending was going on? Voting yes for the $700,000,000,000 "Too Big To Fail" bank bailout.

See CookieBounces

Toxic Rhetoric

My sympathy goes out to the 14 survivors and 6 dead, their family and community. The assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon yesterday was a painful tragedy for our country. As Rep. Boehner said, " “I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff. An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve."
I'm sure the left is going to steam and press this horror on the right. Truly there are more factors in the murderer's motives than right wing vitriol. I mean the guy ranted about grammar and literacy, and in the process left most of us wondering, “What the hell is he trying to say?” Reading the guys rants makes me wonder if he was actually literate enough to read any of the socialist books he had listed as some of his favorites.
But surely, the vitriol and rhetoric that has turned Arizona into, at the least, a national spotlight of red eye, hate screaming, lie believing, gun toting... of huh... normal people, obviously can't blame the local loon for believing he is one of the few that just has the balls to follow through.
Will it stop Palin, Fox News and other right and extreme right from defending their 1st Amendment right to keep using inflammatory language? I mean that's what Americans like. Funny, snarky, cut-downs, and rolling with imagination of, “It's us against... THEM!” That's what most people like about Palin! Without it shes nothing.
I remember Olbermann ranting, “How dare you Mr. President!” And others saying Bush was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and somebody throwing shoes at him in a press conference (maybe because they couldn't get a gun past security?) The left definitely has their share of this craziness!
At least at this point, the left is talking about putting and end to it. Apparently Olbermann said he was going to watch what he says about the right from now on, considering the possibility of extreme leftists and other loons that may jump the gun. Will the rest of the left follow through with it?
Not to mention Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists, that have the same free speech rights as the rest of us? Should people like these be given radio air time to spread the fear? Do you think they will stop?
Personally, I get disgusted with all this crap! Especially during election time with all the hate commercials. American politics has turned to expert linguists to spin all the drama, hate, lies and fear. But this is what America likes... we just love all our snarky drama and violence. I mean what would we do without our WWE version of religion and politics?
If only Rep. Boehner's statement included "verbal" attacks... There doesn't seem to be much integrity, dignity, respect or even common sense in America anymore. Will we ever get our "normal" people to behave responsibly again? Let alone our politicians and especially our media?

Who's Your Buddy...

It's not just the average Joe that's outsmarted by Wall Street. These Harvard and Wharton grads play money like Mozart played the piano...those with the money will find ways around the laws, or persuade lawmakers to sell them loopholes... Does it really matter what kind of power regulators have if they can't or won't use it?

If the big banks (Citigroup, J P Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America... these alone received $25 to $45 billion... each!) ever get in trouble again, for whatever reason, don't you think we will bail them out again? Economists from most philosophies agreed that if we didn't bail them out in the fall of 2008, the possible consequences were huge. It ended up costing us $4.7 trillion in loans alone... I don't think that Senator Dodd's proposed $50 billion that the banks themselves are to put up will cut it.

The government shouldn't be trying to create regulations to keep the failures from happening, or to keep taxpayers from bailing them out... They should be focusing on the “big” problem. They shook the world economy!! The US taxpayers are not the only ones that had to bail them out... at least 10 other countries had to as well. Germany, France, Britain, Austria, Iceland, Ireland...

“Too big to fail” means... they're too big.

Congress needs to quit trying to fix the controversial and complicated “fail" end of the deal, and simply focus on fixing the “big" problem.

A simple law stating that financial institutions can only do this or that type of business, as a single business (remember how the Glass & Steagall Act worked so well for 66 years)...and they can only be this or that big... there you go... done! No more world economic catastrophes. No more giant bailouts... by anyone.

"In politics, if it takes more than a few sentences to explain something, you're in trouble!" Limiting the size of these institutions is the safest (not to mention cheapest) way to make sure that this never happens again. Limiting the size should be a world solution.

Call it “tough love” if you have to...

We Need A New Standard Of Politics

Having had connections with Tea Party groups from back in April of 2009, I am not surprised to see the recent aggressive behavior. In my first contact with TP web site discussions, it was about debt, bailouts and taxes that were the running issues.

I have watched it progress from being angry with congress all together, to being angry with this administration and democrats. Legitimacy of Obama's credentials was there in the beginning, but gradually built up momentum. (It has dropped significantly since.)

I have literally been silenced on Tp hosted blogs, no longer having links on the home page to my articles as it used to. This only happened when I first started defending federal healthcare reform effort for lack of state efforts and later rejecting Palin as a possible leader when the media called us leaderless.

Apparently I was to “liberal” for their (and I mean the organizers here) agenda, which I would call a political witch hunt. I spoke out about Fox News' biases and focused on Glenn Becks radicalism saying that they were being indoctrinated. Needles to say, that was the end of that... I had struck the holy grail.

When writing to my congresswoman and senators about news conferences, and theirs and other republicans comments, I received generic letters in return with no references to the subject. I wanted to know why they fed the fire and never tried to clear up any fears and misconceptions.

I have been around for far too long to completely expect anything different about these kind of politics. It was just a formality to determine if I would ever vote for them again.

I must say though, I truly think things have gotten away from them this time, and the party of no's 2012 elections plan may very well backfire on them to say the least.

What is Big Governent?

Everyday I hear the phrase “Big Government.” Surely if America were polled with the question, “Is big government: (a) good or, (b) bad?” you would get an overwhelming vote. But what does big government really mean? What would need to be cut from societies budgets and oversights to bring “big” down to “right size” government?

I hear many Republicans and Tea Partiers say they would like to see an abolishment of all welfare. “I don't want the government telling me I have to pay for their charity.” It's not a matter of whether it is federal or state charity, it's simply "no." And there is always the examples of those who abuse the system to point how it doesn't work. And the statistics show that they are right. But there is more than one side to blame.

My problem with the term “big government” is how it is used. It is blurted out as political propaganda to the masses with no defined meaning. It is used as an ambiguous big stick to wave around to thump anything that the user of the term dislikes and deems as unnecessary spending or regulation. As if it were a simplistic concept. Yea, I'm against big government!

How can any one person or group of persons decide what is necessary and what is not? Is it right for Republicans to stand and wave it around while they are not in power, yet do nothing to very little about it while they are? I never hear about big government while they are in power. Are all Democrats fiscal non-conservatives? The truth is both parties struggle with cut backs and tax hikes. It is a career jeopardizing job!

I believe the solution is though, that the voting public get off their high horse and start supporting their representatives. And I don't mean vote for them then abandon them. I mean get INVOLVED in the process. Attend the meetings where they say “OK, it will cost $X amount to pay for this service and we can save $X amount to cut on that one”. They are not psychic. Help vote on the options. Be willing to accept the cutbacks in your own services and not just someones else. Be willing to accept the necessary tax hikes when they come around. Accept the fact that your opinion will not always be in the majority. Stop being spoiled whining brats.

"Socialist Govenment Takeover" - Rage of the Nation

If anyone really wanted to know why the Health Care issue (and virtually every other piece of legislation) is going the direction it is, it would be necessary to consider the influence of Lobbyists. To not recognize the lobbying factor would be to close your eyes to the reality of today's politics. If you ever wonder WHY Republicans and Democrats are not "listening" to The People, here is why: http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/health.php.

A "Socialist Government Takeover" (not unlike "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and what all that entails) is simply a catchphrase, a label, or slogan that Republican spin politics have sarcastically pinned upon the "public option" aspect of the House sponsored Health Care Reform bill, i.e., the same insurance that Congress and all other Federal employees have, and similar in every way to State, County and City provided health insurance. The "public option" was just that; an option. Everyone would have the option or choice of private or public insurance. And I must mention here that, the "public option" was removed from the bill by the Senate in December of '09, and has not been a part of any other legislation since, nor will be, according to the Democrats themselves.

What is still in the Senate version of the bill is by no means Socialist. Rules that govern the way corporations, and in this case insurance companies, are allowed to behave is in no way different than any other laws in society that regulate the way individuals behave (laws for traffic and against theft come to mind.) If businesses are perpetrating exploitations upon individuals or society as a whole, The People, through City, County, State and Federal laws step in to regulate and/or impose penalties, the same as is done with individuals. In this case, insurance companies along with pharmaceuticals and hospitals have instituted price increases far outpacing national pay increases and inflation rates.

Government health care reform is not a new topic. When President Carter threatened tough cost containment regulation in the late '70s, the health care industry organized what it called the "Voluntary Effort." The rate of increase in the per-capita private-sector health spending fell rapidly, but then bounced back within a few years after the threat dissipated. Managed care and the threat of the Clinton health care reform plan appeared to have had a dramatic impact on the rate of increase in private health spending in the mid '90s, but by the late '90s it was once again on the rise, reaching double-digit rates of increase by 2001.

Threats to regulate have always resulted in temporary behavioral changes in the free market of Capitalism (also seen in the modest 3.2% increase from '07 to '08 because of presidential campaign promises), but has never caused them to develop lasting standards of integrity. And never, I might add, have any of the other previous threats of regulation on health care been labeled a "Socialist Government Takeover." Which brings back the question WHY. Why is the Senate bill still labeled as such? Why such an insidious (and apparently effective) scare tactic?

It's all about politics. It's all about power and who's going to be in charge. It's all about how to influence and motivate the public. Our elected public officials are the middlemen between two powerful forces: Lobbyists interests (both Corporate and Special) and their money vs. Public interests and their votes.

This is the very reason why Democrats are focusing their regulations on the insurance companies. Unlike the Republicans, they weren't persuaded or bought out (is that too harsh?) by Corporate Insurance Lobbyist interests. Does this reflect any virtue towards the Democratic Party? No, not by any means. They have been bought out by the Pharmaceutical and Corporate Hospital Lobbying, and you can bet there will be earmarks and loopholes in the 2000+ pages of that legislation. Check it out.