Uncommon, Common Sense

IN NASTY SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTIONS, SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE

2012-01-26T10:44:00.000-08:00

...A scene from South Carolina's checkered past

The Citizens-United decision has made big money the only important thing in up-coming American elections. Mitt Romney still has the money he needs to stay in the game, but will the “anybody but Mitt” voters eventually force him out?

When the polls closed in South Carolina on Saturday, the Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, happened to be in a Charleston hotel lobby where elegantly dressed couples were on their way to a black-tie event. A woman stopped and asked whether Eugene had heard anything about the election results.

“Newt’s winning big,” he said.

The woman’s face immediately fell. “But if Newt wins,” she lamented, “then Obama wins.”

As Eugene’s article then commented, “It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that America has known Gingrich for three decades — and [America] really doesn’t like him.” To support this comment, in a recent CNN national poll, with statements from Republicans, Democrats and independents, they confirmed that comment about Newt with 58% disapproval and 28% approval.

OK, so up to now, I’ve stayed out of the “Newt” thing except to report on various changes in his polling over the past months. The main reason was that I had thought (and really had hoped) that Newt was going to go the way of the Michele Bachmann’s and the Rick Perry’s.

But today, regarding Newt and his previous mistress (now his 3rd wife), Callista, I’m going to have to quote a saying from the popular 1982 movie, Poltergeist:...”We’re baaaack...!”

Yes, Newt Gingrich shocked the political world with his big comeback in South Carolina. But when one looks at it clearly, it all makes perfect sense. Newt is just a crazy rightwing extremist candidate who won a crazy rightwing extremist southern state. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be particularly shocked.

But as one popular radio talk show host said after Newt’s Saturday GOP primary win in South Carolina, “It looks like Newt Gingrich has come back from the dead! But then that’s how Newt Gingrich always looks! People are saying, ‘now, anything can happen!’ But let’s get real. Only two things can happen—Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich. So, it’s now obvious that nothing good is going to happen.”

South Carolina has always been full of lunatics who love to cause political trouble. This is a perfect match for Newt Gingrich.

Now, on the other hand, in going forward, the Floridians don’t have as much in common with Newt. And the Florida polls have confirmed that fact. In Florida, Newt Gingrich’s polling stats show radical up and down swings...kind of like Newt Gingrich’s personality. The frightening question is, could Florida possibly vote for a scary rightwing extremist with a history of terrible ethics problems? Well, yes they can as those Florida Republicans have done it before. And just when did they do that? Well, they did it in 2010 by electing that right-wing nut-case and Medicare criminal, Florida Governor Rick Scott.

The one good item that came out of the win for Newt in South Carolina is that Mitt Romney finally agreed to release his 2010 tax returns and his 2011 estimated tax returns. Unfortunately, the real telling returns would be those that were not “sanitized” for someone that was planning on running for president. But even the latest returns show that for a man that doesn’t work and just sits by the pool collecting his dividend checks, he paid about ½ the percentage rate of what the average American worker pays. If the public was able to see Romney’s tax returns from when he was back, working for Bain Capital, there might actually be some returns where Romney paid zero in taxes. Or they might show that his tax rate was under 10%, while you and I were paying 30-35% tax rates. This is the fairness issue that the president wants to change, but the Republicans in Congress don’t.

Perhaps the most important thing we learned in South Carolina is that Mitt Romney has real vulnerabilities. We’ve been able to see up close his poor handling of questions about his vast wealth, about how he earned it, and how little he pays on it in taxes. (Yes, it’s all legal, but is it right?)

And Romney still hasn’t answered the question as to why he has a pile of money parked in Swiss banks and the Cayman Islands…? (He says it’s not to avoid taxes, then why?) For someone that has been running for president for years, he has sure shown a major lack of campaign preparation. He even lost in the Iowa Caucus after spending millions in TV ads, and in South Carolina he was soundly beaten by one of the most unpopular politicians in the country.

On top of all this, due to his campaign mismanagement, Romney’s previous largest selling point, that he’s the “one who could best beat Obama”, is now in serious doubt. Yes, the polls had previously shown him running even with the president, but no more. And a couple of weeks ago, the polls also showed Romney 20 points ahead of Gingrich… and now, look what’s happened.

Newt Gingrich's winning speech right after the South Carolina results were in, had begun very respectfully. Of course, after the initial pleasantries were over, the fear-mongering, dog whistles, and bashing of Obama and the main-stream media were turned back on at full volume. Not surprisingly, the extremist Southern crowd responded to Newt with comments against Obama, all Democrats and local progressives saying gross things like, "Off with their heads!"

Yes, regarding South Carolina elections, some things never change.

And I continue to say, the next 10 months are going to be both interesting and most likely, very politically brutal.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE CONSERVATIVE’S VIEWS & THE TRUTH

2012-01-23T09:20:00.000-08:00

CNBC should be ashamed for only presenting one side of the argument on who pays US taxes, and why.

A friend of mine recently sent me a note about a conservative CNBC TV segment he watched called “The Tax Burden". My friend mentioned that the CNBC host was interviewing two guests, a man named Scott Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation and Tony Fratto, a CNBC contributor and Managing Director of Hamilton Place Strategies.

Here are a few comments made by the host in the introduction to the interview portion :

• Those making more than $150K make up the nation’s top 5% income earners
• If there was a 5% tax hike on those top 5%, it would only make a 3% dent in the US deficit
• 1/2 of all US individuals pay zero income tax
• The top 1% pay a greater share than everybody under $100K, combined

Per Mr. Hodge:
• We must broaden the tax burden - I'm a big fan of the Forbes flat tax
• US relies more heavily on top 10% paying taxes than any other industrialized country
• Our wealthy are over-taxed and our poor are under taxed by international standards

Per Mr. Fratto:
• 25% of US income earners pay 86% of all taxes. The richest pay more than a third
• Half of the country pays no taxes at all
• It's destructive to have so few people shouldering the tax burden
• We need to scrap our current tax code and start over
• Consumption tax urged

There was also an impressive statistical graph which plotted the percentage of the total tax burden from 1987 to 2007 comparing the TOP 1% to the BOTTOM 95%.

My friend then reminded me of the old saying that, “There are 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies, and using statistics.”

Finally, he suggested that as an opinion writer who occasionally takes on the US economy, I might find it interesting to see how the conservative financial media is casting our American tax issues.

Here’s how I responded to my friend as I sincerely demonstrated what he “did not, and would not be hearing from these conservative galleries”:

>>> In the 1950’s and 60’s, 28-41% of our nation’s taxes were being paid by US corporations. Today that percentage is between 7-18%. The burden today is instead placed on the shoulders of individual Americans. In addition, due to off-shore tax havens and tax loop-holes, corporations and those that have most of the income have found a number of currently legal ways to keep it. (And they are legal today, due to the many changes over the past 2 decades made possible by highly paid Washington lobbyists.)

>>> I also agree that we need to “scrap our current tax codes”, but for very different reasons.

>>> The reason that ½ of the country pays no income tax is because American wages have stagnated so much over the past 20 years. Due to that wage stagnation, many Americans today don’t even make enough to qualify for paying income tax.

>>> I’m sure that these two conservatives did not mention that the taxes paid by the top 1-2% in the US are the lowest they’ve been in decades. However, the top income earner’s incomes over the past decade have increased an average 150-275%.

>>> The last time the gap between the rich and the poor was as large as it is today was just before the 1929 Wall Street crash. (Is this all sounding familiar?)

>>> On the other hand, the average working American and the working poor do pay those taxes called “payroll taxes” (these taxes are the largest contributors of personal US taxes).

>>> These working Americans also pay sales taxes in those states that have sales tax. (As an example, in a recent purchase from a store in Atlanta, Georgia, my receipt showed a state sales tax, a county sales tax, and two district sales taxes for a total sales tax % of just under 10%.)

>>> I’m sure the “hosts” didn’t mention that the so called “flat-tax” or “consumption tax” is the hardest on the poor, while it is mainly inconsequential to most of the wealthy.

>>> The reason that “25% pay 86% of all taxes. & The richest pay more than a third” is that they’re the ones that make the income for being able to pay the taxes. If the average American’s wages had kept the same pace as they had from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, America’s tax base would be much more equitable.

I finished my comments to my friend by saying, “Don’t you just love those conservative pundits that only use the statistics that support their bogus statements, while ignoring the overall truth". (Kind of sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh and FOX’s Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer, and Bill O’Reilly.)

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

AMERICA’S DEMOCRATS STRIKE MAJOR GOLD ON JANUARY 19th, 2012

2012-01-21T17:06:00.000-08:00

...Willard “Mitt” Romney, the “Loser” in the South Carolina Republican Primary

Sometimes with luck, all the positive political events of a single day can just fall into an organization’s lap.

I guess I have to agree with the nation’s progressives who have seemed to be all over the nation’s airwave over the past 48 to 72 hours. Yes, it is very seldom that the Democrats get such a list of political gifts, and it is very rare to have all of them land in their lap, all on the same day.

Just look at the list of the positive events that happened on January 19th, 2012:

>>> The head of the Republican party in Iowa first announced that the Iowa Caucus was not won by Mitt Romney’s 8 votes over Rick Santorum. They instead said it was “a tie between Romney and Santorum” as they could not locate and confirm votes from 8 Iowa voting precincts. Then, just a couple of hours later, that same Iowa Republican leader announced that it was not a tie, but that Rick Santorum had actually won the Iowa Caucus by 34 votes. So now, Mitt is not 2 for 2, but 1 win and 1 loss.

>>> On the same day, Texas Governor, Rick Perry, who had said he was going to stay in the GOP presidential contest to the bitter end, the governor surprisingly announces that he was quitting the campaign and was also endorsing Newt Gingrich as his “conservative choice” for president.

>>> And it doesn’t stop here. Based on four separate political polls in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich was not only catching Mitt Romney, he was passing Mitt as the conservative Republican candidate of choice. (And he won!)

>>> But wait, that’s not all. On this same day ABC TV announces that they will be presenting a DATELINE interview with Newt’s second wife, just before the South Carolina Saturday primary, who in the interview says that Newt had asked her for an “Open Marriage” so that he could continue his affair with his now current 3rd wife, Callista. Of course, wife #2 refused and they were then divorced.

>>> And, while all this is going on, Mitt Romney continued to get assailed due to his previous comment that he would not release his tax returns; that he only paid a tax rate of about 15% (versus regular working American’s ~30% rate), and that his 1 year earnings of over $374,000, just for his speaking fees, was “not much money”. Mitt was also seriously “booed” at the South Carolina Republican presidential debate when he responded to questions about what he paid in taxes and that he only “might” release his tax returns, but not real soon, possibly sometime in April.

But, believe it or not, there’s actually more.

As you may be aware, next Tuesday, President Obama will be giving his 3rd State of the Union speech to the joint session of Congress.

Now, as always, the Republicans will also receive an early copy of the speech so that they can rebut the President’s speech, right after he has finished his presentation.

For a little background history, you might remember that the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal was the one chosen to give the response to President Obama’s first SOTU speech. Jindal’s response was so bizarre that the Louisiana governor went from being a potential rising star in the GOP to a position of relative obscurity.

You might also remember that last year, the crazy Minnesota US Representative, Michele Bachmann, gave an “unofficial response” to President Obama’s 2nd SOTU speech. In her response, she appeared to be hypnotized, she did not look directly into the camera and I don’t think anyone really remembered a word that she said due to her strange performance.

Well, the Republican party has once again selected a questionable Republican to give the response to next Tuesday’s SOTU presentation.

Their selection this year is the second term governor of Indiana, Mr. Mitch Daniels.

Now, why am I questioning the choice of such a well known Republican Governor that is continually presented as future potential presidential material? Especially when the conservative opinion writer David Brooks recently praised Governor Daniels for his “record of fiscal responsibility.”

So, what’s the problem?

For those of you with short memories, you may have forgotten that Mitch Daniels was President George W. Bush’s first Budget Director. Even FOX’s Chris Wallace pressed Daniels on the Fox News Sunday show when he asked: “When you came in, this country had an annual surplus for the first time in 30 years of $236 billion. When you left, two and a half years later, the deficit was $400 billion. You were also there when President Bush launched his Medicaid drug benefit plan that now costs $60 billion a year. I know there was a recession, but do you think it was wise -- at a time when we were fighting two wars -- to have two tax cuts and launch a huge new entitlement?"

And Daniel’s response: Daniels responded with, "It was a recession, two wars and a terrorist attack that led to a whole new category called homeland security," he said. "So nobody was less happy than I to see the surplus go away, but it was going away."

Daniels went on to tell FOX that we shouldn't even look at or consider his record from that era: "If you want to know what I think about fiscal issues, don't look at the 2 1/2 years when I was in the supporting [White House] cast with no vote."

Unfortunately, “that dog don’t hunt”. Daniels had backed tax packages that didn't work and that were a disaster for the federal budget; he backed putting the costs of the wars onto the national credit card in a way no previous administration ever had; and he backed expanding the federal role in health care without even paying for it.

Yet, somehow Daniels has become the "thinking man's" preferred GOP candidate…? But the current Republican crowd is backing the wrong horse.

And Daniel’s responses fail on many other levels.

It's very true that Daniels, as Bush's budget director, was helping “cook the books” during an economic downturn.

But you might recall that the Republicans have concluded that these economic details are irrelevant.

Since President Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, as far as the GOP is concerned, that's still not a good excuse for having large deficits today, even though they were mostly generated by the Bush administration. Therefore, the Republicans didn’t put two expensive wars and an unpaid-for drug bill on the budget, but when President Obama does, the budget deficit is all his fault. That’s an interesting and bizarre thought process at best.

But as usual, the key Republican politicians continue to promote Daniels as “Mr. fiscal responsibility”.

THE HILL newspaper, which is published in Washington while the Congress is in session, has also joined into the complimentary fray: "Governor Daniels, now in his eighth and final year as Indiana's chief executive, has compiled a solid record of effective government and fiscal responsibility, making him well-suited to outline Republicans' better solutions to the challenges Americans are facing in this struggling economy.”

Really? Where’s the proof for supporting that statement?

And the House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) joined in with all their compliments.

"As governor, he has turned deficits into surplus, reformed government from top to bottom, and created a better environment for private-sector job creation," Boehner said.

"An eloquent spokesman for limited government, Gov. Daniels knows that President Obama's three-year experiment in big government has made our economy worse and our future more uncertain, and he knows that Americans want a government that's simpler, streamlined and secure," Senator McConnell said.

On the other hand, with regards to last year’s SOTU speech, Daniels has admitted that he was not that interested in listening to it and that he had a different agenda for that day. He instead spent that evening watching a college basketball game and didn't even tune in later to hear the re-play of President Obama's remarks or the GOP’s rebuttal. (And this is who has been chosen to give the 2012 SOTU GOP rebuttal…?)

But mark my words, Governor Mitch Daniels will become an even better known and disliked Governor when the up-coming 2012 Super Bowl is played in his home town of Indianapolis on February 5th.

It seems that the good governor has really “pissed off” a lot of his constituents and other American labor union members. He has recently gone from being a governor that was supported by many of the states labor unions to today, sponsoring a bill for making Indiana an “anti-union, Right-to-Work” state.

The highly influential NFL Players Union is very much against what Governor Daniels’ is trying to do in Indiana and there will be some major demonstrations from hundreds of union members from all over the country when the Super Bowl comes to Daniels’ home town.

So, apparently, the choice of Governor Mitch Daniels as the GOP rebuttal presenter will probably also be added to the list of fortunate events for America’s progressives, and it all occurred on January 19th, 2012.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY THERE ARE NO "REASONABLE REPUBLICANS" RUNNING IN 2012

2012-01-19T08:18:00.000-08:00

...New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, who rightfully turned down running in 2012

But why doesn’t the main-stream media just tell the truth to the American public about this issue?

Recently, a number of the well known op-ed writers have been writing questioning columns asking, “Why were there no serious Republican candidates running against President Obama?” They seriously have written that, instead of the current “whack-a-doodles” like Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Cain and Santorum, why didn’t Ryan, Daniels, Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush or Petraeus jump at the chance to run ?

Really? They are still asking this question???

With all that is happening in this bizarre campaign season, these writers seem to be grasping for this kind of question at a time when they should be having real problems in deciding on what excellent political gem to write about that’s already out there on an everyday basis.

And on the other side of the politics, the “off-the-wall” pundits on the far-right just continue keeping the average American from taking them seriously.

As an example, some of the “righties” latest subject selections are just so “out there" that in a recent column from a regular FOX contributor, (that I will not dignify by mentioning his or her name). Instead of dealing with the serious issues of the eventual up-coming party debates, this writer makes a big deal by complaining about the hair-do of the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)...?

And this same individual also wrote a piece saying that they agreed with what the US Marines did when they desecrated the remains of the dead Muslim insurgents in Afghanistan.

Oh yes, let’s impress the other countries around the world by urinating on the rules of war for all civilized nations as stated at the Geneva Convention and as directed in the US Military Handbook.

But, getting back to that original bizarre question regarding the “lack of serious Republican candidates”.

Let’s get real. When one looks at running for president in 2012, what sane individual, even in the GOP, would really want to become president with what they would have to deal with if they actually won ?

Let's look at what they would inherit if a GOP candidate became president today:

>>> An economy that their own party had driven into the ditch over the past 2 decades.

>>> A country that due to their previous de-regulations, caused the worst economic disaster since 1929.

>>> A high unemployment rate that is not where it should be due to the GOP blocking of all the possible bills in congress that would have helped the nation’s economy.

>>> A nation where the conservatives on the US Supreme Court have said that corporations are “people”.

>>> A nation where the Republican Governors that were elected in 2010, currently have such record-low approval ratings, that they are either being re-called or they will probably not survive in their next election.

>>> But the main reason that any capable or rational potential GOP candidate has been running away from being a 2012 presidential candidate?

In the current shadow of the devastation as provided by the last Republican president and his Republican Congress, just what positive accomplishments or vision for the future does that same Republican party have to offer those American voters that were so devastatingly affected by the GOP’s past mismanagement?... Answer: Absolutely None.

>>> Do they have a positive vision or plan for stopping the “too big to fail” banks and Wall Street from once again doing what they did the last time?... No they don’t.

>>> Have they offered any jobs bills in the House or the Senate for dealing with our failing infrastructure and our schools, bridges and roads that are in the process of crumbling to the ground?...No.

>>> Do they push to go to war (again) in the middle-east by promising to attack Iran, which would probably cause the Iranians to cut off the oil going through the Straits of Hormus causing gas prices to double or triple?...Yes they do.

>>> Do they support an oil pipeline going across the middle of America that, other than providing some temporary jobs, would mainly benefit Canada and other nations, but not the United States? (And a pipeline that would be a major security issue and a perfect target for a potential terrorist attack)...Yes.

>>> Do they have any ideas for covering the 40 million Americans that still do not have health care coverage?...No.

>>> Have they stated that they want to replace Medicare with a voucher program that would not work for anyone with a pre-existing condition?...Yes.

>>> Do they support continuing the economy that have made the gap between the rich and the poor the widest since just before the 1930’s Great Depression?...Yes.

>>> Do they support the idea that “corporate money is a form of free speech”?...Yes.

>>> Did they agree that they would not raise taxes on the very rich for any reason?...Yes.

>>> Have they put getting rid of the current Democratic president above helping average Americans and the US economy?...Yes.

>>> Do they want to keep the Defense Budget at levels that will bankrupt the nation?...Yes.

>>> Do they want to privatize Social Security?...Yes.

>>> Do they believe that government cannot help the nation’s economy by creating any jobs, even temporary ones?...Yes.

>>> Do they believe that moving jobs off-shore is a good idea?...Yes.

>>> Do they believe as Herbert Hoover did that the market will eventually cure itself?...Yes.

And this is a just short list of the reasons that no reasonable or capable Republican agreed to be a 2012 GOP candidate. Why would anyone with any common sense, from the past failed Republican party, even consider being a candidate in 2012?

And why do the nations columnist on either side of the political spectrum not take the time or make the effort for offering this information to the American public.

It’s a real mystery.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

SOUTHERN POLITICS MAKES NEW ENGLAND PRIMARIES LOOK LIKE HIGH SCHOOL ELECTIONS

2012-01-14T07:39:00.000-08:00

...Governor of South Carolina, Ms. Nikki Haley

Southern primary elections are more like Chicago politics, instead of the civilized elections of New Hampshire and New England.

“A snake-pit for politics”, “A state known for their whisper campaigns”, “A southern state where “ugly” thrives and people say horrible things in hushed tones”, “A devoutly religious, but dirt-poor Christian state that thrives on negative rumors and personal attacks.”

And just where did all these negative comments come from?

These are things that have been said for years about the very questionable politics of the state of South Carolina. And later this month, this state will be having its Republican presidential primary, so the whispers and hushed tone are already being heard across neighborhood fences, around those morning cups of coffee and over those many glasses of beer after work.

So, what would make me say this about the politics of that particular state?

Well, let’s look at the recent political history of South Carolina.

>>> Political candidates in South Carolina have been ambushed with accusations for years. And many of the negative accusations have ranged from being just slightly distorted to being totally invented. It was during the South Carolina Republican presidential primary race in 2000 that the famous robo calls asked voters whether they were aware that Senator John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. (“Bush’s Brain”, Mr. Karl Rove, is rumored to have come up with this one.) This was a disgusting twist on the real fact that McCain and his wife Cindy had an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. It was probably also the main reason that McCain lost to George Bush in that South Carolina primary.

>>> In 2008, a state Senate campaign secretly paid an undocumented immigrant to infiltrate a work crew painting the house of an opposing candidate. They then accused him of hiring illegal workers. The accused lost the election.

>>> Two years later, then-candidate Nikki Haley was hit with two charges of adultery in the last days before her run-off race for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. Several of her critics, including a party official supporting her opponent and an evangelical radio host, also raised questions about her sincerity as a Christian. (Haley, who was born in South Carolina of Sikh immigrant parents, had become a Methodist after marrying in 1996.) The attacks were not enough to keep Haley, a favorite of the local Tea Party conservatives, from winning the governorship, but the election was close.

>>> “We have a rough-cut side to politics that really doesn’t fit with the gentle nature of the people who live here,” said former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford (R), who managed to serve out his final term despite being caught in a spectacularly public sexual and marital affair that had state lawmakers demanding his resignation.

They are already saying mean things about former governor, Mitt Romney. And this time, most of the things they’re saying about Romney are all true. As has already been promoted by the recent negative ads from Texas Governor Rick Perry, and the 28 minute video expose’ of Romney’s Bain Capital from Newt Gingrich, the locals are beginning to say that Mitt Romney has an "illegitimate, black-heart".

Defending his latest "Mitt attacks" in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich said he was concerned about the rules of Mitt’s “Vulture capitalism”. “Are they [Bain Capital & Mitt Romney] fair to the American people, or are their deals being cut on behalf of Wall Street institutions and very rich people?” Wow. Newt is sounding more like someone from the Occupy Wall Street crowd instead of someone angling to become the Republican nominee.

And why is the former House Speaker being so hard on a fellow candidate from his own party?

Newt Gingrich has always been known for his thin-skin and negative retorts. But Newt had publicly stated that he was not going to run an expensive, negative campaign against other Republicans in Iowa. After saying this, Mitt Romney then “poked Newt with a stick” as he spent millions on very negative ads against both Newt and Rick Perry in Iowa. The results were that it caused Newt to lose 10 polling points in the last week before the Iowa Caucus.

Based on Newt’s questionable history in dealing with the public, he has proven over and over that he is highly erratic, and totally unpredictable. He probably would have imploded on his own if Mitt had just left him alone in Iowa. Now, after being assaulted by Mitt in Iowa , Newt is “highly pissed off” and he, with the $5 million that was put into a Super-PAC for Newt to go after Mitt, Newt is going after Romney with a vengeance. As was recently stated by a well known radio talk-show host, “Republican bigwigs say they want to try and talk Newt “off the ledge.” The problem is that Newt isn’t on the ledge. Mitt Romney is on the ledge, and Newt is standing behind him [ready to push].”

Mitt Romney’s has been saying that all the attacks (from the negative ads and Newt’s movie) on how he made his money are totally being driven by “envy” of Mitt’s wealth and success. Of course, as we all know, Envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. This is one area that Mitt really shouldn’t be bringing up. Some of the other Seven Deadly Sins are Greed, Pride, and Vanity. And those are three terms that definitely appear in all of the opposition research that has surfaced about Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital company.

Mitt said in a recent interview with FOX, “I think it’s all about envy.” As one radio talk show host has said, “Essentially, that’s [Mitt’s] grade-school playground response to every argument, “Nah, nah, nah, you’re just jealous!”

With less than 2 weeks to go before the South Carolina primary (and in an election year, that’s an eternity), some conservatives are openly desperate to halt the momentum of the former Massachusetts governor. Voters and political operatives alike are all girding for the worst on the state’s radio, TV and cable broadcasts. Everyone is expecting the vicious whisper campaigns, viral innuendo and the loud, dubious personal attacks that have made South Carolina the state where, "politics is as harsh as their iced tea is sweet". Already, a blitz of negative ads has hit the airwaves. And due to the Citizens-United, US Supreme Court decision, the ads are being funded by unknown outside groups that have no intention of using their inside, known voices.

So far, up to now, the smear front has been somewhat quiet. But most observers say the nastiest items aren’t likely until just before Election Day. And given South Carolina’s consistent role in anointing who will be the eventual winner of the Republican nomination, they don’t expect this to be the year that the campaigns decide to slip on the white gloves. “South Carolina is a highly competitive state and it’s always been in important in the overall election process,” said Katon Dawson, a former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. (This year, Ms. Dawson is advising Texas Governor, Rick Perry.) “There are a lot of campaign operatives and some of them are going to make mischief.”

Now there’s an under-statement if I’ve ever heard one.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: Gater01

WHAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HASN’T BEEN SEEING BEHIND THE GOP ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

2012-01-12T06:08:00.000-08:00

...A classic American Voting Booth

If you just watch the election campaigns on TV, you don’t see how turned off average Republicans are to the current Republican choices of presidential candidates.

As was reported by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, while at Jackie’s Diner in Nashua, NH, a waitress, Ms. Barbara Justason, told Mr. Milbank that she had become tired of the recent campaign events. “It’s all reporters and no real people,” she said.

Ms. Justason was just confirming what the reporters already knew. That the “real people” just weren’t into the campaign this year. “Usually I research everything and have big arguments at the lunch counter." “This time”, she said, “I found myself not even wanting to read the articles in the paper. Maybe I’ll just close my eyes [when I go to vote.] and it’ll be eenie, meenie, mynie, moe.”

This wasn’t just the situation in New Hampshire. It’s been that way with the Republicans lack of enthusiasm since the over-large stable of potential “off-the-wall” candidates declared themselves back in early to mid 2011.

According to the records of all of those that voted this week in the New Hampshire Republican Primary, regardless of who they voted for, well over 50% of them stated in exit interviews that they were Independents, not Republicans. For the most part, just as with Ms. Justason, many of the real Republicans apparently stayed home. And remember, in New Hampshire, a registered Democrat cannot vote in the Republican Primary, but any unregistered independent can vote in the GOP Primary. (One Republican woman, interviewed after she voted, admitted that she didn’t like any of the choices, but she “went ahead and voted for Romney because she didn’t want to not vote”. She also said she had friends that did not show up to vote.)

Just as the Iowa Caucus only had a total of 125,000 votes, the good residents of New Hampshire proved that they were also uninspired by the GOP candidate roster. As expected, they were much less interested in attending any of the candidate’s rallies when compared to years past. As with Iowa, the final result were that traveling mobs of journalists vastly, and routinely, outnumbered the “real people” that attended.

Here are some examples as observed by Mr. Milbank:

When Jon Huntsman made a campaign stop at a small shop in Nashua, he was trailed by 150 journalists, but only about a dozen New Hampshire voters. And it has been reported that most of those locals were more interested in taking pictures of the “Meet the Press” moderator, David Gregory, than in listening to Mr. Huntsman.

When Newt Gingrich showed up in a local Hispanic community, it was more of the same with more media than local voters. Two thirds of the those visiting in a local Mexican restaurant where the political “meet & greet” event was held were journalists. “All I see are white faces,” complained one news photographer.

And instead of Hispanics, Gingrich found protesters outside shouting “Workers of the world unite” and there were hostile Gingrich questioners inside the restaurant. The perennially grouchy Mr. Gingrich eventually declared “I’m not getting into a debate, you ask your question & you’re done.”

Candidate Romney spoke at a metal fabrication plant outside of Nashua, afterwards the candidate mistakenly tried to take questions from reporters. Once again, the number of journalists dwarfed the number of locals on hand. The Romney aides ended up scurrying around making sure that supporters waving Romney signs were the only people visible in the camera’s background. One aide shouted, “We want the press out of here.” (It makes one very curious when a candidate’s team declares that they want the press to be removed from a “Press Conference”...?)

The Rick Santorum event had about 100 journalists with approximately 20 TV cameras filling the local Chamber of Commerce Hall. And as expected, here too there were very few locals attending. Santorum struggled with a PA sound system with serious feedback problems. He then turned off the microphone and shouted, “Can everybody hear me now?” One camera man answered, “Not for television!” Of course, upon hearing that, Santorum got back on the noisy microphone, but his comments were still heard mostly just by the attending journalist and cameramen.

The reality is that the far right conservatives have been very consistent in declaring that they cannot trust anything that the Candidate, Mitt Romney says. And there is plenty of history to back up that negative attitude. Not only has Mr. Romney “Flip-Flopped” on virtually every social issue that is important to most strong conservatives, his history as a “job creator” continues to be negatively challenged. This is all occurring as more negative information about his Bain Capital company becomes available. And it is already known, that as the governor of Massachusetts, his state was only 47th of 50 in job creation.

And of course, the disgraced former House Speaker, Mr. Newt Gingrich has his own very long list of negative baggage, as does the 2 term, former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum.

As for Ron Paul, he is the nut case that supports a mythical political system (The Austrian System) that is totally theoretical and most educated political historians agree that it wouldn’t work anyway. Plus, Ron Paul wants to get rid of most government organizations that many Americans rely on today such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and even the new “Obamacare”. One of the only government agencies that most people agree on getting rid of is the IRS.

The other issue is that since the Tea Party extremists took over the controlling part of the GOP, there appear to be very few of what we use to call the “Eisenhower Republicans”. These were individuals that would work across the aisle to come to some kind of compromise on issues for the benefit of all average Americans. Today, the base of the Republican party has instead become the far-right conservative party of “no, never”. So, if you are of the old, middle-of-the-road, “moderate” Republican persuasion and agreeable to compromise, you are now sitting in the back of the bus.

Those few remaining Republicans that still have a good slice of common sense are now making it clear that they do not agree with the current extremist group of Republican “ya-hoos” that are running for president, and they are possibly planning on just staying home in November.

And as Mr. Romney gets closer to becoming a “hold-your-nose” choice as the Republican candidate, I believe there will be a defection at the polls by the remaining sane members of the GOP, if there are still any out there.

We should all hope that this is the case regarding the real Republicans for both the national and local elections between now and through November.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

MORE PROOF THAT MITT ROMNEY & BAIN CAPITAL WERE NOT “JOB CREATORS”

2012-01-10T14:15:00.000-08:00

...Mr. “I Like firing people”, Willard Mitt Romney

As Mitt Romney continues his barely winning of caucuses and primaries on the way towards being the Republican presidential candidate, more information is now becoming available showing that Romney and his Bain Capital company were anything but “job creators”.

In fact, soma Bain managers have said that their mission at Bain Capital was very clear. Mr. Marc B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for 9 years has said, "The primary goal of a private equity company is to create wealth for your investors. I never thought of what I did for a living as [being] job creation".

It’s important to understand that Bain is a private organization, therefore they are not required to publish their internal operations as is required by public companies. In addition, most people don’t know that there were two distinct groups operating within the Bain organization.

One group is the Bain Venture Capital operation. This group looks for entrepreneurs with new ideas and concepts that were looking for the necessary start-up capital for building a new operation around their ideas.

During all the recent election debates and speeches, Mitt has continued to mention how successful the Bain financed, office supplies company, Staples, has become and that they employ over 90,000 Americans. It is true that Staples has been a successful operation. But this was not a Bain Capital financed operation under Mitt Romney. Staples was a start-up from the “Venture Capital” side of the Bain organization.

The other side of the Bain operation was the Bain Capital leveraged-buyout investment firm, which under Mitt Romney became one of the nation's most successful leveraged-buyout firms.

Bain Capital helped lead the trend in which current companies (not start-ups) were acquired using debt, which was often pledged against their own assets or earnings.

Yes, Bain Capital did expand many of the companies it acquired. But like many other buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and “flipping” companies quickly for large profits. (“Flipping” is the process of buying and selling a company rapidly for a big profit.)

Romney himself became very wealthy at Bain Capital and he is now considered to be worth between $190 million and $250 million, much of it derived from his time running the Bain operation. (Mitt Romney is also probably the richest candidate to ever run for the US presidency.)

As I had said, being a private company, Bain was not required to publish the happenings of their internal operations. But, shortly after Mitt Romney resigned from Bain Capital to run the US Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, potential investors received a Bain prospectus touting the extraordinary profits earned by the private equity firm that Romney controlled for 15 years.

Listed below are some of the internal prospectus information on how Bain Capital became so successful. It also shows how difficult it is for Mitt Romney to claim that his 15 years at Bain Capital was as being a “job creator”.

>>> The published prospectus shows that 4 of the top 10 companies Bain acquired under Mitt Romney’s leadership declared bankruptcy within just a few years, shedding thousands of jobs. It also shows that Bain investors profited in eight of the 10 deals, including three of the four that ended in bankruptcy

>>> According to the prospectus, (prepared in late 2000 by a division of Deutsche Bank Securities), investors could participate in Bain's funds with a minimum investment of $1 million. Bain Capital's portfolio started with simple venture capital investments like Staples, but under Mitt’s direction, the investment group eventually shifted heavily toward more complex leveraged buyouts and other similar deals.

>>> Leveraged buyouts allow investors to purchase businesses with the acquisition funded sometimes by significant amounts of debt for the company. To the critics, these leveraged deals can make acquired companies more vulnerable to economic downturns, leading to a greater likelihood of bankruptcy and job cuts.

>>> In the case of GS Industries, the 10th-biggest Bain investment in the Romney years. Bain formed GSI in the early 1990s by spending $24 million to acquire and merge steel companies with plants in Missouri, South Carolina and other states. The company’s senior managers cut jobs and benefits almost immediately. Meanwhile, Bain and its investors received management fees from GSI and a $65-million dividend was declared in the first years after the acquisition.

>>> In 1999, as economic challenges mounted, GSI sought a federal loan guarantee intended to help steel companies compete internationally. The loan deal was approved, but before it could be used, the company went bankrupt. More than 700 workers were fired, losing not only their jobs but health insurance, severance and a chunk of their pension benefits. GSI retirees also lost their health insurance and other benefits. On the other side, the Bain partners received about $50 million on their initial investment, a 100% gain.

>>> "It makes me sick," said Steve Morrow, a retired GSI steelworker, recalling what happened to his fellow workers after the Kansas City operation shutdown. Some top executives received bonuses from Bain, he said. "But the salaried and hourly people ended up with the shaft".

>>> Union officials say they tried to work with GSI management and Bain to assure workers and retirees that they would have some benefits even if the company went under. But they said their appeals fell on deaf ears during the time Romney was running the firm. "Bain was demanding certain financial performance with no understanding of what the problems were on the ground," said David Foster, a former steelworkers union official who worked with GSI until the bankruptcy. He said Bain "bled the company dry". They withdrew cash for dividends and management fees, even as the US steel industry was going down the sewer.

>>> According to the Deutsche Bank prospectus, in 1996, Bain purchased Experian, the California-based consumer credit reporting firm. Bain then “flipped” the company two months later, reaping $252 million on its initial investment of $88 million.

>>> On the positive side, Bain acquired Epoch Senior Living, a pioneer in the concept of linking nursing homes and assisted-living apartments. Initially, Bain's investment in 1998 did not go well. But this time, Bain stuck with Epoch, which at the time had just a few hundred employees. When Bain sold Epoch, (well after Mitt was gone), investors had more than doubled their initial $26.4-million investment, and Epoch employed more than 3,000.

>>> But that wasn't the case for a medical technology company in California. Bain purchased a medical diagnostics unit for $448 million in 1994, putting up $26.7 million. It named the new company Dade International. Under Mitt’s direction, Dade acquired a chemicals division of DuPont in 1996 as well as the diagnostics company, Behring. Dade then borrowed big again, this time to repurchase stock from original investors including Bain and Goldman Sachs, for $365 million, more than four times their original investment.
Dade’s growing debt hit $1.5 billion, along with declining cash flow and high interest rates. This led the company to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It emerged from bankruptcy after only two months and continued to operate. However, between 1996 and 2002, the company down-sized and shed more than 1,700 jobs, according to filings with the SEC.

>>> "When I listen to Mitt Romney these days, he talks about creating jobs. My experience at Dade during those Bain Capital years was that it was strictly an investment operation, not one to create jobs," said Michael Rumbin, a vice president of technology management at Dade during the Bain years whose position was eventually eliminated.
"No one came from Bain and said, 'How can we expand and hire more people?' " Rumbin said. "It was instead, 'How do we turn our investment around and make a lot of money?"

Newt Gingrich recently described Bain Capital as a “small group of rich people manipulating the lives of thousands of people and taking out all the money.”

I can’t believe it, but I am actually agreeing with “The Newt”.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

SOME KEY REASONS FOR REJECTING ONE SPECIFIC REPUBLICAN AS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

2012-01-10T06:53:00.000-08:00

...Conservative columnist and FOX Contributor, Mr. Charles Krauthammer

This is only a small nutshell of political and social reasons for looking elsewhere for a "real" conservative presidential candidate.

Well, the conservative writer Charles Krauthammer has done it again.

Oh, I know, you’re probably saying, “There he goes again, going after Krauthammer.” Well, yes, you would be right, but this latest editorial shot at Mr. K-Hammer is not without due cause.

For an appropriate explanation, let’s just read what Mr. K-Hammer wrote this last week and let’s take a guess as to who he is writing about...?

“...he isn’t just the last man standing. He is the first challenger to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.
He’d been ignored largely because he appeared unelectable. However, he [has] shed the loser label and [now] seizes the momentum, meaning millions of dollars’ worth of free media to make up for his lack of money. He’s got the stage to make his case, plus the luck of a scheduling quirk: If he can make it through the next three harrowing primaries, the (relative) February lull would allow him to build a national campaign structure before Super Tuesday on March 6.”

Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? By listening to this introduction from Mr. K-Hammer, a true conservative might think, “Wow, here is someone I can vote for that makes sense and that isn’t a raving ya-hoo.”

But, the reality is that Mr. K-Hammer is giving his personal recommendation and description of the two term, former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum.

Yes, the same Rick Santorum that after two terms in the US Senate, was voted out of office in 2007 by the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980. Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, receiving 41.3% of the vote to his opposition’s 58.7%. It was also the largest losing margin ever for an incumbent Republican. And this rejection was imposed by those that knew him best. The voters of his own state of Pennsylvania.

Here are some other facts about Mr. K-Hammer’s "not-so-great" candidate offering for the next potential American Chief Executive:

>>> Mr. Santorum advocates for a more family values oriented society centered on monogamous, heterosexual relationships, marriage, and child-raising. He is pro-life and opposes same-sex marriage. He says he is not “anti-gay”, but is against virtually all issues or proposals that would support any type of same-sex union or partnership.

>>> As a senator, Santorum sought to amend the “No Child Left Behind” bill to include a provision affecting the teaching of evolution. According to Santorum, his goal was that students studying evolution should hear "competing scientific interpretations of evidence," including "such alternative theories as intelligent design”. The bill’s provision came to be known as the "Santorum Amendment". The amendment "was hailed by anti-evolution groups as a major victory and criticized by most scientific organizations”.

>>> In 2005, Santorum sponsored the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which appropriated millions of dollars aimed at regime change in Iran. However, Santorum voted against the Lautenberg Amendment, which would have prevented companies like Halliburton from doing business within Iran. He also incorrectly stated that at the time, Iran was at the center of "much of the world's conflict".

>>> Per Mr. K-Hammer: “Santorum did win the Tea Party vote in Iowa. But because he was such a long shot, his record did not receive much scrutiny. It will now. He is no austere limited-government constitutionalist. He participated in George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism. Santorum, defends all earmarks [such as the “bridge-to-nowhere]” and supported the [unpaid-for, no drug price negotiation] Medicare prescription drug benefit.”

>>> Mr. Santorum almost won the 2012 Iowa Caucus because the Iowa Republican electorate is disproportionately evangelical and thus highly receptive to Santorum’s very strict social conservatism.

>>> As president, Mr. Santorum would most likely get rid of the Department of Education and instead would be in support of Home Schooling as has been the circumstance with his own six children.

>>> In a bizarre unfortunate situation in 1996, the Santorum's son Gabriel was born prematurely and he died two hours later. Wife, Karen Santorum and Rick brought the deceased infant’s body home from the hospital and introduced it to their children as "your brother Gabriel". The deceased child’s body was not returned to the hospital until the next day.

>>> Santorum traveled to Rome to speak at a centenary celebration of the birth of Saint Josemaria Escriva, founder of the highly controversial Catholic Opus Dei organization. In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter while in Rome, Santorum said that the distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, espoused by US President John F. Kennedy, had caused "great harm in America".

>>> Santorum said that, if elected, he would call upon Iran to open its facilities to international inspection and begin to dismantle them, and that if Iranian leaders did not comply, he would bomb the weapons sites. (Another potential GOP sponsired war in the middle-east?)

>>> Santorum rejects the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, having referred to it as "junk science". He also embraces common threads of the global warming conspiracy theory, believing that global warming is a "beautifully concocted scheme" by the political left and "an excuse for more government control of your life".

>>> Mr. Santorum has a stated policy of "drill everywhere" for oil and that there is "enough oil, coal and natural gas to last for centuries".

>>> In 2008, Santorum expressed support for McCain, citing Sarah Palin as a step in the right direction: "Knowing McCain, he's choosing someone in whom he sees a lot of himself...He tries to find people who have a similar head as he does, and if he sees himself in [Palin]...that gives me a better feel for him and a little more confidence in him".

>>> In 2011 Santorum said Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a Vietnam prisoner of war and is “against the US using Water-Boarding”, “[McCain] did not understand how enhanced interrogation works”.

Is there now any wonder why I once again went after Mr. K-Hammer’s ideas?

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

AS A POLITICAL OBSERVER, IT’S BECOME EMBARASSING TO FOLLOW MITT ROMNEY

2012-01-08T07:44:00.000-08:00

...Former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum almost upset Mitt Romney's expensive campaign in Iowa.

Even though the Iowa Caucus is usually insignificant to the final election results, it does offer some messages that some of the candidates should heed.

After one term as the governor of Massachusetts, since 2007, Mitt Romney has been running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

Even though Romney won in the mostly insignificant Iowa Caucus (by only 8 single votes over Rick Santorum), we all should be aware of some of the details about Mitt’s big win.

Various Comments & Details re: Romney’s Big Iowa Win:

>>> Mitt spent over 5 years running for this nomination and he spent the most money of all the candidates to win in Iowa. Rick Santorum only started running just this last year and he spent the least money of all of the candidates.

>>> Only 125,000 votes were cast in the whole Iowa Caucus. (That’s only .0005% of the nations registered voters) It was a costly victory for the former Massachusetts governor as each Romney vote cost him more than $100 each, and he only won by 8 single votes. Santorum, who gained the most national attention and finished behind Romney by those 8 votes, ended up spending only $1.65 per vote. (Not exactly a mandate for “Mr. Romneycare”.)

>>> As an even bigger loser, the 5th place, Texas Governor Rick Perry had put out $480 for each of the 12,690 votes he received in the Iowa Caucus.

>>> And to top it all off, Romney’s arch 2008 primary campaign rival, Arizona Senator John McCain, showed up the day after the Iowa Caucus at a New Hampshire Town Hall Meeting, just to endorse Mr. Romney. It was obvious that McCain was not comfortable in making the endorsement as he continually showed his impatience at the event. McCain was also laughing as he congratulated Romney on his “eight-vote landslide victory in Iowa”. Romney had a fake smile on for the whole endorsement and he basically just ignored McCain.

>>> During the question and answer session after the New Hampshire Town Hall Meeting, an Occupy Wall Street infiltrator challenged the candidate about his belief that “corporations are people.” Mitt just showed that he was not amused.

>>> A second New Hampshire questioner asked why Romney was flip-flopping on the universal health care he installed when he was governor of Massachusetts? No Romney response on that one.

>>> An Asian American woman accused Romney of saying “degrading things about China”. She also complained that “after 20 years of Reagan trickle-down economics, it didn’t help me. My tin can is still empty.”

>>> When Romney challenged the Asian woman to name a place where income is higher than it is in the United States, another voice in the crowd responded with, “The U.S. has the highest income inequality in the entire developed world!” Romney again had no direct response.

>>> Then, in trying to regain control of the question session, he proclaimed his latest common response for interrupting the discussion; ROMNEY: “Excuse me, but you’ve had your chance.”

>>> When the end of the questions finally and mercifully came, the candidate gave a final rallying call for the party to “get the White House back”. All but a few in the small group rose as they put on their coats without any applause.

This poor response to the very slim Iowa win continued as Mitt left Iowa on his campaign plane to Manchester, New Hampshire. On the 737 plane, which is jokingly referred to by the reporters as “Hair Force One”, his staff applauded, (as is apparently required), whenever Mitt boards the campaign plane.

Washington Post columnist, Dana Milbank, had also noticed Mitt’s awkwardness in dealing with his slim win in Iowa while aboard his campaign plane. Here is what Mr. Milbank had to say in a recent column:

"When he [Mitt] went to the back of the plane to visit the press corps, he made a labored attempt to demonstrate that he was at ease. He noticed an aide’s manifest for the media and
pretended that was funny. “Is that right? A seating chart? Ha, ha, ha.”
“What do you think of your eight-vote landslide?” the Associated Press’s Glenn Johnson asked.
“No interviews yet,” the candidate said. “We’ll be back later,” he said, repeating this three times. (He did not come back later.)
In need of a new subject, Romney looked at the staffer sitting in the row ahead of the press corps. “Is this the referee?” he asked. It wasn’t clear why he regarded this staffer as a referee, but he continued to joke about the demarcation between staff seats and media seats. “The line? The DMZ? Is that it? No, I know what it is: It’s the emergency exit! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Yeah. Ahh.”
The candidate fielded a couple of questions about his activities on caucus night, and then tried to answer a question about his margin of victory. “Ha, ha. Uh. I think landslides are terrific,” he said. “I just didn’t, uh, see that in last night’s figures. I’m not sure about you. Ha, ha, ha, ha.”
Maybe he should have gotten more sleep.
Driven to Manchester on a bus he dubbed the “Landslide Lounge,” Romney continued to wrestle with words when he took the stage at the high school [town meeting]. “What a, uh, big night we had last night, or what a big morning we had, uh, last morning, this morning, in, uh, Iowa”.

And this man seriously wants us to elect him as the leader of the free world.

There is a very good reason why Mitt Romney’s national approval rating has never been above 25% and why a radical conservative, with virtually no resources, such as the former senator Rick Santorum almost beat Romney in Iowa. And this is after Romney’s having run for the GOP nomination for the last 5+ years.

Fortunately for the Democrats, it is appearing that Romney will eventually become the Republican candidate, even though he still doesn’t seem to get it that the message that the real GOP conservatives “just don’t trust him”.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

ERIC CANTOR BREAKS A 44 YEAR OLD PRECEDENT ON THE “60 MINUTES” TV NEWS PROGRAM

2012-01-05T14:29:00.000-08:00

...Republican House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor

The House Majority leader Cantor tried, but failed to change how he is viewed by the voting public.

This last week, the House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA) had asked for and was granted to be on the 60 Minutes TV news show. Apparently, Mr. Cantor has been trying to counter the current rumor that he is drooling to take over John Boehner’s Speaker position, or that he is ready to stab Speaker Boehner in the back in order to get that leadership role in the House.

His request to be on 60 Minutes was obviously an attempt for changing that perception and he also wanted to show off his family values, his kids and his wife of 21 years.

During the interview, held in his home, 60 Minutes Lesley Stahl asked him why he was so against everything that President Obama was trying to do for all Americans. But all Mr. Cantor would say is that, “Nobody gets everything they want”.

When Ms. Stahl asked if that meant that he was ready to compromise with the Democrats, the oft-confused Majority Leader replied that he was “ready to cooperate.” Stahl, of course, noticing the word choice, pressed Cantor on the difference between his word, “cooperation” and Obama’s word, “compromise”.

This discussion led to the following verbal exchange:

Stahl: “But you know, your idol, as I’ve read anyway, was Ronald Reagan. And he compromised.”

Cantor: “He never compromised his principles.”

Stahl: “Well, he raised taxes and it was one of his principles not to raise taxes.”

Cantor: “Well, he — he also cut taxes.”

Stahl: ”But he did compromise“

Cantor: “Well I.....” (then it was just total silence)

At that point, something happened that has never happened in the 44 year old history of 60 Minutes.

Eric Cantor’s press secretary, while off camera, interrupted the interview by yelling from the hallway that Stahl was lying when she said Reagan raised taxes.

Stahl initially looked shocked. She then said to the 60 Minutes viewers, “There seemed to be some difficulty accepting the fact that even though Ronald Reagan cut taxes, he also pushed through several tax increases, including one in 1982 during a recession.”

Later, during the actual 60 Minutes programming, for showing that what Ms. Stahl had said was correct, they showed a 1980’s video clip of President Ronald Reagan giving a TV presentation to all Americans saying that he was raising taxes. (It eventually became the largest tax increase in US history) And in the TV video, President Reagan admitted that the decision was a “political compromise with the Democrats”.

Unfortunately for Mr. Cantor and his press secretary, their reality is more than just being stubborn.

The facts are indisputable: in Ronald Reagan’s first term, he signed off on a series of tax increases, even when the unemployment rate was nearing 11%.

Reagan eventually proceeded to raise taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office.

The reality is, “no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people as Ronald Reagan”.

Of particular interest is the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982”. This was the largest of Reagan’s tax increases, and it is generally accepted as the largest tax increase, as a percentage of the economy, in modern American history.

In fact, between 1982 and 1984, Reagan raised taxes four times. And as Bruce Bartlett, Reagan’s domestic policy advisor has explained more than once, “Reagan raised taxes 12 times during his eight years in office.”

So why do Eric Cantor, and his press secretary, and all Republicans everywhere seem to deny what is plainly true?

The reality is that it is terribly inconvenient for them to accept that the GOP “demi-god” rejected the right-wing line on always opposing tax increases. Reagan willingly compromised with Democrats on many revenue issues. And the economy soared after Reagan raised taxes, thus disproving the Republican assumption that tax increases always push the nation towards recessions.

In other words, Reagan’s legacy makes the contemporary Republican Party look ridiculous.

No wonder Cantor’s press secretary started yelling. “Stahl was bringing up facts that are never supposed to be repeated out loud.” Especially in the company of devout Reagan worshippers and most conservative Republican Party members.

But the real reality is, Republicans cannot deal with the truth because they have totally failed every time they have tried to govern Americans. In addition, as they have only failures and no accomplishments to sell to the American voting public, all they can do is keep telling their untruths. This must be done, over and over again, until they (and the FOX network) finally convince some unsuspecting American voters to follow their lead.

It’s all that simple. And Eric Cantor and his press secretary were perfect examples to a vast American “60 Minutes” audience.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

THE IOWA CAUCUS & THE MEDIA HAVE KEPT VOTERS FROM RECOGNIZING THE REAL ISSUES

2012-01-04T06:55:00.000-08:00

...A 1950's American Voter Registration Poster

Voter ID laws, massive campaign contributions and the main-stream media not doing their jobs are the biggest and most important issues.

The current joke event called the Republican Iowa Caucus is really disturbing when what really matters is being ignored by both the voters and the main-stream press.

As an example, regardless of which GOP “wack-a-doodle” won the Iowa Caucus, where’s the concern that due to bogus voter ID laws, (Laws installed by Republican state lawmakers), 5 million voters, mainly Democrats, may be kept from voting next November?

In 2011, 14 states passed unnecessary laws making it harder for certain Americans, particularly minorities, the elderly and young people, to vote. This is the basic foundation of our American democracy, and the Republicans are working very hard to take it away.

The long-term GOP goal for 2012 is to keep traditional Democrats from casting ballots, and this has been their focus going all the way back to Ronald Reagan. Voters must now show government-issued IDs, of which more than 1 in 10 Americans currently lack. Some states have also ended or reduced early voting capabilities and same-day registration. And Florida has disenfranchised their citizens with criminal records, even if they have paid their debt to society and fulfilled their jail terms.

As another example, (and as expected), the “good ole boy” voters In Texas are allowed to offer a “concealed handgun license” as a sufficient form of voter identification. But if you are a bonified Texas university student with a valid student photo ID, that’s not good enough to be able to vote in Texas.

Based on their newly minted rules in Wisconsin, a voter without an ID needs a birth certificate to get a state issued ID. But a voter without a birth certificate needs a valid ID, such as a US Passport, to obtain a state issued ID. (And of course, it already takes a birth certificate to obtain a US Passport.)

In Tennessee, a 96-year-old African American woman who has been voting all of her adult life was denied a voter ID because she didn’t have a copy of her marriage license. (Her husband had passed away decades ago.) NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous has described these right-wing efforts in all 14 states as the “most coordinated attack on voting rights since the days of Jim Crow”.

But voter registration is not the only issue to be concerned about.

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Economist and columnist for the New York Times describes what he calls today, “post-truth politics”.

This is the situation where the right-wing candidates can feel free to say whatever they want, (or the Super-PAC's ads can say it), regardless of whether it’s true, and they will not be held accountable by the press.

Oh, there may be some rare instances where a candidate is called out for saying something outright misleading. But for the most part, in order to not be cut off from communicating with the candidates, very few reporters today will risk their jobs by challenging a front-running GOP candidate. As Krugman has noted, “if past experience is any guide, most of the news media will feel as though their reporting must be ‘balanced.’” For too many main-stream journalists, to call out a Republican for lying requires them to also criticize a Democrat, making for a media-age of massive ‘false equivalency”.

In this new bizarro campaign world, GOP candidates will continue to say things that are “flatly, grossly, and shamefully untrue".

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne described it honestly, without fear of retribution, as he gave these examples. “Obama has traveled the world and apologized for America,” says Romney. But that’s totally untrue. “The stimulus created zero jobs,” says Rick Perry, while it actually created or saved at least 3 million jobs. “Obama is going to put free enterprise on trial,” claims Romney, while nearly 3 million private-sector jobs were created under Obama policies over the past 20 months?

But in today’s “no challenge media era”, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman or Santorum, none of them will have to deal with the press on any or all of their untrue statements.

And today, with all the Citizens-United undisclosed investments into the GOP campaign coffers, these “un-truth campaigns” will get much worse before they “may” or “may not” get any better. More than ever, the average American voter must take the time to qualify what the candidates claim, especially if the statements are from of a GOP candidate.

It's been almost 100 years since America’s democracy has been in this much potential of disappearing and/or from American voter's ability to rescue it.

As compared to the Iowa Caucus, this is certainly “no joke”.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: “QUIT TRYING TO BE BIPARTISAN. LAY THE BLAME SQUARELY ON THE REPUBLICANS WHERE IT BELONGS.”

2012-01-02T08:30:00.000-08:00

...President Barack Obama at the White House

The Obama White House says it’s “going on the offensive”…..Well, it’s about time!

The president recently had a partial victory on the payroll tax cut. During the victory process, the House Speaker John Boehner and all of the House Republicans proceeded to shame themselves to all middleclass Americans. Due to this latest win, the president has now decided to step-up his offensive moves against a GOP run House and the Senate Republicans that had previously prevented him from passing seriously needed legislation.

The White House staff has just announced that going forward, the president intends to focus on pushing his theme of economic justice for ordinary middleclass Americans rather than continuing legislative battles with the Congressional Republicans.

This is a strategy that most sane Americans have been asking of the president for over a year. It is also an appropriate move, as the president’s approval ratings have been rising as the congressional approval has fallen to an all time low of 13%. (This is per a December 15, Gallup Poll.)

Per Joshua Earnest, the Deputy White House Press Secretary, “In terms of the president’s relationship with Congress in 2012, the president is no longer tied to sticking around Washington DC. Winning a full-year extension of the recent extension in payroll tax cuts is the last ‘must-do’ piece of legislation for the White House.”

Yes, it’s true that this new strategy is an 180º turn from the Illinois senator who won the presidency in 2008 by promising to change the culture of Washington. And his promise to rise above the partisan fray and seek political compromises.

The Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell made the president’s political relationship promises obsolete the day after the 2008 election when he stated that the GOP’s #1 goal was not to fix the US economy, but “to make President Obama a one term president”.

Obviously, the president and the Democrats thought at the time that this boastful proclamation was just some whining by the 2008 party that had lost big.

But after the Republicans in the US Senate stopped hundreds of bills by using the Filibuster more than all previous Senates “combined”. And in addition, after the unfortunate results of the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans and their bizarre Tea Party members have left the president and the Democrats no choice for their future strategies.

Today, the concept of political “compromise” is a dirty word to the GOP. And, though it took too long, the president and the Democrats finally seemed to agree that the best strategy is to go after their political opposition head-on.

The only way the Democrats are going to get anything done for the American people is by taking back the House and by adding to the Democrat’s Senate majority in November. Under the current setup, the Democrats in the US Congress are wrongfully being included in the 13% low approval ratings due to their inability for being able to pass any helpful legislation for the average working American.

And with the Citizens-United case allowing the GOP to spend unlimited amounts of money for defeating the Democratic candidates, the idea of making deals with the Republicans between now and the November elections is nothing but a pipe-dream. From now to November, the president and the congressional Democrats must be on a 24/7 offensive surge.

As more proof of this new approach, Mr. Earnest said the new strategy had successfully planted “the image of a gridlocked, dysfunctional Congress and a president who is leaving no stone unturned to try to find solutions to the difficult financial challenges and economic challenges facing the country.”

President Obama began emphasizing his new strategy in early December with a fiery speech in Osawatomie, Kansas.

In this speech, he paid tribute to the past Republican President Teddy Roosevelt who had gone against the traditional positions of the GOP back in 1910. President Obama said that, as it had been for President Roosevelt in the early 1900’s, today’s “breathtaking corporate greed” was once again contributing to the country’s economic troubles. He also stated that this is a “make-or-break moment for today’s American middle class.” (Apparently, the “Occupy” groups across the country agree with this statement.)

The significance of the short-term win on the payroll tax relief was that it gave the president the opportunity to establish himself on an issue where the Democrats hadn’t been fairing very well. But with this recent win, it showed (and the polls agree), that Mr. Obama is now more trusted on future and fair taxation than the Republicans. As compared to the Republicans, especially those in the House of Representatives, President Obama now looks to most Americans as if he’s, “the only adult in the room”.

According to Mr. Earnest, “Winning a full-year extension of the payroll tax will still be a top priority.” He noted that House Republicans were now also arguing that the bill should be extended for a year, after many Republicans initially opposed extending it. But they also want some unacceptable conditions added to the bill which will still need to be worked out.

But as of today, the president is in a much stronger position and the American public is behind the president much more than the Republicans in congress.

I believe the new White House strategy is the correct one. Let’s hope it’s not “to little, too late” and that the president stays with this strategy beyond the November elections.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

EVEN A STAUNCH CONSERVATIVE IS EMBARASSED BY THE FIELD OF GOP CANDIDATES

2011-12-31T07:06:00.000-08:00

...Conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer

You know it’s really bad when the major conservative writers and the radio & TV pundits are holding their noses.

As my loyal readers are aware, I am anything but a fan of the conservative op-ed writer for the Washington Post and the FOX TV contributor, Mr. Charles Krauthammer. But even this great, droll writer of conservative fiction does occasionally have a vision within his head that I can agree with.

Of course, there is always his negative approach that says that none of the positive areas within the economy over the past three years have had anything to do with any of the efforts of President Obama or the Democrats. But to Mr. Krauthammer’s credit, even he is astute enough to recognize that those presidential candidates currently being offer up by the GOP are hardly worth any praise for their accomplishments or capabilities.

As he explained during a FOX Special Report, “No credit should go to President Obama. [Instead, it should be given] to the embarrassing Republican candidates and the ridiculous behavior of the Congressional Republican leadership.”

Krauthammer stated during this Special Report that, “President Obama has mostly been a passive observer to a landscape that has been remarkably favorable to him and his administration.” Krauthammer attributed the, “ridiculous way the Republicans have conducted themselves in Congress for making Obama look at least like a grown-up while Republicans have had an almost year-long exposure to a weak Republican field.” “The fact that Santorum is the last standing alternative,” he explained, “think of how this is going: Trump, Bachmann, Perry, then Cain, then Newt– who’s really in decline now– Ron Paul, who is on the ascent but not electable, then Santorum.”

Krauthammer rightly concluded that “Every [Republican] alternative is going to get a try.”

Krauthammer highlighted how the weak field made such a big difference by arguing, “imagine a race with a Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Christie, Thune… it would’ve had a completely different complexion” [instead of having] “embarrassing candidates like Cain and the others.”

When Krauthammer gets it right, he really and rightfully goes for the party’s jugular.

It’s hard to argue with Mr. Krauthammer when he and other conservative writers such as Brooks, Gerson, Noonan, Will and Frum have all written various negative columns about the weak field of Republican presidential candidates. And even the FOX pundits such as O’Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter and Huckabee have not been super cheer-leaders for any of the 2012 GOP presidential offerings.

And let’s not forget the bizarre Mr. Glenn Beck and the “King of Conservative Blowhards”, his rudeness, Rush Limbaugh. They too have not been particularly enamored with any of those running under the GOP banner.

The real disgusting part of all this is that none of these Republican candidates have offered one policy or program idea that deals with this country’s real issues. That being job creation, infrastructure building and repair and helping those affected by the mortgage crisis.

In a recent example of how totally out-of-touch these lame candidates are, a recent observer of the 15 past so-called GOP debates posted on the internet a “90 second revisiting of the past Republican Presidential Debates”. When the recording was played back, the 90 seconds consisted of the hundreds of recorded times that the candidates stated the word “taxes” and the number of times they mentioned the name “Ronald Reagan”. But there was not one mention of US “jobs”, or the nation’s “infrastructure” or housing needs.

And this is doubly interesting, as based on today’s far-right Republican Party and its Tea Party members, their current past political icon, Ronald Reagan, would not even be allowed into today’s Republican Party, due to his raising of taxes 11 times and his position on abortion during his presidency.

Yes, due to the down economy, the US Supreme Court’s Citizens-United decision, with all the money being spent against the Democrats, it is still going to be a big election-duel regardless of who is running against the president. But based on the current 13% approval rating of the US Congress, plus the poor field of GOP candidates and President Obama’s almost 50% approval rating, it’s looking better for the Democrats than it probably should be, at least for now.

But no one should get cocky as it’s still a long time to November 2012, and the Republicans can and will still do a lot of political damage.

Yes, with all that’s going on with the “Occupy” groups around the country and with all the “Citizens-United” investments in the GOP, it’s going to be a very interesting election year.

Copyright G.Ater 2012

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

FOR U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICANS:”TOTAL HYPOCRISY” DOESN’T COME CLOSE TO DESCRIBING THEM

2011-12-29T13:13:00.000-08:00

...Representative Joe Walsh (R-Il), a Tea Party House member known for his high levels of hypocrisy.

If the current Republicans in Congress were adolescent children, it would now be appropriate for them to be given a major, “Time-Out”.

Well, the Republicans in the House finally caved on the payroll tax extension and they and Speaker Boehner were licking their wounds as they headed home for the holiday break.

But previously on the Wednesday before Christmas, the GOP House Speaker, had assembled nine of his House Republican colleagues into his conference room, and he also invited in the TV cameras and a number of reporters, The Speaker then proclaimed that the House Republicans really and truly did want to enact the payroll-tax break that they had just defeated.
“We’re here. We’re ready to go to work,” Boehner announced.

CNN’s Deirdre Walsh, then caused the Speaker to turn an even brighter red-orange by mentioning the recent savage editorial in the conservative Wall Street Journal that had called the GOP payroll-tax strategy a total “fiasco”.

Boehner stated that he now wanted a House-Senate Conference Committee (which based on history, would have taken weeks to form) for negotiating a new 1 year tax deal.

Unfortunately. The current Speaker doesn’t know his job well enough to understand that there is a very big problem with his proposed plan.

The Senate Democrats had already negotiated a compromise with Senate Republicans, and Boehner’s Tea Party and his House Republicans had then summarily rejected that compromise.

Yessiree, House Republicans, really did vote to deny tax relief and unemployment extensions to 160 million Americans.

They keep saying they want a 1 year extension of tax relief and unemployment benefits. But they failed to mention that the Republican plan cuts the number of eligible weeks of unemployment payments in half, it requires drug testing for unemployment insurance recipients, it requires recipients to have a high-school diploma or a GED certificate and it also calls for “Means Testing” of Medicare. (Which would eventually make Medicare into a welfare program.)

Of course, to this day, the network and cable news programs (especially FOX have all failed to give out these disturbing details of the Republican House proposal.

On another front, the House Republican Leadership was later that week huddled up in a conference room in the Capitol building basement for more than two hours.

One would have assumed that they were obviously puzzling over how to explain to their constituents why they had effectively order a January tax increase on the American middle class, while the country was still in the middle of a deep recession. (And also while the Republicans were continuing to fight for much larger tax breaks for the wealthy.)

In any case, it is amazing how in the world they were able to justify the killing of a bipartisan compromise that had the support of all but eight Senate Republicans and the previous tacit approval of Speaker Boehner himself...?

But as it turns out, in that huddled basement meeting, they were not discussing how to explain their votes to their constituents.

Nosiree, not those House Republicans.

Instead, they were discussing their favorite scenes from the Mel Gibson film “Braveheart”...What you say????

Yes, approximately 10 House Republicans had gone to a podium to share their favorite memories of the movie...?

It is reported that one GOP House member mentioned the scene where the Scottish rebel, William Wallace, ordered his army to “moon” the English troops.

And another House member recounted the scene in which Wallace commanded the rebels to “hold their positions before raising their spears against the charging English cavalry”.

Yes, this whole bizarre discussion was to encourage these meeting attendees to not relent on their spending cuts approach. And, to borrow a well used Dubya reference, they were encouraged to, “stay the course” for killing the nation’s economy.

In fact, this last movie-scene discussion inspired these assembled Republican House lawmakers to actually start chanting: “Hold! Hold! Hold! Hold!”

When Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) rose to tell his colleagues that he hated the film, he then introduced a motion that all references to “Braveheart” be banned from the meeting. But of course, just like adolescent children, his Republican colleagues laughed and heckled Rep. Bishop and the motion was obviously not adopted.

What these "world history-deficient" and childish Republican House members don’t seem to realize is that the ancient Scots they are trying to emulate were defeated and slaughtered. William Wallace was captured, (possibly betrayed by his own people), and he was drawn and quartered in a British town square. His body parts were then distributed to other British and Scottish town squares as a warning against rebellion from the British king.

Yes, these are the idiots that, solely by the Democrats not turniung out to vote in the 2010 midterms, were allowed to assume their offices and to make misdirected decisions for the majority of the American people. It has become truly disgusting and embarrassing to watch day after day.

The hypocrisy of this wrong-thinking Republican group is astounding, but fortunately, it’s not going unnoticed.

Here is the latest Gallup Poll on US Congressional approval:

“Dec. 15, 2011: PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' assessment of Congress has hit a new low, with only 13% saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. The 83% disapproval rating is the worst Gallup has measured in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance.”

With President Obama’s current approval rating of 43%-47%, the current 112th US Congress doesn’t look real good for their 2012 elections. And as of today, a recent Gallup Poll says that over 55% of those Americans polled wanted to replace ALL of the current members of Congress, especially those recent Republican Tea Party Congresspersons.

For most Americans and their 2010 votes, as the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

I don’t think the American voters will be as easily fooled in November 2012.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

GET YOUR DIPLOMA FROM THE “GOP SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS”. BUT DON’T EXPECT IT GETTING YOU A JOB.

2011-12-19T13:20:00.000-08:00

...GOP Speaker, John Boehner, Mr. "We can't raise taxes on job creators".

In math, “1+1=2”. In Republican economics, “lower taxes = more jobs”. Well, at least the math equation is correct.

As the gap continues to widen between the GOP and the Democrats, both sides continue to argue whether or not lowering taxes does, or does not, create jobs.

The Democrats continue to rightfully state that George W. Bush’s “tax-cuts-for-the-rich” produced fewer jobs in 8 years than Obama has produced, (in a down economy), in the past 3 years. But they keep saying that, “we can’t increase taxes on the job creators”, which we all know is a bunch of bunkum. But the conservatives keep preaching that to an apparent economically ignorant American public.

So, how can we convince the American public that higher taxes on the rich will not only “not” stop job creation, but will actually increase job creation?

Well, first we must get the people to understand that the US is the most “Consumer Driven” nation in the world. This statement means that 60% of this nation’s is based on the buying of consumer items to drive the nation’s economy. The US is the world’s “most” consumer driven because, of the other industrialized countries, most of their consumer economies are driven by about only 40% consumerism.

And just why is that?

Well, many other nations have fewer citizens and they don’t purchase as many items from “for-profit” companies as do Americans. As an example, most all health care in the US is “for-profit”, where in other countries, “for-profit” health care is against the law. In addition, all student loans for higher education in the US are “for-profit” loans from private banks. In other countries, higher education costs are paid by higher taxes and their higher-education is free for all of its citizens. But these are just a couple of examples.

The point is that what the conservatives keep trying to sell is, ”By raising taxes on the top 1% of the nation’s wealthy, we are considering destroying the very mechanism that makes our economy the strongest and biggest in the world: The incentive for entrepreneurs and investors to build companies in the hope of getting rich and, in the process, creating millions of jobs.”

But the truth, as stated by a current billionaire, Mr. Nick Hanauer, “the theory that rich people create the jobs is absurd”. And Mr. Hanauer is the founder of the online advertising company aQuantive, which Microsoft bought for $6.4 billion.

There have long been many problems with this argument that the wealthy create jobs, starting with:

>>> Taxes on the rich today are, relative to history, low, so raising them would only begin to bring them back in line with previous prior prosperous US periods

>>> Dozens of rich entrepreneurs have already gone on record confirming that a modest hike in capital gains and income taxes would not have the slightest impact on their desire to create companies and jobs.

>>> In addition, when taxes are closer to the 50% level, that many times encourages the company’s management to keep the money invested in expanding the company, instead of paying the money out in large taxable dividends.

As Mr. Hanauer states, and as it is for consumer driven economies, “rich people do not create jobs, even if they found and build companies that eventually employ thousands of people”. What creates the jobs, Hanauer astutely observes, is “a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company's customers”.

The company's customers that buy the company's products, which, in turn, create the need for the employees to produce, sell, and service, those products. That’s what creates jobs. If those customers go broke, or lose their jobs, the demand for the company's products will collapse. The jobs will then disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneur or the company does. This is today, and always has been, the basics of what creates and keeps jobs.

As is demonstrated with the more than $9 million a year that Mr. Hanauer keeps, he buys lots of stuff. But, more importantly, he doesn't buy as much stuff as would be bought if that $9 million were instead earned by 9,000 Americans each taking home an extra $1,000 a year.

As a very wise man once said, “To be a very rich man, in a very poor country, that country’s economy will eventually fail, as fewer people have the necessary spending money for maintaining the nation’s consumer driven economy.”

Yes, it’s basic math, not “Republican economics”.

Now regarding entrepreneurs, such as Steve Jobs, of Apple Computer, Mr. Hanauer states, “Now, of course entrepreneurs are an important part of the company-creation process. And so are investors, who risk capital in the hope of earning returns. But, ultimately, whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of customers' ability and willingness to pay for the company's products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital.” He is suggesting that saying that, "rich entrepreneurs and investors create the jobs is like suggesting that squirrels create evolution”.

Or, to put it even more simply, it's like trying to say that “a seed creates a tree”. The seed does not create the tree.

The seed starts the tree. But what creates the tree is the combination of the DNA in the seed and the soil, the sunshine, the water, the seed’s environment, the nutrients, and the other factors that nurture it. Plant the seed in an inhospitable environment, and it won't create anything. Instead, it will die.

The point is that entrepreneurs and investors are very important to our economy. The Steve Jobs in the country keep the economy vibrant and nimble, and they help the "gale of creative destruction" that creates innovation and progress and wealth and allows the economy to remain competitive. And they all deserve credit for that. But if they create any jobs, it’s only temporary if the customers for their products do not appear.

We are all in this together.

What "creates" most of the jobs in our economy is due to a healthy economic ecosystem for the 99%, not a 1%, privileged part of it. Without healthy and plentiful customers, with good paying jobs and the ability to “consume”, entrepreneurs, investors and manufacturers are eventually “dead in the water”.

It’s really that simple.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS HAVE CHANGED FOR THE WORSE

2011-12-16T12:19:00.000-08:00

...The 33rd US President, Harry S. Truman

The Citizen-United decision has thrown a huge monkey–wrench into America’s elections.

We all knew the elections were going to be all about “the money” after the Citizens-United debacle came down from the conservative and activist US Supreme Court. But the whole election process has taken a turn that no one had thought about with the beginning of the 2012 election season.

First we’ve already had the 13 Republican so called “Debates”, (and watch out, they are talking about having another 13 debates before it’s all over). These bogus “political events” have turned into being mostly fund-raising events for some of these people that have had no intention of actually running for the US presidency.

I say this because both Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich did not even set up and support any traditional election organizations around the country. They instead, both did their so called, “campaigning” by going on tours for selling and signing their latest books.

And the crazy Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, who knows that she is not going to be the GOP nominee, she is using the debates for fund-raise for her next House election campaign. It is also now appearing that the GOP candidate Rick Santorum is just looking for more media-exposer for increasing his pay-check when he returns as a FOX TV contributor. And Ron Paul is staying in the debates for increasing his influence for being included in the decision making process at the 2012 Republican convention.

But the real results are that we now have to listen to all the “big money” rhetoric that is being espoused, while the rest of the nation’s citizens are striving to just keep their heads above water. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) just announced last week that for the first time in US history, 1 out of every 2 Americans is considered either poor or living in poverty.)

As for some examples of the latest rhetoric, Mitt Romney tried to make a $10,000 bet with Texas Governor Rick Perry to resolve their dispute over health care during one of their recent TV Debates. And the hateful right-wing radio talker, Michael Savage, is now offering Newt Gingrich “one million dollars to drop out of the presidential race”.

But, why would Savage offer only one million dollars for Newt to drop out?

Gingrich had already received $1.6 million for being a lobbyist / historian for the mortgage giant Freddie Mac. And he gets $60,000 for each of his public speeches, based on his own boastful account. He reportedly has also generated $100 million in revenues by trading in on his long-time Washington connections.

When Romney was criticized for the ridiculous $10,000 debate bet with Governor Perry, Romney then went on FOX to say that Gingrich should be returning the $1.6 million he received from Freddie Mac. That comment led Gingrich to then suggest that Romney should “give back all the money he’s earned [at Bain Capital] on bankrupting companies and laying off employees.”

Money, money, and more money. Kind of sounds like a gang of kids arguing on the playground, doesn’t it?

As was stated by the Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, “...if Savage was a few zeros short on Gingrich’s price tag, his instincts were correct: Gingrich and his rivals are most definitely up for sale. The Republican nominating contest resembles nothing so much as a Christie’s wine auction, as candidates accept, and toss about, dollar figures beyond the comprehension of the people they would serve.”

Because of Citizens-United, we must now look at what President Obama has to do, just to be competitive. He is now required to raise up to $1 billion in campaign contributions for the 2012 campaign. That’s up from the $750 million he brought in for his 2008 campaign.

More and more it’s becoming that if you aren’t a millionaire, or billionaire, you will be required to raise millions to run for any national elections, or re-elections. In other words, all of Congress is more than ever, “up for sale” to the highest bidder.

But, did the conservatives on the US Supreme Court possibly over-step themselves by developing a bogus legal case that allowed something like Citizens-United to pass?

Because of these massive effects of Citizen-United, in recent days, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent has proposed a way out of this mess. He has presented a constitutional amendment that would outlaw corporate campaign contributions, overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. There are also other individuals in congress putting forward bills and amendments, but the DC lobbyist (with unlimited financing) are hard at work in attempting to make sure that Senator Sanders and the others fail at their patriotic attempts.

This is all such a difference as to what it was like with previous US presidents.

Take for instance, Harry S. Truman, the 33rd US President.

On his first day of once again becoming a private citizen, refusing official transportation, Truman instead drove his brand-new Chrysler New Yorker automobile, with his wife, Bess accompanying him, all the way home to Independence, Missouri. No Secret Service protection, motorcade or Air Force One.

When Harry Truman had become President, the only asset he had was the home he and his wife Bess owned in Independence, which they had inherited from his mother-in-law.

Once Truman left the office of the president, Truman quickly decided that he did not wish to be on any company’s corporate payroll. He believed that taking advantage of such financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the nation's highest office. He also turned down numerous offers for any commercial endorsements. (Fat chance of that happening today!)

Due to his business losses during the Great Depression, Truman and his wife had no real personal savings, so as a result, they faced serious financial challenges.

Once Truman left the White House, his only source of income was his old WWI army pension of $112.56 per month. Former members of Congress and the federal courts already received a federal retirement package, but in 1953, there was no such benefit package for former presidents.

So, Truman had to take out a personal loan from a Missouri bank shortly after leaving office.

He then set about establishing another precedent for future former chief executives: making a book deal for his memoirs of his time as president. For his memoirs, Truman received a flat payment of $670,000. Unfortunately, he had to pay two-thirds of that in taxes. He later stated that he had calculated that he ended up with $37,000, after he paid his book-writing assistants.

Even though Truman only received one flat fee, his memoirs were a commercial and critical success for the publisher, and there were multiple re-prints of both books. They were originally published in two volumes in 1955 and 1956. The book titles were: Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Year of Decisions and Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Years of Trial and Hope.

It wasn’t until 1958, that Congress passed the Former Presidents Act that offered a $25,000 yearly pension to each former president. It is highly likely that Truman's financial status played a role in the law's enactment. The one other living former president at the time, Herbert Hoover, also took the new pension. Even though Hoover did not need the money; he reportedly took it to avoid embarrassing President Truman, who had become a very close friend.

The contrast between Harry S. Truman and today’s GOP candidates shows just how low things have gotten in the attitude of those individuals currently running for the highest office in the land.

God help us if one of these Republican dofuse candidates gets into office.

Copyright: G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

RIGHT-WING AUTHOR GETS IT ALL WRONG ABOUT “OCCUPY WALL STREET”

2011-12-14T05:41:00.000-08:00

...The conservative Washington Times staff writer, Marybeth Hicks.

It’s amazing how the far-right is so totally unable to see the truth, or ” the forest for the trees”.

Recently, Ms. Marybeth Hicks, the right-wing conservative author of "Don't Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left's Assault on Our Families, Faith and Freedom," and a self-appointed “culture columnist”, Ms. Hicks decided to add her own two-cents regarding the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests. Her rant has apparently gone viral on the internet.

As expected, her explanation for what she saw and understood about the OWS movement, and its participants, was about as far off-base as it’s possible to be. But it was certainly right in line with what you might expect to hear on Rupert Murdoch’s FOX TV Network or coming from the mouths of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

The first area of total misunderstanding was of her referring to all of the protestors as if they were all under the age of 30, and that most were college students sporting facial piercings and tattoos. It was surprising that she didn’t also refer to them as dirty, filthy, hippie drug addicts, as has so commonly been stated on FOX and other right-wing radio talk shows.

The reality is that it has been documented by many reputable news organizations that the average age of the OWS protestors is more like 45-50, with many retirees as well as many union workers, nurses, college graduates and working, or out-of-work, professionals.

Apparently, based on her previous writing experience, she is once again seeing herself in the position of being the righteous parent giving moral instructions to misbehaving adolescents, aka: the OWS protestors.

In fact, she starts her review of the OWS movement in the form of asking the maternal question: "Who parented these people?"
She then goes on to take the role of the aforementioned “parent”, or of being the more intelligent individual, and she proceeds to give the protestors five things that, “the OWS protesters' mothers should have taught their children but obviously didn't, so I will.”

But, also as expected, the assumptions that Ms. Hicks has made regarding her five different pieces of profound knowledge, are basically all incorrect. Without stating them in their lengthy entirety, here are her five assumptions condensed down to one sentence each.

#1: The protestors feel that they aren’t being treated fairly and they should be getting whatever it is that they want just by asking.

#2: The protestors expect to get “free” college tuition and “free” health care.

#3: The protestors expect their expensive college loans to be eliminated.

#4: The protestors are spoiled and protesting just for getting more attention from the media.

#5: That the reason the protestors don’t have jobs is that they are all sporting, “tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks” which make them unfit for most jobs.

Ms. Hicks goes on to support her apparent idea that the protestors are all mostly college students by incorrectly stating that, “Only 4% of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4%, find a mirror and face the problem. It's not them. It's you.”

I don’t know where she got that percentage, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the current unemployed college student rate is currently 18.8%.

So, OK, let’s take on her assumptions one at a time.

#1: The protestors feel that they aren’t being treated fairly and they should be getting whatever it is that they want just by asking.

Over the past three decades, the wealthy have increased their wealth 200-300% while over the average middle-class wages have stagnated. The protestors are saying that the average wages from the 1940’s to mid 1970’s basically followed along with the increases in wealth for very rich Americans. This all stopped, beginning with Reaganomics, in the 1980’s. The protestors basically want to stop what has been going on for the last 30years in forcing them into the poor house. They want changes in fiscal policy that evens-the-playing-field. An area in which the conservatives do not want to change.

#2: The protestors expect to get “free” college tuition and “free” health care.

Most of the industrialized countries around the world offer free education from K-12 through college as well as tax paid-for health care. In fact, the US is the only industrialized country that has “for-profit” health care providers. In most European countries, it’s literally against the law to offer for-profit health care.

Starting with Thomas Jefferson’s, Virginia Technical Institute, that was the first US college that provided free upper education. Every US state at one time had free education available through four years of college. Today those free colleges are disappearing in the United States. It started when Ronald Reagan, as the governor of California, started charging its residents to attend state colleges. The protestors want to go back to tax-payer provided higher education and health care, that also competes with the rest of the world. They do not expect to not pay higher taxes to receive these items.

#3: The protestors expect their expensive college loans to be eliminated.

When the Republicans took low cost student loans away and gave it to private banks, the cost of those loans soared. This increased cost, plus the increases in college tuition, have caused students to finish college with debts similar to the costs of buying their first homes. The protestors want the loans to return to being managed by the government at lower interest rates and longer terms. They do not expect the loans to just, “go away”.

#4: The protestors are spoiled and protesting just for getting more attention from the media.

As it was with American Civil Rights and the War in Vietnam, it takes a movement of the people to change politics and policy, not the reverse. That is why there are movement protests all over the country and also starting up in Europe. The majority of the Americans of all ages want to change the current policies and politics. The last time this occurred with the US economy was after the 1930’s Great Depression. That movement took 3 years before the changes were made in Washington DC for beginning to build what became the greatest middle-class in the world. That’s what the OWS protests are all about. They are not spoiled kids looking for attention.

#5: That the reason the protestors don’t have jobs is that they are all sporting, “tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks” which make them unfit for most jobs.

Yes, there are some young people sporting tattoos and piercings within in the OWS movement. But overall these are not just “kids” of bad parenting. As stated, there is a cross-section of many Americans that want change. And Ms. Hicks comment about 4% unemployed students is totally off base. This is a legitimate “Movement”, not some prank by a bunch of juveniles.

Unfortunately, Ms. Hicks attitude is right in line with most of the dyed-in-the-wool right-wingers. I guess it should have been expected.

Copyright: G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

SHORT PRIMERS ON THE SEVEN POTENTIAL GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

2011-12-12T06:40:00.000-08:00

...It’s that crazy Republican Congresswoman, & GOP Presidential candidate, Michele Bachmann

This article shows that there is only one individual that is qualified and that should be seriously considered by the GOP for 2012. And that one candidate doesn’t stand a chance in hell.

The following is being presented in order for everyone to fully understand the background and capabilities of those in the group that are to be chosen from, for becoming the political opponent to President Obama in November 2012.

#1: NEWT GINGRICH:

The “Christmas Grinch” himself, Newton Leroy Gingrich, is currently the “flavor-of-the-month” for the Republican Party. And it currently, being so close to the Iowa Caucuses, Newt could end up being the final flavor-of-choice for 2012 by default.

Newt has previously been a history professor, but has mainly been known for being the only Speaker of the House that was forced to leave his Speaker position by a Republican House of Representatives on ethics issues.

Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was sanctioned and fined $300,000. Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". The Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.

Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and he had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaints against him.

Gingrich left his position voluntarily in order to avoid a long and complicated hearing in the full House of Representatives.

Gingrich is also known for having a trigger temper and for driving President Clinton’s sex scandal investigation while at the same time having his own secret sexual affair. He made big news in Washington DC when he went to a hospital to visit his wife, who was having cancer treatments, as he was bringing her divorce papers.

Today, Newt is on his 3rd wife, a woman that he was previously having an affair with and who has a ½ million dollar credit line fetish with jewelry from Tiffany’s.

Gingrich is best known in gutter politics for his obstructionist tactics and the 1995 shut down of the US government that he implemented as the House Speaker. He has recently stated such outlandish comments such as “The president is the best American “food stamp president ever,” and that President Obama is, “fundamentally out of touch with how the world works”.

These statements are coming from a man that wants to get rid of child labor laws and that thinks that working children should replace their school janitors. Gingrich stated on FOX that in poor neighborhoods, “The young students could be paid to clean the toilets and scrub the floors.”

Newt also wants to get rid of “Obamacare” and to deny women seeking reproductive health care services.

#2: MITT ROMNEY:

Mr. “Flip-Flopper” himself, Willard Mitt Romney, has been unsuccessfully running for president since he left the Massachusetts’ governorship in 2007.

He is a life-time Mormon and a staunch supporter of corporate America. Virtually every large multinational corporation has donated to his PAC or election campaign. But even with all that money, along with his own personal wealth, he is not well-liked by the base of the conservative Republicans.

Having brought health care to the state of Massachusetts, and that health care program being the foundation for President Obama’s health care program, Mitt is looked at by his own party as being a traitor to conservatism and “way too moderate”.

And all that has nothing to do on the fact that Mitt has “flip-flopped” his position on everything from abortion, and climate change, to health care and Gay rights. He also wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare as we know it today.

#3: RICK PERRY:

Mr. “Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme” himself, James Richard Perry, Governor of Texas, still thinks that Social Security is unconstitutional. He is very proud that he has executed more Texas prisoners than any other US governor since the death penalty was reinstated.

He claims to have added more jobs than any other state, but they are mostly minimum wage jobs with the Texas oil companies (nothing he had to do with) and the other increases were by adding public state jobs.

He has broached the false idea that Texas can secede from the Union and he wants to repeal “Obamacare” while allowing Texas private health care companies to “ration” their health care. He also agrees to deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions. Under his watch, health care premium costs doubled in Texas.

In addition, most capable political observers consider Governor Rick Perry being “as dunb as a rock”.

#4: MICHELE BACHMANN:

Ms. “Dingbat Congresswoman” herself, Michele Marie Bachmann, by winning the Tea Party’s, Ames Straw Poll Caucus, and by founding the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, Ms. Bachmann catapulted herself to becoming one of the GOP presidential candidates. I call her a “Dingbat” because this is the woman that seriously believes the following:

>>> That the American Revolution’s “shot heard around the world” was fired in New Hampshire, not in Concord, Massachusetts.
>>> She thinks that John Quincy Adams was a “founding father” instead of his father, Presidaent John Adams.
>>> She thinks that the founding fathers were against slavery, even though most of them had slaves.
>>> She had publicly mistaken the movie icon John Wayne with serial killer, John Wayne Gacey.
>>> She had publicly mistaken Elvis Presley’s birthday anniversary with the anniversary of his death.
>>> On MSNBC, Ms. Bachmann called for the US Justice Department to investigate all US congresspersons to determine which of them were un-American.
>>> Ms. Bachmann and her husband believe that being Gay is a choice and that it can be “prayed away”.
>>> Michele is a serious evangelical that believes that the US was originally formed based on Christianity.

As president, Ms. Bachmann swears that she would write a presidential executive order to repeal “Obamacare”. (Executive orders cannot repeal laws enacted by Congress.)

She voted to end Medicare as we know it and she stated that as president she would “wean” Americans off of Social Security.

Ms. Bachmann says she would bring back “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” in the military, which a president can’t do.

And even though she rails against government spending, her family’s farm and her husband’s medical company have received hundreds of thousands of government subsidy dollars to date.

#5: RICK SANTORUM:

Mr. “Intelligent Design vs Evolution” himself, Richard John Santorum, was a Republican Pennsylvania Senator until 2006.

Mr. Santorum is a very religious evangelical, and a staunch right-wing politician. When he lost his senatorial race, he lost, with 41% of the vote to his opponent’s 59%, the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator.

He is known for his stances against homosexuality and the high-profile case of not allowing Ms. Terri Schiavo’s husband to turn off her life support system after 15 years of being in a coma. (Ms. Schiavo was proven to have been brain dead for years before she was eventually allowed to officially die.)

Santorum has been a firm supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, intelligent design over evolution, and Social Security privatization.

In a bizarre episode, Mr. Santorum and his wife brought their miscarried deceased male child home from the hospital to introduce it to their seven other children before returning the baby's body to the hospital the next day.

Santorum has been serving as a Senior Fellow with the right-wing Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and was a long-time Republican contributor to the mis-information FOX so-called News Channel.

#6: RON PAUL:

Mr. “just let him die”, himself, Ronald Ernest Paul, is an American physician, author and United States Congressman from Texas who is seeking to be the Republican presidential candidate.

The “just let him die” reference is because it was yelled out in a recent primary TV debate. At the time, Mr. Paul, who doesn’t agree with providing any Americans health care, or unemployment insurance or Social Security, was explaining that we should not provide health care for someone that was terminally ill. Someone from the debate audience obviously agreed with Mr. Paul as they yelled out, “just let him die.”

Ron Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes, regardless of what they would benefit the public. He cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period. He has pledged to the right-wing lobbyist, Grover Norquist, to never to raise taxes and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit.

Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels. Financing government operations would be primarily by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs. Unfortunately, that would not provide the necessary tax revenues.

Mr. Paul endorses eliminating most all federal government agencies, terming them “unnecessary bureaucracies”. He also advocates for the gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve System.

#7: JON HUNTSMAN:

Mr. “motocross”, himself. Jon Meade Huntsman Jr., is a long-time Mormon, an American politician and diplomat who served as the 16th Governor of Utah.

He also served in the administrations of four United States presidents and is a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

The “motocross” reference is from an early TV ad that the Huntsman’s campaign ran where a helmeted motocross rider was screaming across the desert. The motorcycle rider was supposed to be the candidate. However, there were no political comments or statements and you never saw the face of the rider. Quite a bizarre TV ad .

Huntsman inherited a multi-million dollar corporation and he has served as the CEO of his family's Huntsman Corporation.

He was elected Governor of Utah in April, 2004 and won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote. While governor, he also served as chairman of the Western Governors Association and as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association.

In 2009, he resigned as governor to accept an appointment from President Obama as the United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. He also speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese.

Jon Huntsman would probably be the most intelligent and capable candidate that the Republicans could offer in 2012. But Mr. Huntsman is much too moderate for the current Republican Party and the Tea Party members. He was also an ambassador for President Obama, and for the GOP, that is being a traitor, even if it was for the benefit of a “supposed” bipartisan country.

So here you have a condensed version of what the Republicans have to choose from for their 2012 candidate. For whomever receives the nod from the voters to be the eventual GOP candidate, all I can say is, “I wish you no luck in the 2012 campaign”.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

OBAMA SHOWS THAT POLITICAL HISTORY CONTINUES TO REPEAT ITSELF

2011-12-07T09:13:00.000-08:00

...President Obama speaking in Osawatomie, Kansas

President Obama this week made it clear that the US is going through many of the same issues that Theodore Roosevelt, the previous Republican president, spoke about in his famous “New Nationalism Speech” of 1910.

As you may or may not be aware, President Barack Obama has very deep family roots in the state of Kansas. His mother was born in Wichita, Kansas and his mother’s parents were both from Kansas.

Earlier this week, President Obama went to Osawatomie, Kansas, in order to present a kind of unofficial “state-of-the-union” speech that the country has needed for a long time. In many ways, it not only commemorated a Theodore Roosevelt speech that was made in this same town 101 years ago, it also seemed to channel Mr. Roosevelt’s thoughts from way back then.

For those that did not hear or read the whole speech, here are some excerpts that seriously layout what this country has been put through the last three decades, who is responsible and what needs to be done to right our “ship of state”.

As stated by President Obama:

“This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what's at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong. I'm here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we're greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. These aren't Democratic values or Republican values. These aren't 1% values or 99% values. They're American values. And we have to reclaim them.

You see, this isn't the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world's industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It's led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn't profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe. And today, they still can't.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. ‘Our country," he said, "means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy … of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.’

Now, for [saying] this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist – even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women, insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.”

As to where we are today and who is responsible for getting us here, President Obama stated the following:

“Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. "The market will take care of everything," they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger.

Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.

Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.

But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory.

Remember in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class – things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us?

Insurance companies that jacked up people's premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn't afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.”

And the president gave a good explanation for what the last three decades have brought us all:

“Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1% has gone up by more than 25% to $1.2m per year. I'm not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I'm saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top 100th of 1%, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6%.

Now, this kind of inequality – a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression – hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It's also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most Americans.”

And what needs to be done to fix the problems?

“But we need to meet the moment. We've got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission – a national mission. Government and businesses, parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn't be laying off good teachers right now – we should be hiring them. We shouldn't be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. We shouldn't be making it harder to afford college – we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn't rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went.

In today's innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and our workers shouldn't be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way, if we don't have an economy that's built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won't all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. Because if we want an economy that's built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America.

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world. And that's why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn't be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools – all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. But as a nation, we've always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed. And historically, that hasn't been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II – including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham – the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. It was a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas who started the interstate highway system, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.”

And here’s how we pay for it.

“Of course, those productive investments cost money. They're not free. And so we've also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending. But we don't have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear. To reduce our deficit, I've already signed nearly $1tn of spending cuts into law and I've proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that's set to expire at the end of this month. If we don't do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery. That's the short term.

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing – all those things that helped make us an economic superpower? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can't afford to do both. That is not politics. That's just math.

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president. So let's just do a trip down memory lane here.

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn't like in the early 50s, when the top tax rate was over 90%. This isn't even like the early 80s, when the top tax rate was about 70%. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39%. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%.... One percent.

That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong. It's wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50m. It's wrong for Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me. So do most Americans – Democrats, independents and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.”

And finally.......

“And it is that belief [in 1910] that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie – maybe even some of your ancestors – on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

'We are all Americans,' Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. 'Our common interests are as broad as the continent.' In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance.

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we've changed in many ways since Roosevelt's time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn't changed – what can never change – are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other's success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, 'The fundamental rule of our national life,' he said, 'the rule which underlies all others – is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.' And I believe America is on the way up”

I encourage everyone that read this column to seek out and read the full text of President Obama’s speech. As was the Theodore Roosevelt speech, this Obama speech is one that will be quoted for decades to come.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

WHY DO THE CONSERVATIVES HATE AMERICA'S ORGANIZED UNIONS?

2011-12-06T06:39:00.000-08:00

...The late Republican strategist, Paul Weyrich

The GOP declared war on America’s labor unions over 100 years ago. Now, just why is that?

Here we are today, embracing the year 2012, and the major unions in the nation, both those in the private industries and those in the federal and state governments, are all still totally despised by American conservatives.

The real reason for the GOP's long-term anti-union attitude is actually quite simple. American unions are the most democratic organizations known to mankind. And conservatives have always hated real democracy.

What you say! Republicans, and other conservatives actually hate the basic democratic foundations of the most successful nation in history?

Yes, that is a correct statement.

The reality is, that in true conservative thinking, they would much prefer conservative kingdoms and dictatorships with only a small group of people in control of the government. This is also why the Republican party has always been in bed with the major corporations. (No, it’s not because the corporations are the bogus “job creators”.)

They love and support large corporations because corporations are just smaller forms of kingdoms or dictatorships.

Think about it.

Corporations are not democracies. As an employee, you give up your freedoms of free speech and the right to have a personal opinion. And you obviously do not get to vote for the top executive that runs the corporation. You work under the rules of the corporation and if you want to change the rules, all you can usually do is make suggestions to upper management. Management decides when and where you will continue to work for them and whether you will get a raise, or a demotion, or a “pink slip”. It’s definitely anything but a democracy.

On the other hand and in comparison, unions are totally democratic.

Union members elect their leaders, they decide by majority rule on their labor contracts, their internal rules and regulations, on their wages and on their pensions and health care programs.

As to the conservatives, they don’t want any large democratic group of any kind telling them what to do.

This is why the Republican party’s #1 goal for 2012 is to take back the White House. This is also why they don’t care what happens to the average working middle-class American. “Let them eat cake,” should be the Republican’s motto because they would rather see the country, and all of its middle-class and its poor to totally fail. For them, this is much preferable to the president and the Democrats having any success in saving the nation’s economy.(Especially, since they were the ones responsible for driving the economy into the ditch.)

And the conservatives have felt this way, going all the way back to the gilded ages of the late 1900’s.

As a more recent case in point, the late Paul Weyrich, who was the co-founder of the conservative think-tank, Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEX). This last group being the organization that writes right-wing, conservative legislation that DC lobbyists will present to their paid-off, US Congresspersons for introduction in the US House and Senate.

This well established Republican strategist made what became a very famous speech at a conservative Texas get-together back in the late 1960’s. The meeting was also attended by the then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, and the speech kind of says it all regarding the future philosophy of the governor that became president, and most of today’s American conservatives.

In the speech, Mr Weyrich stated: "Today, many of our Christians have what I call the “Goo-Goo Syndrome” -- Good Government. They want everybody to vote.
I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

This one short paragraph became a new foundation of the thinking of the GOP that is still their thinking today.

Being a smaller political party in its number of members, (when compared to the Democratic party), this is the reason the Republicans try to make it more difficult to register voters, especially America’s elderly, minorities, and the younger voters, as these groups tend to vote mostly Democratic.

Take for instance the last national election in 2010.

Historically, after a major presidential election such as that of 2008, the new ruling party usually looses congressional seats in both houses of congress in the next mid-term election.

However, with the many more seats-than-usual that the GOP and the Tea Party won in 2010, they have continued in trying to sell the idea that the voters “gave the GOP a mandate to cut federal spending and lower taxes”.

Well, what really happened is that the Democratic voters failed to show up in the 2010 election because many of those that had voted for the Democrats in 2008 were very disappointed. They didn’t like that the president and the Democrats in office didn’t go far enough with “Obamacare” by it not having a “Public Option”. They were also upset because the Dems in Congress did not first concentrate on a real "jobs bill" instead of immediately pursuing the healthcare issues.

In addition, 2010 was a classic mid-term election which always has a much smaller voter turn-out than presidential elections.

The truth is that the GOP’s so called “mandate” was actually a minor win by less that 18% of America’s voting public. Since when did 18% of America’s voters become a “mandate”...?

As I have previously said, with the exception of the right to bear-arms and the “state’s rights 10th amendment”, the conservatives tend to hate all the other parts of the US Constitution. But they love giant corporations, monopolies, big money and a conservative US Supreme Court that decides who and how the country is run.

And I will challenge anyone that reads this column to argue with my conclusions regarding America’s political conservatives.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

"OCCUPY WALL STREET" HAS NOW BECOME, “OCCUPY THE NATION”

2011-12-05T06:15:00.000-08:00

...The OWS at work

Occupy is a very large national group of seriously pissed-off middle-class Americans.

Probably one of the recent best things for the “Occupy” groups all over America was when that blow-hard, Bill O’Reilly on FOX, stated that the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement was now “dead”. Pinhead O’Reilly had made this statement because the LA Police had just used 1400 of their “finest”, wearing riot helmets and carrying batons, to make 200 arrests of peaceful American citizens. Oh, and there was not one instance of violent resistance.

Yes, the “Occupy” groups are all over the nation, and they are now in some major European cities as well. These growing movements must be making some serious impressions. At first, the main-stream media and the conservatives tried to ignore the movement. But as it grew, the movement became impossible to ignore. They have grown so much that in Great Britain, 2 million protesting Brits virtually shut down London by going on strike and moving into the streets and stopping all business in the usually busy streets of London.

Major conservative talkers on the far-right radio talk shows and the FOX channel are using outrageous lies to describe the movement crowds. They have also been using denigrating descriptions and even some old false “cold-war” claims such as “the movement members are aligned with Lenin and other previous communists leaders”. As usual, they never show any proof of their outrageous claims.

They also sometimes refer to these average Americans as being: shiftless mobs, dirty hippies, sex-offenders, convicted felons, drug addicts, professional handcuff-lock-pickers, anarchists, Parisian mobs, “being worse than Robespierre”, Marxist radicals, anti-capitalists, and finally, that nut-case Glenn Beck even stated that the Occupy Groups will “Come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you, they will kill everybody.”

Sounds like the movement has gone from the ruling class mode of, “ignore them” to the “fight them” mode. The OWS movement is seriously getting under the conservative’s skin...and that’s very, very good!

The approach that the opposition to the movement is now taking is to continue criticizing the OWS and to question what the movement is all about.

Some of the questions that they are asking are:

>>> What is the movement’s focus?

>>> The movement is too vague. Where is their list of demands?

>>> Where and who are their leaders?

Let’s take a look at these questions, one at a time.

#1: What is the movements focus?

To sum it up, the average working, middle-class American is declaring that they are highly pissed-off.

But their focus is actually very clear. They are finally upset at the increasing disparity between the rich Americans and the ever-growing groups of poor Americans. They have watched the well-to-do Americans increase their wealth by over 200%, while the average working American’s wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years. Even the slogan of their group, “We are the 99%” and the fact that they are referred to as the “Occupy Wall Street” groups, pretty much says it all. They know where the blame belongs, and they have made it a major part of their slogan. They have been very clear that they are also very up-set with the massive student loan rip-offs, government-for-sale lobbyists, permanent foreign wars and over-paid military mercenaries and defense contractors. It has become obvious that the overall abusive treatment of the many, by the privileged few, has finally taken its toll.

This is a true populist movement. The Tea Party movement had started out that way, but was then taken over and financed by the conservative think-tanks and GOP front groups such as Freedom Works the American Crossroads and the American Enterprise institute. In retrospect, it is now appearing that the Tea Party members were originally, and mostly, just a group of pissed-off conservative Republicans. Based on the losers that the Tea Party put into office in the 2010 election, even they are looking to replace many of those crazies in the up-coming 2012 election.

The reality is that the Occupy Wall Street crowd consists of millions of ordinary middle-class and low-wage Americans that feel dismissed, disrespected, and disenfranchised in their own country. It’s really that simple.

#2: The movement is too vague. Where is their list of demands?

If you will recall, back when this nation first started, the liberation movement started as a disjointed activity. In fact, as of today, there has never been a clear starting date applied to when the colonists began protesting their grievances against the arrogance of King George III and the giant East India Trading Company.

As it is with the OWS movement, all the original colonists had wanted was to just be treated equally and to be part of the king’s decision making process regarding the colonies. Had the king agreed and brought the colonists into the system, the movement that eventually started a new nation would probably have failed at the start. It wasn’t until the colonists passions were driven to the point of outrage that those such as Thomas Paine began writing his infamous rebellion pamphlet’s. (Kind of like what’s going on today with the Occupy’s internet, Facebook and Twitter posts.) These were the writings of the time that eventually spawned the Sons of Liberty and other maverick protestors including those that participated in the Boston Tea Party. It was very much later, after the colonists movement was well established, that a specific list of grievances and demands were developed for the liberation movement.

In fact, as with our past history, it was only recently that a selection of the Occupy cities began forming a functioning, ‘Demands Working Group”. This group will be operating as a very, “small ‘d’, democratic group”. This organization will continue to have on-going discussions and they will extensively use consensus-building techniques before a solid “demands list” is eventually developed.

It must be noted that it took three decades for the American middle-class to get to this depressed level. It will not be fixed in a few weeks or months. And the conservative have their vast wealth and they have been building their misinformation systems for years. They won’t be giving up their hold on this nation without a number of major confrontations.

#3: Who and where are the movement’s leaders?

Purposely, so that they can’t be targeted by the opposition, there are no specific leaders. The group’s decision are made by the General Assemblies (GA) of each OWS group. The GA meets twice a day and the concept of using a GA approach came from the recent groups of Egyptian citizen occupiers of Egypt’s Tahrir Square. Everyone’s voice and suggestions are welcome and all proposals are adopted or passed by 9-out-of-10 of the participants. It is a painful and slow process, but it allows everyone to have their say for the benefit of the whole group. In other words, it’s how the original founding fathers designed the nation’s democratic process over 200 years ago. (Too bad the current US Congress doesn’t work this way.)

Based on recent polls, 59% of Americans agree with what the Occupy protestors are saying and doing. And here comes the conservatives worst nightmare. Last month the Washington Post stated that rank & file Tea Party members, dismayed that their movement had been stolen by the Republican lackeys, are now reaching out to the Occupy camp. On an internet posting by a self-declared former “Tea Partier”, they stated “I don’t agree with everything that your movement does, but I sympathize with your cause and agree on our common enemy.”

This movement’s opposition will become much uglier as the elites realize that there are many more of us than there are of them, and that eventually they are going to lose. The Occupy giant is now awakened and he is royally pissed. Right now what the Occupy movement needs is not more people setting up tents in the town squares. What they really need is for more people to visit the occupy compounds. The visitors need to have conversations with the occupiers for really understanding what’s going on and how the visitors can help without having to camp out and be pepper sprayed by the local police. (There are plenty of people already volunteering to be those guinea pigs of police violence.)

The next major focus point for “Occupy” should be Washington DC. Perhaps by the time Winter is over, that would be a good place for 1 million Americans to just “show-up” and take over the Washington Mall.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what the GA’s decide.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

IT’S THE IDEOLOGY STUPID!

2011-11-29T09:50:00.000-08:00

...The divide between the two political parties continues to grow.

An implied declaration from the current Republican Party is: To hell with the average working American”.

As in the past, the problems we face today can be solved. However, counter to what some people are saying, it is not a structural problem with our politics.

The issues that are keeping the US Congress from getting any business done is that, where there use to be both moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats, today those moderates are few and far between in both parties.

And when the far-righties controlling the House and the “fake” Tea Party have their #1 goal of replacing President Obama with their own ideological president, they will do whatever necessary to keep the government from accomplishing anything for the people. (I say “fake”, because the Tea Party is no longer a ground-swell organization. It is mainly organized and financed by far right organizations such as Freedom Works and Karl Rove’s, American Crossroads, courtesy of an activist, conservatively controlled, US Supreme Court.)

And the Democrats aren’t helping the situation as some of them continue to say that they want to start a more progressive third political party due to “structural problems in our Democratic party”.

History has shown time and again, that in a system where it’s majority rule and “winner take all”, one of the two largest parties will always be the winner. In other words, if the progressives decided to pull out of the Democratic party and then started a third party, it would offer a final result of dividing and conquering both the Democratic party along with the new progressive party.

Nations with multiple parties have elections that are not, “winner take all”. The government control in these countries is divided amongst all of the participating political parties. As an example, if there is a national election where there are five parties competing, when the election is over, the government would then be represented by all five parties in the proportions that were decided by the nation’s voters. The result would be that the largest party could over-rule each of the smaller parties. But in many situations, the smaller parties could join together to over-come a larger party.

Unfortunately, for the US, it was decided many years ago by our forefathers that the US would be a republic and the elections would be “winner take all”, not divided between the participating parties. This is why the GOP, always a smaller party than the Democrats, continues attempting to keep the Democrats away from the election polls. It’s also why the Republicans try to make it so difficult for the elderly, the poor, the legal immigrants and the very young from registering to vote. These specific groups usually tend to vote mostly Democratic.

This has not been a big problem in our nation’s past politics because the largest group of lawmakers in congress has usually been mostly moderate politicians. Yes, there were always the extremist at the ends of both the progressive and the conservative organizations. But by and large, the largest group of both parties were moderates. Being moderates, it allowed for the “give and take” in their negotiations, which allowed for both parties to come to reasonable conclusions for doing the people’s business.

That is not the case today.

Since the US Supreme Court confirmed that “corporations are people”, “money is corporate free-speech” and “corporations can spend unlimited amounts of their ‘free-speech’ in political campaigns”, the GOP is now surgically attached to the corporations, their money and their ideology. Due to this commitment by the GOP, America is on the way to becoming a corporate run Oligarchy.

Therefore, it’s not the party’s political structure that is a problem, it’s their current different ideologies that are separating the two parties.

Let’s face it, the Republicans have never really cared about the average, working, middle-class American, except when they needed to get the public’s vote. And that’s still the case today.

However, the GOP members today have decided, that to get their needed votes, they have chosen to blatantly lie to the general public. They will then use their vast amounts of available corporate “free-speech” to pay for the many TV and radio ads that continually parrot their false information and their “Republican talking points”.

As a case in point, all of the Republican presidential candidates in their many presidential primary TV debates have boldly stated that, “President Obama’s 2010 stimulus package failed to save or create one US job.”

And that is a bare-faced lie.

They keep presenting this lie, even though the non-partisan Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), have both officially stated, “It is estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2010, there were somewhere between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people who were then employed, who would not have been had the stimulus not been enacted.”

But the conservatives, with the support of conservative talk-radio hosts and GOP TV, (aka: Fox News) continue spreading the false info that the stimulus didn’t work. And most well respected economists had admitted at the beginning, that the stimulus was actually too small for a country the size of the US. They also stated that it had too many tax cuts and not enough infrastructure revenue. (And this was all due to the Republicans not allowing the stimulus to be as big as it should have been in the first place.)

The same kinds of problems have been happening with the new “Obamacare”.

Most progressives in congress have already made clear that they are willing not only to increase revenue through tax increases, but to also cut future Medicare costs. (Obamacare did both, and it was attacked by Republicans for doing so.) Even the Democrats on the failed supercommittee had caved to the Republicans and offered substantial entitlement cuts. But the Republicans once again said “no” because the Democrats rightly refused a deal that would squander years of future tax revenue in the name of keeping taxes low on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

The basics of the Republican’s corporate ideology is to clearly declare that “We have no shame! We will lie, cheat and steal wherever it’s needed in order to achieve our corporate leader’s goals of lower taxes and more de-regulation.” In other words, ”To hell with the average working American”.

So, for the future, the only way this stalemate will be settled will be for all progressives to unite as are the Occupy Wall Street groups. To remove the zealots from political office and replace them with real moderates. To stop allowing corporations to be “people” and their money to be “fee-speech”, and to get the big money out of politics by having publically funded elections.

It’s a big group of issues to solve, but they are solvable. But they will only be solved if we have the desire and wherewithal to get it done. It’s up to us.

Author’s Comment:Late breaking news: In the 5th poll since 2006, the latest poll released by Fairleigh Dickinson University once again found that people who get their news from Fox News know significantly less about news both in the U.S. and the world than people who watch no news at all.

Copyright: G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

THERE ARE TWO APPROACHES FOR THE 2012 ELECTIONS. WHICH ONE SHOULD OBAMA CHOOSE?

2011-11-23T14:28:00.000-08:00

...The master "Flip-Flopper" Willard Mitt Romney

Candidate or economy? Which one should Obama focus on?

It’s amazing that so many of the Republicans don’t seem to understand how their own government works.

The Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is now going around criticizing the president for not having gotten involved with the congressional “Supercommittee”. Mitt doesn’t seem to understand that the committee is part of the nation’s “legislative branch”, not the “executive branch”.

There was no “seat at the table” for the president in the “Supercommittee”. There were 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats, and there were 6 Senators and 6 House Representatives. There was no need or place for the president to get involved. But according to Mr. “Flip-Flopper”, President Obama should have been leading the pack as if it was his responsibility. Had the president actually gotten involved, the legislators would have rightfully accused him of, “meddling in their business”.

Whether the final GOP candidate is Mitt, or Newt or whoever their “flavor of the month” is, I am now questioning whether the president should focus his up-coming efforts on beating the GOP candidate or should he focus his cadency on offering an aggressive plan for fixing the nation’s economy?

If he focuses just on the opposition candidate, he will most likely have a treasure chest of examples for demonstrating where all of the potential Republican candidates (especially Mitt) have consistently changed their positions on the nation’s critical issues. If the final candidate does end up being Mitt Romney, the president will have a virtual laundry list to define Romney as Mr. “what way is the wind blowing today”. But is that the best strategy for winning next November?

Let’s face it, it is already well known that the president hasn’t received the credit he deserves for his successes to date.

Little has been said positively about Obama’s dealing with the economy to date. His getting the US out of Iraq and dialing down Afghanistan. His saving the US auto industry, and in getting Osama bin Laden. His getting insurance for millions of Americans with pre-existing medical conditions and getting their kids over 21 back on their parents’ insurance policies.

These are no doubt, giant successes. But for now, perhaps his biggest issue going forward is not just for winning in 2012. It is instead for setting the appropriate direction for this nation’s sustainable economic future.

Even with all of his successes to date, the nation and the world today still have no idea where the world’s biggest economy is headed. This was intended to be the focus of the previous “Supercommittee”, and now that option no longer exists.

So, should the president focus on his political opponent, or should he focus on the nation’s economic future?

The reality is that he has to do both.

Now, the New York Times op-ed writer Thomas Friedman seems to think that the best approach for the US economy would be for the president to bring back strong support for the findings of the Simpson-Bowles commission. And upon further consideration, that just might be the best idea.

Mr. Friedman recently wrote: “I believe the best way for Obama to do that is by declaring today that he made a mistake in spurning his own deficit reduction commission, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, and is now adopting Simpson-Bowles — which already had Republican and Democratic support — as his long-term fiscal plan to be phased in after a near-term stimulus. If he did that, he would win politically and create a national consensus that would trump his opponents, right and left.
“I think what happened with Simpson-Bowles was an absolute tragedy,” Warren Buffett said on CNBC last week. “They work like a devil for 10 months. ... They compromise. They bring in people as far apart as [Democratic Senator Dick] Durbin and [Republican Senator Tom] Coburn to get them to sign on and then they’re totally ignored. I think that’s a travesty.”

On the other hand, with the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell’s commitment that the Republican’s #1 goal is to make President Obama a “one-term president”, the previous combined Republican and Democratic support for Simpson-Bowles may have already vanished. Since so many of the normally Republican values have disappeared or morphed into more conservative positions, the support for the Simpson-Bowles commission may today already be a moot point.

The fact is, the Simpson-Bowles approach is a serious attempt at real deficit reduction and it matches the scale of our nation’s problems. It has substantial tax reforms and real revenue increases. It offers an appropriate gasoline tax for funding alternative energy research, plus deep defense budget cuts and it deals appropriately with modifications to both Social Security and Medicare. It could, or perhaps should, be a new starting point for Obama’s future congressional negotiations.

Obama could also offer a plan in which the wealthy would have to pay their fair share. Because, as Mr. Friedman has stated, “they’ve had a great two decades.”

This has to be a national effort. It would not just be a roadmap to balancing the budget, but an attempt at making America great again through reignited economic growth.

Sounds pretty good doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, the current far-right conservatives would never let such an aggressive economic plan survive. No, they will continue trying to make this great nation into a third-world country where 1% of the nation’s citizens run the other 99%, which is pretty much where they’ve been taking the country over the last 30 years.

We are currently at a turning point in this nation. The Occupy Wall Street crowds know this, and they know that it is time for the average working American to take back the nation ship’s tiller. Unfortunately, President Obama can’t do it all alone. Not only must he be re-elected in 2012, all those opposing him and his party must be replaced with those that could help Obama bring back the basics as was offered by the Simpson-Bowles commission.

This may seriously be our only, and our last immediate chance, for changing the nation’s political direction.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

THE SUPERCOMMITTEE WAS DESTINED TO FAIL FROM THE VERY BEGINNING

2011-11-22T14:48:00.000-08:00

...Senator Patty Murray, (D-WA), a Supercommittee Co-Chairperson.

There was never a chance that the Republicans would agree to any revenue plans that included taxing wealthy Americans.

The "Supercommittee" was a total fallacy from day-one. And the biggest laugh I received was when the co-chairs, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA.) and Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), stated: “After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline.” Hard work? Hardly.

And why did I laugh?

Because, the committee only had a few public hearings, just for show, and they never got close to a deal as they hadn’t even held a negotiating session for weeks.

To top it all off, this committee that was started with so much national noise and fan-fare, they made the final announcement that they couldn’t come to an agreement over deficit reduction by sending the news out in an e-mail.

And Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the #2 Republican in the Senate, after the announcement was made, he tried to slip away from his office without being noticed.

While Kyl’s spokesman emerged from the office to take questions, Kyl and his security agent slipped out a back door and ran for the elevator. When the reporters spied him and ran after him and yelled, “Why did it fail?”, Kyl never answered as they watched the elevator door close on the cameras and microphones.

And by-the-way, based on the committee information leaks, Kyl was the committee member who did more than any other member to assure that the committee would be a failure.

Later, on the Republican friendly GOP TV, Kyl falsely stated, (er I mean on the FOX Network), “Our Democratic friends, thought this was the opportunity to raise taxes, and it didn’t matter what we proposed.” But Senator John Kerry, (D-MA), on MSNBC corrected Kyl stating, “We put a hugely reasonable amount — with very painful reductions – [on the table], and they [the Republicans] said, ‘no.’ ”

The real reason that it failed was because Democrats rightly wouldn’t agree to any adjustments in Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid without Republican concessions on raising revenue via tax increases on the rich. They knew the Republicans weren’t going to budge, or they wouldn’t have even brought up Social Security and Medicare, so the committee was doomed from the start. There were a few key, Liberal talk-radio hosts that had figured all that out from the beginning, such as the syndicated Randi Rhodes Show. And she eventually proved to be “spot-on”.

But both sides of the aisle were equally responsible for falsely making it sound like they were really trying to make it all work out during the last day of the meetings.

In the hallway outside of Senator Kerry’s office, a group of high school students from Atlanta watched 50 reporters watching the closed door, waiting for a committee member to emerge. Occasionally, a staffer would appear with comments such as, “still working,” or “I wouldn’t hold my breath,” or “we’ll see.”

But the Republicans left the so called “negotiations” just after 1 p.m., never to return. The Democratic committee members continued to caucus in Kerry’s office. Out in the hallway, reporters joked that the senators were probably using the time to dump their stock holdings.

Sometime later, the inevitable was confirmed to nobody’s surprise. “Despite our inability to bridge the committee’s significant differences,” the co-chairs announced in their statement, “we end this process united in our belief that the nation’s fiscal crisis must be addressed.”

Since the committee has now officially failed, this has started the timing for the automatic budget cuts that were worked out prior to the forming of the supercommittee. And there are a number of big cuts to the Defense budget in those automatic cuts that the big donors to the Republican party don’t want to see happen.

The only positive for me that came out of all this activity was that the Republicans immediately began making noises that they were going to try and get rid of those automatic budget cuts. And remember, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will automatically “Sunset” and go away at the end of next year. Upon hearing this, President Obama immediately came out with a live press announcement saying that he would immediately veto any bill that tried to get rid of the automatic budget cuts.

Did Obama gamble that this was going to happen all along? Was this just another case where the president was playing Chess, while the GOP was playing Checkers?

Kinda makes you wonder...?

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

PATRIOTIC MILLIOMAIRES VERSUS GROVER NORQUIST: ZERO COMMON GROUND

2011-11-20T06:13:00.000-08:00

...Grover Norquist, the very caustic president of the conservative, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM group.

Those American millionaires that want their taxes increased got absolutely no where with Grover Norquist.

I now have a whole new group of patriotic Americans that I can look up to.

This is a new group for me to offer my political support, and I’m proud to say that many of their members are from right here in Silicon Valley. The group I’m referring to is the: “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength”.

These are the American millionaires who recently made big news when they went to Washington DC and made it public that they want the US government to increase their taxes. They also met with the foremost Republican self-proclaimed, anti-tax guru, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). Not surprisingly, these two organizations could find not one square inch of common ground regarding tax increases. And in a bizarre ending of their discussions, Norquist ended up debating the state of Somalia…?

This group of Patriotic Millionaires is a group consisting of 200-plus people making more than $1 million in income per year. They also happen to believe that America has been good to them and that it is their duty to give back to this great country. “The government provided a foundation through which we could succeed," writes the group on their website. "Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have."

Also as expected, in an interview with The Huffington Post, a highly belligerent Norquist stated that he felt the group “only represented liberal interests”.

"They were here with their heavily partisan message," Norquist told HuffPost.

Of course, Norquist just couldn’t resist throwing a nasty remark as he berated them with another sneering comment saying that, "The kinds of arguments I got from these old people weren't interesting [even] when I was 12, the left has not advanced. These guys are Democratic Party hacks."

As usual, when those on the right don’t have a real example for arguing against a position, the conservatives always seem to dig down with denigrating remarks. Norquist was no different regarding this meeting with the Patriotic Millionaires. (And the millionaires were not all that “old”. A number of them were young, successful individuals that had made it big in Silicon Valley.)

The six millionaires who met with Norquist were only one part of a larger effort by the group to convince the congressional super committee members and other influential lawmakers that the richest Americans deserve a tax hike. They argued specifically that the highest earners should pay 39.6% in taxes, up from the current 35%.

The conversation with Norquist, however, which comes just over a week before the congressional super committee must come up with its deficit plan, turned out to be less of a policy discussion than a diametrically opposed philosophical debate.

Norquist tried to pull out the old conservative talking point that the government's prime goal is primarily for promoting “liberty”.

His comment was that, "I think government, up to a certain point, advances human liberty. Police, a judicial system and an army to prevent people from stealing stuff out of your car, out of your house, knocking you on your head or the Canadians coming over and invading the country," he said. "Those are actually mentioned in the Constitution and in the history of our country as legitimate things for our government to do and they make us freer, not less free. I am for limited government that does a limited number of things competently."

Eric Schoenberg, a senior member of Patriotic Millionaires and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Columbia Business School met with Norquist in his offices.

Schoenberg later debriefed the HuffPost in full:

“[Norquist] raised an issue we [the millionaires] get all the time which is, ‘Well there's nothing stopping you guys from paying higher taxes, just send a check to the government!’ And this to me is frankly an absurd position; I don't consider it to be a very serious argument. Government is not a charity and we can't rely on voluntary contributions from people to support the things that government does. And I also said to him, 'Look would you be willing to sign a pledge where you're willing to forgo all the benefits that government provides? Are you willing to sign a pledge that says you don't want the U.S. military to protect you? That you will refuse to contact the police if somebody steals from you? That you will refuse to contact the fire department if your house is on fire? Because that's the equivalent! Why should you get a free ride? Why should you benefit from my willingness to support the government? Let's do it together.' And he said, 'If I don't have to pay any taxes for it, I would forgo all those things!' To which my response was, 'Well there's an easy way to do that, move to Somalia!' And his argument was, 'Somalia doesn't suffer from too little government, it suffers from too much government.' I don't even begin to understand what that means, but again there's only so much you can go into in these conversations.”

Can you believe that? Norquist actually said, “'If I don't have to pay any taxes for it, I would forgo all those things.” So we are supposed to believe that Mr. Norquist is saying that he would forgo all the benefits that government provides, including no military protection, no public schools, no police or fire protection, no roads or bridges to help him travel from home to work, no municipal water or power departments, and all of this would be forgone if he did not have to pay any taxes...RIGHT!

I personally think there should be a special congressional proclamation taking away Mr. Norquist’s American citizenship and to demand that he cease in paying any state or federal taxes. But at the same time, Mr. Norquist should have his house removed from any municipal utilities, any federal, state or local protections, and he should not be allowed to use any US roads, bridges or public schools. And if a foreign country should request him to be questioned on any issue, the US government should take him into custody and turn him over to which ever country requested his presence. Good riddance to Mr. Grover Norquist.

Mr. Schoenberg said that the Patriotic Millionaires feel that real liberty only fits within a specific context and that the US government has a truly fundamental role in ensuring that people have that liberty. Part of the way they do that is by investing in things that benefit the American public. Mr. Norquist totally blew-off that concept as he strangely went back to the “move to Somalia” reference and stated that, “The government there [Somalia] doesn't do enough to promote liberty.”

For some strange reason, Mr. Norquist then went on to say, "Somalia has competing governments, they're called clans, and they shoot each other," he said. "They have a series of governments that claim complete control over your property and your life. They have a whole bunch of governments, people acting like governments, people with a legal monopoly on force and they compete with each other. Not compete to provide better services, compete to be in charge of pushing you around."

Of course, Grover Norquist had purposely changed the subject. He did this even though the comment that he should move to Somalia was only made for demonstrating that the US would become just another “third-world Somalia” if it continued to follow the “no-tax increases for the rich” practices as offered and supported by the Norquist ATR organization.

When the Norquist meeting adjourned, it was agreed that the two groups had found but one point of common ground.

"Our final point of agreement," said Schoenberg, "was that the United States is less “sucky” than other places [in the world]."

So, for all you readers, this is a very good example of what President Obama and the Democratic party are up against with the “Norquist No New Tax Pledge Republicans” currently in Congress.

Copyright: G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

A CONSERVATIVE OPINION WRITER MAKES SENSE: IS THAT POSSIBLE?

2011-11-18T08:10:00.000-08:00

...Washington Post conservative columnist, Michael Gerson

Agreeing with a conservative op-ed columnist? Did pigs just grow wings?

It was actually refreshing to read a recent article by the Washington Post conservative opinion writer, Michael Gerson.

And as a “left-of-center” opinion writer, to say that, I would have expected that there would have then been a bunch of Limbaugh type “Ditto-Head” comments blasting Gerson for his article that somewhat suggests that the current Republican party was self-destructing.

However, as I read the many comments that were posted on the on-line edition of the Post, I went through almost 20 comments on the article that for the most part, either agreed with Gerson or that thought he didn’t go far enough.

Up until recently, both Gerson and Charles Krauthammer would usually have the conservatives that are either the paid-for, right-wing shills, or the far-right FOX watchers coming to the writer’s defense for any negative comments posted against these conservatives. Recently however, it’s been much more difficult to find comments that strongly support the FOX contributor Krauthammer’s extreme right-wing articles and Gerson’s usual anti-liberal columns. Therefore you can imagine my surprise to read a Gerson column and to find myself shaking my head in general agreement.

So, just what did he write that I agreed with?

Listed below are some quotes from his article that actually make good sense.

In regards to all the Republican politicians that have flip-flopped on the now mostly agreed upon scientific findings supporting climate change, Gerson wrote: “Conservatives have [previously] been open to market-oriented restrictions on pollution since Milton Friedman talked of “effluent taxes.” Recent studies, using increasingly refined methodologies, have confirmed a long-term rise in global temperatures and made a strong case for the contributing role of carbon emissions. In addition, many national security conservatives are disturbed by the massive U.S. payments to hostile, oil-producing nations.”

He also thinks, and I agree, that Newt Gingrich is going to get “thumped” by today’s conservatives. Gerson wrote: “The cause is likely to be climate policy. It is not only that Gingrich appeared next to Nancy Pelosi in a 2008 commercial calling for “action to address climate change.” A year earlier, Gingrich argued, ‘The evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading in the atmosphere.’ To that end, he supported “mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur.”

In Gerson’s comments on “Cap & Trade” he wrote: “John McCain had been the Senate sponsor of cap-and-trade legislation. His primary GOP opponents in the 2008 presidential campaign, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, had endorsed greenhouse gas limits in various forms. When Tim Pawlenty was criticized for similar views this year, he noted, “Everybody in the race — at least the big names in the race — embraced climate change or cap-and-trade at one point or another. Every one of us.”

Gerson’s comments about Gingrich’s change of mind on health care and Medicare were interesting for a conservative columnist as he stated: “Gingrich, in the manner of Cultural Revolution self-criticism, has now called his appearance with Pelosi the “dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years.” Some conservatives may dispute this claim, arguing that Gingrich’s previous support for the individual health insurance mandate and the Medicare prescription drug benefit as rivals.”

Gerson then properly documents how the current party is destroying any of their candidates for not fitting into today’s highly restricted areas of what is acceptable for today’s far-right Republicans. He writes:
“It is now a familiar pattern — the scandal of sanity. Rick Perry is criticized for supporting discounted higher education for the children of undocumented workers, as though the ignorance of the innocent is an obviously superior policy option. Herman Cain is attacked for supporting a TARP bailout that prevented a national panic. “Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing,” wrote Cain in 2008. “We could make a profit while solving a problem.” Which is precisely what happened. For all its (considerable) flaws, Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health reform was based on ideas that originated in conservative think tanks. There is room for debate on all these issues. Cap-and-trade may be an innovative, market-oriented solution or an easily gamed mess. Romneycare may be a good idea badly applied or an approach doomed to failure. But these are not the arguments we’ve seen. Instead, candidates are accused of political heresy. Then they apologize — some eagerly, others reluctantly. Movement conservatives have created a box of orthodoxy so small that even the most conservative candidates must engage in undignified contortions just to fit. Some of this is just the nature of primaries, in which audiences applaud for purity. But there are other factors. Over the past few decades, the GOP has become a more conservative party. The development of self-consciously conservative media — on radio, cable and the Internet — has provided a welcome alternative to the bias of the mainstream media. It has also simplified many public debates into a contest of ideological teams — a tendency shared by self-consciously liberal media. Candidates, pundits and voters are called to join one side or the other, doing nothing that will give comfort to the enemy. But ideological conformity easily becomes cultural isolation — the development of assumptions, language and views disconnected from the broad middle of American life. Many political activists have adopted a form of fundamentalism: the belief that a return to power can be achieved only by a return to purity. This is particularly unproductive during a presidential primary. It narrows the range of qualifications — elevating fealty above other, important public virtues such as stable judgment, competence, relevant experience and integrity.”

With his intentional jab at the main-stream media saying: “The development of self-consciously conservative media — on radio, cable [FOX] and the Internet — has provided a welcome alternative to the bias of the mainstream media,” he probably felt he had to include that comment. With this one exception, I pretty much agree with this whole statement.

He finishes his article with the following: “There is a reason that the purest candidates are often not the strongest candidates. Appealing, successful politicians have usually built unexpected governing coalitions, engaged in creative ideological outreach and shown intellectual independence.

A political party that is serious about winning does not punish candidates for their virtues.”

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think I totally agree.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

OCCUPY WALL STREET - HAS BEEN EVICTED: NOW WHAT?

2011-11-17T10:01:00.000-08:00

...The giant culprit: New City's "Wall Street"

Now that the tents are gone from Liberty (Zuccotti) Park in New York, where does the OWS protest go from here?

The disparities between the 1% and the 99%, which is the basis of the OWS protests, those issue are still out there. And it seems that, with a few exceptions, what was going on behind the doors of Wall Street and the banks is still going on today. Nothing has changed in the substance of the abuses to the 99%er’s, but there has been one obvious exception in their discussions. That exception being that more and more the overall conversation topics of the nation have seriously changed.

Due to the OWS, the conservative’s driving of the subject matter of “budget and spending cuts”, including the comments from Republican politicians, the topics have changed to discussions on jobs and job creation.

Not that the Republicans have any idea or intention of offering a real jobs bill. But the discussions have begun to change, even within the main-stream media.

And it is appearing that the conservative media and the right-wing talking monkeys must really be getting scared of the OWS movement. It seems that from their point of view, even though they have been unable to document any of their gross claims, they continue to spew the nonsense that all ~2000 OWS encampments are all just a bunch of defecating, dirty, hippy, drug-addict, raping, young, dumb, idiot Americans. ( Sorry, but I may have missed one of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh’s negative adjectives in that last sentence.)

Based on their loud and boisterous reactions, it would appear that, “one does protest a bit too much“.

As I have stated so many times, from Gandhi’s quote: “ First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” It appears the OWS is currently the recipient of the beginning of the, “fight-you” stage of the process.

But seriously, what does the OWS movement do now that their encampments are being dismantled?

Well, as for Wall Street, even though they are still up to their old tricks, they are starting to show some “nicks in the armor” from the OWS protests.

As an example, Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs 2011 performance has recently gone into the dumper: The day that it made its latest employee “Bonus” announcement, its stock had fallen 43% since the year began and its profits had decreased by 70% during that time as well.

Unfortunately though, their negative news was not across the board.

Goldman also announced last month that it was setting aside $10 billion in compensation and bonuses for its employees. This move has raised a lot of questions. No, these bonuses are not a matter of legality. And yes, Goldman’s shareholders did get the shaft. But Goldman’s banks did just fine. This 10 billion dollars in bonuses averages out to bonuses of $293,000 for each employee for the January-through-September period.

The problem with all this regarding various Wall Street companies is that the OWS movement is currently not getting the help it needs from the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

As Catherine Rampell noted in her New York Times blog, the number of federal prosecutions for bank fraud have fallen each year since 1999. According to an analysis of Justice Department data by Syracuse University, the number of bank fraud prosecutions have dropped from roughly 3,300 prosecutions then, to just 1,365 that are expected for fiscal 2011. And given the number of mortgages that the banks had to have misrepresented during the housing bubble, that makes absolutely no sense. It strongly suggests a loosening of the laws, and the lowering of the business behavior as the banks’ political and cultural power have continued to grow.

And to make matters worse, federal law enforcement seems inclined to let the banks off for their misconduct.

Most states’ attorneys general have been trying for months, with the support of the Obama administration, to cut a deal with the five largest U.S. banks. The idea is for the banks to pay ~$25 billion to homeowners (part of which may come as refinancing assistance) as compensation for their legally dubious robo-signed foreclosure notices. But for doing this, the negative part is that the banks would be getting off scot-free with total immunity for fraud and other misdeeds in the devising and the selling of the bad mortgages.

In other words, by having the majority of the nation’s wealth in their banks, the banks would just have to “pay-to-play” a fine of ~$25 billion, and then they get to go about their business.

However, all is not totally lost in dealing with the bad mortgage issues.

Eric Schneiderman and Beau Biden, the attorneys general of New York and Delaware, respectively, have opposed the accord with the banks. They instead are pushing to investigate what the banks may have actually done with those mortgages. Yes, it’s astonishing that no law enforcement agency had investigated until these two individuals opposing the bank accord came along. And along with California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris, they are holding up the deal until those investigations can be completed. They are demanding that the banks agree either to a much larger settlement or that the banks must waive the idea of receiving total immunity.

So, what does all this do for the OWS Movement?

Well, the eviction at New York’s Liberty Park and other encampments may have been a positive for the movement overall. Remember, politics doesn’t drive “movements”. It’s just the opposite. The evictions of the encampments are galvanizing the movement’s members and it is now time to focus their efforts on the basics of what needs to be done. The attorneys generals that are opposing the bank accord is just the beginning in those areas.

Now that the OWS groups are formed and are all over America, and they are generally speaking with one voice, they need to focus their future efforts. Instead of occupying the local City Halls, perhaps they instead should occupy those places that need infrastructure help such at the nation’s major bridges, roads, colleges and schools.

It is now time for the next phase in this massive movement. It took this country over three decades of failed Reaganomics and the conservatives continuing efforts in trying to destroy FDR’s “New Deal” and LBJ’s “Great Society”. Turning back the last 30 years of anti-99%er’s will not be accomplished in days or months. But hopefully, the OWS is for today’s youth and the American middle-class, what the Democrat’s and FDR’s return to power was for America in the early 1930’s.

Unfortunately, as it was back then, only time will tell.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

ROMNEY ANNOUNCES HIS PLAN FOR VETERANS, & IT’S A VERY BAD PLAN

2011-11-15T09:04:00.000-08:00

...The long-running GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney

Mitt once again shows why he should not be the next occupant in the White House.

If there are any doubts about considering Mitt Romney for your vote in the 2012 election, his latest “really bad idea” could or should make you decide against Mr. Romney. Yes, Mr. “Flip-Flopper” himself now wants to partially privatize the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

It is true that some decades ago the VHA was in dire straits. However, under the Clinton administration, the VHA was overhauled, and it has achieved an outstanding combination of rising quality and successful cost control. A number of surveys have found that the VHA has been providing better care than most Americans receive, even as the agency has held cost increases well below those facing Medicare and private insurers. Furthermore, the VHA. has led the way in cost-saving innovation, especially in the use of electronic medical records.

And just why has the VHA been so successful?

In reality, the reason for its success is exactly why it would stop being successful if it were to be subjected to privatization as Mr. Romney would have it.

The VHA is a totally integrated system that both provides and pays for its health care. Under its current structure, it avoids the expensive incentives created when private doctors and hospitals profit from expensive tests and procedures. And that also means whether or not those procedures actually make any medical sense. In addition, VHA patients are in it for the long term, therefore the VHA has a stronger incentive to invest in prevention programs versus that of the private insurers.

And yes, let’s admit it right up front, the VHA is “socialized medicine”. That’s because the hospitals, the doctors and the nurses are all part of the system and they are all part of the US Government. However, some private systems, such as Kaiser Permanente, share many of the VHA’s virtues. But the VHA works, and it works well, and efficiently, and it suggests what it will take to solve the troubles with future US health care overall.

Oh, I can hear the conservatives yelling about all of this. But the reality is that the VHA is very successful and it operates on average, at about 15% to 30% less overhead than that of a private operation. The reason being that they are an operation that does not need to deal with making a profit, with shareholders, nor do they have to pay a CEO a ridiculous salary as is the current fashion in the “for-profit” health care systems. One could say that under Mitt Romney’s plan, the VHA would immediately increase costs by 15% to 30%, and of course, Wall Street would just love it $$$$$$$$.

And just how would Romney’s plan work?

Well, as usual, the Republicans just love “vouchers”. And Romney’s plan would be to give every veteran a voucher for finding a private health care program. Just as when the House Chairman of the Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan, famously introduced a voucher plan for converting the Medicare system, Mr. Romney’s proposal follows similar lines. Their claim, as always, is that the “private sector competition” would lower the costs.

But there is plenty of evidence to show just the opposite. The current insurance market, which comes closest to the conservative ideal of free competition, has huge administrative costs and has demonstrated no ability for reducing health care costs. As an example, the private Medicare Advantage programs, which allows Medicare beneficiaries to buy private insurance instead of having single-payer Medicare pay bills directly, has consistently had much higher costs than the traditional Medicare program. And on a world-wide basis, the most efficient health care systems are those systems similar to the VHA. And the next best systems are the single-payer systems like government operated Medicare.

In other words, the more privatized the system, the worse it performs and the more it costs. The numbers prove this out; time, after time, after time.

So, why is Mr. Romney taking this approach?

The answer is that the Republicans have two major goals. The #1 goal is of course to make President Obama a “one term president”. The 2nd, and even more devastating goal, is to go after Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and now the VHA, and to privatize them all. The Republicans are especially eager to dismantle any and all government programs that continue to demonstrate that their privatization ideology is wrong. Within the GOP, it is a fundamental “article of faith” that the private sector is always better than that of the government, regardless of the real facts. And no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds on that concept. The Republicans have always been known for being “dogmatic”, and there is no exception in this case.

So, if you are a “dyed-in-the-wool” conservative that believes only in the “free market and privatization approach”, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are your guys. But if you want the systems that works best when properly managed and that have the appropriate over-sight, you will want to look at the other side of the coin.

It’s your choice.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

SENATOR JIM DEMINT: CONTINUES TO WORK TOWARD HIS OWN “WATERLOO”

2011-11-14T10:15:00.000-08:00

...South Carolina Senator, Jim DeMint

Once again, Senator Jim DeMint demonstrates why he should not be representing even one patriotic American.

It is interesting that only ~20% of those serving in the US Congress today, have also served in the US military. Most of those that have are the older congressional members and the majority of them are also Democrats. One of those ~80%’ers that did not serve in the military is the junior senator from South Carolina, Mr. James Warren “Jim” DeMint.

Now, we are all aware that Veterans Day is the day to express our gratitude to the men and women who have made enormous sacrifices, some with their life, limbs or sanity, for the freedoms of all Americans. But for this year’s Veterans Day, the “not-so-honorable” Senator DeMint just calls this solemn day of recognition, “Friday.” You see, last week Mr. Jim DeMint was the only Senator to vote against a bill that gave all US employers a tax credit for hiring veterans.

Now Senator DeMint said he voted against US vets because “All Americans deserve the same opportunity to get hired.” That might be true if all Americans had the same risk of getting killed or maimed defending our freedom, and doing it thousands of miles away from home.

Senator Jim, if you really want to give all Americans “the same opportunity to get hired,” maybe offering hiring incentives for “everybody” should be in order.

But no, Senator DeMint doesn’t really want to give all Americans the same opportunity to get hired. Based on his many votes against any jobs for any Americans, the Senator wants all Americans to have the same “lack of opportunity” for getting a job. DeMint had the unmitigated gall to call the bill for helping American veterans find work “Inherently unfair.”

Senator, you must then be very upset over all that money that is spent on the Veteran’s Parades. Non-vets don’t get any parades! Why, that’s total discrimination!

For years, the two Carolina’s have always seemed to create some strange bedfellows when it comes to choosing their politicians. Just take the current examples of the US Representatives: Virginia Foxx and Joe “You lie” Wilson. Senator DeMInt also fits in that “special” chosen category.

With his different thinking, Mr. DeMint seems to think we have created a special-interest class of people called “veterans”, and he feels that we should not give them things that others don’t get. You know, like their own military cemeteries and those little flags for their gravestones.

Do you really want everyone to be equal, Jim? My, my, then you’d better be very careful with what you say. Otherwise, your fellow Republicans will start thinking that you’re beginning to sound like a flaming Socialist.

This dim-bulb-DeMint seriously thinks that a “jobs measure” isn’t the right way to express gratitude to the nation’s veterans.

OK, Mr. Senator, just what do you think would be the right way to thank someone that risked their life for you and your family’s freedoms?

Apparently, your #1 idea would be to eliminate all the taxes on capital gains for wealthy Americans. Or, perhaps, by removing all the current regulations on Wall Street bankers. That’s probably the way you’d thank those that are returning to the US without a job.

Yes sir, thank you for your service, soldier, but so sorry, you don’t deserve a job with a living wage. Yes, you may have served, managed or operated military equipment that was worth millions of taxpayer dollars. But so sorry, no $10.00 an hour job for you. And by the way, no unemployment insurance either, even though you paid into it for all those years before you were sent to fight in a foreign war.

Oh, Mr. DeMint is aware that being the only “no” vote in the US Senate on the Vet Bill would not be a positive move for his reputation. He even stated that as a senator, "I know what I'm about to discuss won't be very popular. I'll probably be accused of not supporting veterans by the politicians pandering for their votes," And he said all this openly on the Senate floor. And he even added, "But I'm not going to be intimidated to vote for something that may make sense politically but is inherently unfair."

As it should be, it did not take long for the Democrats to point out DeMint's “no” vote to all the reporters, just in case they missed it. DeMint then stupidly argued that passing such a tax break was simply catering to a special interest group called “veterans”. It was then his prediction was that little hiring would come from the measure. "Despite the overwhelming evidence that these tax credits do not stimulate hiring for targeted groups, the Obama administration continues to push Congress to pass another tax credit, this time exclusively for veterans," he said. "By using a politically sensitive group the day before Veterans Day, the Democrats are hoping they can trick Republicans into further complicating the tax code." So, DeMint thinks voting for US military veterans is a “trick”...?

Yes sir, since the Republicans are already blocking any measures that would allow for US job creations, let’s double-down by stopping any "trick” incentives for hiring American military veterans.

Fortunately, at least for this bill, none of DeMint's Republican colleagues agreed with him. Indeed, the Republicans even held the legislation up as an example of bipartisanship aimed at addressing the unemployment crisis.

And to prove just how much of a hypocrite Senator DeMint really is, he later voted in favor of the larger bill to which this veteran’s amendment measure was added. This was a larger bill for delaying a 3% withholding tax that was supposed to help the federal government crack down on contractor fraud. That bill passed unanimously, 95-to-0.

To really demonstrate the ridiculous and confused attitude of Senator James DeMint, DeMint had been one of a large majority of senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who voted for that 3% withholding tax in 2005. It had originally been aimed at federal contractors who failed to pay their taxes. The 3% essentially served as collateral to ensure the companies paid their tax bills. But with the economy in the tank, legislators have now deemed it an impediment

And we must also remember, Mr. DeMint is the Senator that so famously said that if they could stop “Obamacare” (which they couldn’t), it would “break President Obama”. DeMint then stated that it would be Obama’s “Waterloo”.

It is my sincere desire that this “no vote” by Senator DeMint is one of the many bricks on the pile of DeMint’s own pesonal “Waterloo”.

The citizens of South Carolina deserve so much better than the likes of James Warren DeMint.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

TODAY’S GOP PRESIDENTAIL CANDIDATES: EXCELLENT MATERIAL FOR TV’S NIGHT-TIME POLITICAL COMEDY

2011-11-11T13:08:00.000-08:00

...The "grouchy Historian", Newt Gingrich

As was stated by an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, “You can’t make this stuff up!”

Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, David Letterman. Jay Leno, Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel, and Conan O’Brian must all go to bed every night thanking a higher-power for providing them with the crazy, bizarre actions and comments from the likes of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and of course, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s latest “Brain Fart” during the recent, ump-teenth Republican Presidential fake debate is now the event that will define Perry for the remainder of his failed presidential campaign. Perry the very next day, went on three of the night-time comedy shows in a desperate “fix & repair” effort. But his appearances only gave the issue that much more visibility that made it worse, not better.

But even though Perry’s 53 second “Brain Fade” event is what all the media is playing over and over again and it is the latest “talk of the town”, the other candidates on the stage didn’t do much better.

First, the format of the so called CNBC “Debate”, with only 60 second answers being allowed, it ended up just being a superb format for Republican sound-bites and self-serving platitudes. With a complex US and world economy in its current dire straits, only having one minute to explain complicated ways for fixing the economy was a ridiculous concept.

On the other hand, based on the lack of intellect that has been shown from these assorted individuals on the Republican debate stages over the past few months, it’s doubtful that having more answer time would have been any more fruitful than it was on this latest debate night.

Even the self-proclaimed historical expert and disgraced former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, came off as being unable to find his posterior with both hands.

As usual, the grouchy Gingrich spent the evening acting superior and reminding everyone that he once was a professor of history. But when he was asked what he did to earn the $300,000 he was paid by the mortgage operation Freddie Mac during the subprime housing bubble, Gingrich claimed he had just offered them advice “as a historian”. It was then the moderator, CNBC’s John Harwood, who had to remind everyone that Freddie Mac had hired a number of past Republican politicians for lobbying congress to keep certain regulations off of “Freddy” during the housing bubble. It was later made public that Gingrich’s PhD thesis at Tulane University was titled “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945-1960.” I would question that a giant mortgage company would be hiring a previous Speaker of the House for his historical expertise on colonial Africa...?

Virtually all of the candidates stated that they would repeal or get rid of a number of the programs that were installed by President Obama, and those of other previous Democratic administrations before Obama. Of course, no one offered what would be done to replace programs such as Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Heads were shaking on the stage in favor of getting rid of government agencies such as the EPA, Commerce, Energy departments, but once again, nothing about what would replace any of these agency's key functions.

As usual, all of this nation’s problems, according to the GOP, came from government spending, (mostly by their own party’s administrations), which of course, they failed to mention. But there was not one idea presented for job creation, except their old stale issue of more tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations.

Being the most experienced debater, Mitt Romney was the default stage debate winner. Luckily for Mitt, with so many others on the stage and so little time for each question, there was hardly any danger of being caught in any but the most obvious contradictions, flip-flops and non sequiturs. But when Harwood tried to nail Romney about the fact that the health-insurance mandate that became the model for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, that it was Romney’s health care program in Massachusetts, Romney just changed the subject to Medicaid and ended his 60 seconds by declaring, “Obamacare is wrong. I’ll repeal it. I’ll get it done.”

And as for Mr. Herman “9-9-9” Cain, for a man being accused of sexual harassment by 4 women back in the 1990’s, he really blew it when he referred to the former House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi as, “Princess Nancy”. He later “kind of apologized” to Ms. Pelosi, but he admitted he did so just to stop the reporters from asking him about his “Princess” comment.

The other candidates, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul were more spectators than they were participants. They pretty much just vilified President Obama, declared the repealing of everything that is good for the average working American and showed their devout worship of wealthy Americans and major corporations.

And once again, the obvious real winner of the night, President Barack Obama.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE BEING “RAPED” BY THE MULTI-NATIONAL OIL INDUSTRY

2011-11-07T15:17:00.000-08:00

...The tools of the most profitable corporations on earth.

You should ignore the media ads from the oil industry’s claims of safe drilling and safe “Fracking”.

Up to this point, I haven’t written much about the oil industry’s process of chemical “Fracking”. This is the process of drilling and fracturing the earth’s crust with an injection of high-pressure toxic fluids that will expose large quantities of natural gas and other fossil fuels.

In “Gasland”, a movie by Josh Fox that is available on the web, Mr. Fox shows what can happen to the ground water supply when you agree to leasing your property for allowing the oil companies to drill and “Frack” on or near your property. As it has occurred in some locations in Pennsylvania, Fox’s movie demonstrates how it was possible to actually set fire to the water coming out of the property owner’s, and their neighbor’s kitchen faucets.

The oil companies are spending millions of dollars on TV ads and public relations campaigns in trying to convince the public that “Fracking is safe”, but it truly is a “Buyer Beware” situation.

In some cases, the oil companies have paid property owners for 5 year leases to drill and Frack on their property. But after the contracted five years, if the fracking is working well, but the owner wants the drill rigs removed, the oil companies are flexing their muscles and just saying “No”. They then tell the property owner to just sue them or take them to court.

Since the oil companies can stall these laws suits for years, all the while continuing to extract the profitable fossil fuels from the ground, the cost of their legal fees becomes a “cost of doing business”. And many times the property owner doesn’t have the funds to maintain an on-going legal battle. In those cases, the owners just give up and continue to accept a fee from the drilling company which is way short of the oil company profits coming out of the ground.

And to make things worse, back in Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney was responsible for the nation’s so called “Energy Policy”. This policy consisted of secret meeting with the world’s major energy companies where secret agreements were made. The minutes of those meetings are still unreleased and are classified as a “national security risk”.

However, some of the deals that were made in those meetings have been released. As an example, some companies, such as Dick Cheney’s previous company Halliburton, were given special EPA exceptions that allowed them to drill and Frack without paying attention to the environmental rules of the EPA. Therefore, these companies do not have to release the recipe of the toxic chemical solutions that they use when Fracking. That “toxic recipe” is considered a “proprietary company secret” that is not required to be divulged for the potential benefit of their drilling competition.

And being the most profitable corporations in the history of this planet, the oil companies can now buy all the lobbyists and therefore all the US Senators and Representatives that they need to get the laws and regulations they require for their businesses. (This activity will continue and will grow as long as corporations are considered “people” and their “money” is considered “Free Speech”.)

What we are not hearing about are the costs that these Fracking efforts are costing the American taxpayers.

As an example, the heavy trucking of the supplies and equipment that the Fracking requires are very devastating to the drilling region’s roads that they must use every day. We also now know that Fracking produces toxic (and sometimes radioactive) wastewater and there is reason to suspect, despite the industry’s loud denials, that the wastewater also can contaminate local groundwater. And “you-know-who” ends up paying for that problem.

Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, that it should not be responsible for the damage it causes. And just why is that? They say the reason is that the country needs that energy. One oil industry-backed organization falsely declares that there are only two sides to the debate: “those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.”

The Noble Economist, Paul Krugman, said it best: “...it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government “pick winners,” yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner. “

The real issue is that we as a nation, need all the energy we can get, and the demand for even more energy increases every year.

But there are other alternative energy technical successes such as the cost of solar energy that continues to plummet. In fact, that was the main reason for the failure of Solyndra, the US solar manufacture in the latest so called “government scandal”. Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological successes. The price of solar panels was dropping so fast, Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. This is especially true regarding the solar manufacturers in China which are subsidized over 50% by the Chinese government. In fact, in a recent blog post at the Scientific American, “Solar panel prices, adjusted for inflation, have been falling around 7 percent per year.”

But, in reading this, most people will say “So what does solar energy have to do with the oil companies?”

The reality is, that the GOP and their benefactors are deeply invested in an energy sector totally dominated by fossil fuels. And they are actively hostile to any and all energy alternatives. You may be seeing the many ads from the major oil companies showing all of their efforts in developing alternative energy sources. The reality is that the percentage of their investments going into alternative energy is miniscule when compared to their investments for going after more fossil fuel sources. This industry and this political class will do everything they can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels. And they will support doing this directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry avoid the environmental costs, while continuing to ridicule alternative technologies like solar and anything other than oil or natural gas.

So all you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true. And solar is now cost-effective and there are other energy alternatives that need to be pursued with the same dedication as that of the oil industry’s efforts for finding more fossil fuels.

If you want to get energy dependence away from the middle east, there should be much more effort dedicated to alternative energy development.

Nothing positive will occur for the average American as long as the oil industry continues to own and finance the nation’s political parties and their members in Congress.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RICH & THE POOR AND THE LACK OF UPWARD MOBILITY, THOSE ARE THE REAL PROBLEMS

2011-11-06T07:43:00.000-08:00

...Peter Finch as the crazy "Howard Beale" in the movie,"NETWORK".

It doesn’t take the proverbial “Rocket Scientist” to understand the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that are appearing all over the country.

If you follow the right-wing media and the FOX Network talking-heads, you will continue to hear them asking “Just exactly what do all those people in the “Occupy Wall Street (OWS)” demonstrations really want?” Since the demonstrations are now popping up in over 1000 American small towns and major cities, and they are for the most part “leaderless”, this appears to be very confusing to those with a far-right political point-of-view.

The point of the original OWS demonstration, that started many weeks ago on the actual Wall Street in New York, their point has not changed as the demonstrations have continued to increase across America. And they have now expanded their point to cross the big pond to Europe. Their specific point is that the average citizen from the construction worker, to the factory worker to the office worker to the working teacher and the educated professional, they are all fed up with what the conservatives, and the banks, and Wall Street and corporate America have done to their country.

Many of you can recall that there was once a time when virtually every citizen in this once great nation had the opportunity to improve their position in life through America’s free education and through their own personal sweat equity. Over the past 3 decades, the conservatives, the big banks, the big corporations and lobbyists along with Wall Street have changed all that. As the jobs continued to migrate away from the country, the deregulations of the banks, corporations and Wall Street have allowed the country to go from being a nation that “built things”, to being a country that made its fortunes by moving money around and creating giant monopolies. The masses in the basically non-violent “Occupy” demonstrations (except for the violent actions of the Police) are saying, “We’ve had enough of the wealthy on Wall Street stealing our money and then expecting the tax-payers to bail them out from their bad decision making.”

The “Occupiers” have slowly awakened to the fact that the rich have grown richer while the jobs have gone over-seas and the American middle-class incomes have stagnated. And the emphasis on this economic discontent has become highly purposeful. The Occupier’s message has been: “Suburbanites of the nation, and now the world, unit!. You have nothing more to lose, as you have already been losing it for the past 30 years.”

To make my point, over the past three decades, the largest income gains for the wealthiest 2% have increased from 120 to 160%. And the overall 20% of the wealthiest households has increased about a 65%. All of this has been occurring while the middle class incomes have risen only about 20%. (And all of these percentages have been adjusted for inflation.) So the rich are getting richer and those in the middle class have increased at a much lower rate. And for those at the bottom 20% of America’s households have only seen a 0 to 10% increase in income, if there was any increase at all.

But this is only a part of the problem. The other real issue is today’s lack of American upward mobility. Yes, the FOX pundits are totally correct. It is a case of “class warfare”. According to studies performed by the United Nations, there are only 4 nations on the planet that have a wider disparity between the rich and the poor than that of the United States. In addition, 20% of today’s American children are now born into poverty. And in today’s America, the possibility of upward mobility, or as the conservatives say, “pulling yourself up by your own boot-straps”, is becoming less and less possible. And the reason for that is that fewer and fewer of lower income Americans have the required “boot-straps” to pull up on.

As an example, when I attended state college in the late 1960’s in California, the total cost of a full semester was less than a $100, plus the cost of your books. I paid for that education, plus a place to live and eat, by working in factory swing-shifts and other odd jobs. I seriously doubt that I could do that today. Governor Ronald Reagan was the one that started the process of taking away that virtually “free” California college education. And today, very few people are able to attend a California state college without being saddled with a giant student loan, if they qualify.

Those near the bottom of today’s income scale are seriously stuck as their upward mobility has become extremely weak. And according to the Economic Mobility Project, the U.S. economy is much less fluid than the economies of Canada, France, Germany or the Scandinavian countries. Therefore, those Americans without the needed financial support are left out in the cold for any “upward mobility” or any major improvement in their position in society. Therefore, according to the study, if you are born into today’s American poverty, you will likely be there as an adult, regardless of your personal efforts.

So America’s liberals are correct in saying that a combination of rising economic inequality (even if the rise is gradual) with its stalled economic mobility is an invitation to destructive social resentments, ergo we have the: OWS demonstrations. It is important to note that Americans will usually accept unequal economic outcomes in a fair political system. But what they are objecting to today, is that due to the conservatives, the DC Lobbyists, the big banks and corporations, and of course, Wall Street, the final economic results are rigged and targeted directly against the average middle-class American.

Yes, the OWS demonstrations are about the increasing inequality and the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor. But they are also about the increasing lack of upward mobility. This is why there are large groups of average Americans collecting in non-violent demonstrations across the country and now, around the world. As it was clearly stated by the character Howard Beale and his famous phrase from the academy award winning movie, “NETWORK”, Beale had yelled: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

And this is what Occupy Wall Street is all about.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: A COLORFUL PARADE OF LACKLUSTER WANNABES

2011-11-04T05:18:00.000-07:00

...Crazy Michele Bachmann. Just one of the GOP's "Seven Dwarf's Presidential Candidates

You can’t make-up the stuff being offered up by this bizarre group of political odd-balls.

Look below at how each of these past and current presidential hopefuls actually appear to the average American voter:

Sarah Palin: This bizarre individual stated that she could see Russia from a porch in Alaska. She doesn’t read any newspapers beyond the local Wasilla Alaska Times. She also didn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” was while she was running as the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States. She calls the current president a “Socialist”, all the while she as governor was collecting money from the oil companies that were drilling in Alaska and distributing the oil company fees to the residents of Alaska. (Sounds to me like what a true Socialist would do.)

Michele Bachmann: This fruit-cake presidential candidate that won the Iowa Republican caucuses thinks that the American Revolution’s “shot-heard-round-the world” was fired in New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts. She confused the movie icon John Wayne with the serial killer and rapist, John Wayne Gacey. She mistakenly called for a celebration of Elvis Presley’s birthday on the anniversary of the day Elvis died. She also doesn’t seem to realize that Libya is a nation located in Africa. As president, she would get rid of ”Obamacare” and would try to bring back the military’s, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Herman Cain: This man is currently becoming famous for previous sexual harassment problems, and he wants the nation to adopt his “9-9-9” economic plan. This joke of a plan would bankrupt the nation, and the cost of the plan would land squarely on the shoulders of the poorest Americans. He doesn’t seem to know that China has been a nuclear armed nation since 1964 and he thinks China is a real military threat to America today. He also doesn’t think that Iran in the future will ever be a big concern for America's security.

Donald Trump: This is the megalomaniac that became the “Birther in Chief” regarding his past concern for where the current president was born. He is now pushing to see President Obama’s college grade transcripts. In the 200+ years of this nation’s presidents, no other president has ever been asked to show either their birth certificate or their college grades. And this is especially ridiculous, since President Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review, (a major honor) and he graduated Magna Cum Laud from Harvard. And by the way, President Obama’s 2008 Republican opposition candidate, John McCain, only graduated 894th out of 899 from the US Air Force Academy. (And Mr. Trump only has a BS degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Not exactly Magna Cum Laud from Harvard material.)

Rick Perry: This “off-the-wall” Texas Governor has signed the approvals to kill more state prisoners than all previous capital punishment governors…combined. In the worst Texas drought and wildfire season ever, this governor pressed President Obama for more than $50 million in federal aid for his fire-fighters. But this was only after Perry’s decision to slash the funding for the Texas volunteer fire departments by 74%, who do most of the fire-fighting work in Texas. (Due to the budget cuts, Texas firefighters now have to purchase much of their own fire-fighting equipment.) He also cut the Texas Forest Service's budget by 34%. Perry today claims to be a “job creator” in Texas. But the majority of the new jobs created in Texas were those at the Texas oil refineries and most were at or below the minimum wage. Perry’s so called “economic plan” would be even worse than Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.

Mitt Romney: By the process of elimination, this former governor of Massachusetts will probably be the eventual GOP candidate. But this major “flip-flopper” of major policy making doesn’t seem to have a solid conviction of his own on anything. He sponsored and signed his state’s health care plan that became the Democratic template for the federal “Obamacare” plan which the Republicans now want to dump. He was for a women’s right to choose, before he was against it. He agreed that human actions aided in global warming before he called it a farce. He was for spending government funds on infrastructure before he was against it. He was previously against the Republican icon, Ronald Reagan, whom he now reveres. As president, he would not help American home owners with mortgage troubles. He would instead let the mortgages default. He would then encourage wealthy investor “land-lords” to buy them and rent them back to the previous owners. He claims he was a job creator in his previous business. In reality, his company bought companies in trouble, laid-off the employees and sold off the pieces of the remaining company for a big profit. No one, including his own party members, can believe or trust what he says.

Newt Gingrich: This disgraced former Speaker of the House of Representatives is on his 3rd wife who happens to have an addiction to Tiffany’s jewelry. He cheated on his previous two wives and he was having an affair at the same time he was going after President Clinton for the former president’s issues with Monica Lewinsky. He even visited his wife in the hospital and asked her to sign divorce papers while she was having cancer treatments. What a guy!

Rick Santorum: This previous conservative Senator from Pennsylvania was defeated 59% to 41% in his 2006 US Senate race. This was the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator for many decades. Mr. Santorum is also known for a macabre event that occurred due to his prematurely born male child. Rick with his wife Karen, brought the deceased infant home from the hospital and introduced the dead child to their seven living children as "your brother Gabriel". They then slept with the baby’s body overnight before returning it to the hospital. Rick is seriously anti-gay and anti-gay marriage. In his current campaign speeches, he says he would bring back DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) in the military, which as it is now against the law, that would be virtually impossible for a sitting president to do.

Ron Paul: Has been described as conservative, a Constitutionalist, and a Libertarian. He has been nicknamed "Dr. No", representing both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the US Constitution". He endorses free trade, and he supports increased border security and opposes immigrant birthright citizenship and amnesty. He voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 for the border with Mexico. Paul is a proponent of the Austrian school of Economics, which even he says has never been tried and agrees it might not even work. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes, regardless of what they might do for supporting the will or the benefit of the American people. Paul endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the new “Obamacare” terming them unnecessary bureaucracies.

Jon Huntsman: A former Mormon missionary and an inheritor of a billion dollar chemical empire. He is beholding to no one, therefore he probably can’t be bought like most of the other GOP candidates. He is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and has been a personal friend of President Barack Obama. He was Obama’s past ambassador to China. He was a high school dropout (he obtained his G.E.D a few years later). Huntsman is hardly a convincing choice as a Republican nominee for next year’s presidential election. But if one were to look deeper, the affable Huntsman could very well be the savior of the Republicans come 2012. Naah, they aren’t smart enough to go after someone as sane as Jon Huntsman.

And this is not the whole list of declared GOP candidates. Still left there are: Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Jimmy McMillan, Tom Miller, Buddy Roemer, Matt Snyder, and Vern Wuensche.

You can find out more about all of the Republicans candidates at: http://2012.republican-candidates.org/

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

AS “OCCUPY WALL STREET” CONTINUES TO EXPAND, FOX’S SCARE TACTICS BECOME MORE DESPARATE

2011-11-02T08:01:00.001-07:00

...The "GOP Channel's" official logo

The OWS Movement has made the “Tea Party” look even more obvious as the right-wing radicals they have become.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the far right is becoming seriously frightened of the ground swell growth of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that are expanding across the nation and around the world.

And just what makes me say that?

Well, as an example, the right-wing blow hard, Rush Limbaugh has offered the following diatribe, which of course, has not been supported by the many videos that have shown the thousands of peaceful demonstrators. Yes, the good ole racists, Limbaugh, just couldn’t stop himself from offering this bit of garbage:

Limbaugh: “What a bunch of low-life’s these leftists are! And what an act of political desperation by Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party to identify themselves with the Occupiers! I can see it now, the administration’s campaign slogan for 2012: “If you like public masturbation, re-elect Barack Obama!” On second thought: even that would be better for Obama than talking about the economy.”

Limbaugh made this statement in regards to an unsubstantiated comment from a right-wing hate blog that had stated, “A neighboring hotel's staff voiced concerns about having to recently escort hotel employees to and from bus stops late at night due to inappropriate behavior, allegedly including public masturbation, from OWS street protesters."

Since Limbaugh’s “Ditto-Heads” can’t win with the truth, they just make things up.

For weeks, Limbaugh, the head “Ditto-Head” has called the demonstrators “ugly, smelly, un-washed idiots, do-nothing 60 hippies and radical leftists”.

And Limbaugh is just the tip of the iceberg in spreading right-wing falsehoods about the OWS movement.

Mr. “9-9-9”, Herman Cain has falsely stated that, ”The demonstrators are all organized by left wing extremists for the purpose of diverting the media’s attention away from Obama poor economic plans.” Of course, Cain also stated that he “did not have the facts to back up his statement”.

The conservative anorexic, Ann Coulter has stated, “The worst thing about Occupy Wall Street is that it's ruining a good cause: hating Wall Street. Just when opposing Wall Street was gaining momentum, these brain-dead zombies are forcing us to choose between thieving bankers and them.” She also blames the liberal George Soros for the funding of the OWS, but Coulter didn’t offer, and there has been absolutely not one shred of evidence that Soros had anything to do with OWS. And Soros himself has adamantly denied any connection to the movement.

Glenn Beck, the right-wing radio pundit that was too much, even for FOX, has said about the OWS groups: “It will be the Night of Long Knives. It will be a purging of this country." This was apparently a reference to the political murders carried out by the Nazis in 1934. Beck’s warning then became even starker and more graphic when he said: "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you're wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you...they're Marxist radicals...these guys are worse than Robespierre from the French Revolution...they'll kill everybody."

Then there is Ms. Michelle Malkin, the conservative twit that seems to spend most of her time spreading her right-wing insults on “Twitter”. She tweeted: “Occupy Wall Street protesters are professional freeloaders and are costing taxpayers millions of dollars.” The reality is that the OWS movement is of minimal cost when compared to that of the corporate bailouts that the OWS is protesting.

FOX’s Sean Hannity, who just couldn’t say enough good things about the radical Tea Party demonstrations, he interviewed a Occupy Wall Street protester named Heather. She attempted to explain the demonstrations through the Faux News host’s repeated interruptions. Hannity barely let her speak, instead he took great pains to engage in verbal attacks. He called her names, such as that she was a “Marxist” and he yelled, “you don’t believe in liberty, you don’t believe in freedom.” When Heather responded, “I’m definitely a person who takes things upon myself,” Hannity loudly protested, saying, “no you don’t,” before telling her that all she wanted to do was to destroy America.

FOX’s Bill O’Reilly has falsely stated: "Talking Points" believes there is now danger of people being hurt and killed because some of these protesters are simply out of control. In Cleveland, there is an allegation that one of the protesters raped a woman. And whenever you have thousands of people emotionally charged, anything could happen. America honors protest. That is part of our tradition and makes this country strong. But as we have been reporting, the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations are not just about economics. You have radical people stirring up trouble. The authorities must continue to be restrained, but they also must have very definite rules. Any lawbreaking has to be prosecuted, and any threats must be taken seriously. "The [FOX O’Reilly] Factor" is all over this story because we believe it has the potential to get out of hand.”

Other FOX “talking heads” even had the gall to refer to the OWS movement as an “ACORN moment”, which continues to imply that the false videos against ACORN that they had previously promoted, day after day after day on their network were actually true.

All of this just seems to prove how painful it must be for all the right-wing pundits, especially those at FOX. The more they demand that OWS explain itself in simple, FOX-like terms, the more cheerfully they are ignored by the thousands of occupiers around the country, and now the world. As efforts to ridicule the protesters continue to fail, FOX’s attempts to repurpose the good old days of their “Liberal” enemies lists also continues to falter. And as their efforts to demonize the occupiers backfires, the polls continue to show that middle-class America supports the protesters and they share their goals.

It is well accepted that the only people who are scared of the so called “violent mobs” at Occupy Wall Street are the people being paid by Wall Street, FOX and the GOP to call them “violent mobs”.

As per the famous quote of Mahatma Gandhi about how non-violent demonstrations can succeed when the opposition becomes scared: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

THE OWS DEMONSTRATORS ARE FAR FROM WHAT FOX & THE FAR RIGHT SAY THEY ARE

2011-10-28T08:18:00.000-07:00

...The OWS at work

These groups are definitely not the dirty, smelly, militant agitators that those on FOX claim.

I didn’t think it was possible, but the lies and misinformation coming out of the Republican party, mainly via the FOX Network, are at an all time high. The network of the far-right must really be worried, especially since that nut-case Herman Cain became the current front runner for their presidential nominee.

The latest comments by the blow-hard Rush Limbaugh and FOX’s Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are so far off-the-mark, that apparently the Occupy Wall Street crowds around the country are making a big and frightening impression on the righties. So far, these demonstration groups have foiled every trick in the right-wingers and the FOX network’s books. They even caught one of the FOX “shills” at a demonstration that was trying to give away pot- smokers “bongs” in hopes of making a video for FOX of an OWS demonstrator using one. The demonstrators quickly figured out what the guy was up to and verbally drove the imposter out of the park.

Apparently, these media radicals are starting to run out of negative adjectives to call the demonstrators such as “dirty”, “smelly”, “60’s long-hair hippies”, blah, blah, blah... They are instead now trying to disparage the demonstrators by bringing back some anti-liberal claims that were previously successful for them. In this case, their latest talking point is saying that the demonstrators are a re-birth of the old ACORN organization that they falsely claimed focused on signing up bogus voters in the nation’s low rent city districts.

So, in order to make things clear for everyone, an unbiased survey has recently been conducted by the City University of New York (CUNY) to find out just who these OWS demonstrators really are.

Here’s what the survey of 1,619 respondents determined:

Group’s Politics:70% of the survey’s respondents were identified as politically independent compared to 27.3% Democrats and 2.4% self-identified Republicans.

Participation level:
24.2% had participated in the Occupy Wall Street protests as of October 5, 2011.

Ages vary:
64.2% of respondents were younger than 34 years of age, However, one in three respondents was over 35 and one in five was 45 or older.

Wealth varies:
15.4% of the sample reported earning annual income between $50,000 and $74,999. 13% of the sample reported over $75,000 , and 2% said they made over $150,000 annually, putting them in the top 10% of all American earners, according to the Wall Street Journal. 47.5% of the sample earned less than $24,999 dollars a year and 24% earned between $25,000 and $49,999 per year. 71.5% of the sample earned less than $50,000 per year.

Education:
92.1% reported “some college, a college degree, or a graduate degree.”

Jobs:50.4% reported full-time employment, and 20.4% were employed part-time.

Now this survey was conducted under the direction of a PhD professor of sociology at the large, public CUNY college.

The Opposite FOX P.O.V.:
It is interesting that there was another demographic survey of the OWS movement. This other survey was much smaller and it was accomplished by a so-called in-person questionnaire of what has been claimed to be 198 of the protesters on the ground in New York’s Liberty Square. This survey was conducted by the FOX News polling organization on October 10th and 11th.

The results were published online and were used to bolster a Wall Street Journal column which falsely maintained that: “The Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.”

This is an interesting statement since multiple polls have shown that ~66% of the American public supports the OWS movement.

FOX Politics:
The FOX survey recorded that the largest group of respondents, 33%, “do not identify with any political party,” followed by 32% that identified Democratic and zero respondents who identified as Republican. A further 21%, the largest cohesive group, said “both parties” were to blame for the “failure to address our problems.”

Now I’m sure that the fact that Rupert Murdoch, who owns both FOX and the Wall Street Journal, that surely has nothing to do with the explanation for these two reports to be diametrically opposite to each other’s conclusions...RIGHT!

As is stated by a very sharp liberal radio talk host. “Don’t believe me, don’t believe what you hear or what you read in the newspapers. With the proper use of the internet, you can find the truth for yourself. Take the time and look it up from multiple sources!”

That’s very good advice and it’s what I do.

Copyright G.Ater 2011-10-28

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN MAY MAKE SOME VERBAL GAFFS, BUT HE USUALLY OFFERS GOOD “COMMON SENSE”

2011-10-25T13:59:00.000-07:00

...Vice President Joe Biden

Finally, the president has given up on working with the Republicans in Congress and he’s now going to use his “Executive Orders” whenever possible.

We are all aware of how Vice President Joe Biden can spout verbal gaffs on a regular basis. However, after the Republicans filibustered and the Senate Republicans voted against the Obama jobs bill that would have provided, or kept, thousands of jobs for police officers, fire personnel and teachers at all levels, the Vice President proved to be correct in chastising those politicians that voted against the bill.

The Republican’s lame excuse for the filibuster was a total cover story for their real purpose of keeping away any positive economic results for the president and the American middle class. According to the GOP Senators, they had decided that the jobs bill, even though it would be a paid-for bill, was a “temporary fix”, and the nation instead needs a “long-term fix”. But of course, the Republicans do not have any kind of a jobs bill “fix”. And they have made it clear that they have no intention of producing a “fix”, at least not before the 2012 elections. In the mean time, they don’t really care how much the average unemployed American suffers.

When questioned about the Republican’s claim that the bill was a “temporary fix”, the Vice President stated: “Well, let me tell you, it’s not temporary when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape.”

Last Wednesday Biden re-stated his claim that the incidence of rape would increase without the jobs bill, telling conservative journalist Jason Mattera, who questioned the appropriateness of using rape to influence legislative votes, that all crime would increase without the administration’s legislation.

“Murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crime will continue to rise,” Biden said.

According to the, NOW (National Organization for Women) president Terry O’Neill, Biden’s rape concern is well-founded. “I think he is concretely worried that with fewer police on the beat, crime will go up,” O’Neill told The Daily Caller. “I think he is imagining the lives of real people. That is not a device — that is an actual ability to know what everyday people go through.”

“I think it is absolutely legitimate to demand that these uncaring un-empathic legislators get a clue,” O’Neill added.

White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney attempted to clarify Biden’s statements: “It would be hard to find anyone who doesn’t agree with the simple equation that fewer police officers on the street has a direct effect on the crime rate,” Carney said. “That’s the point he was making, and that’s a point that the president absolutely does share.”

More and more, the Republicans are digging in for supporting Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell’s long-term statement that their “#1 goal is to make President Obama a one-term president”, regardless of how many middle-class American lives and households are destroyed.

And the conservatives are becoming even more aggressive because they have been totally incorrect about Obama’s inability for dealing with American foreign policy. This is especially true with Obama’s major wins such as getting the terrorists Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda’s Arabian Peninsula leader: Anwar al-Awlaki; al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri; the deputy leader of al Qaeda ‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman; and now the Libyan tyrant and dictator of 42 years, Muammar Gaddafi.

Traditionally, US foreign affairs are left to the Office of the President and the Secretary of State, while the nations domestic policies are supposed to be managed by the Congress. Based on the current focus on US jobs, jobs, jobs, by most Americans, the House and Senate have proven to be much less capable than has the president in dealing with these two specific responsibilities.

All the aforementioned wins by Obama have occurred in the same time period that the new Republican run House has had for dealing with the lack of US jobs. The latest results now show that the major wins for Obama have been at very low financial costs and with few lives lost. That is as compared to Bush and the GOP’s long, useless, and expensive wars in the middle-east, especially regarding their loss of our treasured American troops and thousands of innocent Muslim civilians. The latest results for the House regarding US jobs are that there has not been one jobs bill presented in the House since the GOP took over last January. Bills for cutting corporate taxes, yes. But creating jobs? Not one!

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations have shown that average Americans really do understand that there needs to be fundamental changes, and not just at Wall Street. As was proven by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., quietly and non-violently assembling and demonstrating a desire for real change will eventually win out. As Gandhi has stated: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Sooner or later, the people will see who is working in their interests and who is working against them and they will vote accordingly.

Yes, the demonstrators and many Americans have heard the disgusting Republican crowds in the GOP primary debates that cheered for the hypothetical sick American with no insurance to just “go ahead and die”. They have heard the gay US soldier, currently serving in Iraq, that was booed during one of the primary debates. They have heard the Republican audience applauding and cheering that Governor Rick Perry had personally signed the papers for executing more prisoners than any other US governor, ever. They have heard all the negative anti-immigrant rhetoric (legal or not) that has been emanating from the debates. They also hear and understand how the GOP is protecting Wall Street, the banks and the wealthy while wanting to put the larger tax burdens on the shoulders of the poor and the middle-class. They are seeing and understanding the disparity between the rich and the poor and that the wealthy currently don’t give a “rat’s ass” as to what happens to the average working American.

The most important item in a functioning democracy is in having good information with which to make good decisions. The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations are a major opportunity for disseminating the information that counters the false information being constantly offer up by the conservatives and the FOX Network.

The OWS demonstrations are continuing to expand and they continue to remain peaceful. However, over the weekend they became violent in Oakland, California with the local authorities using rubber bullets and tear gas. Hopefully, the demonstrators around the country will continue holding their ground peacefully and the GOP will continue to be shown for what they really are: “Nothing but a large, lying political force that is totally owned, ‘lock-stock & barrel’ by multinational corporations and wealthy industrialists and their lobbyists.”

The president’s decision to circumvent the overall Republican stalling by using his “power-of-the-pulpit” and the Executive Orders will help to show the public that Obama cares, while the Republicans have no intention of helping the average working American.

Copyright G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

A SELF-DECLARED, “COMPASSIONATE CAPITALIST”, THAT NEEDS THEIR HEAD EXAMINED

2011-10-19T07:12:00.000-07:00

...Hooverville shacks were the 1030's "compassionate" Wall Street results, and they could soon be returning to America

It continues to amaze me how some people have no clue as to what’s going on around them every day.

I almost choked when I read a recent comment from a less than aware conservative that referred to the American business system and Wall Street as being a joint, “compassionate capitalistic system”.

This individual is either on some serious drugs, ignorant beyond any conceivable help or they have a definite misunderstanding of what’s really going on in this country and how it is very far from being “compassionate”.

Let’s look at the American score card to date:

>>> 20 million Americans are unemployed

>>> 40 million have no health care (The US is the only industrialized country that does not have Universal Health Care coverage.)

>>> Poverty in the US is exploding across this country. (One out of five children in the US today are born into a family below the poverty line.)

>>> There are only 4 countries other than the US (such as Zimbabwe) that have a wider disparity between the nation’s poor and their wealthy citizens .

>>> The top 1% in the US population now control 40% of the nation’s wealth. (That phenomena has not occurred in the US since the late 1920’s under the GOP president Herbert Hoover.)

>>> Upward mobility in the US is the worst it’s been in over 100 years. (This means that if someone is born poor in America today, there is a good chance they will grow up remaining poor.)

>>>Thousands of Americans today face foreclosures on their homes.

>>> Many more thousands are in homes that are “under-water”. (Homes valued well below what is owed on the mortgage.)

>>> Hundreds of thousands of Americans no longer have a viable 401K savings plan that would allow them to retire in relative comfort at age 65.

>>> It has now been officially documented that the US has lost 42,400 manufacturing factories since 2001

>>> Thirty five years ago, 30%+ of America’s workers were represented by a union. Today that percentage is between 11&14%.

>>> In the 1980’s, there were less than 1,000 registered “Lobbyists” in Washington DC. Today there are over 30,000 and growing.

>>> Today, it is not uncommon for an election of a local US Congressperson to cost each candidate over $1,000,000.

>>> As compared to the past generations, the Republican party today has no desire, or intention, of helping to change the nations’ current economic status-quo.

And according to the New York State Comptroller, while all of this has been occurring, in 2010, Wall Street and the major banks paid out $20.8 “Billion with a B” in cash bonuses to their employees.

This “compassionate” individual is also probably totally confused as to why there are currently “Occupy Wall Street (OWS)” street demonstrations against the status-quo in approximately 1,000 US cities. (And foreign citizens are also now demonstrating in some major international business cities.)

To make things even worse, this "compassionate" individual tried to compare the late entrepreneur, Apple Computer’s Steve Jobs, with Wall Street...? Now that is totally ludicrous and ridiculous.

As one individual noted, “Comparing Steve Jobs with Wall Street is like comparing pines nuts and hand grenades.”

People sometimes forget, Wall Street and the banks produce absolutely nothing. They make money by moving money around while Jobs’ Apple Computer produces innovative useful products that people love to buy and use.

While Apple Computer builds popular products, Wall Street and the banks spend their incomes on buying lobbyists, politicians and tax-loop-holes for their corporate clients.

And when all their schemes cause the nation’s economy to implode, it is the 40 hour, working American taxpayers that pull Wall Street and the bank’s "asses out of the fire" using trillions of taxpayer dollars.

For anyone to call the fouled up American business system a “compassionate capitalistic system” should not be allowed to vote, drive a car or reproduce. The help they need goes well beyond anything that I could suggest short of a brain transplant.

Nuff said.

Copyright, G.Ater 2011

Follow me on Twitter; gater01