New Developments III

[OscarGuy]

questioning voters at the polls? Are we going to go back to the poll taxes and other nefarious deeds to intimidate voters? This is stifling. When did America become the Home of the Disenfranchisers?

[Greg]

McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote for
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: October 29, 2010

WASHINGTON — When workers in a McDonald’s restaurant in Canton, Ohio, opened their paychecks this month, they found a pamphlet urging them to vote for the Republican candidates for governor, Senate and Congress, or possibly face financial repercussions.

The pamphlet appeared calculated to intimidate workers into voting for Republican candidates by making a direct reference to their wages and benefits, said Allen Schulman, a Democrat who is president of the Canton City Council and said he obtained a copy of the pamphlet on Wednesday.

The pamphlet said: “If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.”

It then named three Republican candidates after stating, “The following candidates are the ones we believe will help our business move forward.”

The store’s owner, Paul Siegfried, did not return a call for comment, but a spokesman for McDonald’s USA, the parent company, said: “It was an unfortunately lapse in judgment on Mr. Siegfried’s part. He’s disappointed with himself.”

The spokesman, Joe Woods, e-mailed a statement on Mr. Siegfried’s behalf. “For those that I have offended, I sincerely apologize,” the statement said.

Mr. Woods said Mr. Siegfried’s action did not represent the policy of McDonald’s.

Mr. Schulman, who is a lawyer, said that distribution of the pamphlet — which was printed on a McDonald’s letterhead — violates a 1953 Ohio statute that prohibits political material from being attached to wage envelopes. He declined to comment on how he got a copy, or who gave it to him, but said it was distributed to employees within the past week.

He said he had forwarded a copy to the authorities in Canton, requesting that they investigate.

Joe Martuccio, the law director for the city of Canton, said by telephone on Friday he was in the process of determining whether the distribution occurred within city limits and whether he had the authority to investigate.

“We have to determine the facts first,” he said.

The incident came as liberal voting-rights groups expressed concern that conservative complaints about fraudulent voting would lead to a reduced turnout on Election Day. Some Tea Party members have announced plans to question voters at the polls whom they suspect of being ineligible.

The incident also highlighted how fraught politics have become just days before the midterm elections in Ohio, a key battleground state, where incumbent Democrats are struggling for their survival.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/us/politics/30ohio.html?src=me

[Greg]

Keith Olbermann had a divresion from politics on his show last night. A concert violinist played a $3.6 million Stradivarius.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR6WF52w3l8

[rain Bard]

As disgusting as the video is, I think might be even more disgusted by the fact that most of the commenters on that post are insisting that the video was staged by liberals looking for sympathy. Compassion for the "other side" simply cannot exist any more for some people, can it?

[criddic3]

First off, I want to commend you for finding a way not to do any actual research and posting talking points also found on such websites as truthout.org and democraticunderground.com.

Meow! If I didn't know any better, I'd have thought I wrote that sentence.

I've been a bad influence on you, criddic.

Maybe I have unknowingly picked up a few things from this site over the years.

On the stomping thing...I totally agree with you. Seeing stuff like this takes some of the fun out of election season. No matter what side a person is on in the political divide, there is no call for physical violence or demeaning actions. America is supposed to be about the freedom to debate issues and support candidates without being harassed.

[Sonic Youth]

I think I've had enough of elections.

[Sonic Youth]

First off, I want to commend you for finding a way not to do any actual research and posting talking points also found on such websites as truthout.org and democraticunderground.com.

Meow! If I didn't know any better, I'd have thought I wrote that sentence.

I've been a bad influence on you, criddic.

[taki15]

6. CBO estimated the cost of the bill at $938 billion before it even passed. Now many believe it will eventually cost even more than that.

I assume that by many you mean such noted experts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.

[criddic3]

First of all, the Health Care legislation isn't going into effect immediately, so it cannot be counted as stimulus funds.

Also, this thought that the recession is still going on is also crap as the Recession was declared over in June. Changes in unemployment usually take time after the end of a recession to decrease.

As for the stimulus, it's the Republicans in congress who prevented the stimulus from having higher effect when they refused to let it go out over $1 B. Had the stimulus been funded appropriately, perhaps the recession would have ended sooner and unemployment would finally be decreasing.

And here are 8 debunked facts that I'm sure you will try to deny.

1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.

Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.

First off, I want to commend you for finding a way not to do any actual research and posting talking points also found on such websites as truthout.org and democraticunderground.com.

1. This perception is brought by the fact that Obama's 787 billion dollar stimulus was passed in 2009. Here's one site
Another

2. That's debatable. abcnews

3. actually....You may be wrong.
More current

4. Actually Obama was promising that unemployment would not go above 8%...just one of the things that didn't work. Plus most of the jobs you say that were "created or saved" were public sector not private sector. Not much help to non-government businesses.

5. It does create an atmosphere in which a business would feel less burdened and perhaps begin hiring. Otherwise, why would Obama himself keep offering "tax credits"?

6. CBO estimated the cost of the bill at $938 billion before it even passed. Now many believe it will eventually cost even more than that.

7. Social Security Worries
I have heard different estimates of when Social Security will go bankrupt if not fixed. some say 17 years, some say 25. Point is that many believe it will cost more to fix later rather than sooner.

8. Well, yes. If you keep spending $700 billion or more on massive programs, it does take away from the ability of our economy to thrive, because it is not money we have. Printing money, or borrowing from other countries...neither is an attractive option.

a. By the way, some provisions of the Health Care law have gone into effect. The bigger-priced items go into effect later, but money is being spent.

b. I said before that if the recession ended in June and we are still in this situation it is not a good thing. The Obama administration has projected that we will not see true turn around till the end of next year. When the 1982 recession ended, the economy came back fairly quickly, and allowed Reagan to be re-elected. Mister Tee said that the economy was "much worse than what we have now." So why was there a quick recovery then and not now (particularly if the administration's predictions are accurate)?

The question remains: Is Obama doing what Reagan did in 1982 which saw a turn around in 1983? If so then 2012 will be a good year for him. (although I contend that the economy is only a part of his political troubles).



Edited By criddic3 on 1288069768

[OscarGuy]

First of all, the Health Care legislation isn't going into effect immediately, so it cannot be counted as stimulus funds.

Also, this thought that the recession is still going on is also crap as the Recession was declared over in June. Changes in unemployment usually take time after the end of a recession to decrease.

As for the stimulus, it's the Republicans in congress who prevented the stimulus from having higher effect when they refused to let it go out over $1 B. Had the stimulus been funded appropriately, perhaps the recession would have ended sooner and unemployment would finally be decreasing.

And here are 8 debunked facts that I'm sure you will try to deny.

1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.

Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.

[criddic3]

You prove to be continuously idiotic. The only reason there were 34 dems voting against health care was because Pelosi permitted her caucus in tough re-election fights to vote against the bill to try and protect their seats. It may not have worked, but it generally has little to do with whether or not they approved of it or not.

And if what they were doing was so wonderful, why would they need to make such a cynical move??

You said before that "as most economists will tell you, the only way out of a recession is to spend your way out" and Mister Tee said "Unemployment in 1982 was worse than what we have now." Tell me: what spending bill was proposed and passed in 1982 or 1983 that matched the Stimulus and heath care spending bills of 2009 and 2010? We were out of the recession by the end of 1983 or else Reagan might not have been re-elected (certainly not by carrying 49 states, something President Obama will not be able to replicate unless something miraculous occurs.) So did he do what Obama is doing, in which case Obama will soon be lauded as a great President, or is he doing something completely different, which would lead to a different result? I'm willing to learn here. I know I have a point-of-view and you have a point-of-view. Instead of telling me how crazy and dumb I am, why not just discuss it? (this is the one problem I have had on this board for years is that instead of truly discussing the issues, some people choose to be dismissive and that leads to nowhere.)

[OscarGuy]

You prove to be continuously idiotic. The only reason there were 34 dems voting against health care was because Pelosi permitted her caucus in tough re-election fights to vote against the bill to try and protect their seats. It may not have worked, but it generally has little to do with whether or not they approved of it or not.

[criddic3]

Well, Criddic, there are two reasons why the effects of this recession have lasted longer than it should have.

1) Harry Reid has no balls
2) Republicans haven't been working with Dems at all. They've been blockading EVERYTHING they can, which includes keeping the stimulus from being bigger and more potent than it was (and as most economists will tell you, the only way out of a recession is to spend your way out).

And a side note. The organization that determines when a recession begins and ends says the recession actually ended in June and that we are in a small period of recovery. Of course, that won't be helped by the pubes who refuse to lift a finger to actually help this country. More filibusters in one year than in the first decade of the 20th century.

That's one way to interpret it. i might see it slightly differently.

1. Too many spending bills supposedly aimed at helping the economy, with very few Private Sector jobs created "or saved." That makes people nervous and unwilling to invest or spend, which slows any recovery. While we may technically be in a slow "recovery," no one is feeling it and that is always bad news for the party in power (example: 1992).
2. Republicans (and some Democrats) have voted against some of the major bills Obama has proposed, including the widely unpopular health care bill (34 Democrats voted against this in the House). It is the arrogance we saw when passing such proposals that is partly what is driving independents toward the Republicans this cycle.
3. If the recession stopped in June and we are still at 9.6% unemployment with even White House officials saying we won't see much better before the end of NEXT YEAR, that's a problem.

[Greg]

A Tea Party of populist posers
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

On the morning of Oct. 14, a cyber-insurgency caused servers to crash at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The culprits, however, weren't attacking the chamber; they were well-meaning citizens who overwhelmed the big-business lobbying group with a sudden wave of online contributions. It was one of the more extraordinary events in the annals of American populism: the common man voluntarily giving money to make the rich richer.

These donors to the cause of the Fortune 500 were motivated by a radio appeal from the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement, Glenn Beck, who told them: "Put your money where your mouth is. If you have a dollar, please go to . . . the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and donate today." Chamber members, he said, "are our parents. They're our grandparents. They are us."

They are? Listed as members of the chamber's board are representatives from Pfizer, ConocoPhillips, Lockheed Martin, JPMorgan Chase, Dow Chemical, Ken Starr's old law and lobbying firm, and Rolls-Royce North America. Nothing says grass-roots insurgency quite like Rolls-Royce -- and nothing says populist revolt quite like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In describing the big-business group as "us," Beck (annual revenue: $32 million) provided an unintended moment of clarity into the power behind the Tea Party movement. These aren't peasants with pitchforks; these are plutocrats with payrolls.

There is genuine populist anger out there. But the angry have been deceived and exploited by posers who belong to the same class of "elites" and "insiders" that the Tea Party movement supposedly deplores. Americans who want to stick it to the man are instead sending money to the man.

Consider the candidates on the ballot next month who are getting Tea Party support. In the Connecticut Senate race, there's Linda McMahon, who with her husband has a billion-dollar pro-wrestling empire. The challenger to Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, is a millionaire manufacturing executive. The former head of Gateway computers, Rick Snyder, is spending generously from his fortune to win the Michigan governor's race.


In New York, the Republican gubernatorial candidate is developer Carl Paladino, with a net worth put at $150 million. And Rick Scott, running for governor in Florida, has a net worth of $219 million from his career as a health-care executive. Then there's California, where the Republican Senate nominee is former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina and the gubernatorial candidate is former e-Bay boss Meg Whitman.

Democrats have their phony populists, too. Billionaire Jeff Greene, who cashed in on subprime mortgages, made an unsuccessful attempt at the U.S. Senate nomination in Florida. But more often this year, it's the Democrats who are defending themselves against the "elite" allegation.

"The elite's fear and loathing of the tea party movement is rooted in the recognition that the real change is only now coming," writes Tony Blankley, the conservative commentator who exempts himself from the elite label even though he worked for the speaker of the House and now toils for a prominent PR firm. The Tea Party, he wrote, will "constrain the elite's economic and cultural hegemony."

Oh? Who will do this constraining of the elite's hegemony? Why, people such as the Tea Party's Senate candidate from Alaska, Joe Miller (Yale Law School); and from Kentucky, Rand Paul (Duke Medical School), and from Colorado, Ken Buck (Princeton University).

And who will be helping these anti-elite elites get into office? Well, there's FreedomWorks, a Tea Party outfit run by Dick Armey, the former Republican lawmaker whose last job was with a big lobbying firm. His deputy at FreedomWorks is Matt Kibbe, who worked for none other than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There's also the Tea Party Express, the creation of longtime Republican consultant Sal Russo. A colleague at Russo's consulting firm pitched the Tea Party Express idea as a way to boost the company's bottom line. According to an internal e-mail intercepted by the New York Times, it came from a "desire to give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force."

The guy who put together the Tea Party "Contract From America" previously worked on Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. Another Tea Party group, Americans for Prosperity, has been lavishly funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.

A movement of the plutocrats, by the political professionals and for the powerful: Now that's something Tea Partyers should be mad about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....85.html

[Reza]

If anyone's looking for a key to my psyche, [O'Donnell] is 100% my type. It makes all the more appalling the toadish opinions that pop out of her mouth.

That's your type, Tee? Comment révélation! She looks like the kind of girl who uses her teeth too much while giving head.

Lol