News and Current Events - 2012

[oilgun]

Ron Paul wins support of the military while Obama cashes in on war-profiteers
Defense contractors are pumping money into the campaign for President Obama as he runs for reelection, but one of his biggest competitors, Ron Paul, is cashing in on his opposition to militaristic imperialism.
[...]

https://rt.com/usa/news/paul-military-obama-defense-753/

[dejavu]

I admit I have not read everything he has to say about Medicare and Social Security.  However, I do know that both need some major adjustments.  Social Security might be viable until 2037 but only if the government can print, borrow, or steal all the money that it owes to the so called trust fund. 
I don't think means testing is gutting the system.  It is a viable alternative and should be studied.  I simply do no think we should view Social Security as a universal "retirement program" but rather as a safety net for those who truly need one or as one small part of one's retirement strategy for those who have the ability to supply a significant amount of their own retirement funding.   
I also think that we should bite the bullet and not put a cap on payroll contributions though I would very much like to see a financial analysis demonstrating the degree to which this would help. 
Medicare is here to stay but it, combined with the new medical legislation, is a financial disaster in the making and needs to be addressed.  Confiscating the entire wealth of the top 1% would not fix the problem and continuing to harangue about it, while soothing to progressive soul, will not quench the financial thirst.

I agree with most of what you say here, Gary.  Changes to Social Security are needed to avoid having the system go broke.  As someone who used to hit the "cap" on payroll contributions every year back when I was working, I know I could have easily lived without that extra "bonus" in my paycheck toward the end of the year after they stopped withholding payroll taxes.  And I know (with guilty hindsight) that I could have put a greater percent of my own gross income into savings plans like 401(k)'s and IRA's; or even into Savings Bonds back when they were the main thing available.  I could have done so because I did have more spendable income than some of the lower-paid employees who were living on a shoestring.  I don't think that's an unfair expectation for the more highly paid people, to be more independent.   

I am just as suspect as you regarding his stance on social issues and I remain quite skeptical of not only his faith but any thinking person's adherence to Mormon "theology".   (Take this with a grain of salt as I am not the most religious person to begin with.)

A big grain of salt taken on this part, Gary.     I have at least one personal friend who is Mormon, and he's quite the "thinking person" (he's gay, too).  And I'm not sure about a very intelligent former boss who moved back to western Colorado near Utah after she retired (it's a heavily Mormon area where she came from originally, and now lives).  I began reading about Mormon theology a little myself since we do have two candidates of that religion this year (I wanted to be open-minded and learn), and I find a lot in the theology which makes sense.  Also, my Presbyterian mother is a strong Republican who says she wouldn't object to having a Mormon president.  To say any more about Mormons probably belongs in the Christian thread, but I felt compelled to defend the ability to think, of anyone who adheres to those beliefs.

This is certainly not a personal attack on you, Gary (or Marge); please don't take it that way. 
 

Finally, to be honest, I think all "unions" should be considered from a government standpoint as "civil unions".  I tend to like the system, as I understand it anyway, employed in Britain.

And leave marriage to the churches, I guess you mean.  No argument here, as long as heterosexual couples' benefits were equally considered the benefits of "civil unions."  What counts for benefits and so on is the government and legal system.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

It seems the moderators do not want me to post a rebuttal to garyd's deliberately provocative
post.  I happen to agree with Ellen and not garyd's convoluted reply to what was occurring in
those posts.  Just for the record.  Or as Kathy would say:

**yes**

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Finally, to be honest, I think all "unions" should be considered from a government standpoint as "civil unions".  I tend to like the system, as I understand it anyway, employed in Britain.

And leave marriage to the churches, I guess you mean.  No argument here, as long as heterosexual couples' benefits were equally considered the benefits of "civil unions."  What counts for benefits and so on is the government and legal system.

This idea separates gay couples from the word marriage.
Separate is not equal.  Since the Government IS in the business of granting marriage licenses,
what is wrong with just having marriage equality?

[Lyle (Mooska)]

I was referring to Clinton's response to the video.  She seemed so upset, claiming that "it's absolutely inconsistent with American values, with the standards of behaviour that is expected from our military personnel.."  and the rest of the spin that she regurgitated.  Would this be the same values and standards of behaviour that allows the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?  Are the same values that allows assassinations, even of American citizens?  The USA is a rogue state and that's why I'm disappointed with the (murderous) Barack Obama.

Really, oilgun, did you want her to come out and applaud?
Aren't you glad you're in Canada?  What's your opinion of
the pipeline Canada wants to build here?

[janjo]

This idea separates gay couples from the word marriage.
Separate is not equal.  Since the Government IS in the business of granting marriage licenses,
what is wrong with just having marriage equality?

This is the latest "state of play" as regards same sex marriages in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12442375

[janjo]

As do I. 
I caution, you however, that you are only really seeing/reading one side(far left side)  of the political spectrum on this thread.
I realize that statement is a generalization but I think it is "generally" accurate. It is frustrating. (though I would be at a complete loss as to how to describe/define a "genuine Republican voter".  }

I do think it is important to understand, however, that this frustration is shared by both Democrats and Republicans.  Due to our current "nominating" or "primary system" and the fact that all of the early primaries occur in small areas of the country which represent the more extreme political segments of both parties, the candidates must, or so they think, pander to the views of those voting.
Four years ago we were subjected to these three ring circus debates from both Democrats and Republicans.  The Republican "hopefuls" were just as obnoxious as they are this time around and the Democrat "hopefuls" , for the most part were falling all over themselves to see who could be anointed the most "progressive".  I can not find, and wish I had saved, President Obama's (then candidate) website which was chock-a-block full of every possible "kid in a candy store" left wing desire....end the war in a few weeks, close Guantanamo in a few days, universal, single payer, health care, $10,000 grants to the middle class, new scholarships, alternative fuel initiatives, and on and on.  All, would be funded by America's corrupt businesses and, of course, the evil rich who had always been evil but had become even more rich due to the evil Mr. Bush and his controller Darth Cheney. 

As has historically been the case, as Super Tuesday approached both Mr.Obama and Mr. McCain had already gravitated closer to the center and, once elected, President Obama, as it is with any President, moved firmly to the center since all find it impossible to lead from either the left or the right. And, though I thought it might be overcome, I fear President Obama's woeful lack of experience and understanding of executive leadership may prove to be his Achilles heel. 
This, along with the typical disenchantment of the far left with his perceived inability to deliver on his undeliverable campaign promises could result in his loss of the Presidency in November. There are truckloads of excellent ideas on both sides of the political spectrum.  Congress, however, no matter how eloquent the President, will not just "get along" and enact the necessary financial safeguards, spending cuts, and revenue generating initiatives.  We need a leader with a plan and the skills necessary to see that the plan in implemented.
I would hate to see us elect a Ron Paul or a Mitt Romney simply due to our perception of their "consistency" or "executive leadership' abilities.  Mainly because, at the moment at least, their "plans" are mostly ideological hot air, and/or unproven, even disproven, theoretical nonsense.

Far be it from me to say that your idea of "the far left" in the US and our idea of "the far left" in the UK, might not be quite the same. I can't say I have seen what I would think of as far left views being aired here, it all seems rather sensible and moderate to me.

We do get to see quite a lot of US politics here, lots of discussion of the various candidates and their views, as it will affect us too. When we were in the US there didn't seem to be any comparable news reporting of our political scene.
If I was to do what my sister and brother in law do, which is to spend summer in England and winter in their house in Florida, I think I would have to stream BBC Radio 4 for the sake of my own sanity.

[Marge_Innavera]

Changes to Social Security are needed to avoid having the system go broke.  As someone who used to hit the "cap" on payroll contributions every year back when I was working, I know I could have easily lived without that extra "bonus" in my paycheck toward the end of the year after they stopped withholding payroll taxes.  And I know (with guilty hindsight) that I could have put a greater percent of my own gross income into savings plans like 401(k)'s and IRA's; or even into Savings Bonds back when they were the main thing available.  I could have done so because I did have more spendable income than some of the lower-paid employees who were living on a shoestring.  I don't think that's an unfair expectation for the more highly paid people, to be more independent.    .

Do you honestly think the GOP in its present form would stop at that point? 

And I do hope you're aware that your own experience isn't everyone's.  The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is now not credit card debt but ruinous medical expenses.  Would you advocate cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and if so, what would you expect low-income people to do?

[Marge_Innavera]

This idea separates gay couples from the word marriage.
Separate is not equal.  Since the Government IS in the business of granting marriage licenses,
what is wrong with just having marriage equality?

I've heard this notion of demoting everyone's marriage to civil union status elsewhere and don't know why anyone would think it's a good idea.  IMO it's the equivalent to dealing with drunk driving by requiring everyone to junk their car and get around via bicycle (which can be quite the challenge if you live in a rural area or somewhere like Alaska or Wyoming).

Moreover, the term "marriage" is a legal term in US law.

Not UK law.

Not Japanese law.

Not the laws of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick.  United. States. law.

It's used in family, criminal, tax, probate and real estate law.  Moreover, many people in the US don't get married in churches but in civil ceremonies; and some religious ceremonies, while legal, would not be recognized as "real" marriages by some churches.

And you're right about the government being in the business of granting marriage licenses.  Our system is that you get a license and marriage certificate by the State and have the wedding officiant be anyone you want as long as they're licensed. There's no reason to start throwing grenades into that other than a search for something to ratchet up homophobia.  (i.e., 'we told you those homosexuals were gonna destroy marriage as we know it and now they've done it')  If there are churches whose members are upset over the prospect of sharing the term with Those Dirty Gays, they can change the name they use to "sanctified union", "holy matrimony" or the like.  That won't change the legal status of their marriages, or anyone else's. Some churches already recognize a self-imposed distinction for 'covenant marriages.'

I'm for marriage equality, period.  Forget the cutesy tricks.  Jim Crow died 40-plus years ago; and he's not going to rise again of a Sunday morning.

[oilgun]

Really, oilgun, did you want her to come out and applaud?
Aren't you glad you're in Canada?  What's your opinion of
the pipeline Canada wants to build here?

I know, what else could she say.  Applauding would have been too honest, lol!  As far as my country is concerned, I haven't been proud to be Canadian in quite a while.   We have the world's dirtiest oil & we dump asbestos on third world countries.  We are one of the world's biggest emitters of green house gases and pulled out of the Kyoto agreement. Also, we too are on the road to becoming a police state with the vile Harper as our own "Dear Leader".  Anyway, sorry if I caused offence, I'm just feeling pretty pessimistic these days.  

EDIT:  I just found this nugget which is states more eloquently what I was trying to say in my previous post:



I'm Confused: It's Okay to Kill Afghanis, But Not Okay to Urinate on the Bodies?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have been making the media rounds lately, speaking out against the US Marines urinating on the corpses of slain Afghans with the intention of telling the world that urinating on the dead bodies is not appropriate behavior; it doesn't reflect the standards of the American armed forces.  It's just "not consistent with our core values," in the words of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

True, it's a disgusting thing to do, but I can't help asking: what exactly are our core values these days, Mr. Panetta?  It's kind of confusing.  You give the orders to invade and occupy their country, Afghanistan, and that it's perfectly fine to drop bombs from drones and massacre these people who are attempting to defend themselves in their own country, (a little wee fact that we tend to forget), you give the orders to slaughter them on sight, which have turned our U.S. soldiers into ruthless killers, and then you scold them for urinating on their dead bodies-because, it's just not "consistent with our core values".

So let's get this straight: It's okay for the U.S. Marines to kill Afghans in their own country, but they must never urinate on the slain men after the Marines made a bloody pulp out of their bodies with hundreds of bullets.  Keep killing, no urinating.

I'm confused. Again, I must ask: What exactly are our core values, Mr. Panetta? I really would like to know.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13261

[Marge_Innavera]

Some interesting perspectives here.


Poverty stats in South Carolina, the next venue for the GOP spotlight:

Kids 8 and younger living in poverty: 28 percent, tied for fifth worst in the US (including DC) ( http://www.clasp.org/issues/did_you_know?type=child_care_and_early_education&id=0023 )

People living in poverty: 18.2 percent, eighth worst. ( http://halfinten.org/indicators/data/poverty-rate/2010/ )

High school graduation rate (2008): 61.9 percent, third worst. ( http://halfinten.org/indicators/data/hs-grad/2010/ )

Unemployment rate (avg. month, 2010): 11.2 percent, sixth worst. (  )

 
GOP Would-Be Presidents Peddling Myths

“The African-American community should demand pay checks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” said Newt Gingrich; “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money,” declared Rick Santorum; and “We are…dragged down by a resentment of success,” offered Mitt Romney.

New York Times columnist Charles Blow does a superb job debunking myths—explaining that, for example, “the largest group of SNAP beneficiaries is by far non-Hispanic whites” and “most SNAP participants are either too old or too young to work”—and also lays out the GOP’s use over the years of a “historical mythology which evokes the black bogyman, who saps the money from the whites who earn it.”

Joy Moses, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, brings a dose of reality to Santorum’s rhetoric as well. She points out that “most people receiving public benefits aren't collecting somebody else’s money, but their own” in the form of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance—programs that beneficiaries and their employers have paid for with taxes taken out of their paychecks.  Also, unemployment insurance and TANF (cash welfare for families)—which represent just 4 percent of federal spending—pay such small amounts and are time-limited so that people couldn’t live off of them even if they wanted to. (TANF benefits don’t raise a family’s income above 50 percent of the poverty line in any state!)


Other topics:  negative impacts of the economy on children and the increasing impact on them; Obama's approach.



http://www.thenation.com/blog/165629/week-poverty-kids-jobs-and-gop-myths

[dejavu]

This idea separates gay couples from the word marriage.
Separate is not equal.  Since the Government IS in the business of granting marriage licenses,
what is wrong with just having marriage equality?

To make it clear, I am for marriage equality.  Period. 

But if there is as long a road ahead as it sometimes seems, universal civil partnerships in the meantime would be an improvement.

Thanks, Jess, for providing that link about the state of things in the UK, I understand better now what's going on over there. 

[Marge_Innavera]

To make it clear, I am for marriage equality.  Period. 

But if there is as long a road ahead as it sometimes seems, universal civil partnerships in the meantime would be an improvement.

No, they wouldn't. Once a social policy is in place it's difficult to change; and there's no good reason to take such a step to begin with.

[dejavu]

Do you honestly think the GOP in its present form would stop at that point? 

And I do hope you're aware that your own experience isn't everyone's.  The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is now not credit card debt but ruinous medical expenses.  Would you advocate cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and if so, what would you expect low-income people to do?

Marge, to answer your first paragraph, I was merely responding to what Gary said about not capping payroll deductions for social security.  I agreed with that.  That seems like a good idea because it would not hurt low-income people, which is why I used my own example (I wasn't low-income if I'd reached the point where the cap kicked in).  That has nothing to do with whether I would expect the GOP to stop at that point, and I am not commenting on what else they might do.

I really have no comment to your last paragraph either, except to say that I understand the problem with ruinous medical expenses.  Governmental support of some kind is necessary.  I also understand that the government is going broke.  And I have no good suggestions as to how to reconcile the two.  It's a mess.

[dejavu]

No, they wouldn't. Once a social policy is in place it's difficult to change; and there's no good reason to take such a step to begin with.

Fine.  Make that "might" be an improvement.  I understand what you are saying about social policy being difficult to change, but what about elderly couples who could benefit from a civil partnership while they are still alive?

It's frustrating, I know, because there's no quick solution to any of this.