Posts tagged ‘Politic’

September 14, 2012

Mitt Romney Hugged by a…. Commoner??

Mitt Romney often looks as if he is uncomfortable around regular, everyday people. His grins tend to resemble that of a grimace. What would happen if a voter gave him a big bear hug, and swept him from his feet???

Advertisements
September 10, 2009

And it’s all gone to hell…

Wow! Last night was incredible. I must say, I found the entire Presidential Address to Congress to be IMMENSELY entertaining. I mean, what can I say? How often do you get to see a party behave like petulant children, unable to get their way, and therefore throwing fits DURING a presidential speech?

Oh, there was a’hooting and a’hollering.

Oh, there was a’waving of random signs and pieces of paper in the air.

And to top it off? The phrase heard around the world:

“YOU LIE!”

Boy oh boy! My Jesus, they just could NOT contain themselves!

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” Is this the new Republican mantra?

Now, if only they had gotten this fired up when it came to the wasteful spending that is the Iraq war! If only they had gotten that fired up when big businesses and the wealthiest people in the country were getting tax cuts left and right! If only they had gotten this upset when all of the American jobs started to be outsourced to other countries. If only they had gotten that fired up when big businesses started handing out jobs to illegal aliens, that they now want to fight against covering with American insurance. (Good enough to work for slave wages, not good enough to be treated if you get sick.) If only they had gotten that fired up when talks of deregulation began to take root. IF FREAKING ONLY!

But they didn’t.

If they had, MAYBE things would be a lot different. MAYBE, just MAYBE we would be able to actually take care of the American people when they get sick, as they do in other countries. MAYBE we wouldn’t be in this cluster f#ck economically. MAYBE there would be more jobs to go around and unemployment wouldn’t be near 10%. MAYBE we would not have lost thousands of American lives in wars that have served to do nothing more than line the pockets of the uber rich and heartless.

Maybe, just maybe.

Today it was reported that the bonuses that bank give out each year come from overdraft fees and credit card penalties. Yes, dare you spend a buck more than whats available, or you are contributing to the 27 BILLION dollars that is accumulated each year in overdraft fees. Please tell me why these CEO’s deserve my 35 bucks? Why do they deserve yours? What did they do to earn it? As far as I can tell, their entire purpose in life is to nickel and dime us every which way from Sunday. Mmm… I guess that IS worthy of such bonuses. Job well done guys!

But seriously, why is that OK? Why aren’t people picketing their offices and demanding their overdraft fees back? And better yet, how many people in America medical bills could be taken care of with that $27 Billion?

Now, there are people who say that people should learn to balance their check books. Bla bla bla. Yes, I agree that we are each responsible for our own finances. But that still doesn’t tell me why the fat cats at the banks DESERVE to get that money. Should there be a penalty for over drawing your account? Sure, but there should also be laws in place to protect you from these overdraft fees. Laws that will prevent some of the practices that cause even the most financially conservative person to accidentally overdraft their accounts.  My own personal experience involves depositing checks that take days, or maybe even a full week to clear, while I still have bills that are scheduled to be paid. Might I add that they don’t tell you that there will be an hold until AFTER they process the check, and deposit into your account?

While some banks do allow you to set up a savings account to cover any overdrafts, the default should be that the bank DOES NOT cover purchases that you can’t afford. So… if you try to buy a dress that is $150 and all you have is $149 on your account, that purchase should not be approved. Instead of that, the current default is, “sure, we’ll cover your purchase that is a dollar short, but it’s going to cost ya. ” This simply should not be allowed.

At this point you may ask yourself, “but, where would those bankers much deserved (insert eyeroll here) multi-million dollar bonuses come from? How will their children eat??

You will excuse me if I don’t care, right? After all, all of the hoopla and discontent surrounding health care reform and whether or not we can really afford it rings disingenuous when practices such as these are allowed to exist.

What is it with the conservative base that has convinced them that it is a good idea to vote against their interest? Why are they concern with whether or not the private insurance company survives a public option? Do those private insurance companies care about all of the services and treatments that they DENY to people that they do cover? Do they care about the millions of people they turn away due to “high risk?” Do they care about the little person? In my, and millions of others opinion, the answer is a big fat, RESOUNDING, “No!”

So why are the conservative constituents otherwise convinced? And will they ever see the big picture? I’ve seen conservatives without jobs, without health insurance, and who are sick, fighting to stop health care reform. They’ve been convinced that they don’t deserve it.

“Why should I be so lucky? Why do I deserve to live a better life? If only I had worked as hard as the bankers, I  would be able to afford treatment for my breast/colon/prostate/stomache cancer.”

What can I say? Maybe they are right. Let’s face it, if God wanted us to have a better life, He would have made us all Bankers.

To suffer is a way of life.

September 8, 2009

Why should we vote for republicans?

I wonder if the republican party realizes that, just because the democrats got voted into office, it doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for them think that they are perfect. It’s not like we are all happy with everything they have done, or have not done… But, when your only other real option are the republicans… why in the world would any sane, rational individual vote for them?

I hear people talking about voting the democrats out of office in 2010 because they didn’t “do what they promised” and it’s clear that they aren’t really thinking things through. That they are just in the heat of the moment… But, when it comes down to actually voting…  Why would the public, as a whole, trust the party that was at the helm when our economy tanked? Why would we trust a party that has fallen back on their previous tactics of scaring people into voting for them? Why would we trust a party that doesn’t actually put forth any solutions, but simultaneously say NO to anything that is proposed by the opposing party?

These are questions that the republicans should be asking themselves. Why should people who are truly open to voting for either party WANT to vote republican? They aren’t gaining NEW supporters with their fear mongering. They are just pandering to a very loud, minority base. Just because more people may be unhappy with the president than before, it doesn’t mean that those unhappy people are daft enough to support the republican party come election time. Best case scenario, for the republicans, is that they simply don’t vote at all. Worst case scenario, they scare even more people into going out to vote AGAINST them.

It’s early, yet. Not even a full year into Obama’s first term. While the republicans may feel like they are winning a couple of tiny battles here and there,  I predict that these underhanded tactics are going to come back to haunt their party. Americans are fickle and irrational at times, but once time passes and things DO improve, we will have forgotten about the fright-wing and their desperate tactics. And… in the end, they will be even worse off than they are now.

While I’m not a democrat, and more libertarian than anything, at this point in time I could never support the republicans. So, republicans… Please tell me, why do you deserve my vote? What are YOU going to do to better our country?

October 4, 2008

Fact-Checking the VP Debate

Joe Biden and Sarah Palin Vice Presidential Debate

As with any presidential campaign, lies and half-truths flow freely. The following is from wire.factcheck.org. The guys over there have done a real job of “Keeping them Honest,” throughout the entire Election.

Some highlights:

Killing Afghan Civilians?


Palin said that Obama had accused American troops of doing nothing but killing civilians, a claim she called “reckless” and “untrue.”

Obama did say that troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians. Here’s the whole quote, from a campaign stop in New Hampshire:

The Associated Press fact-checked this one, and found that in fact U.S troops were killing more civilians at the time than insurgents: “As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can’t be attributed to one party.” Afghan President Hamid Karzai had expressed concern about these civilian killings, a concern President Bush said he shared.

Whether Obama said that this was “all we’re doing” is debatable. He said that we need to have enough troops so that we’re “not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians,” but did not say that troops are doing nothing else.

McCain in the Vanguard of Mortgage Reform?

Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

Palin’s Health Care Hooey

Palin claimed that McCain’s health care plan would be “budget-neutral,” costing the government nothing.

The McCain campaign hasn’t released an estimate of how much the plan would cost, but independent experts contradict Palin’s claim of a cost-free program.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain’s plan, which at its peak would cover 5 million of the uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Obama’s plan, which would cover 34 million of the uninsured, would cost $1.6 trillion over that time period.

The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch’s fiscal voter guide estimates that McCain’s tax credit would increase the deficit by somewhere between $288 billion to $364 billion by the year 2013, and that making employer health benefits taxable would bring in between $201 billion to $274 billion in revenue. That nets out to a shortfall of somewhere between $14 billion to $163 billion – for that year alone.

Palin also said that Obama’s plan would be “universal government run” health care and that health care would be “taken over by the feds.” That’s not the case at all. As we’ve said before, Obama’s plan would not replace or remove private insurance, or require people to enroll in a public plan. It would increase the offerings of publicly funded health care.

Did McCain “vote the same way” as Obama on funding troops? This correction by Factcheck.org answers that question.

Correction Oct 3: This article originally faulted Biden for saying that McCain had voted “the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. We said that McCain was absent for the vote and so didn’t vote at all. Biden was, however, correct.

McCain did vote against the troop-funding bill in question, H.R. 1591, on March 29, 2007, when it originally cleared the Senate. The vote to which we referred, and which McCain missed, was a later vote on the House-Senate compromise version of the same bill, on April 26, 2007. McCain opposed the bill, which Obama supported, because it contained language calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Biden was responding to Palin’s accusation that “Obama voted against funding troops.” Obama voted for the bill March 29 and April 26, and then on May 24, 2007, following a veto by President Bush, Obama voted against a similar troop-funding bill, H.R. 2206, that lacked any withdrawal language.


To read more facts on the topics that the Vice Presidential candidates discussed Thursday night, check out wire.factcheck.org and PolitiFact.org.

A few other misleads of note:

  • Palin said, “We’re circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries” for imported oil, repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.
  • Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.
  • Palin repeated a falsehood that the McCain campaign has peddled, off and on, for some time; that under Obama “millions of small businesses” will pay high taxes. As we reported June 23, it’s simply untrue that “millions” of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama’s proposal.
  • Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain’s call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

    October 4, 2008

    Does Folksy REALLY work for you?

    Sarah Palin

    Sarah Palin

    I was born, and spent most of my childhood, in a small town. When I was twelve years old, my family picked up and moved to the big city of Atlanta. From one southern state to another, that hospitality was something that was never lost. I still smile at strangers when I walk down the street. Wave at my neighbors as I drive through my subdivision. Guest are still offered something cold to drink, something to eat. While others from bigger cities may scoff at this, one thing we from the south will always be known for is a hospitality that is genuine and meaningful.

    But here’s the thing… There is quite a fine line between that genuine graciousness and the quite disingenuous nature of what we saw displayed on stage, by Governor Palin, last night.

    Leading up to last nights debate, I had the opportunity to see several clips from Palin’s previous debates; and for a moment I thought perhaps that that would be the Palin that would show up last night. Not that I heard anything riveting during any of those performances… but the “folksiness” was kept to an absolute minimum. Why the drastic change of persona over the last couple of years? Is it that she doesn’t think she can speak to Americans, as a whole, as if we have more than two braincells to rub together? The only time I speak in the manner that she spoke to us last night is when I am playing with my 9 month old nephew. Being talked to as if I am an infant, or at best, a toddler is not something that I would calling “endearing.”

    Didn’t we, as Americans, learn our lesson last go around with Bush? That wanting to have a beer and pizza with the president (or in this case, vice president) isn’t a qualifying factor? That it simply cannot be the barometer by which we measure presidential competency? It’s as if many of us are allergic to those who are intelligent. How else can you justify smearing someone for being a Harvard Law grad, while praising someone who took years to find a major, after changing schools three or four times? Yes, that may make her “normal” and “just like many other Americans,” but is that what we really want in someone who has to deal with the complexities of being one of the leaders, if not the leader, of the “Free World?”

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    I know that the Obama/Biden ticket has been trying to draw comparison between the Bush/Cheney Administration, and what a McCain/Palin Administration would look like, but after last night, never before has the similarities been so glaringly obvious. A (potential) vice president that has their own interpretation of the constitution? Where have we seen that before?

    Palin made an attempt to further explain her position on the constitution and the role of the vice president today on FoxNews:

    Incoherent? Maybe. Unnerving? Definitely.