Saturday, August 27, 2011

A few good articles for ya while I brave the hurricane...



Just like the GOP to fake worry about the deficit so they take money away from struggling homeowners facing foreclosure to put towards the debt ......

Sick bastards... A new report by the investigative website Pro Publica has revealed that Congress diverted $30 billion in bailout money allocated to help struggling homeowners prevent foreclosure in order to pay down the national debt instead. There were more than 1 million foreclosure filings in the first half of 2011 alone, yet only a fraction of the government aid that was supposed to reach homeowners has been spent:  Instead, Congress has mandated that the leftover money be used to pay down the debt.


Mitt Romney says it out loud..He wants Wall Street reform repealed:

With the constant stream of Wall Street donations flowing into his campaign coffers, it was only a matter of time before GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called to repeal Wall Street’s number one enemy — the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Though Congress enacted the law to provide vital consumer protections and to prevent Wall Street from spurring another financial crisis, Republicans have continually attempted to cripple the law piecemeal, either by attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or weakening derivatives regulation. But Romney decided yesterday that a repeal of the law was necessary because, in part, the law’s length is too “overwhelming”:


And lastly some good news from the SANE person in Washington, Bernie Sanders. Every Democrat and sane Republican needs to stand with Bernie on his proposed legislation to keep the teapublicans from touching/destroying Social Security...




  Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was a featured speaker at the United Steel Workers 2011 conference in Las Vegas.
Sanders focused much of his speech on the Social Security system, blasting suggestions by Democrats and Republicans alike that, for example, we should adjust the cost of living adjustment to cut Social Security payments to working class Americans or raise the retirement age. “When [Social Security] was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, poverty among seniors is too high, but that number is ten percent. Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do!” he thundered, defending the program.


Today, Sanders announced that he will introduce legislation that would strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits to any of its beneficiaries. Sanders’ legislation would eliminate the income cap that currently exists in the payroll tax that does not tax income above $106,800:
To keep Social Security strong for another 75 years, Sanders’ legislation would apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than nine out of 10 Americans to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. [...] Under Sanders’ legislation, Social Security benefits would be untouched. The system would be fully funded by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with incomes up to $106,800 a year.
This is EXACTLY what President Obama should be listening to, Bernie and I see no other path to take and we are CORRECT!!

11 comments:

John Myste said...

Now Bernie is talking. Someone tell me why this a bad idea, please?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Note to Mr. Sanders. How 'bout instead of taxing individuals during their productive years, we means-test their benefits during their retirement years? This way we can keep the government much less bloated and still maintain the solvency of the program. I mean, I know that you like to maintain as much power as possible in Washington and all but geez.

Sue said...

It's a great idea, but will the GOOPERS think so? How could they not...unless they plain 'ole hate SS so much they will turn their backs on anything that will preserve it...

Sue said...

found this interesting comment today...

How to Destroy the Social Security Program
>>>>On August 14, 1985, Pat Robertson unveiled his ingenious program on how to get rid of Social Security.

1. “We should say to all the elderly, ‘You’re going to be taken care of. The government’s going to pay you. Don’t worry about it. [You’ll] get your Social Security like you’re expecting, ‘cause you’re counting on it.”
2. “There should be a gradual moving [up] of [the retirement] age to reflect the fact that we’re healthier and we live longer and people should have dignity and be allowed to work a little bit longer.”
3. “The last thing we should do is to begin to let the younger workers slowly but surely go into private programs where the money is tax sheltered and over the years build up their own money and that would in turn, through the intermediary organizations, banks, insurance companies, would invest in American industry. <<<<

Under their plan Social Security would be gambled with in the stock market just as people’s savings were and when they are lost there is no recourse for them except to go hungry or rob somebody. Banks and insurance companies would make money off folks retirement by charging fees and being paid interest for somebody else’s money.

Flying Junior said...

It's a race to the bottom. My city council person Carl DiMaio is out appearing in grocery store parking lots trying to get a measure to discontinue pensions for all new city employees on the ballot. Drug-sniffing D.A. Bonnie Dumanis has since given up on her false pretense of supporting pensions for fire personnel only and now supports the measure whole-heartedly. (I guess her pension is unassailable.) I could probably go on.... Meanwhile, back at headquarters, Mayor Jerry Sanders is drumming up support for a new tax to build a stadium for the Chargers. Too bad he can't just slip it into the budget without any tax. He'll probably opt for some plan like Mayor Golding did for PetCo Park. Sell it as paying for itself. A valuable asset for the entire region!

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

The more Mitt Romney speaks the more his transformation to raving right wing lunatic and butt sniffer to the wealthiest becomes apparent.

Dave Dubya said...

Bernie is what Democrats used to be before they passively followed Republicans to the Right. Now we have a moderate/conservative party trying to compete against a radical Right party.

This makes it all the more difficult to end corporate personhood and campaign finance corruption.

This is the bottom line why our country is failing.

The CDM said...

I'll tell you what is partly wrong with this country:

Salary of retired US Presidents:$180,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of House/Senate: $174,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of Speaker of the House$:223,500 FOR LIFE

......Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400 FOR LIFE

Average Salary of a teacher: $40,065

Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN: $38,000

Who are the public "servants", again?

John Myste said...

Becoming Speaker of the House, a majority leader, a senator, requires a great deal of knowledge and skill.

Few people can achieve any of these roles.

However, the skill needed to fight in Afghanistan is far more easily acquired.

If one were doing it for the money, 38,000 certainly would not justify the commitment.

However, one should not do it for the money, anyway, and I think most don't. This helps ensure that money is taken out of the equation, as it should be.
Generally, the higher skill the job, the more it pays.

I don't see those salaries as unacceptability high.

Flying Junior said...

Here's what's wrong with the math, my brother. I love dummy math, as long as it rises above the level of United States debt held by every creature still breathing within the lower 48. Let's just thumbnail it for laughs. If we can lowball it, the cost of sustaining the wars is still around $12B per month, right? I mean at a minimum. Let's just round the number of troops down to make it fair and easy at 100,000 troops. One year of prosecuting the wars/occupations is at the very minimum one hundred and forty-four billion dollars. One year of paying one hundred thousand guys? Three billion, eight hundred million. According to third grade scholars, it looks something like this:

144,000,000,000
——————————— = 40
3,800,000,000

Percentage of war monies spent on paying the troops: 2.5%

That's what's really wrong with the equation IMHO.

The CDM said...

John, I will actually disagree with you there. Seeing as how they have more time off than on during the year, paid travel, free medical care(again for life), etc... PLUS, there are some republicans right now pissing and moaning that they want a raise...during this economy. I say, NAY! Also, given all their recent performances, I'd say they were overpaid drastically.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/members-congress-paid-enough-165641960.html