The Associated Press: President Obama- 'On Debt Deal: Let's Get It Done'

Source:Associated Press- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about debt negotiations with Congress.

"President Barack Obama has used a broadcast news conference to warn about the danger of defaulting on America's debt -- and with the deadline fast approaching, and to challenge lawmakers to cut a deal. (June 29)" 

From the Associated Press

"Let's get a deal done" as the President said on Wednesday sounds great, but they are only words unless he puts some actions behind them. The President could speed up this process a lot, if put some of his own ideas on the table and laid out his own vision for deficit reduction and a debt ceiling limit. Instead of leaving it up to the bipartisan negotiators and then stepping in when things slow down. 

Barack Obama is the first President I know who sees his job as essentially talking rather than leading. And what I mean by leading is actually putting ideas down on paper in legislation and then sending it to Congress. 

President W Bush whether you liked him or not as President, sent legislation up to Congress when he believed he needed to get something done. As far as what he sent up to Congress and what he was able to pass. Both of his tax cuts, the two wars, No Child Left Behind, etc. He had a pretty good legislative record as far as passing legislation. And President bush had two years of a divided Congress from 2001-03 and two years of a Democratic Congress from 2007-2009 and four years of a Republican Congress, but with very tight majorities in both Chambers. Where Senate Democrats could always block almost anything in the Senate. 

President Clinton had an excellent record of getting his priorities through Congress. The two trade deals, his deficit reduction plan, his crime bill, balanced budget agreement, Welfare To Work, Family and Medical Leave, etc. And President Clinton also had six years of a Republican Congress. 

President Obama had an excellent record of getting legislation passed through Congress his first two years in a Democratic Congress with large majorities in both chambers. But a lot of it was done in emergency form like the Recovery Act. Now that there's a divided congress, the House GOP at least has an agenda but we haven't heard much from Senate Democrats or the White House as far putting legislation on the table. 

For the President to be successful, he's going to need to put ideas on the table and offer legislation so the country knows where he is on these issues. And so where Republicans and Democrats know where he is on the issues. So both sides know where the other side is and then they can go from there and reach agreements on these issues by compromising. 

Senate Democrats: 'Mitch McConnell- Urged to Include Ethanol Subsidies in Debt Talk'

Source:U.S. Senate Democrats- Leadership, talking about Minority Mitch McConnell and the debt negotiations.

"Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer, Barbara Mikulski, Robert Menendez, Ben Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Richard Blumenthal called on Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to to erase his line in the sand on including revenues in debt deal." 

From the Senate Democrats

The only way there will ever be a deficit reduction package that emerges from Congress that the President will sign, is for there to be a balanced approach, which means reform, budget cuts, tax increases, eliminating tax loopholes and eliminating tax subsidies or corporate welfare. 

And the only way there will be a debt ceiling bill and extension of the debt ceiling that the GOP House will agree too, is a debt ceiling bill that includes budget cuts. The Democratic Senate has already agreed to that, as long as it includes eliminating tax subsidies like corporate welfare, subsidies for big oil, eliminating the Ethanol subsidy that the Senate already voted to do last week. 

On Tuesday Senator Tom Coburn and Senator Joe Lieberman introduced a Medicare reform plan that would means test Medicare and projected to save the Federal Government 60B$ a year. Democrats should accept that and Republicans should go for eliminating corporate welfare if they are truly free market Conservatives. (Which at the very least is debatable)

The Far-Left fringe of the Democratic Party wants a clean debt ceiling bill: they are high or drunk if the believe they'll ever see that with a Republican House. 

The Far-Right fringe of the Republican Party doesn't want to see any debt ceiling bill. They should be in mental institutions if they really believe thats ever going to happen with a Democratic Senate and White House. 

Both sides are going to have to come together here or neither side will get anything that they want: thats how divided government works. Both sides have to give in or nothing will ever happen. 

As a Democrat I wish we never lost control of the House last November, but we already lost that battle and we have a lot to do. And Republicans simply have to be part of that process or nothing will get done. Shared sacrifice is exactly that, that everyone contributes and gives up something that they have and want. And that everyone sacrifices based on how much they can afford to give up but everyone contributes to the pot. So both sides are going to have to come together and contribute to the pot.

AFP News Agency: 'Greeks Protest Against Austerity Measures'

Source:AFP News Agency- Greeks taking advantage of their free speech rights.

"Thousands of Greeks took to the streets again on Wednesday as a general strike shut down the country against a new raft of government austerity measures designed to forestall a costly debt overhaul." 

From the AFP News Agency

What is happening in Greece right now could be in America's future as well if we don't get our deficit and debt situation under control and borrow money every time the Federal Government decides it should do something, like the no fly zone in Libya right now. I support our involvement in Libya but but I don't think we should be borrowing money to pay for it. 

If all the Federal Government had to do was to borrow money to pay for it operations, then we wouldn't need taxes because the Feds could just borrow from another country to pay for its needs. But you don't hear anyone except for perhaps some fringe Libertarians, calling for eliminating all taxes. Because most people understand that when government's borrow money, they are borrowing from other countries or banks. Which means other countries own a piece, or in China's case a big piece of your country. 

And when government's borrow from banks, it limits how much the private sector, business's can individuals can borrow. Which limits their economic activities as well, because banks only have so much money that they can lend. Well, government's only have so much money that they can borrow and so much money that they can put on their national debt card before it limits what they can do, because once they borrow so much money it hurts their currency and their currency loses value which has happened to the American dollar, which makes things more expensive for everybody. 

Which is why governments collect taxes to pay for their operations. Money thats paid into their treasury's by individuals and business's, domestic and foreign to pay for the government's operations. Money thats created in the country and paid into the government to finance the government. And when they have an idea to create another government program or increase spending on another program. They increase taxes or cut somewhere else thats not important. 

The Federal Government will have an opportunity to start to get its deficit and debt under control with the debt ceiling extension in August . I believe it should be raised but not for free, because if your going to request to borrow even more money then you are already borrowing and you are already starting off with a huge debt, you should show some willingness and ability to at least start to pay it back. 

The good news is we have several good ways to get this accomplished that actually won't hurt anybody if we do it soon. But if we keep putting it off, then we will turn into Greece with the IMF or somebody deciding how we pay our bills. We can get our debt by increasing taxes on high-earners who can afford to pay it. Draw back our forces and bases oversees that are in developed nations that can afford to defend themselves, and reform our entitlement programs. 

We wouldn't have to hurt anyone in entitlement reform either just reform it by requiring high-earners to pay more for their benefits and take less out. Reform our public assistance programs and design them in a way that moves people off of them and into self-sufficiency. And reform our disaster relief by paying for it and not declaring every disaster as another opportunity to borrow more money. 

America has a choice become another Greece or be better than Greece. Throw people off of entitlement programs or reform them in a way that doesn't hurt anyone. But the choice is still our in how we pay down our debt at this moment but it won't be our choice indefinitely if we don't move to get it under control.

Associated Press: 'Court: California Can't Ban Violent Video Game Sales'

Source:Associated Press- Free speech still alive in the People's Republic of California.

"The Supreme Court says California cannot ban the rental or sale of violent video games to children. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors' rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments. (June 27)"

From the Associated Press

I never got on the video game train (so to speak) or at least the wave that started ten years ago or so. But just because I'm not interested in these games, doesn't give me or government the right to deny other people from playing these games. This is strictly a 1st Amendment and a freedom of choice issue, something that should be left up to marketplace. If these games were considered horrible or disgusting or inappropriate, they wouldn't be nearly as popular and these company's wouldn't be making nearly as much money.

Clearly there's a conservative minority of people, especially the two Justices who dissented in this case and on the Christian Right, who believes these games are horrible, disgusting, dangerous, immoral feel free to throw in your own description. But these are also the same people who speak in favor of personal responsibility and family values and parents should be left to raise their own kids. And that government should stay out of the way in how parents raise their own kids. Fine, guess what, I agree with all of that but that only means something if you stand behind that. Otherwise thats just political rhetoric and a political slogan.

If you don't want your kids playing these games, step up to the plate and don't let them. Don't give them the money to buy them or allow them to play them on their computer or any other device. Censorship is undemocratic and anti-1st Amendment: the 1st Amendment clearly relates to more than just political speech. Thats just been our history, just look at how many censorship laws have been thrown out by our courts as evidence.

Conservatives also speak in favor of the free market, great but here's a case where the free market has decided that these game are appropriate and why these games are doing so well and making so much money. Because the free market the people, has decided these games are good.

Personal responsibility, freedom of choice is just that: they are self-explanatory. If people want to do something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether it's legal or not. Prohibition especially when it comes to prohibiting how people live their own lives, does not work. Just look at alcohol prohibition and how that worked out and how marijuana prohibition is working today. Regulation is the way to control these things and make them work better so they are safer not prohibition.

Rand W: 'Ted Kennedy On Health Care (1978)'

Source:Randy W- U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy: (Democrat, Massachusetts) on health care reform in 1978. 

"Ted Kennedy Speaking About Health Care In 1978.
Health Care Is A Right Not A Privilege.
It's Time For The Party Of NO To Get On Board And Show Your Allegiance To The American People And Not To Corporate Health Care Providers And Big Drug Companies."

From Randy W

I don't completely agree with Senator Ted Kennedy's approach on health care reform, a single payer system with Medicare for all. I would prefer to move to a health insurance system that France has, with maximize choice for all between private and public options. France's health care system costs them half of what our health care system costs us as far our GDP.

I believe in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 but I would've added a public option as far health insurance reform goes. But one thing that Democrats in the White House and Congress could use right now, is Senator Kennedy's voice in defending Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs, especially at the negotiating table with House and Senate Republicans. Especially since if Senator Kennedy was alive today, he would still be a lead negotiator on entitlement reform. Being that he would still be Chairman of the Health Committee.

I'm a big fan of Senator Tom Harkin the current Chairman of the Health Committee but he doesn't bring the same voice and passion that Senator Kennedy did to these issues. He's a much nicer guy (to put it nicely) and doesn't posses Senator Kennedy's leadership skills. What the final product looks like is important of course but it's the passion the ability to negotiate thats more important I believe. You need that to get the best deal possible and so you don't give up too much.

Thats what Senator Kennedy had and why he was such a great negotiator because he understood that in any negotiation, you have to give up something and accept something you wouldn't normally. Thats the definition of negotiating but it's what you give up and what you get in return, that determines whether it's a good deal or not. Which is what made Ted Kennedy a great legislature, perhaps the best ever in Congress. Which is something Congressional Democrats are missing right now and may pay a price for in the final deficit reduction deal.

James Miller Center: 'President Jimmy Carter- Acceptance Speech at the Democratic National Convention (August 14, 1980)'

Source:James Miller Center- President Jimmy Carter (D, GA) accepting the 1980 Democratic Party nomination for President, in New York.

"President Carter encourages the audience in preparation for the upcoming election."

From the James Miller Center

I don't believe what Democrats are facing going into the 2012 general elections are as bad as they were in 1980 politically. Even though the economy I believe the economy now in 2011 is worst or similar shape as it was in 1980 but hopefully improving by 2012 or in 2012. But the Republican opposition in 2012 is not nearly as good as it was in 1980.

Today's GOP doesn't have a presidential candidate that can unite the entire party. All of their current presidential candidates have issues with at least on faction of the party if not multiple factions of the party. And it looks the best they'll be able to do is nominate someone who agrees with them on most things but has serious issues with the party. So for them to win in 2012, the GOP will be left with a presidential candidate that the party doesn't love and they'll be stuck with swallowing the aspects of the candidate they don't like. Something the GOP has never been good at. Unlike in 1980 with Ronald Reagan where the had a presidential nominee that united the entire party.

But even with the weaker opposition that democrats face in 2012 from the GOP, they still have their own issues. That if they don't resolve will lead to another Republican presidency going into 2013 and with that almost certainly another Republican Congress. Which as a Democrat myself, is a scary thought. The Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party, (the Democratic Socialist faction of the party) that had a lot to do with putting Barack Obama in the White House, is clearly unhappy with the President. To the point where they've called President Obama another George W. Bush, which as a Democrat myself I find insulting. Where they've even flirted with running their own candidate for President, like Representative Dennis Kucinich.

This is the faction that didn't bother to vote in the 2010 mid terms, a big reason why Democrats lost the House. And if the President is unable to bring these people to the polls and support him, no matter how he does with Independent voters, he won't get reelected President.

"United we stand, divided we fall" is something that Democrats need to to remember going into 2012. Because when they are united they tend to do very well and win. Look at 2008, 1996, 1992, 1976, 1964, 1960. But when they are divided, they usually get whipped, look at 1984, 1980, 1972.

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Show- Ayn Rand: 'Liberty vs. Statism'

Source:Liberty Pen- Objectivist author Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview, in 1959.

"Mike Wallace interviews Ayn Rand regarding socialism and individual liberty." From Liberty Pen"

From Liberty Pen

If you’re a Liberal such in my case, or a Libertarian/Objectivist in Ayn Rand’s case, you believe in individual liberty. That the people have the right to essentially govern themselves. Now, my approach to liberty compared with Ayn Rand’s, is much different, but our objectives are the same.

Ayn Rand, is exactly what a Classical Libertarian is: keep government completely out of the economy. No taxation, regulation, or a safety net coming from the government. I however, believe that government has a role in not regulating how people live their own lives, but how they interact with each other. To protect innocent people from those who would hurt them, but not try to protect people from themselves.

If you’re a Socialist, you essentially believe that the country is in it together and that no one should have a lot more than others. Even if they created that material wealth on their own. And that government should heavily tax those who make a lot. For one, to give to those who don’t have much.

And that government essentially knows best in what the people need to live and should be the one providing those service for the people. That government’s role is essentially to spread the wealth throughout society through high taxes. But not just high taxes on high earners, but everyone in general.

If you’re an authoritarian, or statist, let's take Communists for example, you essentially believe that government’s role is to protect people from themselves, but also to protect people from the government. And that power comes and rests with the government. That if people have liberty, they won’t know what to do with it, which will cause instability. This is essentially the argument that the Chinese Communist Party and the Iranian Theocratic Islamists have made since they’ve been in power.

Despite all the stereotypes that Liberals have now about being about the welfare state and centralized power, especially coming from the right-wing and being bought in by the mainstream media, that’s really not what liberalism is about.

Liberalism, is not about the welfare state, centralized power and government control. Those things relate to socialism and statism. Liberalism, is about individual liberty and equality of opportunity for the individual. Liberalism, has more in common with libertarianism like in Ayn Rand’s case, but different from libertarianism and socialism. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

G. Stolyarov: The Principles of Liberalism

Source:G. Stolyarov- A liberal democratic value that liberal democracy is all about: the right for individuals to be free.

"Mr. Stolyarov was recently asked to attempt a formulation of ten crucial principles of classical liberalism, the worldview which animated the American Revolution, the European Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the libertarian revival of free-market thought in the mid-to-late twentieth century. Classical liberalism - even when it is not explicitly espoused - still has considerable residual influence on the political and economic institutions of the Western world and is having an increasing impact outside the West as well."

From G. Stolyarov

What is liberalism and what is it about? The subject of this piece. Well at least in America and I'm not talking about how it's stereotyped today, but back in the day liberalism was thought to be about freedom, for the people to live their own lives. And that government was there to protect people from being hurt by others. But not to dictate how people (meaning free adults) live their own lives.

Perhaps encourage moral, healthy behavior like exercising for example and eating well and perhaps discourage unhealthy behavior. Like with tobacco and alcohol, taxes as examples. But that the people had the freedom to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom.

That people meaning (free adults) had the right to be jerks (for lack of a better word) as long as they weren't physically hurting or threatening others with their jerkery. And that people meaning (free adults) had the right to even be stupid as long as their stupidity wasn't hurting anyone else physically.

To use as example: Liberals tend to be for legalizing but with regulation and taxation of marijuana. That it should be legal but that it should be treated like alcohol and tobacco and not be encouraged.

That people could own firearms even support the 2nd Amendment, but that people can't shoot innocent people with their firearms.

That a role of government was to protect people from the harmful actions of others, but not try to protect people from themselves. Liberalism and liberal, both come from the word liberty, meaning freedom, not socialism. (Democratic or otherwise) Liberalism is about maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. As well as equality of opportunity.

Liberalism is not economic justice, which is another way of saying equality of results. Meaning that everyone should have the same wealth. Even if some people are more productive than others.  Which is a socialist value, two different things. As much as the Far-Right and even mainstream Conservatives like to try to tie liberalism as a socialist Ideology and in America trying to make America more like Europe and the Right have been very successful in doing that the last thirty years, the right-wing is simply dead wrong. Whether they realize it or not.

Liberalism has more in common with libertarianism or conservative libertarianism, than it does with socialism. (Democratic or otherwise) There are actually several definitions of liberal.

The political definition of liberal is one who believes in liberty and a defender of liberty, not big government and the welfare state. But there's a more common one meaning more or a lot: "I want a liberal amount of food or water, vacation time", whatever the thing is. That I believe people get confused with especially when they are talking about the role of government, a fascinating topic for me as a blogger.

When someone says they want a liberal amount of government, meaning they want a lot of government, or that a government program is not liberal enough, meaning it's not big enough, it doesn't spend enough money, that person automatically gets classified as a liberal. When in fact they might just be someone and in a lot of cases this is true, someone who believes in big government and wants socialism.

A Socialist (democratic or otherwise) who wants a big government program created or made bigger. A lot of American politicians today who get classified as liberal because they want liberal sized government programs. Are actually not very liberal in many cases, but they are Socialists and tend to be Democratic Socialists. The Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich's of the World. Major believers in the welfare state and democratic socialism.

To give you another example that I know you're just dying to hear: when developing countries are talking about moving their economy's from a command and control economy, meaning the State owns the means of production of society which is a Marxist-Socialist economy and they are talking about liberalizing the economy, meaning opening it up with privatization and giving the people economic freedom.

Economic liberty. the ability of one to set their own course in life and not be dependent on government for their daily survival because they now have the ability to take care of themselves and get a good job in the private sector, they're talking about economic liberalization. Meaning capitalism and taking power away from the state and giving more people to the people over their own economic affairs.

Capitalism is basically liberal economics, because you give the people economic liberty to take care of themselves and not be dependent on government to survive financially. And you're taking a risk that they won't mess it up. (To put it mildly) When you make a liberal investment, you're making a big investment and generally taking a lot of risk as well. Which would make socialist economics conservative economics, in a sense.

Conservatism has a lot of diversity in it. Because you keep the power with the state and really limit the ability if any for people to take risks on their own. Low-risk is very conservative. A low-risk investment is a conservative investment. So when you hear someone especially a politician or public official, called or is viewed as a liberal, you should have an idea of why they are being labeled that. Because it could mean that they believe in individual liberty like myself which why I'm a liberal. Or it could mean they just want a lot of something. A liberal amount of whatever the something is.

Passionate Patriots: '1968 DNC Nightmare in Chicago'

Source:Passionate Patriots- A look at Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago. 

"Chaos before Hubert Humphrey's nomination sets the modern standard for a harmful convention."

From Passionate Patriots 

"Chaos before Hubert Humphrey's nomination sets the modern standard for a harmful convention."  

"In the wake of the April 4 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Black communities rose up in more than 100 cities and towns. Opposition to the Vietnam War, which would ultimately claim millions of lives in Southeast Asia, grew, as did U.S. casualties. Of the more than 58,000 Americans who died from 1956 to 1975, more than 14,000 were killed in 1968. In April of that year, police savagely attacked anti-war protesters in Berkeley, Calif., and Chicago, giving the country a preview of what was to come August 26 – 29, when the Democratic Party held its national convention in Chicago."  

Source:In These Times- Chaos in Richard Daley's Chicago. 

From In These Times

The Democratic Party cost themselves the presidential election of 1968 and a chance to win the White House for a third straight time and 8-10 presidential elections, going back to 1932 with FDR. To go along with another Democratic Congress because of how divided they were on the Vietnam War.

A lot of that can be blamed on President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War, but this can also be blamed on the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party that was anti-war, period. Even when we are attacked and they can take their anti-war feelings too extreme at times, as we saw with the 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention.

The New-Left in the Democratic Party doesn’t deserve all the blame here. The Chicago Police didn’t do a very good job of handling the situation either. And of course Richard Nixon being the master politician that he was, jumped all over on the Democratic division and moved himself to be a unity candidate. Which of course he wasn’t.

By the time President Nixon left office in August of 1974, America if anything was even more divided. 1968 was a crazy year with a lot of bad for the country with some good in it. But all bad for the Democratic Party.

A year where President Johnson announced he wasn’t running for reelection as President because of how unpopular he was. But even had he run for reelection, he would’ve had a very hard time getting renominated by a party that had moved away from him. And had moved into an anti-war socialist direction. That wanted to bring all of our troops home from Vietnam and use that money to build the country.

1968 was also a crazy year for Democrats who once they moved away from LBJ, the Far-Left flank of the party went searching for their own candidate to take on the GOP in the fall. First it was Senator Eugene McCarthy until Senator Robert Kennedy declared his candidacy for President. Then they threw all of their support behind him up until he was assassinated in June of 68. And then of the party went behind Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the establishment wing of the party.

But some New-Left support went back to Senator McCarthy, as well as Senator George McGovern. Another candidate from the Far-Left flank of the party. As it turned out even though 1968 might have looked like a fluke, it clearly wasn’t. Because in 1972 Democrats had similar issues. They were disorganized, didn’t have a clear leader with more divisive presidential primary’s and once again the Far-Left flank deciding who the Democratic presidential nominee would be Senator George McGovern taking on an establishment GOP Candidate President Nixon and losing 49 States in a landslide.

When the Democratic Party is united it tends to win and do very well. Because it's bigger than the Republican Party and represents more people in the country. But when it’s divided like it was in 68, 72, 80 and 84, it loses very bad. Because a faction of their party doesn’t show up to the polls to vote. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

AP: Raw Video: U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner- 'Resigns in Wake of Sexting Scandal'

Source:Associated Press- U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (Democrat, New York City) resigning from office because of his sexting habit.

"Embattled New York Rep. Anthony Weiner is resigning from Congress, saying he cannot continue in office amid the intense controversy surrounding sexually explicit messages he sent online to several women. (June 16)" 

From the Associated Press

Today U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat from New York, New York City to be specific, stepped up to the plate and hit a home Run. (Sorry for the baseball analogy for you non-sports fans) And did the right thing by resigning his seat in the House of Representatives. 

As I’ve said before it’s not what Representative Weiner did that was wrong with his own private time, (well, his wife might disagree with that) and yes members of Congress do have private time, they are not always at work, just look at the U.S. Senate, (I rest my case: when do they ever work.)

It’s not what Representative Weiner did with his free time that’s the problem with me and a lot of other people. As a Liberal I could care less with what people do with their free time. With what Representative Weiner did is between him and his wife and their family if they have one yet. 

It’s the consequences of the Weiner's (you will excuse me) actions that are the problem, the fact of how public he alone made them by sharing them on Twitter and professional status that’s the problem. We are not talking about Joe Jones truck driver. (Not that there’s anything wrong with Joe Jones truck driver) 

We are talking about a U.S. Representative and a member of Congress, a constitutional officer and a public official. The fact in today’s information age, what people do in public especially public officials, the whole world literally gets to see it. And in a way is all of our business whether that’s the right thing or not. 

Because of the fact that we all have the ability to weigh in on it. As I’m doing now by blogging about it, but blogging is not the only way to weigh in on stories like this. WordPress, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace go down the line. And that’s enough plugs on my part, no wait I forgot my personal favorite Blogger.

Because of Representative Weiner’s irresponsible actions to post in public his affairs so to speak, the U.S. House especially the Democratic Leadership and the rest of the Democratic Caucus, are forced to deal with it in one way or the other. Either take questions about it, or take official actions, which is apparently what the House as a whole was preparing to do. Which is to file and investigation into the Weiner story. (The Big Weiner story) Politically this would be bad for everyone, House Democrats for having to deal with this story with hearings and investigations as well as the House GOP.

But it would be a huge distraction especially for the House Democratic Leadership who as of right now are in good position of retaking the majority in the House in 2012. And pushing their own agenda once they were to retake the majority. Thanks to House GOP mishandling of Medicare back in April, but the House Democratic Leadership were already breaking records in fundraising and recruiting candidates to take on the 62 Republican freshmen from 2010.

And the House GOP Medicare fiasco just reinforced that, but with the Weiner story, instead of concentrating on their own agenda they have to concentrate on Representative Weiner instead. So I’m glad Representative Weiner stepped up to the plate today and did the right thing and stepped down from office. Which I hope will bring and end to this story, which I think will continue, but at least he did his part to close this ugly chapter.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

RT America: Douglas Campbell- 'Stock Markets Plunge: Global Economy Headed For Lost Decade?'

Source:RT America- "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian Government." Wikipedia

"Is Italy becoming the next casualty of the eurozone debt crisis? Italian 10-year bond yields today went past the 7% threshold markets consider unsustainable. Stock markets plunged. Are investors cutting their losses and just looking to pillage whatever's left of these national economies? Meanwhile, could the global economy be headed for a lost decade? We speak to Doug Campbell former staff economist on President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors." 

From Russia Today

America has three huge issues that it has to deal with in order to have a strong economy again and not go through what Japan has in the last twenty years where the economy there hasn't grown at all and even contracted. 

Crisis probably isn't the right term for technical purposes, but there are definitely issues that we definitely have to deal with in order to rebuild our economy and make sure its strong in the future. If you want include public education you could call it four issues that America has to deal with to rebuild our economy. But I relate that with our jobs crisis, doesn't matter if we are able to produce good jobs in America again, if we can't produce the workers in this country to take those jobs. 

The three issues that I've already laid out are, economic growth we do not have nearly enough of it right now to produce solid job growth. Job growth which is related to economic growth, without solid economic growth we can't have good job growth. And the third is our looming deficit and debt crisis that if we don't address soon, will eat up most of our Federal tax revenue just to pay the interest of the deficit and debt, to pay all of our creditors that are currently holding our 14T$ national debt. 

And the deficit and debt will not only eat away at a lot of the Federal budget to pay the interest of the debt. But the Federal Government will also be competing with the private sector to borrow money. Meaning less loans for the private sector and the biggest problem is that the economic growth, job growth, and deficit and debt all need to be addressed at the same time. 

But since America is such a great country with the world's reserve currency, we have the ability to address all three of these issues at the same time. My approach to doing this as I laid out, is first putting people back to work by rebuilding our infrastructure with a National Infrastructure Bank, creating a national energy policy that moves America to energy independence by promoting our own natural resources. Reforming our public education system by giving parents and students choice in where they get their education and rewarding quality teachers and removing low-performing teachers. And expanding college access so more qualified students can go to college. 

And then addressing our Federal deficit and debt, through reforming the Federal Government, cutting back on things we shouldn't spend tax revenue on and tax increases on people that can afford to pay more in taxes as well as overall tax reform that eliminates corporate welfare and taxes more things at Lower Rates. 

America doesn't have to lose two decades we don't have to become Japan which is still a great country but hasn't expanded its economy in twenty years. It's not a given that America will lose another decade economically, but it's not a given that we won't either. It's up to us to determine whether we have a strong economy in the future or not by the policy's we enact and how we reform or eliminate things that no longer work or hasn't ever worked.

Nancy Pelosi: 'It's Time Congress Get Serious About Debt Reduction & Job Creation and Stop GOP Assault on Medicare'

Source:Nancy Pelosi- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, California) talking about the House Republicans deficit reduction plan.

"Leader Pelosi: But the fact is that what's happening this floor is not serious. It's not serious. But the subject it addresses is serious. It's time for this Congress of the United States to get serious about debt reduction, job creation and to stop this assault on Medicare which is the basis for this legislation today.

Republicans voted to end Medicare and put insurance companies in charge, and now they are threatening our economy with a reckless stunt in order to get their way. Today the House is considering a resolution to increase the debt ceiling—House Republicans oppose this bill and admit cannot pass the House under suspension of the rules which requires 2/3 for passage. An increase in the debt ceiling is required to prevent default on the debt created by George W. Bush, not to approve new spending.  Democrats, Republicans and the Obama Administration have been engaged for weeks in bipartisan deficit reduction discussions. In fact, tomorrow President Obama is hosting a meeting of House Republicans at the White House to discuss responsible debt reduction. It is bad faith for Republicans to jeopardize those bipartisan negotiations by forcing a vote on a divisive default resolution. Democrats are committed to responsible deficit reduction to prevent more debt.

From Nancy Pelosi

It is time for Congress and the White House to get serious about deficit and debt reduction, but that means coming up with a plan to actually accomplish this. 

As much as President Obama gives speeches about talking about the need for deficit reduction, thats all they are, thats all he has. He's the President of the United States and he doesn't have a plan. Or at least he's not ready to release one yet for fear it might be criticized or offend some people. You ask him what do you think about this or that, he says: "I would be open to this or that." But when it comes to putting a plan on the table, he's not ready to do that yet. 

Barack Obama has been President of the United States for two in a half years now and has speaking about the need for Deficit Reduction for three years now. And has yet to introduce a serious plan to accomplish that. At least the House GOP has a plan when it comes to deficit reduction and has put something on the table. 

The problem with the GOP plan is that it doesn't do a thing to accomplish what it intends to. (But thats the only problem with it) It attempts to get our deficit and debt under control by focusing on 13% of the Federal budget when the real money is in defense, entitlements and the Bush tax cuts for high-earners. As well as corporate welfare. 

What we need instead is a real deficit reduction plan that focus's on budget cuts, government reform to make the Federal Government more cost-effective and efficient. And tax reform, budget cuts, the fact is America spends too much and doesn't pay for enough. And what the Federal Government should be doing, we don't pay for and borrow way too much money. 

The Defense Department is a great example (but not the only great example) of the U.S. Government  and no I'm not going to make this entire piece about cutting the Defense budget and tax increases (sorry if that disappoints anyone) but we are currently responsible for defending developed nations oversees that have the financial resources to defend themselves.

Europe, but also Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea, are all nations that have the financial and personal resources to defend themselves. So what we should do instead is tell these nations that we are going to stop doing this and demand that they play a bigger role in defending themselves. And reform NATO in a way that would allow Europe to accomplish just that. Why we work with Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, while still being partners with Europe. But close our bases there as well as in Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea while still working with our allies. 

Getting developed nations to defend themselves would save up in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. And use the money from bringing the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq to pay down the deficit and debt as well. And force the Federal Government to pay for all of our military operations like when we invade and occupy a country or are in a no fly zone. 

Let's stop borrowing money for our military operations. The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq represent 3T$ of borrowed money. One way to cut the budget deficit and debt is to make the Federal Government more efficient and cost-effective. 

You don't always have to cut to save money, sometimes you can just reform things and make them work better. Entitlements is a pretty good place to start, one thing we should cut when it comes to entitlements is the benefits that high-earners receive from them. If you're making 500K$ a year or more or your a millionaire, you don't need a 20K$ a year from Social Security from the full retirement account or from early retirement. And if you're making that kind of money, you can certainly afford to pay more than 6.2% payroll tax. 

Lets design Social Security and Medicare for the people actually need them and have the people who can afford to pay more into it and take Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid off of the Federal budget. And make them independent and self-sufficient, which represents around 2T$ annually. 

When it comes to our social insurance programs like Welfare and Unemployment Insurance as well as Public Housing and Food Stamps, thats called something else now. I can never remember the name of the new Food Stamps program but anyway lets design those programs so they empower people to get off of them by letting them get the skills that they need to get a better job or a good job. So they can finally become self-sufficient. So they aren't collecting from these services but paying into them. Which would also help reduce our poverty rate. 

Then reform our disaster relief and stop borrowing money every time we have a disaster by setting up a disaster insurance program, that people would pay into base on the financial worth of their property and how prone to disasters their property is. Also fully fund FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and make them self-sufficient and self-financed with something like a property tax. Again based on what property's are worth and how prone to disasters they are. 

Tax reform- repeal the Bush tax cuts for high-earners back to the Clinton tax rates, if anything move them up to around 40-45% and use that extra tax revenue from 35-36%. Whatever they are right now to pay down the deficit and debt. U.S. Representative Jane Shakowski (Democrat from Illinois) who I like and respect, who's on the Ways and Means Committee, but who I agree with about as often as there's a blizzard in Saudi Arabia, has a good plan in the House to accomplish this. 

Then reform the overall tax code by taxing more but at lower rates, by eliminating most if not all tax loopholes. Especially corporate welfare for things like big Oil and gas but also eliminating agriculture welfare and have farmers pay insurance to receive agriculture subsidies. 

We'll never has a strong economy again long term until we get our deficit and debt under control. We don't need to balance the budget right away, but we need to start bringing down our deficit and debt. Otherwise most of the money that the Federal Government will be spending will to pay the interest of the deficit and debt and will be paying other nations to finance our deficit and debt our creditors. As well as the Federal Government competing with the private sector for lending. And we need a comprehensive approach, that has budget cuts, government reform and tax reform to get this done.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: President Tom Donahue- 'A Comprehensive, Commonsense National Energy Policy'

Source:U.S. Chamber of Commerce- Tom Donahue: President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue discusses energy, energy policy and the importance of the Institute for 21st Century Energy's release of an open letter to the 44th President of the United States and the 111th Congress which puts forth 13 principles that must serve as the foundation of a comprehensive, common-sense national energy policy." 

From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Americans are a very resourceful people with many skills and talents that they have. And all the fields and sectors we are able to compete in. Another one would be our vast natural resources with all the resources that we have that we don't use and promote for our energy consumption. Despite all of our natural resources, we don't use all of them or not nearly enough to the point that we are still importing foreign oil and importing oil from foreign nations that don't always sometimes rarely if ever have our best interest at heart. Like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait, Libya, Venezuela. 

And now we the Obama Administration is even encouraging Brazil to drill for oil, which creates jobs in Brazil. But does nothing to create jobs in America, instead of encouraging American oil companies to drill for oil, in I don't know, let's say in America, where we have plenty of oil to drill for that we don't drill. That would create a lot of good high-skilled and well paid jobs that we need in America. 

Despite Sarah Palin's expertise in the oil sector from being Governor of Alaska and being able to see Russia from her backyard (and no I don't mean that seriously) Drill, Baby Drill is nothing more than a cute pop culture catch phrase. Coming from a very cute, wannabe politician. We do have a good supply of oil in America, but it's not enough to get us to energy independence on its own. We need a wide-range of menu options to reach energy independence. 

America has if not all the natural energy resources in the world, about all the natural energy resources in the world. Only Russia would top us in the amount of natural energy resources. We have oil, water, gas, natural gas, nuclear, ethanol, solar, wind, heat and I'm sure more. But we really only promote oil and gas and ethanol to a certain extent. And we don't do a very good job of that. We should be promoting all of these natural energy resources. Making the economic climate as good for them as possible to produce their energy in America. Without giving them corporate welfare. 

The renewable energy sources are great because well they can be used over again. Which is also great for the environment. This means wind and solar, but the problem with these renewable sources is they are not ready to become the major energy sources in America yet. Because we haven't developed them yet. Which means we should start developing them now, while we continue to use our energy sources that are already established in America that we have an abundance of oil, natural gas, nuclear, electricity, and ethanol. 

What we should be doing in America is eliminating corporate welfare including subsidy's for big oil and gas, with a broader tax reform package. But in exchange for allowing big oil and gas to drill in areas of the country where they don't have much of an impact right now. Like in the Southeast, Southwest and Rocky Mountains. 

See, a comprehensive energy policy for America helps up on four fronts. Our economy of course because of all the high-skilled well paid jobs it would create in brand new energy industry's. But it also helps us with our foreign policy by getting us off of foreign oil. So we're no longer dependent on foreign nations for our our energy consumption. And they would have less leverage on us, when we need them to do something. 

This would also helps us with our environmental policy because of all the renewable energy sources it would be promoting. And it also helps us with our deficit and debt outlook because of all the new economic activity it would create. 

There are no silver bullets to fixing our dependence on foreign oil. Despite what big oil and gas and their allies may say, it will take a comprehensive approach to doing this, by promoting all of our vast natural resources. As well as consuming less energy with new fuel and mileage standards. But its something that we need to do, the well being of our economy depends on it.

New America Foundation: U.S. Senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson- 'A Bank to Re-Build America?'

Source:New America Foundation- U.S. Senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson (Republican, Texas) speaking to the New America Foundation about a National Infrastructure Bank.

"A Bank to Re-Build America? - The Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)" 

From the New America Foundation

When you look at Democrats in Congress today, it's hard to find any especially in the Senate that are talking about an economic agenda about putting Americans back to work and creating economic growth. But Senator John Kerry is one of those members that is actually not just talking about the economy, but laying out an agenda to put Americans back to work. If you want to create jobs, we need economic growth to do it, you want to rebuild the manufacturing base in America, economic growth would help with that as well. You want to pay down the Federal deficit and debt, you need economic growth to do it. 

According to the Core of Engineers America needs in the neighborhood of 500B$ of infrastructure projects completed in America to fix our physical infrastructure including physical repairs. These are well paid and high-skilled jobs that would be created in America to do this work, we are talking in the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be created to do this. One way to rebuild our manufacturing industry in America, one way is through infrastructure projects. Because we are going to need the tools and supplies to work on the infrastructure projects. 

These supplies could be made in America, jobs would have to be created to build these supplies that are needed to complete these infrastructure projects. So infrastructure projects would not only help rebuild our needed infrastructure in America but would also help rebuild our manufacturing industry in America. Because supplies are going to be needed to complete these projects. 

What is a National Infrastructure Bank just for the off chance that people reading this aren't familiar with that term: it's essentially independent of the Federal Government but still owned by the FEDS. Just operated independently, thats a non-profit service or corporation that would fund infrastructure projects around the country. That would look and find infrastructure projects around the country that need to be built or repaired. Including taking requests around the country from state and local government's, as well as in the private sector. To finance infrastructure projects around the country. 

And it would raise the money in the private sector to finance these projects and these investors would make profits off of the projects once they are built. And then the NIB would hire private companies to do the infrastructure projects. Congress and the Administration would be out of this except for oversight purposes. And infrastructure projects would be rewarded based on their value and need not political relations. 

For people concern about costs of an NIB and our deficit and debt, which I'm one: a beauty of the NIB is that it would pay for itself. Because the NIB would collect revenue from the private sector for its operations, as well as raising the revenue needed to pay for the infrastructure projects. It would need startup capitol in the beginning though that it could pay back. And there would be no more no bid contracts either. Companies would compete with each other for the right to work on these projects. 

An NIB wouldn't have to be a monopoly either: states and localities could have their own Infrastructure Bank. There could even be Private Infrastructure Banks as well. Another beauty of an Infrastructure Bank would be that it would work on more than things than just roads. This would be a huge plus for infrastructure obviously but not just roads, bridges waterways. 

We have crumbling public schools in America, states and localities have been slashing their education funding. And NIB would help restore that funding and help rebuild crumbling schools, as well as build additional schools and other buildings. A National Infrastructure Bank would be a great first step in rebuilding the American economy because of all the infrastructure investment we need. And looking back, it should've been part of the 2009 Recovery Act. We would probably have a lot more jobs created today as a result. 

It would be a plus for our economy because of the jobs, our infrastructure because of the investment in it. And our deficit and debt because it would be self-financed and because of the jobs it would create. So it's something we should do and I hope Senator Kerry and Senator Hutchinson come up with the votes in the Senate to make it happen and the White House gets on board as well.

The Daily Press: Sexy Women in Jeans in Boots

Source:The Daily Press- Woman in jacket and jeans in boots.

Source:The Daily Press 

I love watching sexy women on the move especially when they are dressed sexy. I love watching sexy women on the move in tight Jeans, whether they are wearing denim or leather jeans and watching their legs move in those jeans. And I especially love watching sexy women in tight jeans with boots, under or over their tight jeans on the move. 

I love watching their butt move in their tight jeans. I love hearing the sound that their boots make on concrete floors or sidewalks. Sexy women love being seen on the move looking like this and showcasing their legs and how they move. And the tight jeans with boots look is as good as it gets in doing this. Because they are tight and show what kind of legs women have. 

Which is why it’s really important for women to make sure when they are wearing the tight denim jeans that’s right for their body. Especially their legs and butt. Because if they are well-built, strong legs with a tight curvy butt, they are going to be well highlighted. But if women are obese or rail thin, they are going to look real obese and rail thin in tight jeans. 

The New Republic: William Galston: 'Forward Thinking'

Source:FRS FreeState- Barack H. Obama: 44th President of the United States.

Source:FRS FreeState

"What can Obama and congressional Democrats do about the bad economy?
Friday’s job growth numbers, reported by the Labor Department, present a sobering picture for President Obama and the Democrats. With the pace of hiring down and the unemployment rate above 9 percent, the report suggests that the nation’s recovery is once again faltering. These numbers only underscore our continuing economic difficulties. And for a mix of political and policy reasons, the federal government has no significant new fiscal or monetary weapons left to deploy. As they head into an election that is certain to focus on the economy, the administration and congressional Democrats have no choice but to put the best face on a bad situation. What can they do?"

From The New Republic

"...They needed to create jobs. Very frankly we've been here for four months without jobs legislation being offered on the Floor of the House of Representatives. What we're rolling out today as we talk about creating job is a focus on job creators...

From House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer

Source:House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer- Steny Hoyer: House Minority Whip, on CNBC.

During the 2012 general elections both presidential and Congressional, Democrats won’t be judged or blamed for the condition of the economy, when they won complete control of the Federal Government in 2008. At least by Independent voters. They’ll be judged by what they’ve done since. Especially the President and the job he’s done with what most people would say was a bad hand when President Obama took over in 2009.

House Republicans will be judged by what they did since they’ve won control of the House in 2010. So what the White House and Congressional Democrats will have to do to win back complete control of the Federal Government in 2012, or at least retain the White House and Senate, is to show they’re ready to govern again.

Democrats need to show American voters especially Independent voters, that the country is in better shape in 2012, than it was in 2008 when they took over. It’s really that simple. The Republican opposition might not have much to do whether Democrats win back complete control or at least retain what they have. Other than to communicate their message. If Independent voters feel the country is better off now, than Democrats will win back or retain power. If Independent voters feel the country is worse off in 2012 than 2008, then we are probably looking at a Republican White House and Congress going into 2013.

So especially with the bad jobs report Friday, with another increase in the unemployment rate of now 9.1% and only roughly 60,000 jobs created in the private sector. What democrats have to do is to communicate an economic message that tells the country: “we know the economy is bad and we have a plan to address it that will create economic and job growth. That will bring the unemployment rate down to a more acceptable level.” Even if they have no shot at passing that through the GOP lead House. But at least have something that they can take on the campaign trail in the 2012 general elections.

Democrats should say: “look, we have an economic agenda here. We tried to pass it out of the Senate, but the Senate GOP Leadership blocked it. Which is why you should reelect us there and gives us more seats in the Senate. But besides the House GOP would never pass it anyway.” And take that to the country.

Unfortunately there’s not much the Federal Government can do right now. The Federal Reserve has brought interest rates down as far as they can go. So the options are limited, but I believe good and good enough. But I believe an economic agenda that’s built around infrastructure, energy, trade and education, is the way forward for Democrats.

Especially as the GOP will focus on more tax cuts, deregulation and deficit reduction, Democrats should have an economic agenda that’s about infrastructure investment. The Core of Engineers says we need around 500B$ of infrastructure repairs. Something like a National Infrastructure Bank that would pay for itself, would take care of this and put hundreds of thousands of people back to work. energy a national energy policy that moves us towards energy independence and off of foreign oil. By promoting our own vast natural resources. More foreign trade that gets our products sold in foreign countries and brings down our trade deficit. That has trade adjustment assistance for people who lose their jobs as a result. So they can go back to work. And finally last but never least, education reform that’s built around public school choice and rewarding teachers for their quality of service, not time of service.

I believe with rising unemployment with weak economic and job growth, the strategy of no, saying no to whatever the House GOP comes up will run dry. At some point before the 2012 general elections, Democrats especially the President, are going to have to develop their own agenda. Because they are on the hook for what’s gone on the last four years for good or bad. And will be held accountable for it.

The issue that House Republicans will be facing in 2012 as well is that they’re the incumbent party in the House of Representatives. And will also be judged by what they’ve done in the last two years as well. So both parties, have incentives to show they can lead the country. And give voters reasons to vote for them.

IBob 1983: Sexy Blonde- In Jeans in Boots

Source:IBOB 1983- Sexy Blonde, in jeans in boots. She obviously understands winter fashion.

Source:The Daily Press 

“Blonde girl in jeans and nice boots” 

From IBOB 1983

Here’s a tall gorgeous curvy sexy blonde that proves that the myth that all blonde women are rail-thin is a myth. Yes, blonde women have curves as well and this blonde is proud of hers and showcases them very well. In her tight denim jeans in leather boots. As well as a leather jacket. Gorgeous sexy woman that’s very proud of how she looks and wants the world to see it.

Skinny women to me aren’t sexy. I’m not interested in stereotypical valley girls or stereotypical rail-thin models. I’m not interested in obese women who’ve never missed and opportunity to eat or never turned downs seconds as well. I’m interested healthy women, women who take care of themselves. Who eat well, balanced meals who work out as well, who take care of themselves.

Healthy women to me are sexy women as you see in this video. Beautiful sexy woman in a very sexy outfit that combines both worlds of leather and denim into one very sexy package, a pleasure to check out. Tall gorgeous sexy blonde because she takes care of herself and is proud of that and lets the world see how healthy she is.