Allen West's Slavery Complex

...or "Dumbass Allen West Quote of the Week."


Sometimes I really think that Republican Congressman and Tea Party nut job Allen West just says things to make headlines. He enjoys the spotlight. He's got Donald Trump Fever, that dreaded disease where diarrhea spews from your mouth just to attract attention to yourself.

Responding to a question about the increase of Americans getting Social Security benefits, he said, "that is an unfortunate consequence of failing economic policies coming from the president so that now when people are running out of the unemployment benefits, now they are looking toward going on Social Security disability… so once again we are creating the sense of economic dependence, which to me is a form of modern, 21st century slavery."

Yeah. A black man comparing Social Security to slavery and blaming another black man in the process.

Of course, it doesn't dawn on West to blame the "failing economic policies" to an intransigent GOP,  more worried about bringing anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills, as well as contempt charges against the Attorney General, to the floor instead of any inkling of a jobs bill. Why help the President create jobs and lower the unemployment rate when your main goal is to make him a one-term president?

And where is the proof that there is a direct correlation between the long term unemployed and those filing for Social Security disability benefits? But I digress.

Nutty West keeps bringing up slavery, whether it be in regards to Social Security or the self esteem that comes with being employed. Come on, Florida! Surely you can do better than this. You've been very disappointing since November of 2000.

Entitled

POSTED BY JHW22

I am reading a lot lately about people mad about the word, "entitlements" and in the same breath, a raging disrespect of members of Congress who use the word and at the same time have great benefits on the job. So here's my rebuttal to that:

An entitlement MEANS something we have a right to. SO, they are entitlements and we should call them entitlements. Because we have the right to them.

What's happening lately, is people are wanting to change the meaning of the word and their purpose. And we shouldn't. We should embrace the word and the purpose. Some people are trying to change the meaning of the word to imply something undeserved. We can't let people change the meanings of words for political purposes.

Now, as for how much people pay in and get out, TECHNICALLY, most Americans will get back more in benefits than we ever paid in no matter when we started working. For the most part, you will get back, in social security and Medicare, benefits very early into retirement. If a person has a lot of health conditions, they will likely get what they paid into Medicare back within a couple of years of their 20+ years of receiving the entitlements.

Now, my last point, some in Congress totally suck. Some are idiots and racists and homophobes and just plain bad for America. BUT we have some amazing members of Congress who work their asses off, don't see their families for weeks at a time, have to have a home in their state AND one in D.C. (which is not a cheap place to live) travel constantly, meet with angry constituents, work with asshole coworkers, fight for the best policies against completely obstinate ideologues, and have very little respect from Americans.

I can name at least 30 members of Congress, off the top of my head, who I believe earn every penny and benefit. And it's because of those, and the even more I could think of if I really thought about it, that I don't lump them all into a bucket. And that is WHY we need to be active citizens, stay informed, counter crap that is false and meant to mislead, communicate, and VOTE. When we find junk in Congress, we need to get it out of there.

Will Everyone Please Calm Down?

I was out of earshot of the televisions and the cable "news" outlets today (thankfully) and therefore out of earshot when the hair on fire freakout happened with a story based on those famous "anonymous sources" leaked that President Obama was ready to sign off on a $3 Trillion debt reduction deal with no increases in revenue. IEEEEE!!! Run into the streets with torches and pitchforks! Obama is selling out the poor! We knew it! He's not going to raise taxes! IEEEE!...

I found out when one of my faithful readers sent me an email with a link taking me to the Washington Post article and it's ridiculous first paragraph (emphasis mine):

President Obama and top House Republicans are deep in negotiations over a far-reaching plan to save $3 trillion over the next decade through sharp cuts in agency spending and politically painful changes to popular health and retirement programs, but without any immediate increase in taxes, Democratic congressional leaders reported Thursday.

Step away from the keyboard and take a breath. And think logically.

Why on earth would President Obama, while in a position of negotiating power as can be proven by poll after poll, just decide to give up on tax revenue increases when he and the administration have stated unequivocally that any part of a "grand bargain" would have to include tax revenues?

After reading the article, it sounds like a fake story designed to sabotage talks and put President Obama on the defensive since he's been getting favorable poll numbers on this issue. No one is being quoted, no one is taking ownership of these rumors, yet everyone is asking about it. Funny that.

According to my reader, he heard Oregon Congressman Pete DeFazio on the Thom Hartmann Show today tell Hartmann that Jared Bernstein had said the White House is catering to the independent voters who are worried mostly about the deficit, so there will be some cuts to "The Big Three," namely Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security "because Obama doesn't care where the money comes from." Of course, DeFazio wasn't at that meeting, and frankly, though I like DeFazio, that story sounds like a bowl full of shit to me.

News to DeFazio and anyone else not paying attention: the White House already has the independent vote. Independents don't trust the GOP led House in Congress.

Since the beginning of these talks, there has never been a time when the President or any of the White House spokesmen have ever denied that a grand bargain would include looking at restructuring Medicare and Social Security to strengthen them for future generations without making cuts to benefits. How this is interpreted at cuts is beyond me. Does cutting money to Medicare (like the ACA did by $500 billion in terms of fraud and abuse) equal automatic cuts in benefits?

From teabaggers to firebaggers, how does anyone know that this is the super secret "Obama wants to be Reagan" position without details? And how do you assume that position when everything you've heard from the White House is contrary to that line of thinking? When the fact that anything that would resemble trying to pass $3 Trillion in cuts with no revenue increases would never, ever pass in Congress?

But hey, this story did the job that it was supposed to. It filled another news cycle on a stalled story and caused the collective freakout of the MSM, the professional left, the Democratic politicians in Congress and the Twitterverse. It took the beltway insiders by storm. It caused President Obama to call a meeting of Democratic leaders of Congress - all based on a rumor.

Republican Leadership! HUZZAH!

You gotta hand it to the so-called leaders of the Republican Party. If they don't get everything they want, they sure know how to take their ball and go home.

TPM: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has proposed creating an escape hatch for Congressional Republicans, who have put themselves in a box by threatening not to raise the national debt limit if Democrats don't agree to trillions of dollars in cuts to popular social programs.

Yes, after all the yelling and screaming that the debt ceiling sky is falling, and digging in their heels saying they wouldn't approve a raise in the debt ceiling unless substantial spending cuts were taken to offset the raise considering one cent in revenue increases unacceptable, all at the expense of US defaulting on its loans and a possible domino effect short circuiting the global economy - tantamount to blackmail, something they do so well - little Mitch McConnell is taking his ball and going home, dragging little Johnny Boehner by the hand with him.

JM Ashby over at Bob Cesca's blog does a great job summing up McConnell's toothless legislation proposal:

If the legislation proposed by McConnell is passed, President Obama can raise the national debt limit without a single cut to spending. Congress will then have the opportunity to pass a series of symbolic resolutions condemning the president for doing so. And in a worst case scenario, President Obama would have to propose entirely hypothetical and imaginary spending cuts he would make if it were up to him.

Considering how crafty and elusive the administration can be when it wants to, the threat of requiring phantom spending-cut proposals and the passage of ineffectual congressional resolutions condemning the debt ceiling seems completely impotent. What will stop the administration from including tax-hikes and long-term cuts to defense spending in every proposal? It’s all hypothetical!

All this in the name of protecting tax loopholes for the rich, continuing to subsidize big oil companies despite record breaking profits year after year, and helping corporations continue to avoid paying little to no federal income tax with offshore tax havens.

So let's review. House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP were adamant about not raising the debt ceiling at the risk of US default unless it included spending cuts equaling or exceeding the amount of the debt ceiling raise, particularly cuts in the form of popular social programs like Medicare and Social Security. The Republican Party was looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of a $2 trillion worth of spending cuts without any increase in revenue - even on the backs of the poor millionaires and billionaires' tax loopholes. President Obama called their bluff and said 'if you're actually serious about debt reduction, let's look at a $4 trillion cut. Let's look at Social Security and Medicare. But it's not going to come at the expense of the middle and working classes. Let's look at tax reform, loopholes, and having the top 2% actually pay what you think they're paying.'  Eric Cantor walked away from the table. Boehner blinked and walked away from the table. Mitch McConnell is now walking away from the table for political cover. And President Obama knows it.

President Obama did not walk away from the table or the American people when it came to defaulting on the US debts. It was the perfect move. And now with McConnell's proposal, President Obama, the only adult in the room, is getting what he wanted in the first place, a no strings attached debt ceiling increase.

ADDING... I have unsubscribed from several "progressive" organizations after receiving emails trashing President Obama for selling out the middle and working classes by putting "Social Security and Medicare cuts" on the table, something he NEVER said he'd do, and asking for donations in the process.

From the beginning of these negotiations, the "professional left" freak out has pissed me off to no end. Instead of attacking the party threatening to default on country's debt and using it as a hostage tool, their default position was to attack the President for trying to get a deal for ALL Americans. There is no longer any reason to consider these organizations the "base." Anyone thinking or suggesting that a primary challenge to President Obama is a good idea should in no way be considered, "the base." The base should be considered the base because they are the core support for the party leader. If you don't support the President more than 50% of the time (and that's being generous) you're not the base. If you don't support President Obama but still consider yourself the base, do yourself a favor and don't come back here. You won't like what you read. Or come back and make your points in the comments section. The real "base" welcomes the debate.

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 9, 2011

Working Together to Meet our Fiscal Challenges

E-FUCKING-NOUGH!

POSTED BY JHW22

So the new rant is that Obama is going to cut Medicare and Social Security. That meme hit wicked fast and furious last night and spiraled into a frenzy of lefties being outraged with Obama based on anonymous sources saying something vague. (Too many links to choose from but if you don't know what I'm talking about by now, just check Twitter).

But what troubles me is that liberal, smart, strategic players are now picking up that meme and saying there's a line in the sand and we won't do this or that and "heck, this" and "hell, no that" and on and on.

So here's what I hate: that line in the sand, when it comes to Medicare and Social Security, SHOULD NOT be drawn. They SHOULD be on the table. We SHOULD INSIST that entitlements be cut. For some.

So I keep asking this question of all the line-in-the-sand-drawers:

A) What if the backs we make changes on are those of M(B)illionaires?

B) Are you open to means testing?

C) Are you open to removing contribution caps?

D) Why aren't those things part of the Dems talking points today?

The line in the sand language needs to be fleshed out because I am FOR cuts in Medicare and SS if that means Warren Buffet doesn't get the max (or any) SS or Medicare. Give him a health insurance voucher. Fine by me.

Let's not frame this as a fight within the Dems against some rumored report that Obama is going to do something bad and actually frame the debate that Dems will make sound changes to entitlements and stay true to keeping the entitlements for the people who need them and NOT for the people who don't.

Once we start with the line in the sand talk, we look like fools if we jump over that line and say, "Well except for..." And we only piss off the idiot Angry Left people who only read headlines and hear soundbites and then we have a messaging management problem for two fucking days and can't pay attention to anything REAL.

For crying out loud, why are smart Democrats over-simplifying this discussion?

At least Representative Clyburn gets it (Hardball clip to follow), except he did have to be pulled back from the stringent talking points to get to the common sense strategery.

UPDATE: Here's the Hardball segment with Rep. Clyburn.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama's Budget Address

The Country We Believe In

How Does the Tea Party Help Republicans?

I've been mulling this question over while watching Republican incumbents in primary after primary fall to the Tea Party candidates and I can't see that they help the Republicans at all. In fact, the whole GOP is tacking to the right to embrace the Tea Party for fear of extinction. So why is it that all the polls and pundits are convinced that the Democrats are doomed on Election Day 2010?

It's all really a matter of common sense. The Tea Party is basically an extreme, conservative group to the right of the Republican Party. Regardless of the spin they try to put on the demographics of the movement - that they are equal parts Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are tired of the status quo in Washington - we know better. The chance that even conservative Democrats in the general election would flock to vote for a Tea Party candidate is slim to none. And knowing that Freedom Works is basically behind the Tea Party movement, I view it as the political equivalent of the Frankenstein monster.

If anything, we are witnessing angry Republicans not only fearful of the evil, Kenyan, socialist, Marxist, Nazi Obama, but upset with their own party and knocking them off in the Republican primaries with candidates who are at the least inexperienced, and at worst, the fringiest of the fringe who think Social Security is unconstitutional and continue the myth that Social Security is bankrupt, want to privatize Social Security and Medicare, because as you know, Wall Street bankers will protect your assets, and forward blatantly racist, anti-Obama emails.

And yet we keep hearing (literally just now I heard this as a bumper on MSNBC) that "the Tea Party is proving it can shape the political landscape and will have a huge impact on the midterm November elections."

Let's face it, Democrats will mostly likely vote for Democrats. Republicans will most likely vote for Republicans, even if that means they have to cast a ballot for Christine "Masturbation Is Bad" O'Donnell or Carl "Humans are Racist" Paladino. But the Independent voter, the voters that swung for President Obama in 2008, don't normally ride the crazy train.  And I don't think they'll punch a ticket for it this time either.  Hell, even the GOP party chairman said O'Donnell has no business running for dog catcher, let alone US Senate. And evil spawn Karl Rove is calling some of her comments "nutty" for which he is getting backlash from Wingnuttia.

So maybe the Tea Party really is reshaping the political landscape for the November midterms, but in my opinion it's coming at the peril of the Republican Party. Eight of the Republican Party backed establishment candidates lost to the Tea Party challenger. And although Republicans have no choice but to support the primary winners (even after saying they wouldn't) the fracture in the GOP is clearly visible.  They have just as much to lose as any Democrat in office.

Yes, anti-incumbent rage might cost some Democratic seats in the House and Senate just like it does after every midterm against the majority party incumbents whose party controls the White House, but I don't believe it'll be anywhere close to the devastation that the pundits are predicting, because the one thing all the talking heads keep dismissing in all of the analysis is the quality of the candidate.

Adding... Maybe all the wingnuts winning Republican primaries are just what the Democratic doctor ordered to gin up the base and finally get some enthusiasm rolling.

Quote of the Day

...we only have to fix Social Security once.

The size of that fix is significant, but not astonishing. Over the next 75 years, the shortfall will be equal to about 0.7 percent of gross domestic product. How much is 0.7 percent of GDP? To put that in perspective, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that it's about as much as George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich will cost over the same period. Saying we can afford those cuts -- which is the consensus Republican position -- but not Social Security's outlay is nonsensical. Coming up with 0.7 percent of GDP isn't a crisis. It's a question of priorities.

~Ezra Klein

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 14, 2010

Honoring Social Security, Not Privatizing It

Social Security Sabotage

Thirty-two sponsors of a crap-ass bill in the House of Representatives think it's a good idea that every hire, EVERY HIRE of the 55 million yearly in the U.S. be approved by the government. You're applying for an engineering position? Making ends meet with a part-time job at the local Home Depot? How about garbage collection or a job at McDonald's? We'll have to verify you are a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant. Isn't that what having a Social Security number is all about?

What's the problem with the New Employee Verification Act? Who in the hell is going to manage this colossal administrative nightmare? The Department of Social Security, the same department that is already understaffed and way behind on current issues. But we can trust the government with this one right? I mean, the No Fly List works so well now.

...Business groups opposed the idea of the state requiring companies to use E-Verify.
They worried that mistakes in the system could result in qualified legal workers being turned down for a job. This mirrors concerns nationwide, in addition to worries that the system is ripe for abuse and is a potential bureaucratic quagmire.

...Caroline Fredrickson, chief of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, said the legislation would create a “no-work list” in the Washington bureaucracy.
“Americans should not have to ask their federal government if they have permission to accept a new job,” she said.
Barbara Kennelly, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said the new workload would overwhelm an understaffed administration. Already, she said, “disability cases are piling up and needy people are waiting years to receive their benefits.”

...There is no official cost estimate, but some think it could run as much as $10 billion over nine years for such things as additional workers, equipment and online capacity.

...the U.S. Government Accountability Office... said a mandatory system could be vulnerable to fraud and abuse and questioned whether the system could detect employees who present genuine but stolen Social Security numbers.

$10 billion cost to run, in an already understaffed department, spells doom for Social Security. Isn't that the ultimate goal? Who'll take over the system you ask? Ask Dubya. I'm sure Wall Street will be magnanamous and take that $8 trillion off our shoulders to invest for us... for a small fee.

Weekend In Hell's Kitchen

Corpse Wheeled to Check-Cashing Store
Leads to 2 Arrests

Two men were arrested on Tuesday after pushing a corpse, seated in an office chair, along the sidewalk to a check-cashing store to cash the dead man’s Social Security check, the police said.

When Virgilio Cintron, 66, died at his apartment at 436 West 52nd Street recently, his roommate and a friend saw an opportunity to cash his $355 check, the police said.

...There was no sign of foul play in Mr. Cintron’s death.

The roommate, James P. O’Hare, and his friend, David J. Dalaia, both 65 and unemployed, placed Mr. Cintron’s body in the chair and wheeled it around the corner, south along Ninth Avenue on Tuesday afternoon, the police said. The men parked the chair with the corpse in front of Pay-O-Matic at 763 Ninth Avenue, a check-cashing business that Mr. Cintron had patronized.

They went inside to present the check, but a clerk said Mr. Cintron would have to cash it himself, and asked where he was, the police said.

“He is outside,” Mr. O’Hare said, indicating the body in the chair, according to Mr. Browne.
The two men started to bring the chair inside, but it was too late.

Their sidewalk procession had already attracted the stares of passers-by who were startled by the sight of the body flopping from side to side as the two men tried to prop it up, the police said.

I love this town!