Thursday, 29 September 2011

{Political_Views} Perry Flip Flops and Apologies for 'Heartless' Immigration Comment



Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

News from The Hill:

Perry apologies for 'heartless' immigration comment, pushes border bona fides
By Justin Sink

Rick Perry said Wednesday that he was sorry for saying at last week's Republican debate that those opposed to providing an in-state tuition break to the children of illegal immigrants "did not have a heart."

"I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate," Perry said in a interview with Newsmax. "In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature – only four voted against this piece of legislation – because it wasn't about immigration it was about education."

Read the complete story here.


For all the latest news:
Visit TheHill.com
Follow @TheHill on Twitter
Like The Hill on Facebook




The Hill | 1625 K St. NW | Washington | DC | 20006

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Elizabeth Warren



Elizabeth Warren has just jumped into the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts and she's already a front-runner. But with an urgent fundraising deadline Friday, she needs our help. Can you chip in $5?

Donate now
Dear Friend,

Have you seen this amazing quote that everyone's sharing on Facebook right now? It's from progressive champion Elizabeth Warren, who has just jumped into the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts:

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you. 

"But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate...Part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."1

Elizabeth Warren has been a tireless advocate for consumer rights, holding big banks accountable and creating the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She's one of the great progressive voices on fixing the economy.

Now she's taking on corporate-backed Sen. Scott Brown and his $10 million war chest. She has only been in the race for two weeks, but she is already out to a narrow lead over Brown in the most recent poll.2 This Friday is a critical fundraising deadline, and all eyes are watching to see if her campaign's for real.


MoveOn members in Massachusetts voted in a landslide to endorse Warren this week. She's got momentum, but the media will be watching closely to see if she can turn her progressive record into grassroots support, and it's absolutely vital that she announce a large fundraising total from thousands of small donors.

Warren came to prominence as a vocal critic of many of the Wall Street corporations who are now top contributors to Scott Brown's campaign. Brown is trying to present a moderate front despite his tea party backing and corporate donors, but Warren is the real voice for the American Dream.

We're also announcing two other MoveOn member endorsements, candidates who are true champions in the fight to rebuild the American Dream. Eric Griego in New Mexico and Ilya Sheyman in Illinois both stand out as progressive leaders in their Democratic primary elections for the U.S House of Representatives.

Can you chip in $5 to Elizabeth Warren's campaign right now?


Thanks for all you do.

  –Adam R., Elena, Julia, Stephen, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Video: The Elizabeth Warren Quote Every American Needs To Hear," MoveOn.org, Sept. 21, 2011.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=264488&id=31551-19015648-etGUz2x&t=4

2. "Elizabeth Warren leads Scott Brown by two points," Public Policy Polling, Sept. 20, 2011. [PDF]
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=264489&id=31551-19015648-etGUz2x&t=5


  

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

{Political_Views} Boston Review Jeanne Mansfield: Why I Was Maced at the Wall Street Protests

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Roger Ailes And The Fox Effect: Environment And Tea Party Edition and Other Things I Found Along the Way

 - Tea Party Edition
 
 
 
 
 
 
More stories here: http://mediamatters.org/
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Health Experts React to Rep. Ryan’s Latest Effort to Take Away People’s Health Care

http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/statements/2011/09/statement_ryan_health

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} The Conservative Effort to Make Everything Unconstitutional


http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/advisories/2011/09/If_The_Tea_Party_Wins.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} E-Verify Will Be a Lose-Lose for Workers, Business Owners, and Our Nation’s Economy

http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/advisories/2011/09/everify_call_sept.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Fixing Our Broken Infrastructure Will Create Jobs, Spur Long-term Economic Growth,


http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2011/09/infrastructure_creates_jobs

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Repairing Bridges Can Lift Families Out of Poverty

http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2011/09/bridge_poverty

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} News from The Hill: Supreme Court asked to review multi-state challenge to health reform law



Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

News from The Hill:

Supreme Court asked to review multi-state challenge to health reform law
By Julian Pecquet

The plaintiffs in a multi-state challenge to Democrats' healthcare reform law on Wednesday formally asked the Supreme Court to take up the case during its upcoming term.

The petition for certiorari comes two days after the Obama administration let slip its final chance to delay the case. Two appeals courts have issued opposing rulings on the law's individual mandate, increasing the likelihood that the high court will decide to weigh in.

Read the complete story here.




The Hill | 1625 K St. NW | Washington | DC | 20006

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

Tuesday, 27 September 2011

Re: {Political_Views} Get angry and pass this on!: I Paid -- Didn't You?

I agree with the sentiment, however the math is all askew. 
 
For example, your contribution to Medicare 1.635% of the 7.635% that comes off of your check, meaning that you contributed only 6% to FICA (Social Security) as well as your employer did for a total of 12% not the 15% touted in the email. 
 
Secondly if you worked from the age of 18 until 65 that would mean that you worked 47 years.  If you averaged $30k a year for 47 years and paid into FICA at 12% then you would have contributed $169,200.  Now, even if you worked the 49 years touted in the email then your total contribution(s)  would have amounted to $176,400 and not the "close to $220,500" stated in the email. 
 
Thirdly then 12% of $30,000 is equal to $3,600 that was contributed in your name to FICA every year for the 49 years.  Fourthly, by my calculations - and I certainly could have made a mistake, however by my calculations at a simple 5% return compounded then the $176,400 would have grown to $724,905 and change and not the nearly $900,000 touted in the email. 
 
Fifthly drawing a mere 3% yearly would yeild you $21,747 and change.  Or about $5,000 less a year than the email stated.  Still, $22,000 a year is nothing to sneeze at.  Moreover even if the interest was no longer paid on your $725,000 it would last you over 33 years (again only withdrawing a mere 3% of the principal every year).  However if a 5% per year interest were to continue to be paid and you withdrew only 3% per year then the $725,000 principal would continue to grow.
 
Sixthly the author does not make it clear that the annuity mentioned that returns a mere 4% - ($725,000 x .04 = $29,000  $29,000/12 = $2,416.67 per month and not the $2,976.40 per month touted in the by the emails' author) - the author does not make it clear that you would need the $725,000 to buy that annuity.  They don't mention that they won't let you buy it on time or as a lay away plan of $3,600 a year.  PLUS if it's just you and not you + your employer you would only put away $1,800 a year and NOT the $3,600 a year that you would under FICA.  AND under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA - AKA Social Security) there is a disability component that would no longer be there.  You would have to buy that insurance seperately out of the $1,800 a year.  So all in all you would not have $725,000 to invest in a 4% annuity that would give you the $21,747 a year that you'd get from Social Security. 
 
 
Seventhly: FICA - SOCIAL SECURITY is NOT  a PONZI scheme.  Ponzis' scheme lasted only for one year and not the 70 + years that FICA has.  Ponzi skimmed 50% of the take off the top.  FICA skims nothing off the top.  Ponzis' scheme went broke.  Social Security is solvent.  It can pay everyone in the system at 100% until 2045 and then at 80% if nothing is done about it before hand.  The only thing that need be done is to get the millionaires and billionaires to pay into it like everyone else.  Right now if you earn $150,000 a year you stop paying into FICA after $105,000.  So if there were no "cap" then all earnings would be assessed for the 12% FICA. 
 
Remember it's not just the wage earner who doesn't pay 6% on the $45,000 but their employers' 6% share doesn't get paid either.  That folks is an additional $5,400 per year that doesn't get into FICA. 
 
Now 'tis true that Social Secuity is NOT an entitlement.  You (and I) paid into the system.  The baby boomers twice - once for themselves and once for their parents.  FICA is set to be reduced from the current rate of 6% sometime near 2050 when the vast majority of the baby boomers have passed on and the need for all that money won't be there.
 
The Federal Goverment didn't borrow the Social Security money.  The Social Security Administration needs to grow the fund so it buys securities such as Treasury Bills, and Government Bonds.  It does NOT invest in that gambling casino know as Wall Street.  It does not invest in brokerage houses such as Leahman Brothers, or in entities like ENRON. It does not invest in places that can go belly up and LOSE your money.  So the author of the email is correct on this one point.  Social Security is not an ENTITLEMENT, nor is it CHARITY nor a HANDOUT! 
 
The rest of the authors' email is pure rant.  The government cannot run out of money.  It has plenty of assets to sell to cover it's debts.  Governments all over the world sell bonds and such.  They guarantee that they will be paid off.  Even if the U.S. government has to turn the Interstate Highway System into a toll road to earn money the Federal government cannot go broke.  All it takes is for the Republicans to stop playing games with the lives of ordinary citizens.  Ordinary citizens who may dream of one day being the next Bill Gates but in all likely hood will remain Bill the plumber.  Congress - both parties - need to pass laws that would reduce the influence of money on elections.  Pass laws that raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires at least to the Clinton era level.  The Republicans need to stop their demogogery and put the needs of the nation and ALL of it's citizens first and foremost.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

Monday, 26 September 2011

Re: {Political_Views} To Pee or not to Pee

With regards to the politicians having to pass a urine test, let us not stop there.  It should be mandatory that our elected officials (and those running for office) pass a urine, breathalyzer and follicle tests.  Again let us not stop there, they should (when once elected) have to under go these tests randomly too.  At the very least they should have to pass a breathalyzer test before they are allowed to cast their vote on any bill or procedure.  Moreover they should have to pass a smell test too.  If they smell hinckey - if they smell like they're taking "bribes" they should be ousted from office.  Wait if we did that there would not be enough elected officals for a quorum and no business could be conducted, although on some level that may not be a bad thing.  :)


 
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Daniel P <dnlprstrdg@gmail.com> wrote:




 

 
Hi-Ya
----- Forwarded Message -----

Subject: Fwd: To Pee or not to Pee

 
 
it's only fair !!!!!


You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face . . . you must do the thing you think you cannot do.
    Eleanor Roosevelt
 


 
 
 
 
 
Subject: To Pee or not to Pee
 
 

 
          To Pee or not to Pee !
 
 
 
 
 I have a job.  I work, they pay me.  I pay my taxes & the government
distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
  
In order to get that paycheck, in my case,
I am required to pass a random urine test

(with which I have no problem). 


What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes

to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question:

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT ----doing drugs while I work.

 Can you imagine how much money each state would save
if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"! 



Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.

Hope you all will pass it along, though.
 
Something has to change in this country - AND SOON!

 P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!
 
AMEN  TO THAT 100%
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

Sunday, 25 September 2011

{Political_Views} Surgeon General's warning





 
                                                       Cartoon by Mike Luckkovich

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

Thursday, 22 September 2011

{Political_Views} Economists Refute AP, Defend The Buffett Rule

Progressive Economists Refute AP, Defend The Buffett Rule

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Limbaugh Still Spreading Lies and Other BS

Limbaugh Uses Economic Falsehoods To Attack Jobs Bill

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Lame Stream Media Dis's Real Economists

REPORT: Economists Shut Out Of Debt-Ceiling Debate

Only 4.1 Percent Of Cable Guests Were Actual Economists

http://mediamatters.org/research/201109210016?lid=1180805&rid=63731805

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Obama "Pro-Israel" Declares Fox Pundit

Bolling Declares Palestinian Push For UN Statehood To Be A "Set Up" To Make Obama Look "Pro-Israel"

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Fox Gets It Wrong ....... Again

Fox Aims For Obama But Accidentally Attacks Private Regulators*

September 21, 2011 1:01 am ET

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} 101 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republicant

100 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republican


August 11, 2011
By
 

Conservatives are so easy to anger these days. Even the most insignificant statement can set off their tempers. If you want to enrage a conservative, I suggest saying the following:

1. A Socialist wrote the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Jesus healed the sick and helped the poor, for free.
3. Joseph McCarthy was an un-American, witch hunting sissy.
4. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were traitors.
5. The South lost the Civil War, get over it.
6. The Founding Fathers were liberals.
7. Fascism is a right-wing trait.
8. Sarah Palin is an ugly cow (said to conservative males).
9. The Earth is round.
10. Reagan raised taxes eleven times as President.
11. Reagan legalized abortion as Governor of California.
12. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.
13. Ronald Reagan supported gun control.
14. Global warming is real.
15. Republicans hate illegal immigrants, unless they need

16. The military is a government-run institution, so why do Republicans approve the defense budget?
17. The Cold War is over and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
18. Paying taxes is patriotic.
19. Republicans: Peddling the same failed economic policies since 1880.
20. The Republican Party began as a liberal party.
21. The Presidents' full name is Barack Hussein Obama and he was born in the United States of America.
22. George W. Bush held hands with the King of Saudi Arabia.
23. President Obama saved the American auto industry, while Republicans wanted to destroy it.
24. Hate is not a Christian virtue.
25. Jesus was a liberal.
26. Republicans spend MORE money than Democrats.
27. Tea parties are for little girls.
28. Public schools educate all children; private schools are for indoctrinating children.
29. The Constitution is the law, NOT the Bible.
30. Sharia law doesn't exist in America.
31. The President is NOT a Muslim.
32. Corporations are NOT people. People are people.
33. Fox News isn't real news, it's just a racist, sexist, hateful, right-wing propaganda machine.
34. The Federal Reserve was a Republican idea.
35. Women are equal citizens who deserve equal rights.
36. Women control their own bodies.
37. Abortion is a relevant medical procedure, just ask Rick Santorum.
38. Please use spell check.
39. It's "pundit", not "pundint".
40. Social Security is solvent through 2038.
41. Health care is a right, not a product.
42. Roe v. Wade was a bipartisan ruling made by a conservative leaning Supreme Court.
43. G.O.P also stands for Gross Old Perverts.
44. The donkey shouldn't be the Democratic mascot because Republicans are the real jackasses.
45. Barack Obama ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden. It took him two and half years to do what Bush couldn't do in eight.
46. Waterboarding IS torture.
47. 9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch, therefore he did NOT keep America safe.
48. Republicans invaded Iraq for oil, so Iraq should be allowed to invade Texas to get it back.
49. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution, it's called the First Amendment.
50. Muslims are protected by the Constitution, just as much as Christians.
51. Barack Obama is the first African-American President, get over it.
52. The Oval Office is NOT a "whites only" office.
53. America is a nation of immigrants, therefore we are all anchor babies.
54. The white race isn't disappearing, it's evolving.
55. God is a particle.
56. Evolution is real.
57. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, not 6,000.
58. The Founding Fathers did not free the slaves.
59. The Revolution was NOT fought over slavery.
60. Paul Revere warned the Americans, NOT the British.
61. Federal law trumps state law.
62. The Civil War was about slavery, NOT state's rights.
63. Corporations care more about profits than they do about people.
64. Getting out of a recession requires government spending.
65. Glenn Beck is a nut-job.
66. Republicans: Paranoid since 1932.
67. Republicans don't want to pay for your birth control, but they want you to pay for their Viagra.
68. Republicans actually NEED Viagra.
69. Fox News is owned by an Australian and has a Saudi prince as an investor.
70. Republicans complain about immigrants taking American jobs, then freely give American jobs to foreigners overseas.
71. If Republicans hate communism, then why do they refer to themselves as red states?
72. Labor unions built this country.
73. Republicans hold America hostage as a political strategy; the temper tantrum throwing kind of political strategy.
74. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian.
75. When Republicans see black, they attack.
76. Inside every Republican is a Klansman or a Nazi waiting to bloom.
77. Republicans only care about children BEFORE they are born.
78. Republicans are hypocrites, they're just too stupid to know it.
79. The Christian-Right boycotts movies that have violence, and then promotes guns and insurrection.
80. I think therefore I am NOT a Republican.
81. Republicans that oppose gay marriage are most likely in the closet themselves.
82. Churches should stay out of politics, or be taxed.
83. People are too poor to vote Republican.
84. Democrats think for themselves, Republicans form think tanks to do it for them.
85. Republicans hate education because they couldn't hack it in school.
86. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins and Republicans wallow in it.
87. A little socialism on the Left is better than a little fascism on the Right.
88. The current corporate tax rate is the lowest in 60 years, so stop whining about it being too high.
89. Republicans: Anti-Gay Marriage, Pro-Lesbian sex.
90. Republicans: Terrorizing the American people since 1981.
91. Republicans have their own terrorists, just look up Timothy McVeigh.
92. Republicans love outsourcing, just ask the Chinese Communists.
93. The Republican answer to the oil spill was to apologize to BP, a foreign oil company.
94. Democrats will be working hard to bring jobs to Americans, while the Republicans tea bag each other in the middle of the aisles.
95. Voter disenfranchisement is immoral and un-American, that's why Republicans do it.
96. Republicans would let your house burn down unless you pay them to put it out.
97. Democrats want to take care of the sick. Republicans take their credit cards and then deny them medical attention.
98. Republicans say teachers are union thugs, then proceed to rape and mug the entire middle class on behalf of corporations.
99. Republicans think rape isn't a crime, but miscarriages are.
100. Republicans are idiots and arguing with them is a waste of time!

101. Call them Republicants

Bottom line? If you want to anger a conservative, tell them the truth.

Edited By: Alexis Atherton

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

{Political_Views} Republicans Object Feds Plan to Stimulate Economy


Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 -- 2:40 PM EDT
-----

Fed Moves on Long-Term Rates to Spur Growth

The Federal Reserve announced a new plan Wednesday to stimulate growth by purchasing $400 billion in long-term Treasury securities with proceeds from the sale of short-term government debt, defying Republican demands to refrain from new actions.

In extending its campaign of novel efforts to shake the economy from its torpor, the Fed said that it was responding to evidence that there is a clear need for help.

"Growth remains slow. Recent indicators point to continuing weakness in overall labor market conditions and the unemployment rate remains elevated," the Fed said in a statement that listed its reasons for worry about the anemic condition of the American economy.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/business/fed-to-shift-400-billion-in-holdings-to-spur-growth.html?emc=na

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} How Much Does It Cost To Buy A Republican House?

AT&T Gave $963,275 to Lawmakers Urging Approval of T-Mobile Bid


September 21, 2011, 12:20 PM EDT
 

By Todd Shields and Jonathan D. Salant

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Pete Olson and 99 fellow House Republicans signed a letter yesterday urging the Obama administration to resolve a government lawsuit and let AT&T Inc. buy T-Mobile USA Inc.

All but one of the 100 lawmakers has received political donations from AT&T employees since 2009, according to a Bloomberg review of campaign finance records. The letter signers took in $963,275, Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Washington-based advocacy group Public Knowledge, said in an e-mail.

"AT&T's congressional support for its takeover of T-Mobile comes at a price," Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a merger opponent, said in an e-mailed statement.

AT&T is working to rescue its $39 billion purchase of T- Mobile from a U.S. lawsuit that seeks to block the transaction as anticompetitive. The company is challenging a Justice Department conclusion that the merger would bring higher prices, and it is exploring compromises to satisfy regulators' concerns.

Tomorrow, Olson, a Texas Republican, is to attend a Washington fundraising luncheon backed by AT&T lobbyists. Suggested contributions of $2,500, $1,000 or $500 go to the Olson for Congress Committee, according to an invitation e- mailed around Washington and obtained by Bloomberg.

The "Telecommunications Industry Lunch" at the Capitol Hill Club, a Republican institution one block from the U.S. Capitol, shows AT&T buying influence as it seeks to salvage the T-Mobile deal, according to Public Knowledge.

Urging Settlement

AT&T isn't sponsoring tomorrow's lunch, Melissa Kelly, a spokeswoman for Olson, said in an e-mail.

"They have been a long time supporter of Congressman Olson and employ thousands of people in the State of Texas," Kelly said. "This letter simply urges the President to focus on creating jobs in America and bringing other jobs back from overseas to further strengthen our economic recovery."

Olson and his colleagues in yesterday's letter to President Barack Obama said the U.S. should reach a settlement that lets the merger proceed. The Justice Department in its Aug. 31 lawsuit said the transaction would lessen competition by eliminating one of the four largest U.S. wireless carriers.

The lawsuit "will thwart job creation and economic growth and undermine your own efforts to achieve our shared goal" of economic recovery, the Republicans said in their letter. AT&T last month offered to bring 5,000 call-center jobs back to the U.S. once the deal closes.

The first hearing in the case was set for today before U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle in Washington.

Help by Attending

J. Barry Hutchison, an AT&T assistant vice president who once worked for former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, urged contacts to attend the Olson luncheon in an e-mail obtained by Bloomberg. "Pete has been a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee and I hope you can help him by attending," according to the e-mail.

Hutchison and Michael Balmoris, a Washington-based AT&T spokesman, didn't respond to an e-mail and telephone call seeking comment.

The Olson-led letter is one of at least three to the Obama administration from Congress since early September. Of the letters' 117 signers, 116 have received campaign contributions from AT&T employees, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group.

"That's why AT&T is so effective on Capitol Hill," Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, a Washington-based advocacy group, said in an interview. "The game isn't just lobbying activity, it's making sure there's an extensive fundraising apparatus that goes on full time. That's exactly what played out here."

Briefing Request

Three Republicans including Representative Fred Upton, of Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, in a Sept. 8 letter asked for a briefing from the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission, which is conducting a separate review.

AT&T employees have given Upton $96,600 since 1989, the earliest records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That is his largest source of campaign donations. Another signer of the Sept. 8 letter, Representative Joe Barton of Texas, has received $97,559 from AT&T employees since 1989. The third signer, Representative Greg Walden, of Oregon, first elected in 1998, has received $56,000.

In a Sept. 15 letter, 15 Democrats led by Representative Heath Shuler, of North Carolina, said the Justice Department should agree to a settlement of the lawsuit "that ensures robust competition" while preserving the deal's benefits. Shuler has received $24,000 from AT&T employees since 2005.

Justice Rejection

The Justice Department in a Sept. 19 letter rejected the lawmakers' request for a briefing.

Such a meeting "may jeopardize our law enforcement efforts, as well as inescapably creating the risk that the public and the courts will perceive undue political and Congressional influence," Ronald Weich, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, said in the letter.

Neil Grace, a spokesman for the FCC, declined to comment.

"AT&T is painting a false picture with its promise of job creation," Vonya McCann, senior vice president for government affairs at Sprint Nextel Corp., said in a statement yesterday. "This acquisition will almost certainly lead to the elimination of thousands of American jobs."

--Editors: Michael Shepard, Anthony Gnoffo

To contact the reporters on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at tshields3@bloomberg.net or Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at jsalant@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Allan Holmes at aholmes25@bloomberg.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Republicans: YOU LIE!

Free Press Action Fund Slams Republican Lawmakers for Parroting AT&T's False Job Claims

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: September 20, 2011
Contact: Jenn Ettinger, 202-265-1490 x 35

WASHINGTON -- On Tuesday Republican lawmakers sent a letter to President Obama touting the now-disproven claims that the AT&T/T-Mobile merger would create jobs.

Free Press Action Fund President and CEO Craig Aaron made the following statement:

"We agree that jobs should be a top consideration here. In fact, the Department of Justice did consider the jobs question, and it concluded based on the actual evidence that this merger would be a disaster for American workers.

"Let me make this perfectly clear: According to AT&T's own statements, available to anyone who bothers to check the public record, this merger will reduce U.S. wireless investment by $10 billion. What AT&T calls synergies, everyone else calls cutbacks and layoffs.

"T-Mobile has publicly acknowledged preparing severance packages for workers who will lose their jobs if this deal is approved. These are not secrets. If these members actually care about jobs, then they should stand up and oppose this deal, which will kill up to 20,000 U.S. jobs.

"If you want to know why these members of Congress would repeat something they know or should know to be false, you may want to check their campaign contributors. You won't have to look very hard to figure out why they're carrying water for AT&T."


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Shutdown Looms as House rejects temporary spending bill over FEMA funding


 

News from The Hill:
 

Shutdown? House rejects temporary spending bill over FEMA funding

By Pete Kasperowicz - 09/21/11 05:43 PM ET
 

The House on Wednesday afternoon surprised Republican leaders by rejecting a temporary spending bill allowing the government to operate through November 18.

The defeat was due to strenuous objections from Democrats who opposed cuts to a Department of Energy program in order to offset the cost of additional disaster funding, and from members of both parties who favored more disaster funding than was in the bill.

The vote will leave House leaders scrambling to come up with an alternative continuing resolution in order to ensure government funding past September 30, and seems to increase the chances of more congressional work week next week, when both the House and Senate plan to be off.

Members rejected the bill in a 195-230 vote that saw 48 Republicans vote against the measure, and only six Democrats support it.

Funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was by far the most controversial element in the bill. Aside from falling short of demands from Republicans and Democrats for more FEMA funds, Democrats in particular objected to a $1.5 billion cut to the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, which helped pay for the FEMA increase.

"I have serious objection to the pay for in this legislation," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "I have a bigger objection that we would have to pay for disasters. We never paid for the tax cuts for the rich, they never were paid for. We never paid for the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq, they were never paid for."

Democrats argued since last week that this Energy Department program helps create auto industry jobs and gives U.S. auto companies the funding to develop advanced technology, in areas such as improved fuel efficiency.

"To date, this program has awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy-efficient advanced vehicles and their component parts," House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) said. "The Department of Energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained in total 39,000 jobs in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Tennessee."

During the debate, several Republicans rejected this by saying the DOE program has $4 billion in unused funds, and that $2.5 billion would remain if the offset were approved.

Republicans also had to fend off complaints that more FEMA funding is needed. These arguments likely appealed to many Republican "no" votes, although no Republican spoke against the bill during debate. thereby letting the Democrats do their dirty work for them and letting the Democrats take the blame, even though the Republicans hold a good 50 + seat majority in the House.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} GOP 2012 Platform



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} Tea Party Hypocrisy



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.

{Political_Views} New GOP Strategy ........ (Truth or Fiction...? You decide!)



 
 
 
New GOP Strategy Involves Re-Electing Obama,
Making His Life Even More Miserable
 

GOP leaders say, "messing with the president's head"
must be their one and only priority in 2012 and beyond.
 
 
WASHINGTON—Calling a GOP victory in the 2012 presidential election antithetical to the party platform, top Republicans revealed a new long-term political strategy Today: Re-electing Barack Obama and making his life even more of a living hell than it already is.
 
"For three years, the Republican Party has coalesced around the single goal of making President Obama's every waking moment sheer and utter torture," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters. "But we can't continue to do that if he's not in office."
"If we are going to make the president a haggard shell of a human being by the time he leaves the White House, we need four more years of never compromising, four more years of miring every piece of legislation in unnecessary procedural muck, four more years of pretending we want to work with the president and then walking away from the table at the last second," McConnell added. "Four more years! Four more years! Obama 2012!"
 
According to GOP sources, the decision to cede the 2012 election to Obama came after rank-and-file Republicans agreed that grinding the president down to nothing and pushing him to the brink of insanity was far more in line with the Republican Party's core principles than actually controlling the White House, making laws, or governing the country.
 
Republican officials said that because they won't be burdened with a time consuming presidential campaign, they can start looking beyond the 2012 general election and begin developing a four-pronged attack designed to ruin the president emotionally, physically, personally, and professionally.
 
Moreover, giving the president a second term in office would reportedly allow GOP lawmakers to build on the mental distress they've already caused him.
"If you look at what we've accomplished as a party in the last four years—making President Obama lose his temper on multiple occasions and even causing him to storm out of a meeting in frustration—it doesn't make sense for us to throw all that away, not when we could do so much more," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said. "If by being impossible to work with we are able to make the president physically shake with frustration during every single meeting, give him the nervous tick of mumbling angrily under his breath, tarnish his entire legacy, and in the process completely destroy his faith in humanity, then we've succeeded as lawmakers."
 
"If you thought this debt ceiling thing was bad, wait till you see how unbearable we are when it comes time for the Bush tax cuts to expire," Cantor added. "We are going to pummel this man over and over and over until he regrets ever getting into politics."
 
 
In order to make the president's next four years the worst of his life, GOP legislators are reportedly working on a new "Destroy Every Fiber of Barack Obama's Being" initiative, a plan that includes benchmarks such as making Obama look 10 years older than he is just six months into his second term; ruining his marriage before the 2014 midterm elections; and, by the time he leaves office, making him break down in front of the entire nation and say the words, "I give up. Just please stop."
 
 
"If Barack Obama doesn't go to bed fuming with deep primal rage every single night, then we haven't done our job," said House Speaker John Boehner, who later called the residual effect of getting to watch Obama's supporters become more and more disillusioned with their country as their president's posture deteriorates, his face becomes exceedingly gaunt, and his once booming voice turn shaky and unconfident "definitely a plus." "Mark my words: The Republican Party is committed to giving the American people a president who has a chronically bleeding gastric ulcer that makes it almost impossible for him to stand up."
"To be honest, I'm glad we're pulling out of this election, because I really don't know what we would focus on if we won," Boehner added. "Health Care?"
 
While a major party forgoing a presidential campaign is considered unorthodox, Beltway insiders were not surprised by the Republican announcement, saying the GOP was simply playing to its strength.
 
"Making Barack Obama's life a waking nightmare is what we do best," Republican strategist Todd Harris said. "It's also just smart politics. After all, getting the man re-elected and watching him wither away to nothing before our very eyes will fire up the base more than any of the current Republican presidential candidates will."
 
 
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Political_Views" group.
To post to this group, send email to political_views@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to political_views+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/political_views?hl=en.