Monday, September 26, 2011

2012 election PREDICTION.

 Could it be that by a slight chance game Obama wins a second term ?
One Night I was flipping the channels on my remote . As I was surfing , changing channels . I for a brief second in time & how it came about in some galactic intermission moment on one of those government channels saw a minute glimpse of the future.............................There was ole President Obama speaking to the league of women voters . On the bottom of my TV caption read 2014 . Now you tell me how this could of happened ? In some Twilight Zone kinda way there it was Obama speaking and it's the year 2014 . This information would un-nerve every Tea Party member, and most of all the GOP. What I am saying could be real . If true , what a joke it would be in COSMIC STANDARDS . Obama won the 2012 reelection. How could this have happened ?

Allan Lichtman, the American University professor whose election formula has correctly called every president since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election, has a belated birthday present for Barack Obama: Rest easy, your re-election is in the bag.
“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House.
Lichtman’s prediction helps to explain a quirk in some polling that finds that while Americans disapprove of the president, they still think he will win re-election. [Check out political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]
Working for the president are several of Lichtman’s keys, tops among them incumbency and the scandal-free nature of his administration.Undermining his re-election is a lack of charisma and leadership on key issues, says Lichtman, even including healthcare, Obama’s crowning achievement.
Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”
Lichtman’s earned quite the reputation. In 1992, it seemed likely former President George H.W. Bush would be re-elected, having reached historic highs in popularity after he launched a war that pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. But Lichtman thought otherwise and that factored into former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s decision to challenge Bush.“I got a call from this woman with a thick southern drawl. It was Clinton’s special assistant. She wanted to know if it was true that a Democrat could win. I assured her it was and I sent Clinton a copy of my book and a memo and the rest is history.” [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]
In 2005, Lichtman also hit a home run when he said that the political stage was looking so bad for Republicans that Democrats could pick a name out of the phone book and win in 2008, the year a little known first-term senator became the first African-American to win the presidency.
Now Lichtman’s predicting a repeat performance by Obama.
Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama. (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS KEY HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE PUT TOGETHER BY Lichtman) ***** SEE MY NOTES AND COMMENTS.
  1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.
  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.
  3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.
  4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.
  5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”
  6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]
  7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.
  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.
  9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.
  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.
  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.
  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]
  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.
 The 13 KEYS could have changed . How ever there is a HIGH probability of a Win on Obama part. If Obama can't go for a second term his raising a billion dollars for a campaign reelection could have been better served helping out the poor .
Record Misery Index Record 22% of american children living in Poverty. Record long term unemployment. Gunwalker, solyndra, lightsquared...
'i will cut the national debt by 50% in my first term, or I wont deserve a second term'
I think Mr. Obama is Toast' the Fat lady is singing.

"But since it is mathematically impossible to win a state without winning at least one of its congressional districts, the worst that the statewide winner could do is 3 out of 5 votes total."

Technically, if there are more than two candidates, it isn't mathematically impossible. Consider the following vote totals for candidates A, B, and C:

A: 4 4 4
B: 5 5 0
C: 0 0 5

Candidate A wins the state with 12 total votes without winning any of the districts.

From the article: "...Barack Obama would have carried only 11 of the state’s 21 electoral votes despite winning Pennsylvania by a 10-point margin."
You do realize that that means winning the popular vote 55-45 and then winning 52.4% of the electoral votes, right? True, it's not precisely equitable, but isn't that a lot closer to fair than getting 100% of the votes?

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Contridictions : an even-handed peace broker.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas listened as President Obama addressed the Palestinian bid for statehood in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday. 

President Obama declared his opposition to the Palestinian Authority’s bid for statehood through the Security Council on Wednesday, throwing the weight of the United States directly in the path of the Arab democracy movement even as he hailed what he called the democratic aspirations that have taken hold throughout the Middle East and North Africa. 

“Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the U.N.,” Mr. Obama said, in an address before world leaders at the General Assembly. “If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.” 
 Less than an hour after Mr. Obama spoke, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France stood at the same podium in a sharp repudiation, calling for a General Assembly resolution that would upgrade the Palestinians to “observer status,” as a bridge towards statehood. “Let us cease our endless debates on the parameters,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “Let us begin negotiations and adopt a precise timetable.” For Mr. Obama, the challenge in crafting the much-anticipated General Assembly speech on Wednesday was how to address the incongruities of the administration’s position: the president who committed himself to making peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians a priority from Day One, who still has not been able to even get peace negotiations going after two and a half years; the president who opened the door to Palestinian state membership at the United Nations last year ending up threatening to veto that very membership; the president who was determined to get on the right side of Arab history ending up, in the views of many on the Arab street, on the wrong side of it on the Palestinian issue.
Contradictions have paralyzed Obama's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well. He promised to act as an even-handed peace broker, yet hasn't dared to defy a Congress dominated by supporters of Israel's right-wing government. After Israel refused Obama's demand that it halt settlement construction he quickly backtracked and has since been silent on the issue. When a U.N. human rights commission condemned Israeli war crimes in Gaza, the U.S. stood firmly by Israel at the U.N. Security Council.
On July 1, the day after Israel issued demolition orders against dozens of Palestinian homes in the Jordan Valley, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, spoke out, saying, "Settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homesites are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace, and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible."
The fact that Israel is violating international law did not prevent Obama from embracing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House five days later. "The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable," the president declared, and expressed faith that Netanyahu was committed to peace. Obama again urged the Palestinians to agree to direct talks with Israel, saying they would "create a climate" that would lead to a solution.
But in fact the "climate" Israel is creating will prevent any solution short of the Palestinians' surrender. The indirect talks brokered this spring by Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell have only deepened differences between the two sides. The Palestinians want to discuss final borders and provisions guaranteeing mutual security. The Israelis refuse to discuss borders until the Palestinians agree to demilitarize completely, recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and accept an Israeli buffer zone in the Jordan Valley.
The Israelis know these demands are unacceptable to the Palestinians, and undoubtedly intend them to prevent serious negotiations. Shortly before Netanyahu left for Washington his national security adviser, Uzi Arad, urged that Israel abandon peace negotiations altogether. "In trying to make peace," he said, "we are embracing an adversary who is conducting a very effective battle against us internationally... Maybe we should be less zealous to champion the Palestinians and more eager to defend our own ranks."
Obama's faith in Netanyahu as peacemaker nevertheless remained intact even after the prime minister said the 10-month construction freeze would not be resumed. In fact, settlement construction during what Netanyahu promised was a 10-month freeze proceeded more rapidly than ever, since the government had hastily authorized thousands of new housing starts in the West Bank in anticipation of the freeze.
The Israeli army recently began driving hundreds of Palestinians from their homes in the Hebron hills and the Jordan Valley to make way for settlements. According to B'Tselem, Israeli settlements now claim jurisdiction over 42 percent of West Bank territory.
The expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem has escalated as well. A week after Netanyahu's visit to Washington Israel announced that construction would begin on 52 new houses in Pisgat Zeev in East Jerusalem. In late June Mayor Nir Barkat announced plans to demolish 22 homes in Silwan, each housing large extended families, to make way for King David Gardens, a collection of upscale shops and apartments for Jews only. Lawyers for the Popular Committee for Silwan say the plans actually call for demolishing 88 homes, not 22.
Israel holds nearly 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, including increasing numbers of nonviolent activists arrested for "incitement." Yet despite popular pressure to do so, the government has refused to agree to Hamas' demand for the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for one Gilad Shalit, the young soldier captured by Hamas in 2006. The government finally did release four Hamas parliament members who had been held for four years as bargaining chips for Shalit. Although all were natives of Jerusalem they were ordered either to move to Gaza or the West Bank or be returned to prison.
On July 10 Israel began construction of a segment of its separation wall that will completely surround the West Bank village of Walajeh. The barrier will curve deeply into the West Bank in order to keep several Israeli settlements, including Har Gilo and the Gush Etzion bloc, on the Israeli side. In 2004 the International Court of Justice ruled, with only the American judge abstaining, that the wall's route through the West Bank created an illegal border, and ordered Israel to tear down the parts of it built on Palestinian territory. Israel rejected the order.
A house belonging to Omar Hajajla lies just outside the wall and consequently will be surrounded entirely by an electric fence. "My children need to cross four gates to get to school," Hajajla said. "It will be hell for my entire family." Like the other residents of Wallajeh, Hajajla is now cut off from his fields and the village is destined to die.
The suffering inflicted on the Palestinians is an integral part of Israeli policy, according to David Shulman, professor of Humanistic Studies at Hebrew University. In an article in the July 15 issue of the New York Review of Books Shulman writes that Israel's government is dominated by right-wing extremists whose policies call for "the further entrenchment of the occupation, with the primary aim of absorbing more and more Palestinian land into Israel," and restricting the Palestinians to isolated enclaves. It is a process, he writes, "that we see advancing literally hour by hour and day by day in the West Bank."
Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery describes Israel's government as an "Israeli version of fascism." That a president of the United States who is dedicated to the advancement of human rights should express unqualified support for such a government is the greatest contradiction of all.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Lazy Americans are Obama's Problem.

 It's TIME TO BLAME  Americans for being Lazy . It's also time to blame the Government too If you can say one thing about the ** GOP, it’s that they stick to the script when it comes to talking points. The latest GOP talking point – that Americans are lazy and like being unemployed – could very well be a winner for the Republicans , come election time.This is true ! There are millions of jobs out there. If you look at the classified section of the newspaper ,  (2) there are Job's. Job's !Why then do we have so many out of work , and a 9.2 % slump altoghter . We have the Department of Labor . Ok , what' is it's job? Obama's  plan is to seed money back again into the infostructure , so in theory construction work could generate more hiree's .  This was done before , it saved public jobs . Most construction Jobs are now being done by mostly 'day laborers' , honestly illigal 'cheap' workers  Job Creators — you know, the folks who ship jobs off to China, with most regulations stripped away, while enjoying the lowest taxes in generations.
This manifests itself in our politics in two ways. For one, it just so happens that policy-makers, pundits and politicians are drawn from the classes that are in recovery, and they live in an area where new sushi restaurants are opening all the time. For even the best-intentioned and most conscientious staffers and aides this has, I think, a subconscious effect. Think of it this way: two office buildings are operating side by side in Chicago's Loop in the middle of a brutally cold January day, when the heat in both buildings gives out. The manager of one building has an on-site office, so he finds himself plunged into cold; the other building is managed remotely, from a warm office whose heat is functioning. If you had to bet, you'd guess that the manager experiencing the cold himself would have a bit more urgency in restoring the heat. The same holds for the economy. The people running the country are not viscerally experiencing the depredations of this ghastly economic winter, and they lack what might be called the "fierce urgency of now" in getting the heat turned back on. 
That's strange since the  ( 3) Republicans campaigned in 2010 on "job creation." Yet the Republicans have held the majority in the House and NOT ONE Republican has offered a jobs plan to put Americans back to work. While hardworking Americans struggle to keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and the heat turned on, my Republican colleagues have not taken one single action to create jobs for the unemployed. The Republicans have completely abandoned any effort to create jobs and now are blatantly destroying good jobs with this Continuing Resolution. In fact, Speaker Boehner recently said "If some of those jobs are lost in the spending cuts, so be it." 
All they care about is defunding Planned Parenthood, getting rid of NPR even thought they tout Rush Limbaugh on Armed Services Radio, and raise getting of all the other social issues which seem to be more important to them than anything even vaguely resemble job creation. I simply cannot imagine anyone voting Republican any more... except, of course, for corporate CEOs and the very, very wealthy.  
Ex-Speaker of the House Tom Delay was the latest conservative to make the claim, as he told CNN’s Candy Crowley that unemployment insurance was the root of all evil:
Crowley: People are unemployed because they want to be?
Delay: well, it is the truth. and people in the real world know it. And they have friends and they know it. Sure, we ought to be helping people that are unemployed find a job, but we also have budget considerations that are incredibly important, especially now that Obama is spending monies that we don’t have.
Earlier in the week, Republican Senator Jon Kyl jumped on that talking point, as well.
“[Unemployment] doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”
If there’s one thing that will guarantee a landslide November victory for the GOP, it’s Republicans telling the millions of jobless Americans that they’re lazy and just want to sit on their ass all day collecting a couple hundred bucks a week in unemployment. For the GOP, it’s a winning talking point.

**....As for the GOP,well YOU all know THEY are too busy to create jobs,they are more concentrated on more and more,and more,yes "TAX CUTS" for the RICH,boring!!!..In fact,27 BILLS have passed trough this CONGRESS and "OFF"course,none of those BILLS were related to JOB GROWTH,TYPICAL CONS!!!......
(2) The first is 4.2. That's the percentage of Americans with a four-year college degree who are unemployed. It's less than half the official unemployment rate of 9 percent for the labor force as a whole and one-fourth the underemployment rate (which counts those who have given up looking for work or are working part time but want full-time work) of 16.1 percent. So while the overall economy continues to suffer through the worst labor market since the Great Depression, the elite centers of power have recovered. For those of us fortunate enough to have graduated from college — and to have escaped foreclosure or an underwater mortgage — normalcy has returned. (3) Politicans have always promised to create more jobs . Yep, we all heard it before .

Monday, September 12, 2011

Obama and FDR

FDR faced 20 % unemployment during the Depression , he created 4 million jobs in 2 months.

In his jobs speech to the nation on Sept. 8, President Barack Obama overstated his case for bipartisan support for each "kind of" proposal in his new jobs stimulus bill. While it's true there is much common ground in Obama's proposal, several of the planks in the plan, called the American Jobs Act, have gotten only token Republican support in the past, while being opposed by an overwhelming majority of Republicans.President Obama's $825 billion economic-stimulus package needs a lot less PWA and a lot more CWA. Harking back to FDR who faced an even greater problem The PWA was the Public Works Administration, led by Harold Ickes Sr. The CWA was the Civil Works Administration, led by Harry Hopkins. Both were New Deal agencies created in 1933 to get Americans quickly back to work at a time when unemployment reached 25 percent, its highest point in U.S. history. The PWA failed. The CWA succeeded.
In his speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama laid out a $447 billion plan that aims to jump-start employment. It includes tax cuts for employers and employees, tax cuts for businesses that hire new employees, unemployment assistance, money to build roads and bridges and money to states for teachers, firefighters and police officers. It's a plan, Obama said repeatedly, that should get support from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Obama, Sept. 8:There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here tonight.
Obama, Sept. 8:Every proposal I've laid out tonight is the kind that's been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.
In a press gaggle aboard Air Force One on Sept. 9, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the talking point, saying, the American Jobs Act "as you know, is comprised of a series of measures that have historically garnered bipartisan support.
The implication was clear: Republicans who don't support the bill are simply being obstructionists. But is it true that Republicans have supported "the kind of" proposals laid out by Obama?
Some of them, for sure.
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor acknowledged as much in a blog post on Sept. 9.
"From the trade agreements, tax relief for small businesses, regulatory relief, and unemployment benefits programs, there are a lot of areas of commonality between the House Republicans' jobs plan and the proposals the [p]resident discussed last night," Cantor said.
But the evidence for Republican support of some of the other measures in Obama's plan is thin. In some cases, we are talking about only a few Republicans who bucked the overwhelming opposition of their party.
Aid for Teachers and Firefighters?
For example, part of the Obama plan is to invest $35 billion to prevent the layoffs of up to 280,000 teachers, police officers and firefighters, and to hire tens of thousands more.
In December 2009, House Democrats passed the Jobs for Main Street Act that included $24 billion for state and local governments to retain teachers and police officers. (Not unlike what is included in Obama's plan now.) It did not include a tax credit for small businesses that create jobs.
It passed the House 217 to 212, but not a single Republican voted for it. The measure never took hold in the Senate, however.
In March 2010, six House Republicans joined 211 Democrats to help pass a pared-down version of the bill, then called the HIRE Act. The $17.5 billion bill included a temporary payroll tax break to companies that hire jobless people. Notably, however, it was opposed by 166 House Republicans. Two weeks later, 11 Republican senators helped pass a Senate version of the bill. But it also was opposed by a majority of Senate Republicans - 28.
On Aug. 5, 2010, two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, crossed party lines and voted for a bill that included $10 billion for state governments to spare thousands of teachers whose jobs were imperiled by strapped state budgets. But 39 Republicans voted against it.
In short, there has been scant Republican support for increased federal aid to states to retain and hire teachers, police and firefighters.
Money to Modernize Schools?
The Obama plan also includes $25 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools, as well as $5 billion to modernize community colleges. It's true that in June 2008, 27 House Republicans voted for a $6.4 billion bill to modernize and make repairs to public schools. The bill passed the House 250 to 164, with all the votes against it coming from Republicans.
And on Sept. 17, 2009, 16 House Republicans joined 246 Democrats to beat back an amendment (H. Amdt. 425) that would have cut $6.6 billion for school construction funding from the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. However, 155 Republicans and six Democrats voted in favor of the amendment.
Again, that's not much evidence of Republican support for increasing federal spending on school construction.
As for Obama's plan to spend $50 billion on highways, transit, rail and aviation, the White House notes that before the stimulus passed in early 2009, Republicans, led by Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Richard Burr and Mel Martinez, offered their own alternative stimulus plan - one that was half the cost of the Democrats' plan, but included $65 billion in state grants to build and repair bridges and roads.
We asked House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel via e-mail whether all of the kinds of proposals in Obama's plan enjoyed support from Democrats and Republicans. He replied:
Steel, Sept. 9: Not even close. For starters, the plan includes direct aid to states, 'modernizing' schools, spending on 'shovel ready projects, rehabbing homes, expanding the internet, etc. Those are the same 'kind of proposal' that made up the President's stimulus bill. As you know, every single Republican in the House voted against that bill. Do Republicans oppose infrastructure and the internet? Of course not. But we've not supported this 'kind of proposal' as a means to boost the economy.
The president has yet to say exactly how he would pay for his plan. However, he promised to release next week a deficit plan that would cover the cost of the American Jobs Act and more. That plan, he said, would include tax increases for the wealthiest Americans, a proposal that has been adamantly opposed by Republicans.Again, some of the proposals in Obama's plan — tax relief for small business and regulatory relief, for example — have clearly gotten support from Republicans in the past. But when Obama claimed that all the "kinds of" proposals in his plan have gotten Republican support in the past, he overplayed his hand. Some of the spending proposals in Obama's plan have gotten scant Republican support when similar measures were proposed in the past, and many were overwhelmingly opposed by a majority of Republicans.

The strategy behind Obama's stimulus bill resembles that of the PWA. Like the stimulus, the PWA tackled unemployment indirectly by spending money largely through private contractors. That handicap—worsened by Ickes' cautious-to-a-fault management style—resulted in only $110 million of the program's authorized $3.3 billion getting spent during the program's crucial first year. Frustrated by Ickes' poky pace, Roosevelt yielded to the pleas of his relief administrator, Harry Hopkins, to help get unemployed workers through the coming winter by putting them directly onto the federal payroll. Roosevelt had been reluctant to create a federal work program for fear of alienating organized labor. Hopkins overcame that worry by pointing out that Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, had in 1898 proposed essentially the same idea. Roosevelt diverted not quite one-third of Ickes' PWA budget to Hopkins' CWA with the goal of putting to work 4 million people. As a percentage of the population, that would be the equivalent of putting 10 million people to work today. In his first weekly radio address, Obama pledged that the stimulus package would "save or create 3 to 4 million jobs over the next few years." (His budget director estimates that 75 percent of the money will be spent within 18 months.) Hopkins got there within two months.Obama 'promised' this in 2009 with his first stimulus .
The government employed people to carry out a range of different tasks. These projects included the Works Projects Administration (WPA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the National Youth Administration (NYA), Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the Public Works Administration (PWA). Other schemes adminstered by the Works Projects Administration included the Federal Writers Project (1935-39) Federal Theatre Project (1935-39) and the Federal Art Project (1935-43).

As well as trying to reduce unemployment, Roosevelt also attempted to reduce the misery for those who were unable to work. One of the bodies Roosevelt formed was the Federal Emergency Relief Administration which provided federal money to help those in desperate need.

Other legislation passed by Roosevelt included the Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933), National Housing Act (1934), the Federal Securities Act (1934). In August 1935 the Social Security Act was passed. This act set up a national system of old age pensions and co-ordinated federal and state action for the relief of the unemployed.

During the 1936 presidential election, Roosevelt was attacked for not keeping his promise to balance the budget. The National Labour Relations Act was unpopular with businessmen who felt that it favoured the trade unions. Some went as far as accusing Roosevelt of being a communist. However, the New Deal was extremely popular with the electorate and Roosevelt easily defeated the Republican Party candidate, Alfred M. Landon, by 27,751,612 votes to 16,681,913.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

9-11 and Pearl Harbor , a memorial.

 Remembering 9-11 is much more painful that Pearl Harbor , the WTC towers were a symbol of American Capitalism .

( *)There are some parallels about September 11th , 2001 and Pear Harbor . Both were 'days of infamy' that roused America to war .In the days after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the New York World Trade Center building, comparisons to Pearl Harbor were frequently made. Both attacks resulted in a spirit of American unity. A common enemy was identified. A national government galvanized American energies to combat and destroy the forces that attacked the homeland. How true are comparisons of these events? In many ways, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 represented vastly different events that affected Americans in dissimilar ways. The Pearl Harbor attack was an attempted invasion of American Territories by the Empire of Japan . 9-11 was a strange bye product of America's failure in foreign affairs in the Middle -East . The 9-11 hijackers were  NOT bread on on conquest as the Japanese warriors who bombed Pearl Harbor , (2)  but more fueled hatred of Western Values ( which are considered by Muslims as Immoral ( ## )We were not prepared for the kind of inhumanity from savages in suits but minds still in the 7th century. In modern society the average citizen is insulated from war, strife, oppressive Islamic regimes, sharia law, and terrorism.
The aftermath of 9/11 saw a concerted effort on the part of the Bush Administration to forestall any anti-Muslim violence in the United States. Unlike 1941, no popular songs targeted Islamic or Muslim nations. National Public Radio’s “Performance Tonight” featured somber, mournful concerts from around the world. It was time of global solidarity. Americans bought stickers displaying the stars and stripes and pasted them on their cars. Members of Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol singing “God Bless America.”But the enemy in 2001 was elusive, identified with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Unlike the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the fast-paced nature of American society soon forgot the initial shock. A prolonged war in the Middle East, first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, imposed no sacrifices on American society. Muslims in America were not put into camps or targeted, and great efforts were made to avoid “racial profiling.” In many ways, this was a step in the right direction.But perhaps there are dangers if we focus too much on 9/11: that we try to relate everything that has happened over the past decade to what happened on that terrible day - and that we fail to acknowledge the other profound changes that have been under way while we've been concentrating on potential suicide bombers.
 (2)The attack on the World Trade Center was no Pearl Harbor, because it was directed at civilians by civilians, albeit civilians terrorists. No account of the last decade, and no proper examination of cause and effect can fail to ignore America – and Britain’s  response – the war on Iraq. What is done can never be un-done, but at the very least we can and must learn from history
(*)Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 evokes much passion among young Americans as the nation approaches the second decade of the new century. The pace of technology has relegated these events to the confines of “history.” Pearl Harbor was a rallying cry, much like “Remember the Maine” in 1898. But as the “greatest generation” passes on, the “day of infamy” becomes a foggy remembrance of a past that seems disconnected to the present.(##) What  Certain Muslims  ( Shiite - Wahhabi )  view western society as 'loose morally' with pervasive sexual immorality due to the fact that women are uncovered in public  . Islam o-fascists hate us for supporting Israel for occupying Palestinian lands. What ever the reason  NOT ALL MUSLIMS subscribe to Bin Ladism , or a call to kill infidels in Jihad style . Each sect in Islam interprets the Quran differently as would Christians do with the Bible.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

San Bruno fire , should have been in Frisco.

 Let's change where the explosion happened , see how the feds would jump.

The San Bruno fire in no ones mind is a horrible tragedy . The loss of life and PG&E's attitude unwilling to take the initiative and to compensate the victims is inexcusable . So what if the San Bruno explosion happened  instead in a much bigger city  Like San Fransisco ? You may not know but the big city is laced with underground gas lines going back to the 1880's . San Fransisco is another ticking time bomb for PG&E . Who knows when it "could" blow up , and it's all a matter of time . If San Fransisco were to explode like San Bruno , the loss of life would be in the thousands .  (3 ) A culture of complacency still exists after the Sept. 9, 2010 natural-gas explosion in San Bruno, in which eight people were killed and a neighbored leveled. Seventy homes sustained damage and 18 homes adjacent to the destroyed dwellings were left uninhabitable. FEMA would jump in . The Feds and so on.........................

I have to praise the efforts of City Attorney (and mayoral candidate) Dennis Herrera for his efforts to stand up against SFO mayor Lee.

I almost couldn't believe it -- the same week that the feds came down and essentially called Pacific Gas and Electric Co. a crew of incompetent crooks, Mayor Ed Lee goes to a PG&E PR event and talks about what a great company it is. He actually said PG&E was "a great company that gets it."
 (1) PG&E kills people, blows up houses, tries to block consumer choice, screws the city out of millions of dollars -- and then uses some of its vast cash flow, which comes out of all of our pockets, to improve its image in the community by giving some money to a nonprofit that helps kids learn to read and play baseball. Nice that the company can cough up $250,000 -- which is about .005% of the $50 million the company spent to block public power efforts. Thanks, guys. Sweet of you.
Listen: This sort of stunt is cheap PR for the utility. I'm happy that RBI got some money, but that doesn't excuse what the city's greatest corporate criminal has done -- and it shouldn't buy the mayor's praise.
City Attorney (and mayoral candidate) Dennis Herrera was outraged. He issued a statement this morning saying
“Ed Lee’s lavish praise for PG&E as ‘a great corporation’ on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the San Bruno tragedy, just days after federal regulators blamed the utility for a ‘litany of failures’ that claimed eight lives, is unconscionable,” said Herrera.  “It shows insensitivity to victims’ families, and poor judgment for allowing his office to be used as a corporate PR tool.  (2)  No less troubling, it ignores the serious work my office and others have done to protect San Franciscans from PG&E’s negligence, to prevent further explosions like those in San Bruno last year and in Cupertino on Wednesday.  The interim Mayor should reassess his laudatory view of PG&E, and apologize to San Bruno victims’ families.”
Kind of obvious, no? Well, not according to the mayor, whose campaign spokesman, Tony Winnicker, had this to say:
This is just another political cheap shot from the City Attorney. Ed Lee was one of the first people to hold PG&E accountable for the condition of its infrastructure in SF and witnessed first hand the devastation and suffering caused by PG&E's negligence in San Bruno within days of the blast. Holding PG&E accountable for the loss and suffering they've caused doesn't mean you shouldn't recognize when they also do something good for our public schools and low-income kids. We wish more local companies would get it and support our public schools and low-income kids, and THAT is what Mayor Lee was talking about.
And if there's anyone who should apologize in this instance, it is Dennis Herrera for shamelessly using the victims of the San Bruno blast and the students of Bessie Carmichael as fodder for his political attacks on Mayor Lee.
Actually, I think that the fact that the company is a corporate criminal should, indeed, be a factor in recognizing it for trying to buy goodwill in the community. But as for Herrera, when I told him about Winnicker's statement, he went a bit further:
"The mayor should understand the importance and impact his words have and what the appropriate context might be for his complements for a corporate citizen's contributions."
Spoken like a lawyer, but you get the point: This was really stupid, inappropriate and embarassing.
You wonder how PG&E got Lee to this event -- although you don't have to wonder too much. Lee's pal Willie Brown is on a PG&E retainer at about $200,000 a year.
John Avalos has also weighed in on this, releasing a statement that makes all the points:
Ed Lee called PG&E a “great corporation” yesterday–a great corporation who spent $50 million last year trying to pass a ballot measure that would ensure their monopoly in places like San Francisco instead of repairing and inspecting pipes like the one that caused this terrible destruction.  Now this “great” corporation want its customers to foot the bills for its negligence and bad practices?  Ed Lee says that this corporation “gets it.”  PG&E seem to “get” that a symbolic donation to a charity at the height of their unpopularity might help their rate-payers forget the catastrophic results of their negligence and bad practices.
The residents of that neighborhood in San Bruno will not forget. The families of those who lost their lives that day will not forget. And anyone who fought to defeat Proposition 16, in an effort to maintain a city’s right to produce their own power won’t forget the blatant cynicism of this corporation.
I’m deeply disappointed, and I would like Mayor Lee to tell San Franciscans what makes this corporation “great” and what it is besides insider politics and business as usual that PG&E “gets.”
So far, the rest of the candidates have been a bit shy about going directly after the mayor. It's about time they started.


(1) Activists and customers are asking for investigations into the cozy relationship between the regulator and utility, particularly in the aftermath of the San Bruno devastation and revelations of PG&E’s many safety violations. And many hope that the report does not become just another exercise in futility, as do most reports involving state agencies and oversight in California.
Critics of PG&E’s spending say that a great deal of money has gone to personal enrichment at the utility instead of improving pipeline safety. In the Manteca Bulletin, Dennis Wyatt listed some of the excessive spending at PG&E:
* $46 million into the Proposition 16 campaign in a failed attempt to get voters to amend the California constitution to provide PG&E with a guaranteed monopoly.
* $35 million to sweeten departed chief executive officer Peter Darbee’s severance package.
* $12 million to buy a new corporate jet.
* More than $10 million into bonuses paid to top executives as a reward for steering the company to the edge of bankruptcy.
“That’s $103 million in just four instances that could have gone into improving pipeline safety,” Wyatt wrote.
And Wyatt reported, “[T]hat is on top of a $35 million fine for state-imposed building and collection violations, $26 million in fines for a 2009 Christmas Eve natural gas pipeline explosion that killed a customer in Rancho Cordova, and millions more in fines for wild land fires started due to failing to maintain power line right-of-ways.” (2)  While PG&E is a privately held “Investor Owned Utility,” it is difficult to ignore the utility’s excessive spending practices and failure to invest in important pipeline upgrades.
Last fall, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) released PG&E memos proving that the utility considered the San Bruno pipeline among its top 100 riskiest sections needing replacement. (3) Among many allegations, the report charged that PG&E and the CPUC are more concerned about filling out reports and “checking boxes” than actual safety.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

Obama, Democrats Losing , can this be?

 Obama must get 'really to work'
 (1) The President has one of his 'greatest' challenges ahead , first he has to deliver a plan to get the nation working again . Second he must 'convince' the Republicans , and get them working with him . There is a strong chance that he can turn things around . Time is running out Markets in the US took a dive on Friday (US time) when a government report showed no job growth last month, at a time of sagging consumer confidence. With all time low ratings of 38 % , and a disapproval rating of 54 % percent Obama faces a uphill battle to turn things around .
Economists raised new concerns about recession after the US Labour Department said private-sector employment, previously the main engine for job growth as revenue-strapped government departments shed workers, "changed little" in most major industries.
AFP reported a meagre 17,000 private-sector jobs were added in August, down from a revised 156,000 in July. But those were offset by 17,000 jobs shed by the Government.
Craigs Investment Partners broker Chris Timms yesterday said job numbers were particularly important as they were an indication of economic growth.
"Employment growth and economic growth go hand-in-hand. If the economy is stronger, jobs will flow. Fewer jobs indicates a stopping of economic growth.
"At the moment, people are looking for any indication of things getting better in the US."
US commentators were reported as saying the "job machine" had ground to a halt and that the US had already entered or was at least close to entering another recession.
It was the first time in 10 months the US economy had not produced net growth in non-farm payrolls.
"The stagnation in US payroll employment is an ominous sign," said Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics. "The broad message is that even if the US economy doesn't start to contract again, any expansion is going to be very, very modest and fall well short of what would be needed to drive the still elevated unemployment rate lower."
The Labour Department said the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.1% from July. It was the 28th month the jobless rate has been at 9.0% and above.
The number of unemployed people was essentially unchanged at 14 million.
The jobs data for August was the worst since September 2010, when the economy lost more than twice the number of jobs it created. The pace of job growth remains far below the expansion needed to reduce the high unemployment rate.
Yesterday, Mr Obama urged a divided congress to pass a clean extension of the transportation Bill, a measure financing road building and other infrastructure projects.
The president warned that failure of congress to act would be disastrous for the economy, costing nearly one million workers their jobs over the next year and almost $US1 billion ($NZ1.18 billion) in highway funding after the first 10 days.
His speech to a joint session of congress on Thursday (US time) will be when Mr Obama is expected to lay out a plan to create jobs and stimulate the moribund economy.
Mr Timms said New Zealand's sharemarket would take its lead from the US and he expected the NZX-50 index to fall this morning on light volume before taking a lead from Australia, when markets opened at noon NZ time, and from Asia.
The Dow Jones Industrial Index plunged 2.2% on Friday, the technology-rich Nasdaq was down 2.6% and the broad-based Standard & Poor's index dropped 2.5% in Friday trade.
"We will feel the impact of those falls but I think most people are not feeling it is doom and gloom for us. I expect our market will be weak, but not dramatically," Mr Timms said.

 In the early days of the Obama administration, organized labor had grand visions of pushing through a sweeping agenda that would help boost sagging membership and help revive union strength.
Now labor faces this reality: Public employee unions are in a drawn-out fight for their very survival in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states where GOP lawmakers have curbed collective bargaining rights.
Also, many union leaders are grousing that the president they worked so hard to elect has not focused enough on job creation and other bold plans to get their members back to work.
"Obama campaigned big, but he's governing small," said Larry Hanley, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union.
Labor remains a core Democratic constituency and union leaders will stand with Obama in Detroit this Labor Day, where he will address thousands of rank-and-file members during the city's annual parade Monday.
But at the same time, unions have begun shifting money and resources out of Democratic congressional campaigns and back to the states in a furious effort to reverse or limit GOP measures that could wipe out union rolls.
The AFL-CIO's president, Richard Trumka, says it's part of a new strategy for labor to build an independent voice separate from the Democratic Party.
Union donations to federal candidates at the beginning of this year were down about 40 percent compared with the same period in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Last month, a dozen trade unions said they would boycott next year's Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., over frustration on the economy and to protest the event's location in a right-to-work state.
"The pendulum has swung a long way," said Ross Eisenbrey, a vice president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute. "In the next year, I think all unions can really hope for is to keep more bad things from happening and to get as much of a jobs program enacted as possible."
Unions fell short last month in their recall campaign to wrest control of the Wisconsin Senate from Republicans. That fight was a consequence of Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public-employee unions as a part of a cost-cutting effort. Now they are spending millions more in Ohio, where they hope to pass a statewide referendum in November that would repeal a similar measure limiting union rights.
It's a far cry from the early optimism unions had after Obama came into office. Back then, unions hoped a Democratic-controlled Congress would pass legislation to make it easier for unions to organize workers. But business groups fought that proposal hard, and it never came to a vote.
Union leaders grew more (*)disappointed when the president's health care overhaul didn't include a government-run insurance option. Then Obama agreed to extend President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
Obama came out in favor of trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that most unions say will cost American jobs.  (2)Despite campaigning in favor of raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.50 an hour, Obama hasn't touched the issue since taking office.


 (*) "The Democrats try to help with healthcare as people for 8 years watched the healthcare industry price them right out." (1)Obama's job creation plan is a one word thing-----
­Stimulus--­----and I would like to see how he gets that passed in our GOP House----h­e knows it just is not so and not to mention the first stimulus failed miserably. The Nation has 14 million out of work , but what percentage is illegal aliens account for ? African - American unemployment is over 40 % nation wide.
  (2)Unions have caused their own problems over the years by demanding more, more, more, but not contributng on their end. For example, I know a worker at a Chrysler/F­iat plant in Detroit, skilled trades is his job category, making $40/hour. He only works if something breaks down. otherwise he does nothing. That's a minimum of $83,200/ye­ar with a great possibilit­y of overtime, plus holiday pay, medical benefits, etc. How many cars does Chrysler/F­iat, a company which has been bankrupted­-bailed out-bought­/sold numerous times, have to sell just to pay this one guy's salary. Multiply that by the thousands of C/F's employees, management­, administra­tive staff, physical plant upkeep, debt payment, etc. and it's no wonder their stock is worthless and pays no dividends.Obama did not keep his promise to end 'outsourcing' or off shoring' jobs