Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

Heard a journo down under once make the comment.. "Politicians aren't voted IN, they're voted OUT" - and I agree.

 

Whoever is in opposition (be it in Oz, the US, UK anywhere I guess) will continually remind us (Jo Public) that they would have done things better. When whoever is in charge stuffs up enough - the other side get a run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul wins California straw poll

 

 

(CNN) -- Texas Rep. Ron Paul won a California straw poll, the state Republican Party announced in a statement Saturday night.

 

A total of 833 ballots were cast during the straw poll, the statement said.

 

Paul won with 44.9% of the votes, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in second with 29.3% of the votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 8.8% of the votes.

 

The California Republican Party, associated members and registered guests were allowed to vote in the straw poll, according to the statement.

 

Paul was scheduled to give speeches in Los Angeles on Saturday, including the keynote at the Republican Liberty Caucus of California.

 

He has gained momentum in the race for the White House in recent weeks, according to the latest CNN/ORC International Poll. Among current GOP candidates, Paul placed third in the poll with 13%, following Romney in second place with 21% and Perry in first with 32%.

 

His win came the same day he celebrated Constitution Day with another one of his "money bomb" fundraisers.

 

The online event attempts to raise a large sum of cash in 24 hours, a tactic that's proved successful in the past for Paul.

 

 

Wonder if it means anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walking Off the Democrat Plantation – The Providence of Change

 

By Providence Crowder

 

 

Ok, here’s the story. I was born and raised a Democrat. As odd as “being born a Democrat†may sound, that statement is as true as it is tragic. Both of my parents were, my aunts and uncles were, and every influential adult in my life proclaimed to be . . . a Democrat. I hadn’t considered questioning why because politics didn’t interest me much. I inherently knew that I was one, and when I became of voting age, the fundamental rule was that I must vote the party line all the way down the voting ticket.

 

Why Democrat, you may ask? Because all black people, as far as I was told, voted Democrat. And since I was black, that made me Democrat. So when I turned 18 years of age, I registered to vote and voted as any good black American would. I followed the example of those around me and saddled that Democrat donkey every election Tuesday without understanding the issues, without learning the party platforms, and without a thorough assessment of the candidates. Heck, I didn’t even care to know such things; I just wanted the Democrats to win the election against those “racist†Republicans that I had been taught were against black people. I wanted the rich to pay their fair share like we, the poor and working class Americans, were. I didn’t even mind a little redistribution of wealth when it came to someone else’s fortune, as long as mine was left alone.

 

MY CHRISTIAN ROOTS

 

Moreover, my Christian roots ran deeper than my Democratic ones. I was raised in a strongly conservative Christian home, and even though for a time I had strayed, I eventually grew to know and love Christ on my own as an adult. Christianity became no longer my parent’s religion, but MY faith, MY conviction, MY choice. I eventually began to seek godliness in all areas of my life; work, home, recreation . . . in everything. My Christian worldview even caused me to, for the first time, examine my politics.

 

Upon a closer examination of my party, I learned that most of the Democratic Party’s platform stood against many biblical moral standards. Generally, they rejected the biblical definition of marriage and they overwhelmingly supported abortion. I learned that more often than not, when I voted for a Democratic candidate, I was voting against my family values. That troubled me greatly and I began to question my loyalty to the party; and after I began to make my way through college and learn a little about economics, I discovered that the Democratic Party’s economic policies were detrimental for not only black Americans, but for all Americans!

 

Their socialist policies have managed to create a permanent underclass of poor blacks dependent on government programs and entitlements for survival. Their policies have done what 400 years of slavery couldn’t do; destroy the black family. The government has replaced the father in many poor black households by promising young mothers that they would provide for her and her children and pay her bills, as long as the father was not in the home. Their policies have discouraged work by providing greater benefits and incentives for staying home. Their policies have supported the genocide of black babies through the public funding of “murder on demand†corporations such as Planned Parenthood. Their policies have turned affirmative action into an unfair quota system that discriminates against white men and at the same time puts into question the qualifications and merit of accomplished blacks. After learning all this, I remembered on several occasions telling my husband, “You know I’m a Republican on paper. I like the party but not the people. They are spot on point and I agree with most of what they’re saying, but I will not vote for any of those racists.â€

 

I was almost free, but the great escape didn’t come without challenge. After all that I had learned, I still wanted a reason to vote Democrat because I subconsciously feared going against my cultural norm. I had just the reason. Republicans were racist and did NOT want me to be a part of their party! Though I had seen those black Republican weirdo sell-outs on TV (through sound bites played on MSNBC), it wasn’t until my first personal encounter with a black Republican, a friend and co-worker, that I would finally break the Democratic stronghold, break free from the groupthink politics that have left blacks politically inept; escape the mental slavery that the modern day plantation of “entitlements†and “government help†have used to entice many into laziness, dependency, and unproductivity. Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann were starting to lose their grip on me.

 

HELP FROM A FRIEND

 

My dear conservative friend introduced me to some historical facts about the Democratic Party that helped push me to research for myself whether or not the claims he made were true. What I learned crushed my beliefs that the Republican Party was full of racists who were trying to hold the black man down. What I learned left me with no affinity for my inherited party; I was left, finally, with NO good reason to vote Democrat.

 

What I found out in my quest for political clarity was that the Republican party passed EVERY civil rights legislation in regard to black Americans, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was signed by a Democrat president but only passed because of a Republican congress’ overwhelming support. Most Democrats in congress opposed it. Republicans passed the 13th amendment, freeing black slaves; the 14th amendment, giving blacks their citizenship; the 15th amendment, granting blacks the right to vote. Even still, whenever Democrats would take back control of the white house and congress, they would prevent blacks from buying land, they denied them fair wages for their work, and they undid many of the civil rights advancements of the Republicans.

 

Republicans were largely responsible for promoting and defending the civil rights of blacks while Democrats fought to lynch us, enslave us, and keep us as second-class citizens. I discovered that even civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was Republican and so was abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Other abolitionists, both black and white, were Republican. In fact, I learned that the Republican Party (initially comprised of disgruntled Democrats, Whigs, and Free Soil party members) was established in 1854 as the anti-slavery party; they opposed the spreading of slavery into free states.

 

I had always been told that white people were the ones who upheld slavery and fought to keep black people down. I had never heard the political aspect of the civil rights controversy. White people who identified themselves as Republican (most also identified themselves as Protestant Christians or Evangelicals) fought to free black slaves. They clearly identified their enemy as Democrat, or Southern Democrat, the ones who wanted to maintain and spread slavery. John Mark Reynolds once said of the Republican Party, “When it came time to confront the original sin of the nation—slavery—the Republican Party was on the Lord’s side.†Once they were granted the right to vote, blacks voted Republican and worked alongside white Republicans to advance our freedom in this country.

 

(Part 2, starting with “THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S SHAMEFUL PAST†will be published tomorrow. Don’t miss it! )

 

My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are far more black republicans amongst the middle and upper middle classes than there are in the lower ones. Which should be of no surprise. Black middle classes have adopted the ideology just like white middle classes has. Most blacks were hardened Republicans up till FDR. The first post civil war and reconstruction blacks in state and congressional houses were republican. FDR and specifically Eleanor Roosevelt who was a champion of civil rights, pretty much single handedly converted most blacks to the Democratic party. However, some remained in the Republican party. BB King is probably the most famous of blacks of those whose families never left the 'party of Lincoln'. I have an uncle from Oklahoma whose family have been Republican since Lincoln as well.

 

Blacks will continue to vote over 90% for the party. The one person who might have changed that could have been Colin Powell, who despite being a Republican is very popular amongst blacks. I wouldn't count this article as any thing of a sign of a change. Bush and then Obama helped solidify blacks as dems.

 

Repubilcans have tried to win over black at times but I think the party has written off blacks. Using social welfare as a wedge issue is proof of that. The 'face' of social welfare is black in people's minds, despite that more whites in terms of numbers (not percentage) are on wefare and despite corporate welfare costing more.

 

I'm sure there are possibly more cases of people leaving the Republican party. The last election gives us some evidence of that.

 

I personally lack faith in BOTH parties. Also, I've long heard it asked why blacks just hand over their votes to the democratic party, its the same with a few groups. Same could be said of white fundamentalists to the Republican party, gays to the Democrats. Republicans have a reputation for being 'anti-black. It may or may not be true but thats the Rep. Many blacks aren't happy with the state of social welfare and even when I was growing up with many neighbors on it, it was not seen as a positive thing despite what people believe. The ones who abused welfare in black neighborhoods are not liked by their neighbors, always was and still is. I've never heard it said its a good thing. Black churches have always preached the work hard, get an education angle and preachers have always preached to not rely on it for most. There are a few who most feel needs it in black neighborhoods and its usually the elderly. Single moms on it always had a stignma in black neighborhoods despite the belief by the larger society that its accepted in black neighborhoods. Even in the poorest neighborhoods most people work. Its a minority of people on welfare in poor neighborhoods despite the belief that most people are on it. The percentages change according to the neighborhood and in housing projects it was particularly high but by and large it was not everyone. It was a minority of people. There is always some residual anger by other blacks at the grocery store where you buy your hard earned groceries from a hard days work and the (usually) woman in front of you pulls out food stamps. There is also a stigma. You're lower on the social ladder. There is always an unsaid tension and feeling by the food stamp holder that people are looking down on her. Its always been that way. It was never socially accepted to be on it. No one wanted to be on it. Some of my friends were growing up and that as well as free lunch programs were always a social line of demarcatiion. You weren't good enough for the girl's or guy's family that weren't on it if you wanted to date them.

 

However, its seen by many blacks that when Republicans discuss its used to anger whites against blacks to get votes and stir up racial animosity. We can debate if its true or not but that's the perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realise that about B.B. King.

 

My understanding always was that the "Black Codes" were written to try to keep black folks from voting. Since they voted Republican, the Democrats wanted to stop them from voting - period. No coincidence that the "Black Codes" were must strictly enforced in the areas were black voters outnumbered white voters (e.g. South Carolina and Mississippi).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retiree Benefits for the Military Could Face Cuts

 

 

As Washington looks to squeeze savings from once-sacrosanct entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, another big social welfare system is growing as rapidly, but with far less scrutiny: the health and pension benefits of military retirees.

 

Military pensions and health care for active and retired troops now cost the government about $100 billion a year, representing an expanding portion of both the Pentagon budget — about $700 billion a year, including war costs — and the national debt, which together finance the programs.

 

Making even incremental reductions to military benefits is typically a doomed political venture, given the public’s broad support for helping troops, the political potency of veterans groups and the fact that significant savings take years to appear.

 

But the intense push in Congress this year to reduce the debt and the possibility that the Pentagon might have to begin trimming core programs like weapons procurement, research, training and construction have suddenly made retiree benefits vulnerable, military officials and experts say.

 

And if Congress fails to adopt the deficit-reduction recommendations of a bipartisan joint Congressional committee this fall, the Defense Department will be required under debt ceiling legislation passed in August to find about $900 billion in savings over the coming decade. Cuts that deep will almost certainly entail reducing personnel benefits for active and retired troops, Pentagon officials and analysts say.

 

“We’ve got to put everything on the table,†Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said recently on PBS, acknowledging that he was looking at proposals to rein in pension costs.

 

Under the current rules, service members who retire after 20 years are eligible for pensions that pay half their salaries for life, indexed for inflation, even if they leave at age 38. They are also eligible for lifetime health insurance through the military’s system, Tricare, at a small fraction of the cost of private insurance, prompting many working veterans to shun employer health plans in favor of military insurance.

 

Advocates of revamping the systems argue that they are not just fiscally untenable but also unfair.

 

The annual fee for Tricare Prime, an H.M.O.-like program for military retirees, is just $460 for families and has not risen in years, even as health care costs have skyrocketed. Critics of the system say the contribution could be raised substantially and still be far lower than what civilians pay for employer-sponsored health plans, typically about $4,000.

 

Those critics also argue that under the current rules, 83 percent of former service members receive no pension payments at all — because only veterans with 20 years of service are eligible. Those with 5 or even 15 years are not, even if they did multiple combat tours. Such a structure would be illegal in the private sector, and a company that tried it could be penalized, experts say.

 

“It cries out for some rationalization,†said Sylvester J. Schieber, a former chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board. “Why should we ask somebody to sustain a system that’s unfair by any other measure in our society?â€

 

But within military circles, and among many members of Congress, the benefits are considered untouchable. Veterans groups and military leaders argue that the system helps retain capable commissioned and noncommissioned officers.

 

And having volunteered to put their lives at risk, those people deserve higher-quality benefits, supporters argue. The typical beneficiary, they add, is not a general but a retired noncommissioned officer, with an average pension of about $26,000 a year.

 

“The whole reason military people are willing to pursue a career is because after 20, 30 years of extraordinary sacrifice, there is a package commensurate with that sacrifice upon leaving service,†said Steven P. Strobridge, a retired Air Force colonel who is the director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America, which is lobbying against changes to the benefits.

 

A wild-card factor in the debate is the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, which some experts say could avoid the stigma of cutting benefits while troops are at war.

 

“The fact that you are getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan does make it easier,†said Lawrence J. Korb, a senior Pentagon official in the Reagan administration who was a co-author of a recent proposal for reducing the cost of military health care. “When the war in Iraq was in terrible shape, it was hard to get people to join the military, and no one wanted to touch any military benefits.â€

 

By far the most contentious proposal circulating in Washington is from a Pentagon advisory panel, the Defense Business Board. It would make the military pension system, a defined benefit plan, more like a 401(k) plan under which the Pentagon would make contributions to a service member’s individual account; contributions by the troops themselves would be optional. Mr. Panetta has said that if adopted, the plan would not apply to current military personnel.

 

While health care costs for active and retired troops are growing faster, military pension costs are larger. Last year, for every dollar the Pentagon paid service members, it spent an additional $1.36 for its military retirees, a much smaller group. Even in the troubled world of state and municipal pension funds, pensions almost never cost more than payrolls.

 

Citing the fiscal hazards and inequities of the system, the Defense Business Board proposal would allow soldiers with less than 20 years of service to leave with a small nest egg, provided they served a minimum length of time, three to five years. But it would prevent all retirees from receiving benefits until they were 60.

 

The business board says that its proposal would reduce the plan’s total liabilities to $1.8 trillion by 2034, from the $2.7 trillion now projected — all without cutting benefits for current service members.

 

Steve Griffin of Tallahassee, Fla., is the type of soldier the defense board is trying to appeal to: a former captain who did two tours in Iraq, he left the Army in 2010 after five years of service and thus receives no pension.

 

Yet in a sign of the deep support for the existing system, Mr. Griffin says it should be left alone because it provides incentives for recruitment and rewards retirees who have endured great hardship.

 

“Yes, it would be nice for people like me,†Mr. Griffin, 28, said of the proposal. “But I think the retirement system now is fair. We shouldn’t take anything from it. If anything, we should add to it.â€

 

Much like in the debate over Social Security, questions about the sustainability of the military pension system abound.

 

Each year the Defense and Treasury Departments set aside more than $75 billion to pay not only current and future benefits but also pensions for service many years in the past. But the retirement fund has not accumulated nearly enough money to cover its total costs, with assets of $278 billion at the end of 2009 and obligations of about $1.4 trillion.

 

The government tries to close the shortfall by simply issuing more Treasury securities each year, thereby adding to the nation’s debt.

 

Given the political potency of veterans groups, it is unclear whether anyone in Congress will lead an effort to revamp the pension or retiree health systems.

 

But the debt ceiling agreement approved this summer by Congress, under which the Pentagon must find $400 billion in reductions over the next 12 years, may force cuts once considered unthinkable. And if Congress does not adopt the recommendations of the bipartisan committee studying deficit reduction, the mandated reductions in Pentagon spending would more than double, to about $900 billion, and fall on just about every category of defense spending.

 

Deficit hawks, led by Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, have begun taking smaller steps, pushing for an array of cuts to military benefits, including ending subsidies for base commissaries and tightening disability compensation for diseases linked to Agent Orange. :angryfire:

 

But those trims are considered marginal compared with the deeper reductions many experts say are necessary to contain Pentagon spending.

 

“If the trend continues, it will call into question the military’s ability to do other things, like buy equipment, do maintenance, train troops and equip them,†said Nora Bensahel, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a nonprofit organization with ties to the Obama administration.

 

“At some point, the cost pressures by the retirement benefits will really start to impede military capabilities.â€

 

 

 

NYT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, I hate these scumbag politicians. First of all, SS and Medicare are not entitlements - since we PAY INTO THEM WITH OUR OWN MONEY. They are an earned benefit. I think the minimum is 12 or 15 years to get even one penny from them. And the military signs a contract stating what pension benefits they will receive at retirement. So tear up the veterans' contract, screw the old folks out their SS and Medicare they've paid into for most of their lives. But for God's sake DO NOT LOWER THE POLITICIANS' RIDICULOUSLY HIGH SALARIES AND PENSION BENEFITS.

 

Everyone of these mo'fo's deserve to be taken out and shot. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, I hate these scumbag politicians. First of all, SS and Medicare are not entitlements - since we PAY INTO THEM WITH OUR OWN MONEY. They are an earned benefit. I think the minimum is 12 or 15 years to get even one penny from them. And the military signs a contract stating what pension benefits they will receive at retirement. So tear up the veterans' contract, screw the old folks out their SS and Medicare they've paid into for most of their lives. But for God's sake DO NOT LOWER THE POLITICIANS' RIDICULOUSLY HIGH SALARIES AND PENSION BENEFITS.

 

Everyone of these mo'fo's deserve to be taken out and shot. :(

 

 

Today I heard that the Republicans want to exempt the wealthy from paying taxes. The money they save from this venture will provide a small trickle down to provide relief for the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI

 

 

 

The per person Medicare insurance premium will increase from the present

monthly fee of $96.40, rising to: $104.20 in 2012; $120.20 in 2013; And

$247.00 in 2014. These are provisions incorporated in the Obamacare

legislation, purposely delayed so as not to 'confuse' the 2012 re-election

campaigns. Send this to all seniors that you know, so they will know who's

throwing them under the bus.

 

REMEMBER THIS IN NOVEMBER 2012 & VOTE ACCORDINGLY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...