Tag: Progressives

Anal Regressives

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Political Parties/Political Theory

I am sure that you have heard the term “anal retentive”…..But Regressive?  A tendency to return or revert or characterized by regression or the tendency to regress….we can use this definition for many things, but since it is me writing it will be about politics and such…..

First, a little personal history…..For years I have been trying to make sense of our political system…..for to me it makes little sense if you judge a system but its successes…..so far the only truly successful thing that has happened recently is ….WAR!  Health care is a simmering disaster, education is a boil on our society and the environment….that is a societal heart attack waiting to happen…….and then there is our political system….(pause here for raucous laughter)……..we have had a push-pull system forever, but in the last decade or so it is regressing back to the middle ages…..we have conserv Dems and we have liberal Repubs…..but why?  Should not not be if you are liberal then you are a liberal?  Or the same for conservative…..

Here’s an idea. America needs to have a neomodernist party to oppose the reigning primitivists of the right, left and center. Let everyone who opposes abortion, wants to ban GM foods and nuclear energy, hates cars and trucks and planes and loves trains and trolleys, seeks to ban suburbia, despises consumerism, and/or thinks Darwin was a fraud join the Regressive Party. Those of us who believe that the real, if exaggerated, dangers of technology, big government, big business and big labor are outweighed by their benefits can join the Modernist Party. While the Regressives secede from reality and try to build their premodern utopias on their reservations, the Modernists can resume the work of building a secular, technological, prosperous, and relatively egalitarian civilization, after a half-century detour into a Dark Age.

Read the whole article…..salon.com/news/politics/….

A couple of pretty good ideas….The two party system we have now is antiquated and not working worth a damn……with a change we would have all the anal regressives in one place and all the modernists in another….maybe then a little successful legislature would be the norm instead of the exception…..

There has got to be a solution for the inaction of our governing body……why not try a different approach than the one we have now?

The Final Tally Or …You Owe…You Owe

Soon the Prez will sign the new tax cuts bill into law and there were a few tweaks….but what is the final tally of the bill?

Well, thanx to BusinessWeek we have them for you to see……and judge for yourself…..

The package extends:

–Lower rates for taxpayers at every income level. The top rate, on taxable income above $379,150, would stay at 35 percent, instead of increasing to 39.6 percent. The bottom rate, on taxable income below $8,500 for individuals and $17,000 for married couples, would stay at 10 percent, instead of increasing to 15 percent. Cost: $186.8 billion.

–More generous itemized deductions for high-income households. Cost: $20.7 billion.

–A more generous $1,000 child tax credit. Cost: $71.7 billion.

–Marriage penalty relief, increasing the standard deduction for married couples. Cost: $18 billion.

–A more generous Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families. Cost: $15.7 billion.

–A series of tax breaks for students and their families, including interest deduction for student loans and an exemption for employer-provided educational assistance. Cost: $3.3 billion.

–A deduction for tuition and related expenses for higher education, for 2010 and 2011. Cost: $1.2 billion.

–A tax credit of up to $2,500 for students’ higher education expenses. Cost: $17.6 billion.

–The top capital gains tax rate of 15 percent. Cost: $25.9 billion.

–The top tax rate on dividends of 15 percent. Cost: $27.3 billion.

–Through 2011, enhanced jobless benefits for people who have been unemployed for long stretches. Cost: $56.5 billion.

–A series of incentives for selling, using and producing alternative fuels, including ethanol. Many of the provisions expired at the end of 2009. They would be extended through 2011. Cost: $11.3 billion.

–A $250 deduction for out-of-pocket classroom expenses by teachers, for 2010 and 2011. Cost: $390 million.

–A federal income tax deduction for state and local sales taxes, taken mostly by people who live in the nine states without state income taxes, for 2010 and 2011. Cost: $5.5 billion.

–The ability of older Americans to withdraw up to $100,000 a year from Individual Retirement Accounts, tax-free, to donate to certain public charities, for 2010 and 2011. Cost: $979 million.

–A business tax credit for research and experimentation expenses, for 2010 and 2011. Cost: $13.3 billion.

–Tax breaks for capital improvements to restaurants and other retail buildings, for 2010 and 2011. Cost: $3.6 billion.

–A tax break for active investors in foreign-based banking, securities and insurance firms, for 2010 and 2011. Cost: $9.2 billion.

–Increased depreciation and expensing for capital investments by businesses. Cost: $21.8 billion.

The package also:

–Spares more than 20 million middle-income households from tax increases averaging $3,900 from the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2010 and 2011. Cost: $136.7 billion.

–Imposes a lower estate tax for the next two years, allowing couples to pass estates as large as $10 million to heirs tax-free. The balance would be taxed at 35 percent. Cost: $68.1 billion.

–Provides a one-year Social Security tax cut for all wage earners, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. Cost: $112 billion.

There she be!  And NOT one penny of it paid for….just add another trillion to the deficit….take it out of petty cash…..NO one will notice…..what happened to those guys and gals that were so concerned about the cost of all the programs….and why was this pushed through without hearings or a CBO score?

It will be fun to see who uses this as a political tool…..

How About A “Bull Moose Party”? #1

With the advent of the Tea Party and the uproar that it has caused in the past election, the 2010 mid-terms, I got thinking about some of the stuff that the Teabaggers are bitching about….you know stuff like….financial stuff and special interests and campaign funds….etc etc

Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party in 1912  gave Americans “A New Nationalism” and their platform was as follows….

In the social sphere the platform called for

  • A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
  • Social insurance,  to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.
  • Limited injunctions in strikes.
  • Farm relief.
  • Worker’s compensation for work-related injuries.
  • An inheritance tax.
  • A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax.

The political reforms proposed included

  • Women’s suffrage.
  • Direct election of Senators.
  • Primary elections  for state and federal nominations.

The platform also urged states to adopt measures for “direct democracy”, including:

  • The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term).
  • The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote).
  • The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote).
  • Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote).

However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties. The platform asserted that

To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

To that end, the platform called for

  • Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions.
  • Registration of lobbyists.
  • Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings.

Besides these measures, the platform called for reductions in the tariff,  limitations on naval armaments by international agreement, and improvements to inland waterways.

The biggest controversy at the convention was over the platform section dealing with trust and monopolies.   The convention approved a strong “trust-busting” plank, but Roosevelt had it replaced with language that spoke only of “strong National regulation” and “permanent active [Federal] supervision” of major corporations.

Some of the proposals have become law in the years and some we are still fighting for in the century that has past…..but what can we do……how can we use history to solve some of the political problems we have now?

Part 2 will answer that question and possibly be the future of this country….we can only hope!

What Is A Progressive (Redux)

This is a re-post from about 3 years ago on Info Ink…I received the list in an email from a guy in Oregon…..

I have called myself a Progressive, but what does that mean?  Is Obama?  How about that other Clinton?  You want answers, then here is what a Progressive stands for:

Our progressive values of freedom, opportunity, and security mean that:

  1. Progressives stand for better wages and benefits for working Americans. Our economy should provide opportunities for all hard-working individuals and families to enjoy life. Therefore, we support legislation to increase the minimum wage.
  2. Progressives stand for affordable, high-quality, health care for all. The security of comprehensive health insurance should be a right, not a privilege. Therefore, we support legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs through greater access to manufacturer rebates, bulk purchasing, and re-importation.
  3. Progressives stand for building an education system that is the best in the world. Every child should have an equal opportunity to learn. Therefore, we support legislation to invest in our children’s education through smaller class sizes, more after-school initiatives, and better pre-school programs.
  4. Progressives stand for a cleaner, safer environment. We must conserve our natural resources both to secure our own health and well-being, and to fulfill our responsibility to future generations. Therefore, we support legislation to lower the level of pollutants in our air and water.
  5. Progressives stand for the elimination of discrimination. Discrimination against any American diminishes freedom for us all. Therefore, we support legislation to eliminate the practice of racial profiling.
  6. Progressives stand for real security for the most vulnerable Americans. We must protect the security of our nation’s children, elderly, disabled and disadvantaged. Therefore, we support legislation to make healthcare, child care, elder care, and housing programs more accessible, efficient and effective.
  7. Progressives stand for the protection of privacy. For Americans to be truly free, government must stay out of our private lives. Therefore, we favor legislation to keep abortion safe and legal, and ensure access to all reproductive health services.
  8. Progressives stand for a criminal justice system that focuses on security instead of retribution. Tough sentences alone don’t make us safer. We need to deter crime with more police, programs for at-risk youth, education, and rehabilitation. Therefore, we support legislation to stop the cycle of addiction by requiring rigorous treatment instead of incarceration for non-violent drug crimes.
  9. Progressives stand for fiscal responsibility. Instead of providing equal opportunity, government spending and tax policies often deliver special benefits to wealthy special interests. Therefore, we support legislation to eliminate wasteful subsidies and tax breaks that are both unfair and not worth the cost.
  10. Progressives stand for an inclusive, open government. Every American must have an equal opportunity to participate in our democracy. But average Americans are increasingly shut out by the influence of big money on politics. Therefore, we support legislation for public financing of elections.

Now do any of the Big 3 candidates sound or act like they are standing on any of these principles?  Do not hurt yourself!  None of them are true Progressives.  It is just a title to them, not a way of governing.

If one considers themselves a progressive then they will have to look elsewhere for someone who will truly represent their core values.

How Progressives were DUPED!

It began at the ballot box…the primaries….the ads…the election……

Back in the day there was a candidate that brought such hope to the progressives, they had found their champion….a fresh face….a winning style and an oratory like no one could ever imagine….progressives joined in and cheered and voted for a soon to be a great man and  thge sun will shine again on the Democratic Party.

Sorry guys……but you were DUPED by bullsh!t!

Read:

10 Things To Consider In The Voting Booth

NO Change Is Coming!

What Change?

Read those and you will see that I have said that NO real change is coming….so far I have been proven correct…..look at health reform…

Somewhere I recall Pres. Obama saying, “I woill not sign a health reform bill without the public option”…….strong words and a delight to the ears of us liberals…..but…just yesterday the trained monkeys of the admin had this to say…….

Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Obama believes the public plan is still the “best possible choice,’’ but she said he’s not demanding it.

“It’s not the defining piece of health care. It’s whether we achieve both cost control, coverage, as well as the choice,’’ Emanuel said.

Now Progressives is that the man you voted for in 2008?

So the strong hard words of the past are just that…..from the past…..looks like the Progressive Obama has made his deals with the insurance companies.

I have said “I told you so” but it does not seem to set in to the mind of the voter…..they continue to vote for the person or they have no freakin’ idea how Washington and politics work.

They delude themselves that they are well versed on the issues….but all they really have is the talking points given to them by the 30 second story on the tube.

The American voter would do better if they spent less time watching the nauseating crap billed as “Reality TV” and check into the issues that will control their lives….But as usual I am pissing into the wind….why?…..I am dealing with low information voters listen to the morons on the air….

Health reform is NOT the only area that they were duped on….look at war…look at energy….look at special interests…..nothing is changing…..business as usual…just as and others said would happen…..someone needs to remove their heads from their anal cavities…that pie in the sky just hit you in the face…..happy?

Now I ask the Progressives…how you like him now?

But….What Did The Prez Really Say?

Note:  This post was originally put on Progressive Independence (to visit go to blogroll).

I realized that after I posted on the speech the Prez recently made that I did not give enough details on what he is proposing.  I will try and rectify that oversight now.

The Prez gave his talk and most people, with the exception of conservs, really thought it was a good speech, but is he really caving to the base on this?  IMO, he is caving period.

These are the main points of the speech and I would like to thank the McClatchy Newspapers for this list:

•CURRENT COVERAGE: Those who’re now getting employer-provided coverage or are insured through Medicare, Medicaid or the Veterans Administration wouldn’t be required to change their plans or their physicians.

•COST: About $900 billion over 10 years.

•HOW IT WOULD BE PAID FOR: By finding “savings within the existing health care system,” mostly by trimming waste and rooting out fraud. Also, insurers would be charged a fee for their most expensive policies.

•HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES: Consumers and small businesses without coverage could comparison shop at these marketplaces among private and perhaps also public plans. The competition is supposed to help reduce prices. The exchanges would take effect in four years.

•PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Insurers wouldn’t be permitted to deny coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions. Nor could they cancel or dilute coverage when people get very sick.

•AFFORDABILITY: No limits on how much coverage a consumer could get in a year or a lifetime — but limits on out-of-pocket health care expenses. Tax credits would be available for those needing aid.

•PREVENTIVE MEDICINE: Insurers must cover, at no extra charge, regular preventive care and check-ups, such as mammograms, colonoscopies and routine check-ups.

•PUBLIC OPTION: People without coverage would be able to choose a nonprofit government-run insurance plan that would have the same rules and protections that private insurers do. A government option plan might be available only if private insurers fail to meet coverage benchmarks in designated markets. Alternatively, a nonprofit co-op might administer a competitive insurance plan.

•CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE: Low-cost coverage would be available in the years before the exchanges are created to protect against financial ruin in case of a serious illness.

•INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE MANDATES: Everyone would have to have basic insurance. Most businesses would be required to offer insurance or “chip in” to help cover workers. Only hardship cases and some small businesses would be exempt.

•MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS: The administration will seek experimental “demonstration projects” in different states aimed at helping to revamp the tort system.

There you have the meat of the proposal and what part of it looks like he is caving to the Left?  Single payer is gone and almost forgotten…..public option will be a mere reflection of what it was suppose to do…..Medicare will take the brunt of any cuts and savings to pay for the above system…..and then there is the tidbit to try and pull in Repubs….tort reform, one of the GOP’s most  favorite reform that and those damn silly HSAs…..health savings accounts.

With all that said Obama is showing the sickness that has plagued liberals for decades….that the political choice is the lesser of two evils….instead of real reform Obama is pushing some middle of the road crap that will be turned over as soon as a new pres walks into the White House.  Instead of taking a bit out of the problem, he is just gumming at it.

The Dems seem to be living with the idea of a bi-partisan solution….this past summer…the summer of hate…has proven that to be a no deal.  Liberals are caught up in this pie in the sky attitude that “good people” will inject good character into the debate…..and the idiots have been proven wrong time and time again and yet they persist in the naivete. Liberals are full of good intentions but do not seem to have the guts to make them happen.

The proposal that the president is offering will probably pass because it is basically still protecting the people that are the problem….but my biggest question is will the Progressives fall for the pale imitation of the public option?

Obama, The Leftist President

This was originally posted on Progressive Independence (visit the site through my blogroll).

He is a socialist!  No, he is a Nazi.  Wait he is far left.  No he is a progressive……no he is……you pick a label….everyone else does.

I have heard many times by many of the beltway pundits say the Obama does not buck the left or the progressives, if you will…..that he lets them have their way and make their own bills and he will rubber stamp it.  Sorry, people that is pure bullsh!t!

Thinkprogress.org has listed a few of the exceptions to the charge by conservatives:

  • Stimulus: Progressive economists — including at least one Nobel Prize winner — warned that the President’s stimulus package was too small to lift the sinking economy.  Similarly, progressives consistently warned the President not to replace highly-stimulative spending with ineffectual tax cuts.  Nevertheless, the President rejected progressive pleas for a more substantial package and brokered a deal with made tax cuts almost one-third of the stimulus. Obama allowed much of its final form to be dictated by a handful of Senate Republicans.
  • Bank Nationalization: Many progressives unsuccessfully urged Obama to nationalize the failing banks, rather than risk making future bailout payments to an industry whose recklessness nearly destroyed the nation’s economy.
  • Cap and Trade: Many of President Obama’s campaign promises for a robust cap-and-trade system have been watered down by a coalition of so-called “Brown Dog” Democrats loyal to Big Coal.
  • Single-Payer: The House Progressive Caucus prefers a single-payer system to the almost-exclusively private insurance-driven system proposed by the President.
  • Judicial Nominations: President Bush stacked the federal courts with young right-wing ideologues — one of whom even compared Social Security to “cannibalism.”  President Obama’s nominees, however, have been older and far more moderate than President Bush’s, and at least one has been actively opposed by disability rights advocates.

The president is NO leftist…no socialist….damn he is not even a liberal in my opinion…he IS however a centrist.  (yawn)

  • So to keep lying to the American people is just tacky…….Americans deserve the truth…..apparently MSM does not want to give it to them.  Because of that I and others try to point out the BS as we find it…..I can only hope that it is appreciated.

    • Will Dems Ever Find Their Spine?

    The best answer for now is–it is very doubtful.  With the most recent election there was such hope…the Dems had a good majority in Congress and a prez that was talking change and progress.  But 5 months into the new presidency and what was happened–the Dems have lost what little spine that had in the first place.

    Take health care….why are so many Dems back off the idea of universal health care?  It is not because the people are against….that poll shows that over 70% of the voters want a health care plan.  Then why are they dragging their feet on health care, after all they have a great majority and could pull a GW move and force their programs through the Congress….then why are they so timid?

    Could it be that they do not want to offend their campaign contributors?  That makes more sense than any of the other reasons I have heard.

    Recently Kaiser Health News wrote:

    “Almost 30 key lawmakers helping draft landmark health-care legislation have financial holdings in the industry, totaling nearly $11 million worth of personal investments in a sector that could be dramatically reshaped by this summer’s debate,” The Washington Post reports. The list of members includes “Congress’s most powerful leaders and a bipartisan collection of lawmakers in key committee posts.” For example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “has at least $50,000 invested in a health-care index” (fund), and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, “a senior member of the health committee, has between $254,000 and $560,000 worth of stock holdings in major health-care companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck.” The data was part of a “release of financial disclosure forms for the House and Senate” on Friday.

    “While no congressional rules bar members from holding financial stakes in industries they regulate, some ethics experts suggest that it often creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly if there is a chance that the legislation could result in a personal financial boost.” But at “nearly 20%” of the national economy, “many legal experts say the health-care industry is so predominant that it is impossible for lawmakers to avoid financial ties to that sector, suggesting that the best antidote is a clear disclosure system that makes every lawmaker’s finances publicly available.”

    I have suggesdted that someone in the mainstream media publish a list of the politicians that have received money from the health industry and then publish the vote on any health issues and see who votes where.  I suspect that the health industry has bought many friends and they will now repay them for their generosity.

    The Dems have had NO spine for many years and now they have a chance to redeem themselves inb the eyes of the voter and yet they waffle.  I have heard many so called “liberal” politicians waffle ….Feinstein has said “we may not have the votes” on health issues and then Daschle has said “we will have to trim federal health programs”.

    They were so close to having a spine and yet so far away.

    The Left And Liberals and Progressives, Oh My!

    For some unknown reason conservatives, all of them, have a problem differentiating those three types of Dems.  They have the tendency to lump all of them into the same envelope.  For instance, just what does “The Left” mean?  Who is the liberal?  Who are those darn Progressives?  Are they the same person?  These terms are “generic” for anyone not a conservative.  But who among them know the difference?  To them it is just labels to tag there opponents with in any election.

    All are the “bogey man” to conservatives.  What does The Left really mean?  They are a much aligned and demonized sector of the political landscape.  These guys are the ones that everyone feared 50 years ago…they believe in health care for all birth to grave.  They think education should be free from K through college.  They are the ones who work for better labor practices from the government and corporations.  They are the ones that truly believe there are different classes within the societal make-up of the country.  In the past the Left was those darn pesky socialists.  Sorry to inform you but those days are gone and the Left is all but dead, except in the minds of old fart conservatives, which there is still a wealth of in the political parties.

    Enter the Progressives–which can best be characterized in today’s terms as a revolutionary democrat.  They still believe in the value of the ballot box, but in a different way.  They believe that the people should make and vote on most major issues addressed by the government.  They believe that the people should participate in the government not be a spectator.

    Oh my God, those damn LIBERALS–according to today’s campaigns they are anti-American, socialist, communist, unAmerican, unpatriotic, is that enough?  Liberals are nothing more than the opposite side of the same coin in the two party system.  Mostly, they are centrists which have a slight, ever so slight, lean to the left, but not enough to be called a leftist.

    I submit that there is NOTHING sinister about being on the Left of the political spectrum. Just means that domestic and social policies are more important than being able to kick Iran’s ass in a fight.  To demonize a person because they are truly the ones putting “country first” is just moronic.  There is one of my fav sayings by John Mills, “I am not saying that conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives”.

    There is another old saying “a liberal leaves the room when a fight breaks out.”  I added to it “A radical starts the fight and a conservative hires someone to do the fighting”.  By labeling people you can demonize all of the political thought as…..well whatever you want to label it….it is a coward’s way to approaching a disagreement……

    Black Panthers On Obama

    I read this piece on the US News and World Report wedsite:

    They like Sen. Barack Obama‘s progressive style of politics, but some 1960s-era radicals are questioning the candidate’s recent swing to the middle on some big issues. “I like Barack Obama,” says Bobby Seale, cofounder of the Black Panther Party. “I’m a progressive,” he says. “The progression has to be manifested in a new direction in policies and legislation,” says Seale. “I’m hoping that he is able to make a dent in that direction with the office of the presidency.” Seale adds an “oh, yeah” when asked if his activism—highlighted in the new DVD release Chicago 10 —paved the way for Obama’s candidacy. The movie, being released during the Democratic National Convention this month, combines animation and real video of 1968 protests at the Democratic convention and the subsequent trial of Seale and others for their participation. Seale’s conviction was eventually reversed. Pal and former Yippie frontman Paul Krassner says that unlike then, today it’s best to protest from inside, and Obama is best suited to do that. “This time, the protest might be more effective within the system, with voting for somebody who will at least appoint Supreme Court judges who have compassion instead of nutsiness,” he says. But on Obama, Krassner frets, “I have disappointments in a lot of the compromises he’s made, but that’s the game he’s playing. I just have to remember that his middle name is ‘I’m Not Bush.’ “