Skip navigation

Tag Archives: politricks


The current hearings on Russian interference, omissions and misdirected Governance have grabbed the headlines for too long. In the background of all of this are the real issues where our majority party is trying to strip any rational programs that benefit the oft quoted (without permission) “American People”. The ACA which only required the correct actions of tweaking it (as Legislators should have done) is in danger of being replaced or ruined by the less than candid people we elected to serve(?). The way it should be or at inception was supposed to be, legislators were (are) supposed to represent the people who elected them not themselves. The personal agenda of a representative is not why they are elected (or is it?). What has happened over the years is the manipulation of information that inflames the public to win an election and blame other people for any adversities. We now have a sitting President whose incompetence in the office is being used to stretch the American people over a barrel and hoping we will like it. These are tactics that have been used before and too many of us accepted it because we thought (or were told) that we could do nothing about it. If you are a registered voter you need to vote based on facts, not opinion. If you are not a registered voter, you need to register no matter what your political persuasion maybe. In this age of information it is difficult to determine what is correct and what is not however if you look at several  sources of information you will find the truth among them and become an informed voter. Keep in mind that modern politics is like a popularity contest with the biggest LIE being the contestants. Get informed and the lies do not look the same. Lets not do what our politicians do, that is “blame someone else”

Please Donate


If the banks and insurance companies were more trustworthy there would be no need for Dodd Frank or Volcker. Our Dupublicans do not have the interests of the oft quoted American people in mind when the legislate.MA

WASHINGTON, June 8 (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted largely along party lines to replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, a move that is expected to die in the Senate but open the door to revamping or eliminating regulations that came out of the 2007-09 financial crisis.
The bill, called the CHOICE act, was approved by a vote of 233-to-186. Authored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, a Republican, it gives banks a choice between complying with Dodd-Frank or holding onto more capital.
It also restructures the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created under Dodd-Frank to guard individuals against fraud in lending. Democrats are fiercely opposed to restructuring the CFPB.
The U.S. Senate is not expected to take up the bill in its entirety, even though it has the backing of President Donald Trump, a Republican, largely because of the threat that Democrats will use a filibuster to stall it.
The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan evaluator of legislation, estimates the bill would save the federal government $24 billion over a decade, mostly due to the lifting of the government’s authority to step in and unwind failing institutions.
The legislation also rescinds the Volcker rule that limits the type of trading banks can do with their own money and the ability of government regulators to designate non-bank institutions, mainly insurance companies, as “systemically important,” which triggers increased oversight and requirements to hold more capital.
(Reporting by Lisa Lambert and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Please Donate


Why would a liar be concerned about being truthful about campaign promises? The current and administration has a proven track record of stretching and subverting the truth on a regular basis. We have heard and seen a steady stream of untruths coming from our White House. The campaign promises that are being acted upon appeases a small group of people and are just another set of lies as those promises in reality cannot be kept or accomplished. There will be no return of lost jobs in coal and many other industries. The future of this country is in renewable energy and other related technologies, some of which require retraining. It would appear to me that the rational line to follow is education but we have Betsy De Vos instead. Trump has selected some of the worst people to serve in his cabinet. These people on the surface are not bad  people however they are ill-informed or under informed as to the issues their respective posts are facing. Mr. Trump for all of his rhetoric is no more than a child with too much power and cannot stay on topic long enough to understand or reason out a proper solution especially if it takes more than 140 characters. He is depending on the more radical ideas of his staff and that affects all of us now and in the future. The recent incidents in England caused him to push for his “muslin ban” with no information as to who committed these crimes. His withdrawal from the Paris climate accord again with no understanding of the effects of that action. These two examples are just indicative of the President’s inability or lack of desire to understand his  position (United States)  will be our burden for many years to came. He is doing what he has done in business, make thing happen because he promised and not taking the long range effects into consideration. Mr. Trump is setting us on a path of long time recovery from his administration. His base will suffer along with the rest of us but could conceivably not understand that their vote is why we are in this situation now and in the future. What we have at this time is a Presidency that cannot  succeed due to a lack of information related to the real world. This Presidency will put us more at risk than we have ever been, Why?, because it is built on lies!

Please Donate


Rick Newman
Columnist
Yahoo Finance   June 1,  2017
Coal miners and alienated workers just trumped corporate America.
By canceling America’s participation in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, President Trump snubbed many of the nation’s biggest businesses. Corporate giants including Exxon (XOM), General Electric (GE), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT) and Alphabet (GOOGL) urged Trump to stick with the agreement, which nearly every other country in the world has signed on to. Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk said he’ll quit as an informal White House adviser on account of Trump’s decision to withdraw. The only major businesses supporting Trump’s move are energy firms dependent on coal and oil.
“The Paris accord is very unfair to the United States,” Trump declared at the White House on June 1. He claimed the agreement imposes “draconian financial and economic burdens” on the United State, while linking it to the loss of nearly 3 million jobs–a claim economists strongly dispute. Trump did say he was open to re-entering the Paris agreement under different terms, leaving some wiggle room amid the criticism he is sure to get for the decision.
Withdrawing from the deal probably won’t be as catastrophic for business or the climate as overheated news coverage might suggest. The Paris deal relies on voluntary reductions in carbon emissions, according to standards each nation sets for itself. Countries can change their standards or simply not abide by them. Enforcement is weak, at best. And market incentives to adopt cleaner energy are becoming stronger, in some cases obviating the need for government incentives or mandates.
A headache for American businesses
But abstaining from a global agreement embraced by every other developed economy is a headache for American businesses all the same. Multinational companies want to sell their goods and services everywhere, which is easier when their home country is following the same agenda, more or less, as other countries they want to sell to. The Paris agreement will likely spur spending on new climate-friendly technologies, and US firms want a cut of that as well. They could lose out to foreign firms whose home governments do more to cultivate such technologies.
By appeasing America firsters and legacy industries such as coal, Trump has obviously fulfilled a campaign promise, while demonstrating solidarity with workers stuck in fading 20th century industries. But that will do nothing to increase demand for dirty coal or create jobs in industries the free market is closing the books on anyway. Natural gas burns much cleaner than coal and is nearly as cheap, thanks in large part to America’s fracking revolution. Pollution-free solar power is becoming cost-competitive without any need for government incentives. States such as California and many municipalities have their own reasons to encourage the use of renewables and cleaner-burning fuels, regardless of what Trump wants. That’s why Exxon and many other oil companies favor the Paris agreement—it helps them gain a foothold in the energy market that is slowly but surely replacing carbon.
Trump probably could have found different ways to help the beleaguered coal industry—powerful federal incentives to draw companies to coal country, say—while keeping American firms under the Paris umbrella. But he disregarded the pleas from corporate America, with no apparent concern for whether that could impede economic growth or cost American jobs. At some point business leaders must rightfully ask whether Trump represents their interests or not.
Trump rode to Washington on a pro-business platform, but his actions in office haven’t been so business-friendly. He has left health insurers and other companies in the medical industry deeply uncertain about the business climate they face, since he has vowed to dismantle the Affordable Care Act without an obvious replacement. Insurers are bailing out of ACA markets where they can’t make money, a problem that existed before Trump took office but has since gotten worse.
Trump has threatened the auto industry with tariffs and other punishments (and consumers with higher car prices) if they don’t create more American jobs. He has lambasted pharmaceutical firms for their high prices. His threat to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement would roil thousands of business that rely on those trading relationships. He may still seek tariffs on Chinese imports, as he has frequently threatened, which would upend supply lines for many other US companies.
Offsetting all of this, from a CEO’s perspective, is the promise of tax cuts and deregulation, two of Trump’s top priorities. Tax cuts could directly boost corporate profits and stock prices along with them. Deregulation could lower the cost of doing business, which is almost as good as a boost in net income.
But Trump obviously faces difficult challenges getting major legislation through Congress, and he’s adding to the burden with controversies such as the Russia investigation, weakening his political hand and overburdening Congress. It’s now unlikely Congress will pass any kind of tax reform in 2017, and the longer it drifts toward next year’s fall election season, the less likely it becomes. Trump has undone some minor regulations with executive orders, but major pruning would require Congressional action, and that is nowhere to be seen.
Take tax cuts and deregulation away, and Trump looks more like a self-preserving political boss playing favorites than a businessman-president. He favors downtrodden industries on their way out over ascendant industries such as technology and renewable energy, because that’s where his “base” resides. He talks up the need for stronger growth while explaining away political decisions that could impede growth. And he accepts symbolic wins that save a few endangered jobs without talking at all about how to create and secure the jobs of the future. Eventually, we’ll need them, because you can’t prop up the jobs of the past forever.
Confidential tip line: rickjnewman@yahoo.com

Please Donate


This posting indicates the results of a current trend in the White House regarding European relationships. This mindset can leave this country more vulnerable than ever as information sharing could diminish.MA.
Isolationism refers to America’s longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America’s perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.
American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.
The colonial period

The isolationist perspective dates to colonial days. The colonies were populated by many people who had fled from Europe, where there was religious persecution, economic privation and war. Their new homeland was looked upon as a place to make things better than the old ways. The sheer distance and rigors of the voyage from Europe tended to accentuate the remoteness of the New World from the Old. The roots of isolationism were well established years before independence, notwithstanding the alliance with France during the War for Independence.
Thomas Paine crystallized isolationist notions in his work Common Sense, which presents numerous arguments for shunning alliances. Paine’s tract exerted so much political influence that the Continental Congress strove against striking an alliance with France and acquiesced only when it appeared probable that the war for independence could not be won without one.
George Washington in his Farewell Address placed the accent on isolationism in a manner that would be long remembered:
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”
Washington was promulgating a perspective that was already venerable and accepted by many. The United States terminated its alliance with France, after which America’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, admonished in his inaugural address, “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
The 19th century
The United States remained politically isolated all through the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, an unusual feat in western history. Historians have attributed the fact to a geographical position at once separate and far removed from Europe.
During the 1800s, the United States spanned North America and commenced to piece together an empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific — without departing from the traditional perspective. It fought the War of 1812
the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War without joining alliances or fighting in Europe.
The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.”
Nevertheless, pressures were mounting abroad that would undercut and demolish that policy near the mid-20th century. The advent of German and Japanese expansionism would threaten and later nearly snuff out the contented aloofness enjoyed by the United States. The United States’ occupation of the Philippines during the Spanish-American War thrust U.S. interests into the far western Pacific Ocean — Imperial Japan’s sphere of interest. Such improved transportation and communication as steamships, undersea cable, and radio linked the two continents. The growth of shipping and foreign trade slowly enhanced America’s world role.
There also were basic changes at home. The historic ascendancy of urban-based business, industry, and finance, and the sidelining of rural and small-town America — the bastion of isolationism — contributed to its eventual demise.
World War I
Germany’s unfettered submarine warfare against American ships during World War I provoked the U.S. into abandoning the neutrality it had upheld for so many years. The country’s resultant participation in World War I against the Central Powers marked its first major departure from isolationist policy. When the war ended, however, the United States was quick to leave behind its European commitment. Regardless of President Woodrow Wilson’s efforts, the Senate repudiated the Treaty of Versailles that ended the war, and the United States failed to become a member of the League of Nations.
Indeed, isolationism would persist for a few more decades. During the 1920s, American foreign affairs took a back seat. In addition, America tended to insulate itself in terms of trade. Tariffs were imposed on foreign goods to shield U.S. manufacturers.
America turned its back on Europe by restricting the number of immigrants permitted into the country. Until World War I, millions of people, mostly from Europe, had come to America to seek their fortune and perhaps flee poverty and persecution. Britons and Irishmen, Germans and Jews constituted the biggest groups. In 1921 the relatively liberal policy ended and quotas were introduced. By 1929 only 150,000 immigrants per year were allowed in.
During the 1920s and 1930s, the preponderance of Americans remained opposed to enmeshment in Europe’s alliances and wars. Isolationism was solid in hinterland and small-town America in the Midwest and Great Plains states, and among Republicans. It claimed numerous sympathizers among Irish- and German-Americans. William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska, Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, and George W. Norris of Nebraska were among western agrarian progressives who argued fervently against involvement. Assuming an us-versus-them stance, they castigated various eastern, urban elites for their engagement in European affairs.
World War II
The year 1940 signaled a final turning point for isolationism. German military successes in Europe and the Battle of Britain prompted nationwide American rethinking about its posture toward the war. If Germany and Italy established hegemony in Europe and Africa, and Japan swept East Asia, many believed that the Western Hemisphere might be next. Even if America managed to repel invasions, its way of life might wither if it were forced to become a garrison state. By the autumn of 1940, many Americans believed it was necessary to help defeat the Axis — even if it meant open hostilities.

Many others still backed the noninterventionist America First Committee in 1940 and 1941, but isolationists failed to derail the Roosevelt administration’s plans to aid targets of Axis aggression with means short of war. Most Americans opposed any actual declaration of war on the Axis countries, but everything abruptly changed when Japan naval forces sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Germany and Italy declared war on the United States four days later. America galvanized itself for full-blown war against the Axis powers.
The demise of isolationism
The isolationist point of view did not completely disappear from American discourse, but never again did it figure prominently in American policies and affairs. Countervailing tendencies that would outlast the war were at work. During the war, the Roosevelt administration and other leaders inspired Americans to favor the establishment of the United Nations (1945), and following the war, the threat embodied by the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin dampened any comeback of isolationism.
The postwar world environment, in which the United States played a leading role, would change with the triumph of urban industry and finance, expanded education and information systems, advanced military technology, and leadership by internationalists. A few leaders would rise to speak of a return to America’s traditional policies of nonintervention, but in reality, traditional American isolationism was obsolete.
– – – Books You May Like Include: —-
FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: The President, the Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle Over the New Deal by James F. Simon.
The author of acclaimed books on the bitter clashes between presidents and chief justices—Jefferson and Marshall, Lincoln and Taney.

Please Donate


The past 10 years in politics have shown the dirtiest side of politics since McCarthyism.
The lies we are told about candidates, proposed laws and laws that are passed have been so outrageous at times that it is small wonder that a Trump presidency came about. Politics appears to be more about lies innuendo and insults than facts. There have been stories about candidates that prove to be true and just as many not. Without going into the many lies and insults, lets just go to what we know is true:

Donald Trump is a consummate liar.

Our Congress members are not to be trusted.

Donald Trump appealed to the anger of many of us who have gone unheard by their Congress.

The small group of Racists in our midst have latched on to Trump as a champion because he doesn’t know any better and loves to be adored at any cost.

Donald Trump is so insecure that his method of dealing with problems (and non problems) is an insult and or a lie.

The Spokes people for Totus seem to be uninformed and will do what ever he says out of fear.

The over coverage of the signing of Executive orders is more a photo op than anything serious as those orders will be at some point repealed or if not cause great harm to us.

Our Congress is using Totus as cover for their own nefarious actions.

Our Congress’ healthcare is not affected by the ACA or the new Health care act.

There are so many more items that can be added that I would spend the next several days listing them. It is the duty of each reader to pay attention to the real news (not Fox) to determine what our Congress is doing to us as they are surely not doing anything for us.

Please Donate

 


Do we need yet another reason to pay attention to who we elect to represent us? MA.

Journalist, ThinkProgress. Twitter: @atrupar. Email: arupar@americanprogress.org
May 5
________________________________________
House Republican didn’t know the health care bill he voted for could cost his state $3 billion
Rep. Chris Collins didn’t read it before he voted for it.

Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) didn’t read the American Health Care Act (AHCA), legislation to dismantle Obamacare that will result in millions of people losing access to affordable insurance, before House Republicans voted to pass it on Thursday. And he had no idea the bill would cost his state billions of federal dollars used to insure thousands of his constituents.
During a CNN appearance on Thursday, Wolf Blitzer asked Collins if he’d actually read the AHCA before voting for it.
“I will fully admit, Wolf, that I did not,” Collins said. “But I can also assure you my staff did. We have to rely on our staff… I’m very comfortable that we have a solution to the disaster
“Congressman, this legislation affects a fifth of the U.S. economy and millions and millions of Americans — don’t you think it was important to actually sit down and read, read the language of this bill?” Blitzer pushed back.
Collins replied by suggesting he was hardly the only Republican who didn’t read the bill, which was rushed through before the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office could score it to detail its specific impact.
“You know, I have to rely on my staff, and I could probably tell you that I read every word, and I wouldn’t be telling you the truth, nor would any other member,” he said. “We rely on our staff, and we rely on our committees, and I’m comfortable that I understand this bill in its entirety, Wolf, without poring through every word.”
WATCH: Republicans prepare to vote for a health care bill they haven’t read
It wasn’t long ago that House Republicans touted a “Read the Bill” promise.thinkprogress.org
But not reading bills can have serious consequences. Later on Thursday, Collins admitted that he didn’t know the AHCA will cost New York $3 billion in federal funds — money that’s used to insure 19,000 of his constituents.
From The Buffalo News:
Told by a Buffalo News reporter that the state’s largest loss of federal funds under the bill would be $3 billion annually that goes to the state’s Essential Health Plan, Collins said: “Explain that to me.”
The Essential Plan is an optional program under Obamacare, offered only by New York and Minnesota, that provides low-cost health insurance to low- and middle-income people who don’t qualify for Medicaid. State Health Department figures show that more than 19,000 people in Erie and Niagara counties were on the Essential Plan in January.
Asked by The Buffalo News if he was aware of the bill’s cut in funding to the Essential Plan, Collins said: “No. But it doesn’t surprise me for you to tell me that there were two states in the nation that were taking advantage of some other waiver program and New York was one of the two states.”
In an attempt to defend Collins’ comments, his spokesman, Michael McAdams, tried to blame The Buffalo News.
“Once again The Buffalo News is twisting a Republican’s words to fit its out-of-touch, liberal narrative,” McAdams said, according to the publication. “Congressman Collins has been intimately involved in the creation of this legislation from its inception… He understands the impact it would have on Western New Yorkers. To infer Congressman Collins doesn’t understand the disastrous impact Obamacare has had on our region and our nation is absolutely shameful.”
Collins is correct that he’s not the only GOP lawmaker who didn’t read the legislation before casting a vote for it. During a CNN appearance Friday morning, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) admitted that he too hadn’t read all of the AHCA before Thursday’s vote.
“I turned through every page,” Sanford said. “As to whether or not I got through some of the details on some of the pages, no. But yes, I attempted to read the entire bill.”

This is a far cry from the fall of 2010, when House Republican leaders unveiled their “Pledge to America,” which contained a “Read the Bill” promise.
“We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives,” it said.

Please Donate


The  strike on the Syrian airfield was effective for a few hours, with no follow up the Syrian air force went to the air again and bombed the same village they attacked before once again. There was no apparent discussions on how to proceed from there. It has been disclosed that the Obama administration was stopped from making a strike by the CONGRESS and now TOTUS authorized the strike with no approval from the same Congress and not a word has been said other than glowing approval from the media and some Congressional members. The issue now is what is to be done now. Given the paucity of truth coming from the Legislators and the Whitehouse, what is the electorate supposed to think? Are we heading for an armed conflict with Russia, North Korea? The titular head of the country seems to be getting his information from the news (FOX?) rather than his self appointed advisors. Where indeed are we headed? It looks as if the spinning fan is nearing its inevitable pile of dung! Taking the continual outpouring of semi and full lies from 1600 and the Dome, we (voters) need to pay attention to everything that is said by the people we elected since many of these small things will resonate for years to come. The town halls that have been occurring in various parts of the US have shown that many formerly pro Trumpists are not happy and have voiced their opinions loud enough to cancel town halls. To add to the mix we have the military leaders working in a vacuum. The first 100 days have become a focal point in the news as to what is being accomplished by the White House. This is no measure of real accomplishment it is merely an arbitrary timeline to compare one administration to another. The campaign side of the race is over and the real work needs to start in a serious manner. Our big issue is how effective will the President be and to what end? It has been said many times and  in as many days- “talk is Cheap!”. Healthcare and job growth will be the big domestic issues, to accomplish either or both will require some critical thinking and looking at them with eyes of the people who are and will be affected their changes. There are jobs in healthcare which will be affected by any changes, there are opportunities to grow jobs if the “wall” resources are put into infrastructure, keeping In mind that coal jobs are not coming back so those folks can be moved into the infrastructure jobs. The soon to be or possible soon to be eliminated environmental jobs will have to go somewhere , how about infrastructure? If the current Congress is for the people then these are just some areas where they can do some good for a change.

Please Donate

 


The campaign trail allows for many quotes and statements that sound good at the time and creates a narrative to receive votes. The many styles of campaign rhetoric  and promises have consequences such as delivery. The confidence of the voters is what gets votes and it appears that confidence is eroding. When you have headliners like Sean Spacer, Kellyanne Conwoman and Devin Nuneofus, it is hard to be taken seriously. The first 80 plus days have seen much ado over nothing except executive orders that don’t do much as they do not immediately become effective. The end game on these touted signings is more of a photo op than a real action. The downside is that the pinch of these orders will haunt us all for possibly decades. The repeal of the executive orders of the previous administration without a detailed look at the orders is a potential head on run into a brick wall without a helmet. These types of actions appear to be the methodology of the Trump administration. It is apparently the business man’s method of action, that is to shoot from the hip with just a smattering of information with no thought to the future effects of those actions. There appears to be some evidence of Trump pulling out of deals or activities if they do not progress the way he wants. The line of thought seems to be based on news summaries and semi solid information rather than solid information from staffers who are supposed to be available to verify or corroborate information. What have now is indeed a “failure to communicate”. Meanwhile the Dupublican Congress is busy in the background undermining the trust and health of the voters whom they so often cite as the reason for their actions.

Please Donate


Our current Governor still has no clue what Governing is, it is not about issuing ultimatums, it is about working with legislature no matter what party or length of time in office. This gentleman is a businessman who like another businessman thinks Government can be run like a business – guess what-it ain’t happening! The people of Illinois (including his own party members) understand that his stance on the budget is wrong , misguided or at the worst stupid. His recent political ads show the extent of his misguided efforts and lack of understanding of State Governance. He has plowed millions into campaigning for himself and other Dupublicans, this may not be enough since his lack of sympathy for the plight of the residents of the state, which is basically his doing is in the minds of Illinois Residents. Millions of dollars in assets do not make a good leader, proper actions with regard to the welfare of the States residents does. These actions along with a decent relationship with the legislature is key to good governing not holding the State’s most vulnerable hostage.

Please Donate

%d bloggers like this: