Republican Plot to Make Obama Look Like a Socialist: (blogs.law.harvard.edu/)

Yesterday’s New York Times: “the government is the nation’s biggest lender, insurer, automaker and guarantor against risk for investors large and small. … government spending accounts for a bigger share of the nation’s economy — 26 percent — than at any time since World War II. The government is financing 9 out of 10 new mortgages in the United States. … To Mr. Obama’s critics, thousands of whom took to the streets of Washington this weekend to protest a new era of big government, all these efforts are part of a plan to dismantle free-market capitalism.”

Who decided to print trillions of dollars and give them to banks? The Bush Administration. Who decided to print hundreds of billions of dollars and give them to AIG? The Bush Administration. Who decided not to tell General Motors and Chrysler to work out their problems in bankruptcy court like any other company not smart enough to recognize the implications of pension and health care guarantees (see While America Aged)? The Bush Administration started with the Detroit bailout.

A theory consistent with the facts is that King Bush II knew that the next president would be a Democrat, due to the endless depressing Iraq/Afghanistan war. He therefore intentionally wrecked the economy and then took over much of it in order to make the next administration look like socialists.

Going by the numbers and facts, an economic historian would have little choice but to classify the U.S. circa 2009 as a socialist nation. Government at all levels spends a greater percentage of GDP than does China’s (source), for example, and the government either directly owns or assumes financial risks for a lot of our largest enterprises. How did we get here? It was a Republican plot to make Obama look like a socialist, by the clever strategy of converting the U.S. into a fully socialist economy prior to January 20, 2009.

–Philip Greenspun (philg@mit.edu)

I believe our country is becoming too Socialistic. Of course there is some socialistic aspects of our government but is it being taken to far? For those struggling to understand the definition of socialism I found this definition which sums it up pretty well: “Socialism is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.”

Now, is this not beginning to sound more and more like our country’s new government? The government has enough power. The government’s taking over industry means that we the people will not be able to flourish on our own. Do you like coco puffs? Eat them while you can because if socialism takes anymore steps forward in overcoming our government. You will not have a choice in which cereal you buy: we will all be eating cheerios (or some type of regulated sugar free cereal).

The government should not be allowed to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own hard earned money. If I want to buy a gas guzzling hummer instead of a Prius then that’s my choice, not the government’s.

What do you think? I want everyone who read this to give their opinion.

–Wes Weber

The Issue

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved a bill with tougher rules for the credit card industry, sending it to the House of Representatives, where prompt passage was likely. President Barack Obama was expected to sign it into law by the end of May. It would curb sudden interest rate increases on credit card accounts and curtail hidden fees. Much of the measure was opposed by the banking industry, which warned that the bill would reduce the availability of credit to consumers. Political risk exposure: American Express (AXP.N), Bank of America (BAC.N), JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N), Capital One (COF.N), Citigroup (C.N), Discover Financial (DFS.N).

—- Reuters.com, May 19, 2009

While it may be considered a mercy to the people to force the credit card companies to lower their rates, it may very well be the opposite.  Yes, there are some people out there who are spending hundreds of dollars on their credit cards and not paying the money back at the speed desired by the credit card companies, but it is no fault of the credit card companies that these people have trouble managing their money.  A credit card is called a credit card because it is just that.  It gives a person access to a certain amount of money beyond what the person has in cash to be borrowed on credit.  The problem is, when somebody has bad credit, that person cannot be trusted to always pay back his debt.

A credit card company accounts for this by raising interest rates. If the government stops the company from raising the interest rates, the company can lose money that it would receive from unreliable credit cardholders.

As a result of this, the credit card company would become more conservative, using lower interest rates, but only giving these rates to a select crowd of people who have good credit and will pay back on almost all occasions. In this case, the government has caused the credit card companies to stop lending to the people whom the government is trying to protect: those with bad credit.

That’s not to say it is a bad thing to allow less people to use credit cards. If certain people cannot get credit cards, they will save more money and thus increase their credit ratings. In any case, a person expecting less than $100,000.00 to come in the next year should not do a great deal of deficit spending in the home. The debt can be crippling.

Perhaps rather than the regulation of the credit card companies, the government should invest in the education of the cardholders and the advance of fiscal conservatism in the management of a personal budget.

— Henry Lochney

The Issue:

Obama Delivers the Zingers at Journalists’ Dinner, The Washington Post

When President Obama made his debut as the nation’s Stand-Up-in-Chief last night — the star attraction at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner — no one in his administration was safe from his one-liners.

Not Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton: “The minute she got back from Mexico, she pulled me into a hug and said I should go down there myself.”

Not Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: “This is a tough holiday for Rahm. He’s not used to saying the word ‘day’ after ‘mother.’ ”

Not even, it turned out, himself: “During the second 100 days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first 100 days.”

And: “My next 100 days will be so successful, I will complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.”

The routine brought mostly guffaws from the 2,500 journalists, politicians and celebrities jammed into the Washington Hilton ballroom for the press corps’ annual celebration of itself. The president acknowledged perceptions that he’s a media darling: “Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me. Apologies to the Fox table.”

First lady Michelle Obama also attended, wearing a sleeveless fuchsia gown and a bold necklace. Her husband gibed that she was helping to bridge divides in the nation, including “the right to bare arms.”

The correspondents’ dinner always seems to convene a galaxy of stars, but last night’s festivities were particularly incandescent, bringing back many of the celebrities who lit up Washington during Obama’s inaugural events and parties.

The evening’s guest list featured (in no particular order): Glenn Close; Robert De Niro; Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck; Natalie Portman; Stevie Wonder; Sting; Taye Diggs; John Cusack; Demi Moore; Alicia Keys; Brad Paisley; Eva Longoria Parker; Forest Whitaker; Jon Hamm; Chris “Ludacris” Bridges; young actors Miranda Cosgrove and Chace Crawford; and, for good measure, directors George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.

In the ballroom, Tom Cruise and his wife, Katie Holmes, obliged photo requests — even an unusual one from Bloomberg reporter Bill McQuillen, who wanted a picture of himself with Cruise’s wife. “You want me to take the picture?” asked Cruise, who then complied.

The mistress of ceremonies for the evening was Wanda Sykes, an actress and comedian who grew up locally and got her start doing stand-up while moonlighting from her day job as a procurement officer at the National Security Agency.

“It’s funny to me that [photographers] have never caught you smoking,” Sykes told the president, “but they always catch you with your shirt off. I know you’re into this transparency thing, but I don’t need to see your nipples.”

The star power was reminiscent of the Bill Clinton years but with a key difference: Clinton courted Hollywood to augment his pop-culture stature, while Obama doesn’t have to.

Perhaps the biggest pre-party of the weekend took place earlier yesterday, when 500 people mobbed a brunch at the home of veteran newswoman Tammy Haddad. There were so many media figures, politicians and celebrities in the mix that famous faces became wallpaper.

One of the more buzzed-about attendees was Todd Palin, standing in for his wife, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), as a guest of Fox News at the dinner. David Corn, a writer for the liberal magazine Mother Jones, was staggered when lawyer John Coale, husband of Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren, pulled him over for a chat with Palin. “I was worried he was going to punch me in the face,” Corn said. Instead, he and Palin talked about safe topics: 8-year-old daughters and deep-sea fishing. Naturally, Corn twittered about this.

There was no chance of off-the-record at this gathering: The hostess herself, Haddad, had just launched a blog devoted to reporting the weekend’s events 24-7, including “exclusive live coverage” of her brunch.

For media types, the dinner — staged since 1920 — has become a major schmooze-fest. Outside the Beltway, this stokes public perception of journalists sucking up to the power elite they cover. But the celebrity onslaught, which has become its own yearly tradition, may temper that critique somewhat: The journalists are more likely to be swooning over the star they’ve invited than the politicians they know so well.

Obama, for his part, played it all for laughs: “I must confess I really didn’t want to be here tonight. But I had to come. That’s one more problem I inherited from George Bush.” The crowd roared.

—Staff writers Amy Argetsinger and Manuel Roig-Franzia contributed to this report.

The first one-hundred days after an American president’s inauguration has become an important benchmark in weighing the success and effectiveness of the new leader; however, is it truly possible to measure a president’s prowess after just one-hundred days of their arriving in office?

The answer to said question is no.

One must first take into account the fact that the tradition of judging a president on their first one-hundred days is recognized—even by the news media who assaults the idea of this date’s importance—as a highly arbitrary and often misleading gauge on how well a president is doing. Second, realize that the policies and measures set in motion by the new president have had barely, if it all, enough time to prove or disprove their value.

But then why is it done? Why do we continue to harp upon such a widely accepted unimportant date?

Is it due to tradition? The first one hundred days of a presidential term took on symbolic significance during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, and since its importance has endured. But even during Roosevelt’s time it was noted that the early, swooping changes implemented by the young president needed time to develop before weighing their effectiveness in the inclement political/economic atmosphere of the time: the sheer quantity of them was no measure to judge Roosevelt.

Perhaps it is due to the dominance a cash-mongering media who has only the desire to lead attention-grabbing stories such as a quick, harsh judgment of a fresh new president, ultimately deciding his fate as a success or failure in the eyes of our country for the rest of history? Yet even the media constantly reminds us of this milestone’s ‘lack of importance’—although it still continued to run segments under the banner ‘The First 100 Days’ for the beginning three months of Obama’s presidency: we cannot forget that this mattered to them not.

Regardless of ‘why’ our nation is so set upon determining whether or not our leader has succeeded after serving approximately one-fifteenth of his first term, we are required to recognize the practice for what it is: ridiculous.

Milestones and benchmarks, the whole lot of them, are ineffective and downright silly in trying to judge a president’s success. Rather, we as a nation must weigh each of a president’s actions overall success as they play out over time before we can ever ascertain the effectiveness of his presidency; a long-term viewing of presidential policies must be obtained before we can even begin to judge or reach a verdict on any president’s caliber.

Forget about the benchmarks.

— Daniel McCarthy

The Issue:

Rush Limbaugh is Barack Obama’s Greatest Asset

I have a friend who is a little different from my other friends. He is a White male Republican, nearly twice my age, born and raised in the state of Texas. People like him don’t usually like people like me, but I give everyone a chance when I meet them. It turns out that he is one of my most respected colleagues and a really good human being. My friend and I had lunch one day and he explained why he left the Republican Party, after 40 years of loyalty, in order to vote for Barack Obama.

My friend left the Republican party because he felt that the Republicans have, in the words of a famous comedian, “lost their damn minds”. In a changing world, they’ve become a sinking ship and a sick, dying dinosaur. Barack Obama’s brilliance as a presidential candidate not only defeated their raging empire, it smacked them to the fringes of our society. Bill O’Reilly is no longer the talk of the town and no one remembers what time to watch Sean Hannity’s show.

Rush Limbaugh has created an even greater opportunity for Barack Obama by alienating every fair-minded Republican in America. In that regard, he has become Barack’s greatest asset.

Rush Limbaugh doesn’t seem to care much about his party. He only seems to care about himself and the power of his platform. In a branch of Finance called “Agency Theory”, we would say that Rush has shown a tendency to put his own interests above those he claims to represent. He is similar to a point guard on a losing basketball team who only cares that he gets his 30 points every night. To further the sports analogy, Rush used to be a playmaker, but he is now a deal breaker. The problem is that many Republicans are afraid to do anything about it.

The Republican party can only blame themselves for the “Limbaugh problem”. Living by the sword means that you should expect to eventually get stabbed. The Republicans were more than happy, during the age of Bush, to ride the wave of neo-conservative talk show hosts, who carefully laid the party’s agenda out on national television and radio each week. As Hitler did during the Nazi regime, they armed the masses with sufficient propaganda to win every water cooler argument in the country. This strategy worked when the world was caught up in the “Axis of Evil”, the “War on Terror” and “Stopping Saddam Hussein from getting Nuc-you-lur weapons”. But it doesn’t work anymore.

The world has changed. The “Axis of Evil” became the “Axis of Ignorance”. The economy is in the same shape as MC Hammer’s bank account. People have gotten sick of Bush and are tired of being hated by the world. Senator Arlen Specter has defected, and we all watched as the party allowed Limbaugh to publicly pimp slap Chairman Michael Steele, who (by Republican standards) was actually trying to modernize the party and reconnect it to mainstream America.

Rush Limbaugh finds himself being the last hold out on the political Titanic. He has been called out by fair-minded Republicans, such as Colin Powell, but he doesn’t care. After hearing Powell’s critique of Limbaugh’s irrational behavior, Rush simply told Powell that he should become a Democrat. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney has shown his stubborn side, stating that, “My take on Colin Powell is that he had already left the party.” So, rather than accepting the fact that the Republicans have become political dinosaurs, the most stubborn among them have chosen to simply dig in their heels. Rush has stated openly that he wants the president to fail, which means that he wants America to fail. As much as I found myself irritated by George W. Bush, I never wanted him to fail.

The truth is that Colin Powell is proving that individuals like Limbaugh and Cheney do not have a monopoly on conservative values in America. In fact, I dare to argue that if the Republican Party had been flexible enough to adjust its racially biased views on crime, economics and education, they would have quite a few Black votes. If anyone thinks African Americans are natural liberals, you’ve obviously never been to a Black church (I know quite a few African Americans who supported Bush in 2004 due to their Southern Baptist backgrounds. Most of them switched to Obama in 2008). My many awkward, yet respectful, conversations with the Reverend Jesse Jackson remind me that Black religious leaders have value systems that have as much in common with conservative Republicans as liberal Democrats(Jesse Jackson is one of my favorite people, by the way, and I stand by my defense of Rev. Jackson during the unfortunate Fox News/Barack Obama incident. I’ve never believed that one bad sound bite should destroy 40 years of hard work).

So, Barack Obama is quite fortunate. He is dealing with a political party who has allowed its ship to be steered by the angry, uneducated blind man with a ridiculously massive ego. The Republican Party, under the guide of Limbaugh, has become The Taliban of Capitol Hill. Most Americans want no part of a group which appears to be fighting for America’s demise. If the Republicans want to win elections in the future, they’ve got to remember who they represent. Limbaugh only seems to represent himself.

—www.blackvoices.com, Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?”

The Issue

Most children and teenagers don’t care about politics or their right to vote, according to a survey we carried out with the government.

More than 400 of you voted in the poll on CBBC Newsround Online, to mark the fact that Citizenship’s now part of your national curriculum.

And the results were quite surprising.

·     Only 22% of you wanted to learn about voting!

·     Just 28% cared about local and national government.

·     And only 27% of you said you would care if the right to vote was taken away.

—-BBC News. Newsround

On an average election year, less than 55% of the eligible public goes to the polls; 138 million Americans don’t cast a vote.

Mark Morford, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, diagnosed the problem more specifically, writing of the American public ‘… politics and news media is like some sort of impossibly dense morass, alien and strange and vaguely threatening… best ignored in hopes that it will… go away… It’s our unofficial motto… We Don’t Have to Care.’

Although this is undoubtedly disconcerting, students tend to be impervious to any associated guilt. We tell ourselves that without the ability to vote we have no obligation to the democratic process. We are wrong. In fact, this mentality will destroy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if not confronted immediately by our culture. Much more worrying than the un-voting adults right now are the millions of graduating students who are politically passive and socially unaware.

There are many ways to be involved in the democratic system but unless we all contribute, that system will soon collapse. By accepting an apathetic role in our political arena, one is dishonoring the millions of men and women who died to uphold democracy and insulting the billions still in social and political bondage today. Bahram Maskanian, a writer for the Venus Project, an educational think tank that claims it seeks to ‘redesign our culture’ explains in one of her essays ‘The ruling opposing forces to human rights and liberty are hard at work to prevent true democracy from ever taking root… democracy requires the entire population’s constant participation.’

But how can we become involved? What can we do to perpetuate the paradigm of democracy without voting? Make no mistake, political activity is not a right in America today; it is a seriously undervalued responsibility.

Educating ourselves about current events is the most important step we can take to increase the successful function of our democracy. We must take it on as a habitual part of our daily life, like brushing our teeth or knotting our tie in the morning. Understanding current events enables us to form healthy opinions, experiment with different world perspectives, and ultimately leads to the social empowerment that changes policy and makes a difference in the world. Tracy Marks, a blogger who is affiliated with Tikkun Magazine, affirms this phenomenon and writes in an article concerning political apathy ‘A first step for many of us may be (to) educate ourselves politically, and feel empowered to express ourselves.’ Furthermore, if we do not educate ourselves on current events we become vulnerable and helpless. Without a comprehensive understanding of our leader’s ideas and actions, the decision makers of our world have no accountability with their followers; us. Gary Allen, executive editor of Enrichment Journal and national coordinator of the Ministerial Enrichment Office, writes concerning the leader-follower relationship, ‘It is wrong to assume that leaders are only accountable to their leaders. They are also accountable to those to whom they… serve…. Each age, cultural, ethnic, and social segment… has something to contribute.’ That includes us.

As we become more educated, our identity becomes more defined. We learn to teach ourselves what is important and what is worth sacrificing. This process continues for the rest of our lives. There are many ways to deepen our identities through political affiliations. These affiliations will provide grounding association with other like-minded people and will also give you more concrete ways to become invested in the future of our country.

Many people shy away from defining their political identity because they do not want to be a part of the Democrats or Republicans. There are hundreds of reasons for not liking the main parties. For example Malik Miah, a member of the fringe Solidarity Movement writes ‘I cannot vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate, as each party represents the policies of the ruling class.’ America seems to have an unfortunately limited two party system, but actually there are hundreds of different political parties, like the Solidarity Movement, that all play a crucial role in our democracy. Do not limit yourself to the Democrats or the Republicans; investigate third parties. A blogger named Dan on marco.org writes ‘Al Gore would have won the general election in 2000 if had had received 1% of the votes that Nader received. He would also have won the election if he had received votes from 0.05% of the people who didn’t bother to vote…. When somebody votes for a third party, the mainstream parties think, “Uh-oh. Somebody cares enough to vote but voted against us?… If you can rally 1% or 2% in crucial areas, you have a real chance of forcing the mainstream parties to court your vote in the next election…. ‘

Taking action is easier that it sounds. Becoming a participant in some sort of politically involved organization or grass roots social movement or maybe campaigning for a candidate are all great options. Even helping adults register to vote is incredibly important. But if joining the Green party or skipping school to punch your parents in at the polls isn’t your cup of tea, the best and most crucial thing that you can do?

Discuss the issues.

Thom Singer, a blogger from Austin Texas, writes ‘… most people we encounter are in the middle and… care about seeing changes… One cannot turn on the TV, computer, or pick up a newspaper… without being touched by the world of politics, thus it will be discussed… you need to be ready to discuss politics.’ The discussion of critical issues directly affects the outcome of every election. Even though you may not be able to vote, the people you are talking to might be. If you influence their views on any given issue then you are making a difference.

—Nathan Peereboom

It has been common
knowledge for years that tobacco is harmful and dangerous to the human body.
Nevertheless, this unhealthy pastime is still practiced by Americans
everywhere. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention… reported that 43.4
million US adults were current smokers… — about 1 out of 5 people.” Although it
will probably never be completely outlawed, smoking should be banned in all
public places. 

Self-destructive
behaviors such as excessive drinking and chewing tobacco are immoral and sinful,
but unfortunately under America’s constitution they cannot be outlawed. When
these behaviors become harmful to others, however, laws can and must be imposed
to put a stop to them. Becoming intoxicated with alcohol is perfectly legal as
long as the inebriated person’s actions harm only him or her self. When an
drunk person gets behind the wheel of a car, however, he is putting not only
himself but also others at risk. It is therefore illegal for him to drive. The
drunken man has a right to harm himself, but not others. This should also be
the case with smoking. 

  

Smoking, unlike other
forms of ingesting tobacco, releases the toxins from the tobacco into the air.
Other people who are near a smoker have no choice but to inhale this toxic and
foul-smelling smoke. Why doesn’t this fall under the same category as drunken
driving? Second-hand smoking does not carry an immediate risk like driving on
the same road as a drunk, but it carries an increased risk of health problems,
which develop over time. For those with asthma and other throat and lung
diseases, second-hand smoke can trigger an immediate and sometimes fatal
attack. Smoking should therefore be banned from all public property. 

  

When a person enters
private property, whether a home, business, or otherwise, where smoking is
allowed, he makes a conscious decision to take the risk of inhaling second-hand
smoke. Public property is another matter. We are protected by law from drunk
drivers on public roads. We should be protected from the danger of second-hand
smoke as well. We have a right to use sidewalks and enjoy public parks without
being forced to inhale unpleasant and unhealthy smoke. 

  

In conclusion, a
national law must be imposed to ban smoking on all public property. This law
may be a long way in coming, but eventually our lawmakers will see the sense in
these arguments.

 —Kevin Jones