The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: President Obama Sets Bear Trap, Republicans Walk Right Into It

Posted on November 23, 2013 by Derik Schneider

.
The New Democrat

The current Republican governing policy is, “if Democrats are for it, we are against it, even if we are for it, or were once in favor of it”. And even offered it in health care reform a perfect example of that where the Affordable Care Act actually has a lot of good conservative ideas like the health care mandate and the health care market place in it. Which is the main reason why there hasn’t been much compromise in Congress between the House and Senate because when Democrats say okay we’ll agree to that, the House GOP just moves the ball further to get more compromises.

Then instead of Republicans saying okay let’s do that, Republicans just move the ball and say well, “if Democrats are willing to give us this, we can get them to give us this as well and hold off on a deal”. The deficit reduction negotiations are a perfect example of this where Democrats have put entitlement reform on the table and what Republicans is do is to say well, “if they will do that, then they’ll take exactly what type of entitlement reform we are interested in”. Like cutting Social Security benefits to future retirees or cutting benefits to current beneficiaries.

The only goal Republicans have right now is absolute power. And to accomplish this, they need to hold onto the House and 2014 and retake the Senate in 2014. To give them a united Republican Congress and to win back the White House in 2016 as well. While hanging onto Congress and the hard right partisan Republicans in the House and Senate have one clear strategy. “If Democrats are for it, it must be a bad idea even if it is our idea. So we are only going to put policies that are as far to the right as possible to get our partisan right-wing base behind us to avoid primary challenges”.

Which leaves us with gridlock when you have the Republican Leadership saying no to anything that the Democratic Leadership especially in the Senate and White House say yes to. Because now Democrats are in a position where they are only negotiating with themselves. Trying to find more moderate members in Congress to go along with some of these more conservative ideas in broader packages, while not losing any of their more, well lets say progressive members. Instead of negotiating with their own caucus’ in the House and Senate, along with Congressional Republicans.

Posted in The New Democrat, TYT | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Roger Sharp Archive: ABC News Late Wrapup of The Ruby-Oswald Shooting

Posted on November 23, 2013 by Rik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

ABC News was still not a major news operation yet. CBS News was the biggest TV news division at this point at least in America. Thanks to the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. And NBC News with Meet The press and the Huntley Brinkley Report was its closest competitor at this point. But ABC News did the best job that they could even being buried in the ratings and with limited resources. And this like with CBS News and NBC News was the biggest story they ever had. I can honestly say I don’t believe Jack Ruby shooting and killing Lee Oswald was a bad thing and no I don’t consider it murder. Because of course Oswald hadn’t been convicted of assassinating President John F. Kennedy yet. But he is obviously the shooter of Jack Kennedy, the man who assassinated JFK. And he would’ve been convicted of that crime.

Posted in JFK Assassination, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PBS NewsHour: Shields & Brooks Look at Impact of Senate’s Rules Changes

Posted on November 22, 2013 by kireschneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

As I said yesterday Senate Democrats essentially had no choice, but to do this because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules in how the Senate filibuster was used. By saying, “even though we are the opposition and minority party in the United States and only have forty-five members of the Senate, we get to decide when the President of the United States that our party has now lost to twice both in Electoral College landslides and lost the Senate elections as well, we’ll get to decide when an if President Obama will get to make appointments to either his administration or the courts. Based on whether we believe those offices should exist. And whether or not we believe that office needs to be filled right now.

Instead of Senate Republicans blocking people based on whether they are qualified or not. Which has been the tradition of whether or not presidential appointments should be blocked or not. Again Leader Reid was forced to do this, but Senate Democrats will pay a price for this. The next time there is a Republican president and Republican Senate at the same time and with the state of the Republican Party, that could be a while, but stranger things have happened, like Senate Republicans picking up eleven seats in 1980 to give Senate Republicans the majority in the next Congress starting in 1981 to go with a Conservative Republican President in Ronald Reagan.

Posted in Shields & Brooks, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thom Hartmann: ‘We Are Subsidizing Low Wage Employers!’

Posted on November 22, 2013 by Derik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat

Here’s an idea. Instead of having taxpayers who mostly work in the middle class be forced to subsidize low-income workers for their food, housing and health care, instead penalize employers who pay their employees so low, that they need to collect public assistance from taxpayers in order to survive. Eat, housing, health care and so-forth, instead of subsidizing low-wages in this country. And tell employers the money we are now paying for Food Assistance, Public Housing and health insurance, they can get that back if they train their low-income workers so they can get a better job even in their company. Or somewhere else and not have to collect from public assistance at all.

What taxpayers are doing now and again mostly in the middle class, is being forced to make up the difference in income that employers do not pay their low-income workforce. Because these low-income workers whether they work or at Wal-Mart, or for a fast food chain, do not make enough money to cover their housing, groceries and health insurance. They have to get that money from taxpayers instead of their employer so they have what they need to survive. Along with the corporate welfare and paying corporations to send their jobs oversees. When these employers have more than enough resources to pay their employees what they need for the basic necessities. Not so they are rich or even middle class, but so they can afford their rent, their groceries and their health insurance.
Organized Labor

Posted in Thom Hartmann | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Los Angeles Times: Why JFK Still Matters

Posted on November 22, 2013 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I’m a Liberal Democrat because of Jack Kennedy, the more I read and watch about him, the more I like about the man. At least when it comes to his politics and it was really just his slow move to finally come out in favor of civil rights for all Americans and not just Caucasian-Americans that I give him mediocre marks. As opposed to the marks I give him when it comes to economic and foreign policy and even when it came to the safety net and public assistance in America. Where he saw the role of these programs was to empower the less-fortunate to be able to get on their feet and was a big believer in job training and education.

And if you are a Center-Left Liberal-Democrat such as myself, there are plenty of reasons to like Jack Kennedy. Because he represented the potential of American liberalism and what it could do for people. Not how it could expand government especially the Federal Government, but what it could do for people to be able to take charge of their own lives and be able to live in freedom at home. Which is what liberalism actually is rather, than being what government can do to run people’s live for them.

In many ways Bill Clinton represented Jack Kennedy had JFK lived and finished out his presidency. Because then Governor Clinton when he was running for president in 1992 spoke in terms like, “there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed with what is right with America”. Rather than speaking in terms of doom and gloom which is how Democrats were stereotyped in this era. Bill Clinton represented a positive approach into the future of America about how to make an already great county a more perfect union that benefits more if not all Americans.

Before this Democrats were seen as negative all the time “and how can we make America look bad and we need to become like Europe and stop pretending to be something that we aren’t.” And I believe President Clinton got this positive forward-looking view of America to make it a more perfect union from President Kennedy who is also one of Bill Clinton’s political heroes. Jack Kennedy represented the next generation of Liberal Democrats that was moving pass the Progressive Era and the New Deal and looking for ways to make government work for the people who need it to live better lives.

JFK wanted all Americans to be able to live in freedom. Instead of having a new agenda of social insurance programs designed to take care of people. Jack Kennedy wanted all Americans to live in freedom instead and be able to take care of themselves. And had President Kennedy lived, we do not get a Great Society of new social insurance programs. But more of what Bill Clinton was in favor of an Opportunity Society for more Americans to be able to live in freedom.

Posted in JFK, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gene Healy: ‘John F. Kennedy Was No Conservative’

Posted on November 22, 2013 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Damn I found something that I agree with Conservative-Libertarian Gene Healy on. Jack Kennedy was no Conservative and I we completely agree. And you can say he was moderate on some things like his late entry for pushing for civil rights legislation. But the fact is if you are a real Conservative or Liberal, you do not believe in legal discrimination based on race. And Jack Kennedy was always in favor of civil rights legislation, including voting rights legislation. But had a more moderate approach before the summer of 1963 in how to get those bill through Congress.

Because he knew the uphill battles he would have and the political capital he would need to spend before being reelected in 1964, because of the power of the Southern Neo-Confederate Democrats. And a lot of these men in Congress were basically racists who had no interest in passing this legislation. Whether you agree with the Kennedy Administration’s strategy on that or not, that was what it was about. But he was always in favor of those bills but was slow to come out in favor of them.

As far as President Kennedy being in favor of tax cuts and a strong, but limited national defense. This is in the liberal democratic tradition that today’s so-called Progressives and today’s overly partisan right-wingers do not understand, or want to acknowledge. Because they both want liberalism to be seen as soft, dovish and about big government spending programs for the people. And giving them so-called free stuff and having a big centralize federal state deeply involved in the economy and in people’s lives for our own good.

Because today’s so-called Progressives and hyper partisans on the Right, want Liberals to be viewed as people who view private and individual power as dangerous. But it is the type of tax cuts and why President Kennedy wanted a large tax cut that made this policy liberal as well. Because the tax cuts that yes were across the board, but that were designed to benefit middle class families. And also cut a lot of wasteful tax loopholes in them to pay for them and to have a cleaner tax code that was more beneficial to everyone.

There are liberal tax cuts and there are conservative tax cuts and to a certain extent there are even progressive tax cuts. But in the classical progressive tradition like the Earned Income Tax Credit. That even President Ronald Reagan was in favor of. Three out of the last five tax cuts were signed into law by Democratic presidents. Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and just one more reason that made Jack Kennedy a Liberal Democrat. Because he believed in tax cuts that benefited middle class families and believed in individual power and freedom that benefited the many. As opposed to the few and a strong, but limited national defense that was based on defending America, not trying to govern the world.

Posted in Book TV, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New America Foundation: Mark Schmitt: Liberal Brain Freeze & Security Narcissists

Posted on November 22, 2013 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I disagree with this blog from the New America Foundation the author of it Mark Schmitt. Liberal Democrats have a clear agenda and clear proposals coming from President Obama who is a Liberal Democrat, at least on economic policy, even though he comes up short when it comes to civil liberties and the War on Drugs. But President Obama has clear liberal leanings when it comes to economic policy. And has had a liberal economic agenda since becoming President of the United States.

And Senate Democrats have had a clear liberal economic agenda since taking control of the Senate when Democrats won took back Congress back in 2007. And House Democrats have had a clear liberal economic agenda since they took back the House in 2007 as well. And so have liberal or progressive governors at the state levels as well. And it’s just that these policies and agenda have been blocked in many ways by a partisan Senate Republican minority that has only had one goal since losing the Senate in 2006. Win back the Senate.

Senate Republicans believe the only way to win back the Senate is through obstructionism and make Senate Democrats and President Obama look like they can’t govern. And House Republicans winning back the House in 2010 have only made these problems even worst for Democrats. Liberal Democrats aren’t out of ideas when it comes to economic policy. And neither are Republicans, it just that Republicans have a lot of bad ideas right now that aren’t gaining in popularity.

But the liberal democratic economic agenda is built around building an economy. Where everyone has the opportunity and good opportunities to succeed in life and doing a lot of this through the private sector. With the Federal Government laying out priorities and goals for building this economy. By empowering people who need it to be able to move ahead on their own. President Obama’s and other Liberal Democrats economic agenda is pretty clear.

Investing in around a trillion dollars in new infrastructure investment to rebuild this country. Which would create millions of private sector jobs in the construction and manufacturing industries.

A national energy policy designed to move America to energy independence by investing in American energy resources and investing in all of them so we can get off of foreign oil in the future.

Comprehensive immigration reform to bring in new workers with the skills to do the jobs we need done. And to bring millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows and have them pay the taxes they owe. So American citizens do not have to pay as much in taxes.

Education and job training especially for our low-skilled adults so they can get themselves good jobs. And become members of the middle class and not need public assistance in the future.

Tax reform to encourage more economic investment inside the United States and that even includes lower corporate taxes on investments in the United States. And closing wasteful corporate welfare. Today’s so-called Progressives though seem to hate the notion of lowering corporate taxes inside the United States, even if that means cutting corporate welfare.

It’s not that Liberal Democrats are out of economic ideas and ways to expand the American economy. But we do not have the power that we need to put our agenda through right now. And are dealing with a Republican opposition that has taken the, “our way or no way approach to economic policy.” And only having one goal of retaining control of the U.S. House, winning back the U.S. Senate. To set up a Republican winning back the White House in 2016.

Posted in New America Foundation, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Andrew Kaczynski: Senate Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Senate Filibuster (2005)

Posted on November 21, 2013 by kireschneider

.

Source:The New Democrat 

Newsflash, there’s bipartisan hypocrisy when it comes to the Senate filibuster. And a big example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten percent approval rating, because the upper chamber uses and complains about the filibuster to meet its short-term gains. Instead of what is best for the Senate and the country. And Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering presidential nominees before they were against it. And Senate Republicans were against the Senate filibuster before they were in favor of it. The Senate filibuster debate is purely about politics and short-term political advantage to gain absolute power. To the point that the party in power wouldn’t even have to acknowledge the minority party and even the minority leadership about what bills to proceed to and to debate them.

Posted in Congress, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Filibuster Flashback: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Senate Filibuster (2005)

Posted on November 21, 2013 by kireschneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

Senate Democrats in favor of the filibuster before they were against it as it relates to presidential nominees. Again just goes to the bipartisan hypocrisy and an example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten-percent approval rating and that might be generous. That ten-percent might be members of the Senate or mental patients. But whoever they are the Senate filibuster is about short-term gain. And even though I’m in favor of Leader Reid using the nuclear option as it relates to presidential nominees because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules as it relates to blocking presidential appointments, the hypocrisy in this debate is as obvious as the Earth is round. One thing that is bipartisan in Congress is hypocrisy. Democrats and Republicans love using tools against the other side. But when those tools are used against them, they call them unfair and that they must be unilaterally changed or outlawed.

Posted in Congress, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Daily Beast: Ben Jacobs: Harry Reid Goes Nuclear on Filibusters

Posted on November 21, 2013 by Derik Schneider

The Daily Beast: Congress: Harry Reid Goes Nuclear on Filibusters

The New Democrat

Just to be perfectly clear, the Senate filibuster on executive and lower judicial nominations, meaning non-Supreme Court appointments to the federal bench have been removed from possible future filibuster challenges. Which means President Barack Obama and any other future president from either party, as long as the rule is in place, will be able to get their executive administration nominees through with just fifty-one votes. And if their party is in the Senate majority and they have a clear majority and their Senate caucus is united, the president will get their non-Supreme Court nominees through all the time.

Unless the president has bipartisan opposition against their appointments and they are clearly unqualified and both sides see that. Which is what happened to President Bush in his second term. But as long as the president has his party behind him or possibly her in the near future, the president Democrat or Republican will get their executive nominees through. Generally speaking I’m against this for both political, but also practical reasons. Because this means in the future if the Republican Party ever figures out how to win back the White House and stops nominating Far-Right Neo-Confederates to run for the Senate in swing states, they’ll get their nominees through all the time.

And that even means some pretty bad ones as President Bush did send up. But under the circumstances Senate Leader Harry Reid did the right thing, because not only were qualified nominees being denied even a vote on the Senate floor, like U.S. Representative Mell Watt, who I believe to serve run the Federal Housing Administration, the first sitting Member of Congress to be blocked because of a Senate filibuster in eighty-years to serve in the Executive Branch, but it was how these nominees have been blocked.

Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, probably the lead strategist for the Republicans when it comes to blocking President Obama’s nominees, but it was how they were blocked. With Senate Republicans changing the rules and debate in how they obstruct. The advise and consent tradition in the Senate is pretty simple and clear.

The President nominates people to serve in his administration or to a court. The Senate gets to decide almost always by majority rule whether the nominee is qualified for the job or not. Not whether a particular senator would nominate that person or whether they believe that agency, office or court should exist. Or whether this is the right time to fill that vacancy or not. But whether the nominee is qualified for the job or not. Senate Republicans have gone way past that.

Senate Republicans have changed advise and consent to, “we’ll decide we the minority party in the U.S. Senate when the President of the United States can appoint people to his administration or a court. Based on whether or not we believe that office or agency should even exist or not and if this is the right time to fill that position”. And Senator Grassley has been very clear about this and this was the main argument. That Senate Republicans used to block nominees to the Washington, DC federal court, because they believe that court didn’t need new judges right now.

The hypocrisy in this debate from both sides is pretty clear from both sides. Senate Republicans were against filibustering executive nominees before they were for it. And now Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering executive nominees before they were against it. Because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules and their strategy for how they block nominees no longer based on qualifications, but when and if vacancies should be filled or not, Leader Reid didn’t have much of a choice today. Otherwise President Obama wouldn’t be able to fill key offices in the future.

Posted in The Daily Beast, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment